Objective We investigated the incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics and outcomes of acute pancreatitis (AP) in patients with COVID‐19 attending the emergency department (ED), before hospitalization. Methods We retrospectively reviewed all COVID patients diagnosed with AP in 62 Spanish EDs (20% of Spanish EDs, COVID‐AP) during the COVID outbreak. We formed two control groups: COVID patients without AP (COVID‐non‐AP) and non‐COVID patients with AP (non‐COVID‐AP). Unadjusted comparisons between cases and controls were performed regarding 59 baseline and clinical characteristics and 4 outcomes. Results We identified 54 AP in 74,814 patients with COVID‐19 attending the ED (frequency=0.72‰, 95%CI=0.54‐0.94‰). This frequency was lower than in non‐COVID patients (2,231/1,388,879, 1.61‰, 95%CI=1.54‐1.67; OR=0.44, 95%CI=0.34‐0.58). Etiology of AP was similar in both groups, being biliary origin in about 50%. Twenty‐six clinical characteristics of COVID patients were associated with a higher risk of developing AP: abdominal pain (OR=59.4, 95%CI=23.7‐149), raised blood amylase (OR=31.8; 95%CI=1.60‐632) and vomiting (OR=15.8, 95%CI=6.69‐37.2) being the strongest, and some inflammatory markers (C‐reactive protein, procalcitonin, platelets, D‐dimer) were more increased. Compared to non‐COVID‐AP, COVID‐AP patients differed in 23 variables; the strongest ones related to COVID symptoms, but less abdominal pain was reported, pancreatic enzymes raise was lower, and severity (estimated by BISAP and SOFA score at ED arrival) was higher. The in‐hospital mortality (adjusted for age and sex) of COVID‐AP did not differ from COVID‐non‐AP (OR=1.12, 95%CI=0.45‐245) but was higher than non‐COVID‐AP (OR=2.46, 95%CI=1.35‐4.48). Conclusions Acute pancreatitis as presenting form of COVID‐19 in the ED is unusual (<1‰ cases). Some clinically distinctive characteristics are present compared to the remaining COVID patients and can help to identify this unusual manifestation. In‐hospital mortality of COVID‐AP does not differ from COVID‐non‐AP but is higher than non‐COVID‐AP, and the higher severity of AP in COVID patients could partially contribute to this increment.

Introduction SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia is often associated with hyper-inflammation. The cytokine-storm-like is one of the targets of current therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). High Interleukin-6 (IL6) blood levels have been identified in severe COVID-19 disease, but there are still uncertainties regarding the actual role of anti-IL6 antagonists in COVID-19 management. Our hypothesis was that the use of sarilumab plus corticosteroids at an early stage of the hyper-inflammatory syndrome would be beneficial and prevent progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods We randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) COVID-19 pneumonia hospitalized patients under standard oxygen therapy and laboratory evidence of hyper-inflammation to receive sarilumab plus usual care (experimental group) or usual care alone (control group). Corticosteroids were given to all patients at a 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone for at least 3 days. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients progressing to severe respiratory failure (defined as a score in the Brescia-COVID19 scale ≥ 3) up to day 15. Results A total of 201 patients underwent randomization: 99 patients in the sarilumab group and 102 patients in the control group. The rate of patients progressing to severe respiratory failure (Brescia-COVID scale score ≥ 3) up to day 15 was 16.16% in the Sarilumab group versus 15.69% in the control group (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.48–2.20). No relevant safety issues were identified. Conclusions In hospitalized patients with Covid-19 pneumonia, who were under standard oxygen therapy and who presented analytical inflammatory parameters, an early therapeutic intervention with sarilumab plus standard of care (including corticosteroids) was not shown to be more effective than current standard of care alone. The study was registered at EudraCT with number: 2020-002037-15. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-021-00543-2.

Point-of-care lung ultrasound (LUS) is an attractive alternative to chest X-ray (CXR), but its diagnostic accuracy compared to CXR has not been well studied in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. We conducted a prospective observational study to assess the correlation between LUS and CXR findings in COVID-19 patients. Ninety-six patients with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 underwent an LUS exam and CXR upon presentation. Physicians blinded to the CXR findings performed all LUS exams. Detection of pulmonary infiltrates by CXR versus LUS was compared between patients categorized as suspected or confirmed COVID-19 based on reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. Sensitivities and correlation by Kappa statistic were calculated between LUS and CXR. LUS detected pulmonary infiltrates more often than CXR in both suspected and confirmed COVID-19 subjects. The most common LUS abnormalities were discrete B-lines, confluent B-lines, and small subpleural consolidations. Most important, LUS detected unilateral or bilateral pulmonary infiltrates in 55% of subjects with a normal CXR. Substantial agreement was demonstrated between LUS and CXR for normal, unilateral or bilateral findings (Κ = 0.48 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.63)). In patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, LUS detected pulmonary infiltrates more often than CXR, including more than half of the patients with a normal CXR.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has made it necessary to rationalize health-care resources, but there is little published data at this moment regarding ambulatory management of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. The objective of the study is to evaluate the performance of a protocol for ambulatory management of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia regarding readmissions, admission into the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and deaths. Also, to identify unfavorable prognostic factors that increase the risk of readmission. This is a prospective cohort study of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia discharged from the emergency ward of Infanta Cristina Hospital (Madrid, Spain) that met the criteria of the hospital protocol for outpatient management. We describe outcomes of those patients and compare those who needed readmission versus those who did not. We use logistic regression to explore factors associated with readmissions. A total of 314 patients were included, of which 20 (6.4%) needed readmission, and none needed ICU admission nor died. At least one comorbidity was present in 29.9% of patients. Hypertension, leukopenia, lymphocytopenia, increased lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and increased aminotransferases were all associated with a higher risk of readmission. A clinical course of 10 days or longer, and an absolute eosinophil count over 200/µL were associated with a lower risk. After the multivariate analysis, only hypertension (OR 4.99, CI 1.54–16.02), temperature over 38 °C in the emergency ward (OR 9.03, CI 1.89–45.77), leukopenia (OR 4.92, CI 1.42–17.11) and increased LDH (OR 6.62, CI 2.82–19.26) remained significantly associated with readmission. Outpatient management of patients with low-risk COVID-19 pneumonia is safe, if adequately selected. The protocol presented here has allowed avoiding 30% of the admissions for COVID-19 pneumonia in our hospital, with a very low readmission rate and no mortality.