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.

COVID-19 has overloaded national health services worldwide. Thus, early identification of patients at risk of poor outcomes is critical. Our objective was to analyse SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in serum as a severity biomarker in COVID-19. Retrospective observational study including 193 patients admitted for COVID-19. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in serum (viremia) was performed with samples collected at 48–72 h of admission by two techniques from Roche and Thermo Fischer Scientific (TFS). Main outcome variables were mortality and need for ICU admission during hospitalization for COVID-19. Viremia was detected in 50–60% of patients depending on technique. The correlation of Ct in serum between both techniques was good (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.612; p < 0.001). Patients with viremia were older (p = 0.006), had poorer baseline oxygenation (PaO2/FiO2; p < 0.001), more severe lymphopenia (p < 0.001) and higher LDH (p < 0.001), IL-6 (p = 0.021), C-reactive protein (CRP; p = 0.022) and procalcitonin (p = 0.002) serum levels. We defined "relevant viremia" when detection Ct was < 34 with Roche and < 31 for TFS. These thresholds had 95% sensitivity and 35% specificity. Relevant viremia predicted death during hospitalization (OR 9.2 [3.8–22.6] for Roche, OR 10.3 [3.6–29.3] for TFS; p < 0.001). Cox regression models, adjusted by age, sex and Charlson index, identified increased LDH serum levels and relevant viremia (HR = 9.87 [4.13–23.57] for TFS viremia and HR = 7.09 [3.3–14.82] for Roche viremia) as the best markers to predict mortality. Viremia assessment at admission is the most useful biomarker for predicting mortality in COVID-19 patients. Viremia is highly reproducible with two different techniques (TFS and Roche), has a good consistency with other severity biomarkers for COVID-19 and better predictive accuracy.

BackgroundCOVID-19 has overloaded national health services worldwide. Thus, early identification of patients at risk of poor outcomes is critical. Our objective was to analyse SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in serum as a severity biomarker in COVID-19.Methods and FindingsRetrospective observational study including 193 patients admitted for COVID-19. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in serum (CoVemia) was performed with samples collected at 48-72 hours of admission by two techniques from Roche and Thermo Fischer Scientific (TFS). Main outcome variables were mortality and need for ICU admission during hospitalization for COVID-19.CoVemia was detected in 50-60% of patients depending on technique. The correlation of Ct in serum between both techniques was good (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.612; p < 0.001). Patients with CoVemia were older (p = 0.006), had poorer baseline oxygenation (PaO2/FiO2; p < 0.001), more severe lymphopenia (p < 0.001) and higher LDH (p < 0.001), IL-6 (p = 0.021), C-reactive protein (CRP; p = 0.022) and procalcitonin (p = 0.002) serum levels.We defined “relevant CoVemia” when detection Ct was < 34 with Roche and < 31 for TFS. These thresholds had 95% sensitivity and 35 % specificity. Relevant CoVemia predicted death during hospitalization (OR 9.2 [3.8 − 22.6] for Roche, OR 10.3 [3.6 − 29.3] for TFS; p < 0.001). Cox regression models, adjusted by age, sex and Charlson index, identified increased LDH serum levels and relevant CoVemia (HR = 9.87 [4.13-23.57] for TFS viremia and HR = 7.09 [3.3-14.82] for Roche viremia) as the best markers to predict mortality.ConclusionsCoVemia assessment at admission is the most useful biomarker for predicting mortality in COVID-19 patients. CoVemia is highly reproducible with two different techniques (TFS and Roche), has a good consistency with other severity biomarkers for COVID-19 and better predictive accuracy.AUTHOR SUMMARYCOVID-19 shows a very heterogeneous clinical picture. In addition, it has overloaded national health services worldwide. Therefore, early identification of patients with poor prognosis is critical to improve the use of limited health resources. In this work, we evaluated whether baseline SARS-CoV2 RNA detection in blood (CoVemia) is associated with worse outcomes. We studied almost 200 patients admitted to our hospital and about 50-60% of them showed positive CoVemia. Patients with positive CoVemia were older and had more severe disease; CoVemia was also more frequent in patients requiring admission to the ICU. Moreover, we defined “relevant CoVemia”, as the amount of viral load that better predicted mortality obtaining 95% sensitivity and 35% specificity. In addition, relevant CoVemia was a better predictor than other biomarkers such as LDH, lymphocyte count, interleukin-6, and indexes used in ICU such as qSOFA and CURB65.In summary, detection of CoVemia is the best biomarker to predict death in COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, it is easy to be implemented and is reproducible with two techniques (Roche and Thermo Fisher Scientific) that are currently used for diagnosis in nasopharyngeal swabs samples.

Background Early Kinetics of SARS‐CoV‐2 viral load (VL) in plasma determined by quantitative RT‐PCR was evaluated as a predictor of poor clinical outcome in a prospective study and assessed in a retrospective validation cohort. Methods Prospective observational single‐centre study including consecutive adult patients hospitalised with COVID‐19 between November 2020 and January 2021. Serial plasma samples were obtained until discharge. Quantitative RT‐PCR was performed to assess SARS‐CoV‐2 VL. The main outcomes were in‐hospital mortality, admission to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and their combination (Poor Outcome). Relevant Viremia (RV), established in the prospective study, was assessed in a retrospective cohort including hospitalised COVID‐19 patients from April 2021‐May 2022, in which plasma samples were collected according to clinical criteria. Results Prospective cohort: 57 patients were included. RV was defined as at least a two‐fold increase in VL within ≤2 days or a VL>300 copies/mL, in the first week. Patients with RV (N=14; 24.6%) were more likely to die than those without RV (35.7% vs 0%), needed ICU admission (57% vs 0%) or had Poor Outcome (71.4% vs 0%), (p<0.001 for the three variables) Retrospective cohort: 326 patients were included, 18.7% presented RV. Patients with RV compared with patients without RV had higher rates of ICU‐admission [OR 5.6 (95%CI,2.1‐15.1); p=0.001], mortality [OR 13.5 (95%CI,6.3‐28.7); p<0.0001] and Poor Outcome [OR 11.2 (95%CI,5.8‐22); p<0.0001] Conclusion Relevant SARS‐CoV‐2 viremia in the first week of hospitalisation was associated with higher in‐hospital mortality, ICU admission, and Poor Outcome. Findings observed in the prospective cohort were confirmed in a larger validation cohort. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Background: Interleukin 6 (IL6) levels and SARS-CoV-2 viremia have been correlated with COVID-19 severity. The association over time between them has not been assessed in a prospective cohort. Our aim was to evaluate the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 viremia and time evolution of IL6 levels in a COVID-19 prospective cohort. Methods: Secondary analysis from a prospective cohort including COVID-19 hospitalized patients from Hospital Universitario La Princesa between November 2020 and January 2021. Serial plasma samples were collected from admission until discharge. Viral load was quantified by Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction and IL6 levels with an enzyme immunoassay. To represent the evolution over time of both variables we used the graphic command twoway of Stata. Results: A total of 57 patients were recruited, with median age of 63 years (IQR [53-81]), 61.4% male and 68.4% caucasian. The peak of viremia appeared shortly after symptom onset in patients with persistent viremia (more than 1 sample with >1.3 log10 copies/ml) and also in those with at least one IL6>30 pg/ml, followed by a progressive increase in IL6 around 10 days later. Persistent viremia in the first week of hospitalization was associated with higher levels of IL6. Both IL6 and SARS-CoV-2 viral load were higher in males, with a quicker increase with age. Conclusions: In those patients with worse outcomes, an early peak of SARS-CoV-2 viral load precedes an increase in IL6 levels. Monitoring SARS-CoV-2 viral load during the first week after symptom onset may be helpful to predict disease severity in COVID-19 patients.