Remdesivir Plus Dexamethasone Versus Dexamethasone Alone for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Patients Requiring Supplemental O2 Therapy: A Prospective Controlled Nonrandomized Study.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is an antiviral used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which improves some clinical outcomes. Dexamethasone has been shown to be effective in reducing mortality. It has been hypothesized that combination of these two drugs can improve mortality. We evaluated the effect of combination on mortality of COVID-19 patients requiring O2 therapy. METHODS: A prospective quasi-experimental study, including two independent, sequential controlled cohorts, one received remdesivir-dexamethasone and the other dexamethasone alone, was designed. All COVID-19 patients requiring supplemental O2 therapy were enrolled consecutively. The sample size to power mortality was a priori calculated. The primary endpoints were 30-day mortality and viral clearance differences. Secondary endpoints were differences in hospitalization times, improvement in respiratory failure (PO2/FiO2) and inflammatory indices (fibrinogen, CRP, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, D-Dimer). Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test were used to evaluate significant differences in mortality between groups. RESULTS: In total, 151 COVID-19 patients were enrolled (remdesivir/dexamethasone group, 76, and dexamethasone alone, 75). No differences in demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics were observed between the 2 groups at baseline. Faster viral clearance occurred in the remdesivir/dexamethasone group compared to dexamethasone alone (median 6 vs 16 days; P < .001). The 30-day mortality in the remdesivir/dexamethasone group was 1.3%, whereas in dexamethasone alone was 16% (P < .005). In the remdesivir/dexamethasone group compared to dexamethasone alone there was a reduction in hospitalization days (P < .0001) and a faster improvement in both respiratory function and inflammatory markers. CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir/dexamethasone treatment is associated with significant reduction in mortality, length of hospitalization, and faster SARS-CoV-2 clearance, compared to dexamethasone alone.

Non-invasive respiratory support in SARS-CoV-2 related acute respiratory distress syndrome: when is it most appropriate to start treatment?

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is one of the most severe complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Non-Invasive Respiratory Support (NRS) as Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and/or Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV) has been proven as effective in the management of SARS-CoV-2-related ARDS. However, the most appropriate timing for start NRS is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a prospective pilot study including all consecutive patients who developed moderate SARS-CoV-2-related ARDS during hospitalization. Patients were randomly divided into two intervention groups according to ARDS severity (assessed by PaO2/FiO2-P/F) at NRS beginning: group A started CPAP/NIV when P/F was ≤ 200 and group B started CPAP/NIV when P/F was ≤ 150. Eligible patients who did not give their consent to CPAP/NIV until the severe stage of ARDS and started non-invasive treatment when P/F ≤ 100 (group C) was added. The considered outcomes were in-hospital mortality, oro-tracheal intubation (OTI) and days of hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 146 eligible patients, 29 underwent CPAP/NIV when P/F was ≤ 200 (Group A), 68 when P/F was ≤ 150 (Group B) and 31 patients agreed to non-invasive treatment only when P/F was ≤ 100 (Group C). Starting NRS at P/F level between 151 and 200 did not results in significant differences in the outcomes as compared to treatment starting with P/F ranging 101-150. Conversely, patients undergone CPAP/NIV in a moderate stage (P/F 101-200) had a significantly lower in-hospital mortality rate (13.4 vs. 29.0%, p = 0.044) and hospitalization length (14 vs. 15 days, p = 0.038) than those in the severe stage (P/F ≤ 100). Age and need for continuous ventilation were independent predictors of CPAP/NIV failure. CONCLUSIONS: Starting CPAP/NIV in patients with SARS-CoV-2-related ARDS in moderate stage (100 > P/F ≤ 200) is associated to a reduction of both in-hospital mortality and hospitalization length compared to the severe stage (P/F ≤ 100). Starting CPAP/NIV with a P/F > 150 does not appear to be of clinical utility.

Platypnea-orthodeoxia syndrome in SARS-CoV-2 related ARDS: a case report.

Platypnea-Orthodeoxia Syndrome (POS) is an often misdiagnosed clinical condition characterized by dyspnea and hypoxia in sitting or semi-sitting position, reversible in supine position. Although POS is typically associated with intracardiac shunts, it seems frequent also in SARS-CoV-2 related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). In fact, the prevalent involvement of the lung bases due to interstitial pneumonia can determine refractory positional hypoxemia, with marked desaturation in the sitting position and regression or improvement in the supine position, configuring the clinical picture of the POS. We present a clinical case of POS associated with acute respiratory distress from SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in which refractory hypoxia would have required support by invasive mechanical ventilation if the syndrome had not been identified.