The main characteristics of mechanically ventilated ARDS patients affected with COVID-19, and the adherence to lung-protective ventilation strategies are not well known. We describe characteristics and outcomes of confirmed ARDS in COVID-19 patients managed with invasive mechanical ventilation (MV). Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, observational study in consecutive, mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS (as defined by the Berlin criteria) affected with with COVID-19 (confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in nasal or pharyngeal swab specimens), admitted to a network of 36 Spanish and Andorran intensive care units (ICUs) between March 12 and June 1, 2020. We examined the clinical features, ventilatory management, and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 ARDS patients, and compared some results with other relevant studies in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients. Results: A total of 742 patients were analysed with complete 28-day outcome data: 128 (17.1%) with mild, 331 (44.6%) with moderate, and 283 (38.1%) with severe ARDS. At baseline, defined as the first day on invasive MV, median (IQR) values were: tidal volume 6.9 (6.3-7.8) ml/kg predicted body weight, positive end-expiratory pressure 12 (11-14) cmH 2 O. Values of respiratory system compliance 35 (27-45) ml/cmH 2 O, plateau pressure 25 (22-29) cmH 2 O, and driving pressure 12 (10-16) cmH 2 O were similar to values from non-COVID-19 ARDS patients observed in other studies. Recruitment maneuvers, prone position and neuromuscular blocking agents were used in 79%, 76% and 72% of patients, respectively. The risk of 28-day mortality was lower in mild ARDS [hazard ratio (RR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.33-0.93), p = 0.026] and moderate ARDS [hazard ratio (RR) 0.69 (95% CI 0.47-0.97), p = 0.035] when compared to severe ARDS. The 28-day mortality was similar to other observational studies in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients. Conclusions: In this large series, COVID-19 ARDS patients have features similar to other causes of ARDS, compliance with lung-protective ventilation was high, and the risk of 28-day mortality increased with the degree of ARDS severity.

Background Awake prone positioning (awake-PP) in non-intubated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients could avoid endotracheal intubation, reduce the use of critical care resources, and improve survival. We aimed to examine whether the combination of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO) with awake-PP prevents the need for intubation when compared to HFNO alone. Methods Prospective, multicenter, adjusted observational cohort study in consecutive COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) receiving respiratory support with HFNO from 12 March to 9 June 2020. Patients were classified as HFNO with or without awake-PP. Logistic models were fitted to predict treatment at baseline using the following variables: age, sex, obesity, non-respiratory Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, APACHE-II, C-reactive protein, days from symptoms onset to HFNO initiation, respiratory rate, and peripheral oxyhemoglobin saturation. We compared data on demographics, vital signs, laboratory markers, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, days to intubation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality between HFNO patients with and without awake-PP. Results A total of 1076 patients with COVID-19 ARF were admitted, of which 199 patients received HFNO and were analyzed. Fifty-five (27.6%) were pronated during HFNO; 60 (41%) and 22 (40%) patients from the HFNO and HFNO + awake-PP groups were intubated. The use of awake-PP as an adjunctive therapy to HFNO did not reduce the risk of intubation [RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.53–1.43), p = 0.60]. Patients treated with HFNO + awake-PP showed a trend for delay in intubation compared to HFNO alone [median 1 (interquartile range, IQR 1.0–2.5) vs 2 IQR 1.0–3.0] days (p = 0.055), but awake-PP did not affect 28-day mortality [RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.40–2.72), p = 0.92]. Conclusion In patients with COVID-19 ARF treated with HFNO, the use of awake-PP did not reduce the need for intubation or affect mortality.

Hepatitis C virus drugs that inhibit SARS-CoV-2 papain-like protease synergize with remdesivir to suppress viral replication in cell culture Graphical abstract Highlights d Several HCV protease-inhibitor drugs inhibit SARS-CoV-2 M pro and/or PL pro d These HCV drugs also inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in Vero and/or human cells d HCV drugs that inhibit PL pro synergize with remdesivir to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 d HCV drugs that selectively inhibit M pro are not synergistic with remdesivir

Despite the increasing evidence of the benefit of corticosteroids for the treatment of moderate-severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, no data are available about the potential role of high doses of steroids for these patients. We evaluated the mortality, the risk of need for mechanical ventilation (MV), or death and the risk of developing a severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) between high (HD) and standard doses (SD) among patients with a severe COVID-19. All consecutive confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to a single center were selected, including those treated with steroids and an ARDS. Patients were allocated to the HD (≥ 250 mg/day of methylprednisolone) of corticosteroids or the SD (≤ 1.5 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone) at discretion of treating physician. Five hundred seventy-three patients were included: 428 (74.7%) men, with a median (IQR) age of 64 (54-73) years. In the HD group, a worse baseline respiratory situation was observed and male gender, older age, and comorbidities were significantly more common. After adjusting by baseline characteristics, HDs were associated with a higher mortality than SD (adjusted OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.59-3.81, p < 0.001) and with an increased risk of needing MV or death (adjusted OR 2.35, p = 0.001). Conversely, the risk of developing a severe ARDS was similar between groups. Interaction analysis showed that HD increased mortality exclusively in elderly patients. Our real-world experience advises against exceeding 1-1.5 mg/kg/day of corticosteroids for severe COVID-19 with an ARDS, especially in older subjects. This reinforces the rationale of modulating rather than suppressing immune responses in these patients.