Rationale In patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia, the clinical benefit of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) remains unclear. We aimed to examine whether HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) could prevent escalation of respiratory support in this patient population. Methods In this multicentre, randomised, parallel-group, open-label trial, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≤92% who required oxygen therapy were randomised to HFNO or COT. The primary outcome was the rate of escalation of respiratory support (ie, continuous positive airway pressure, non-invasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation) within 28 days. Among secondary outcomes, clinical recovery was defined as the improvement in oxygenation (SpO2 ≥96% with fractional inspired oxygen (FiO2) ≤30% or partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide/FiO2 ratio >300 mm Hg). Results Among 364 randomised patients, 55 (30.3%) of 181 patients assigned to HFNO and 70 (38.6%) of 181 patients assigned to COT underwent escalation of respiratory support, with no significant difference between groups (absolute risk difference −8.2% (95% CI −18% to +1.4%); RR 0.79 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.05); p=0.09). There was no significant difference in clinical recovery (69.1% vs 60.8%; absolute risk difference 8.2% (95% CI −1.5% to +18.0%), RR 1.14 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.32)), intensive care unit admission (7.7% vs 11.0%, absolute risk difference −3.3% (95% CI −9.3% to +2.6%)), and in hospital length of stay (11 (IQR 8–17) vs 11 (IQR 7–20) days, absolute risk difference −1.0% (95% CI −3.1% to +1.1%)). Conclusions Among patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia, the use of HFNO did not significantly reduce the likelihood of escalation of respiratory support. Trial registration number NCT04655638.

https://thorax.bmj.com/content/thoraxjnl/early/2022/05/16/thoraxjnl-2022-218806.full.pdf

High-flow nasal oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia: a randomised controlled trial

We hypothesized that exosomal microRNAs could be implied in the pathogenesis of thromboembolic complications in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We isolated circulating exosomes from patients with COVID-19, and then we divided our population in two arms based on the D-dimer level on hospital admission. We observed that exosomal miR-145 and miR-885 significantly correlate with D-dimer levels. Moreover, we demonstrate that human endothelial cells express the main cofactors needed for the internalization of the "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" (SARS-CoV-2), including angiotensin converting enzyme 2, transmembrane protease serine 2, and CD-147. Interestingly, human endothelial cells treated with serum from COVID-19 patients release significantly less miR-145 and miR-885, exhibit increased apoptosis, and display significantly impaired angiogenetic properties compared with cells treated with non-COVID-19 serum. Taken together, our data indicate that exosomal miR-145 and miR-885 are essential in modulating thromboembolic events in COVID-19. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT This work demonstrates for the first time that two specific microRNAs (namely miR-145 and miR-885) contained in circulating exosomes are functionally involved in thromboembolic events in COVID-19. These findings are especially relevant to the general audience when considering the emerging prominence of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 systemic manifestations known as Long COVID.

/pdf/exosomal-mir-145-and-mir-885-regulate-thrombosis-in-covid-19-29azc6he.pdf

Exosomal miR-145 and miR-885 Regulate Thrombosis in COVID-19

Abstract Background Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83–7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97–2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14–1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25–1.30]). Conclusions In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable. 

/pdf/respiratory-support-in-patients-with-severe-covid-19-in-the-8wyibpmu.pdf

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10028215

Sampath Weerakkody

Papers

Non-invasive respiratory support in the management of acute COVID-19 pneumonia: considerations for clinical practice and priorities for research.

Should we treat COVID-19 lung injury like ARDS? Exploring the paradigm.