RESUMEN
Evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 viral load is an independent predictor of disease severity and mortality. A 61-year-old woman presented with severe COVID-19 and was treated with casirivimab/imdevimab and remdesivir. Quantitative nasopharyngeal (NP) viral loads were trended throughout the treatment course. Baseline NP viral load was 25,860,901 copies/mL (7.4 log10). Casirivimab/imdevimab was administered, with subsequent reduction in NP viral load to 26,049 copies/mL (4.4 log10) on hospital day 4. A repeat NP viral load on day 7 was 13,113 copies/mL (4.1 log10). Despite uncertainty regarding correlation with reduction in viral load and outcomes, NP viral load may be considered when selecting treatment options and evaluating treatment response in hospitalized patients with early infection.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) frequently present with a febrile illness that may progress to pneumonia and hypoxic respiratory failure. Aerosolized epoprostenol (aEPO) has been evaluated in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and refractory hypoxemia. A paucity of literature has assessed the impact of aEPO in patients with SARS-CoV-2 receiving oxygen support with high flow nasal cannula (HFNC). The objective of this study was to evaluate whether aEPO added to HFNC prevents intubation and/or prolong time to intubation compared to controls only treated with HFNC, guided by oxygen saturation goals. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective study of adult patients infected with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) and admitted to the medical intensive care unit. A total of 60 patients were included. Thirty patients were included in the treatment, and 30 in the control group, respectively. Among patients included in the treatment group, response to therapy was assessed. The need for mechanical ventilation and hospital mortality between responders vs. non-responders was evaluated. RESULTS: The primary outcome of mechanical ventilation was not statistically different between groups. Time from HFNC initiation to intubation was significantly prolonged in the treatment group compared to the control group (5.7 days vs. 2.3 days, P = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in mortality or length of stay. Patients deemed responders to aEPO had a lower rate of mechanical ventilation (50% vs 88%, P = 0.025) and mortality (21% vs 63%, P = 0.024), compared with non-responders. CONCLUSION: The utilization of aEPO in COVID-19 patients treated with HFNC is not associated with a reduction in the rate of mechanical ventilation. Nevertheless, the application of this strategy may prolong the time to invasive mechanical ventilation, without affecting other clinical outcomes.