Acute eosinophilic pneumonia (AEP) is an uncommon acute respiratory illness of varying severity that includes presentation as acute respiratory distress syndrome with fatal outcome. AEP may be idiopathic, but identifiable causes include smoking and other inhalational exposures, medications, and infections. The pathogenesis of AEP is poorly understood but likely varies depending on the underlying cause. Airway epithelial injury, endothelial injury, and release of IL-33 are early events that subsequently promote eosinophil recruitment to the lung; eosinophilic infiltration and degranulation appear to mediate subsequent lung inflammation and associated clinical manifestations. Crucial for the diagnosis are the demonstration of pulmonary eosinophilia in the BAL fluid and the exclusion of other disease processes that can present with acute pulmonary infiltrates. Although peripheral blood eosinophilia at initial presentation may be a clue in suggesting the diagnosis of AEP, it may be absent or delayed, especially in smoking-related AEP. Optimal management of AEP depends on the recognition and elimination of the underlying cause when identifiable. The cessation of the exposure to the inciting agent (e.g., smoking), and glucocorticoids represent the mainstay of treating AEP of noninfectious origin. If AEP is recognized and treated in a timely manner, the prognosis is generally excellent, with prompt and complete clinical recovery, even in those patients manifesting acute respiratory failure.

Rationale: Treatment with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is frequent. Shortage of intensive care unit (ICU) beds led clinicians to deliver NIV also outside ICUs. Data about the use of NIV in COVID-19 is limited. Objectives: To describe the prevalence and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 treated with NIV outside the ICUs. To investigate the factors associated with NIV failure (need for intubation or death). Methods: In this prospective, single-day observational study, we enrolled adult patients with COVID-19 who were treated with NIV outside the ICU from 31 hospitals in Lombardy, Italy. Results: We collected data on demographic and clinical characteristics, ventilatory management, and patient outcomes. Of 8,753 patients with COVID-19 present in the hospitals on the study day, 909 (10%) were receiving NIV outside the ICU. A majority of patients (778/909; 85%) patients were treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), which was delivered by helmet in 617 (68%) patients. NIV failed in 300 patients (37.6%), whereas 498 (62.4%) patients were discharged alive without intubation. Overall mortality was 25%. NIV failure occurred in 152/284 (53%) patients with an arterial oxygen pressure (Pa O 2 )/fraction of inspired oxygen (F i O 2 ) ratio <150 mm Hg. Higher C-reactive protein and lower Pa O 2 /F i O 2 and platelet counts were independently associated with increased risk of NIV failure. Conclusions: The use of NIV outside the ICUs was common in COVID-19, with a predominant use of helmet CPAP, with a rate of success >60% and close to 75% in full-treatment patients. C-reactive protein, Pa O 2 /F i O 2 , and platelet counts were independently associated with increased risk of NIV failure. Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04382235).

Background Long-term pulmonary sequelae following hospitalization for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia is largely unclear. The aim of this study was to identify and characterise pulmonary sequelae caused by SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia at 12-month from discharge. Methods In this multicentre, prospective, observational study, patients hospitalised for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and without prior diagnosis of structural lung diseases were stratified by maximum ventilatory support (“oxygen only”, “continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)” and “invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV)”) and followed up at 12 months from discharge. Pulmonary function tests and diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), 6 min walking test, high resolution CT (HRCT) scan, and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale were collected. Results Out of 287 patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and followed up at 1 year, DLCO impairment, mainly of mild entity and improved with respect to the 6-month follow-up, was observed more frequently in the “oxygen only” and “IMV” group (53% and 49% of patients, respectively), compared to 29% in the “CPAP” group. Abnormalities at chest HRCT were found in 46%, 65% and 80% of cases in the “oxygen only”, “CPAP” and “IMV” group, respectively. Non-fibrotic interstitial lung abnormalities, in particular reticulations and ground-glass attenuation, were the main finding, while honeycombing was found only in 1% of cases. Older patients and those requiring IMV were at higher risk of developing radiological pulmonary sequelae. Dyspnea evaluated through mMRC scale was reported by 35% of patients with no differences between groups, compared to 29% at 6-month follow-up. Conclusion DLCO alteration and non-fibrotic interstitial lung abnormalities are common after 1 year from hospitalization due to SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, particularly in older patients requiring higher ventilatory support. Studies with longer follow-ups are needed.

BackgroundInterstitial lung diseases (ILDs) are a heterogeneous group of diseases characterized by widespread fibrotic and inflammatory abnormalities of the lung. Respiratory failure is a common complication in advanced stages or following acute worsening of the underlying disease. Aim of this review is to evaluate the current evidence in determining the best management of acute respiratory failure (ARF) in ILDs.MethodsA literature search was performed in the Medline/PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify studies that investigated the management of ARF in ILDs (the last search was conducted on November 2017).ResultsIn managing ARF, it is important to establish an adequate diagnostic and therapeutic management depending on whether the patient has an underlying known chronic ILD or ARF is presenting in an unknown or de novo ILD. In the first case both primary causes, such as acute exacerbations of the disease, and secondary causes, including concomitant pulmonary infections, fluid overload and pulmonary embolism need to be investigated. In the second case, a diagnostic work-up that includes investigations in regards to ILD etiology, such as autoimmune screening and bronchoalveolar lavage, should be performed, and possible concomitant causes of ARF have to be ruled out.Oxygen supplementation and ventilatory support need to be titrated according to the severity of ARF and patients’ therapeutic options. High-Flow Nasal oxygen might potentially be an alternative to conventional oxygen therapy in patients requiring both high flows and high oxygen concentrations to correct hypoxemia and control dyspnea, however the evidence is still scarce. Neither Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV) nor Invasive Mechanical Ventilation (IMV) seem to change the poor outcomes associated to advanced stages of ILDs. However, in selected patients, such as those with less severe ARF, a NIV trial might help in the early recognition of NIV-responder patients, who may present a better short-term prognosis. More invasive techniques, including IMV and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation, should be limited to patients listed for lung transplant or with reversible causes of ARF.ConclusionsDespite the overall poor prognosis of ARF in ILDs, a personalized approach may positively influence patients’ management, possibly leading to improved outcomes. However, further studies are warranted.

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Long-term pulmonary sequelae following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia are not yet confirmed; however, preliminary observations suggest a possible relevant clinical, functional, and radiological impairment. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> The aim of this study was to identify and characterize pulmonary sequelae caused by SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia at 6-month follow-up. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> In this multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study, patients hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and without prior diagnosis of structural lung diseases were stratified by maximum ventilatory support (“oxygen only,” “continuous positive airway pressure,” and “invasive mechanical ventilation”) and followed up at 6 months from discharge. Pulmonary function tests and diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), 6-min walking test, chest X-ray, physical examination, and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnoea score were collected. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Between March and June 2020, 312 patients were enrolled (83, 27% women; median interquartile range age 61.1 [53.4, 69.3] years). The parameters that showed the highest rate of impairment were DLCO and chest X-ray, in 46% and 25% of patients, respectively. However, only a minority of patients reported dyspnoea (31%), defined as mMRC ≥1, or showed restrictive ventilatory defects (9%). In the logistic regression model, having asthma as a comorbidity was associated with DLCO impairment at follow-up, while prophylactic heparin administration during hospitalization appeared as a protective factor. The need for invasive ventilatory support during hospitalization was associated with chest imaging abnormalities. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> DLCO and radiological assessment appear to be the most sensitive tools to monitor patients with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during follow-up. Future studies with longer follow-up are warranted to better understand pulmonary sequelae.