Purpose Hypovitaminosis D is a highly spread condition correlated with increased risk of respiratory tract infections. Nowadays, the world is in the grip of the Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID 19) pandemic. In these patients, cytokine storm is associated with disease severity. In consideration of the role of vitamin D in the immune system, aim of this study was to analyse vitamin D levels in patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and to assess any correlations with disease severity and prognosis. Methods In this retrospective, observational study, we analysed demographic, clinical and laboratory data of 42 patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19, treated in Respiratory Intermediate Care Unit (RICU) of the Policlinic of Bari from March, 11 to April 30, 2020. Results Eighty one percent of patients had hypovitaminosis D. Based on vitamin D levels, the population was stratified into four groups: no hypovitaminosis D, insufficiency, moderate deficiency, and severe deficiency. No differences regarding demographic and clinical characteristics were found. A survival analysis highlighted that, after 10 days of hospitalization, severe vitamin D deficiency patients had a 50% mortality probability, while those with vitamin D ≥ 10 ng/mL had a 5% mortality risk ( p = 0.019). Conclusions High prevalence of hypovitaminosis D was found in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure, treated in a RICU. Patients with severe vitamin D deficiency had a significantly higher mortality risk. Severe vitamin D deficiency may be a marker of poor prognosis in these patients, suggesting that adjunctive treatment might improve disease outcomes.

Purpose: Hypovitaminosis D is a highly spread condition correlated with increased risk of respiratory tract infections. Nowadays, the world is in the grip of the Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID 19) pandemic. In these patients, cytokine storm is associated with disease severity. In consideration of the role of vitamin D in the immune system, aim of this study was to analyse vitamin D levels in patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and to assess any correlations with disease severity and prognosis. Methods: In this retrospective, observational study, we analysed demographic, clinical and laboratory data of 42 patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19, treated in Respiratory Intermediate Care Unit (RICU) of the Policlinic of Bari from March, 11 to April 30, 2020. Results: Eighty one percent of patients had hypovitaminosis D. Based on vitamin D levels, the population was stratified into four groups: no hypovitaminosis D, insufficiency, moderate deficiency, and severe deficiency. No differences regarding demographic and clinical characteristics were found. A survival analysis highlighted that, after 10 days of hospitalization, severe vitamin D deficiency patients had a 50% mortality probability, while those with vitamin D ≥10 had a 5% mortality risk (p=0.019). Conclusions: High prevalence of hypovitaminosis D was found in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure, treated in a RICU. Patients with severe vitamin D deficiency had a significantly higher mortality risk. Severe vitamin D deficiency may be a marker of poor prognosis in these patients, suggesting that adjunctive treatment might improve disease outcomes.

The recent Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic, first in China and then also in Italy, brought to the attention the problem of the saturation of Intensive Care Units (ICUs). Almost all previous reports showed that in ICU less than half of patients were treated with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and the rest of them with non-invasive respiratory support. This highlighted the role of respiratory intensive care units (RICUs), where patients with moderate to severe respiratory failure can be treated with non-invasive respiratory support, avoiding ICU admission. In this report, we describe baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of 97 patients with moderate to severe respiratory failure due to COVID-19 admitted to the RICU of the Policlinico of Bari from March 11th to May 31st 2020. In our population, most of the subjects were male (72%), non-smokers (76%), with a mean age of 69.65±14 years. Ninety-one percent of patients presented at least one comorbidity and 60% had more than two comorbidities. At admission, 40% of patients showed PaO2/FiO2 ratio between 100 and 200 and 17% showed Pa02/FiO2 ratio <100. Mean Pa02/FiO2 ratio at admission was 186.4±80. These patients were treated with non-invasive respiratory support 40% with CPAP, 38% with BPAP, 3% with HFNC, 11% with standard oxygen therapy or with IMV through tracheostomy (patients in step down from ICU, 8%). Patients discharged to general ward (GW) were 51%, 30% was transferred to ICU and 19% died. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the few described experiences of patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 treated outside the ICU, in a RICU. Outcomes of our patients, characterized by several risk factors for disease progression, were satisfactory compared with other experiences regarding patients treated with non-invasive respiratory support in ICU. The strategical allocation of our RICU, between ED and ICU, might have positively influenced clinical outcomes of our patients.

Background. The wide availability of monoclonal antibodies for the add-on therapy of severe asthma currently allows for the personalization of biologic treatment by selecting the most appropriate drug for each patient. However, subjects with overlapping allergic and eosinophilic phenotypes can be often eligible to more than one biologic, so that the first pharmacologic choice can be quite challenging for clinicians. Within such a context, the aim of our real-life investigation was to verify whether allergic patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, not adequately controlled by an initial biologic treatment with omalizumab, could experience better therapeutic results from a pharmacologic shift to benralizumab. Patients and methods. Twenty allergic patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, unsuccessfully treated with omalizumab and then switched to benralizumab, were assessed for at least 1 year in order to detect eventual changes in disease exacerbations, symptom control, oral corticosteroid intake, lung function, and blood eosinophils. Results. In comparison to the previous omalizumab therapy, after 1 year of treatment with benralizumab our patients experienced significant improvements in asthma exacerbation rate (p < 0.01), rescue medication need (p < 0.001), asthma control test (ACT) score (p < 0.05), forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) (p < 0.05), and blood eosinophil count (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, with respect to the end of omalizumab treatment, the score of sino-nasal outcome test-22 (SNOT-22) significantly decreased after therapy with benralizumab (p < 0.05). Conclusion. The results of this real-life study suggest that the pharmacologic shift from omalizumab to benralizumab can be a valuable therapeutic approach for allergic patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, not adequately controlled by anti-IgE treatment.

Background: Dupilumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the IL4/IL13 signaling pathway, already used for atopic dermatitis and chronic rhinitis with nasal polyps, recently approved for severe type-2 asthma. It demonstrated its efficacy in randomized control trials. The aim of our study is to evaluate possible early clinical improvement and type 2 biomarkers modifications in severe asthmatic patients treated with dupilumab in a real-life setting.Methods: We included 12 patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma and dupilumab was chosen if there was at least one evidence of blood eosinophils >150 cells/ml and/or FeNO >25 ppb during last year. Recent blood eosinophil count report, assessment through ACT, FeNO test and spirometry were performed at baseline and after 3 months of treatment. We calculated also the number of patients achieving a minimal, yet clinically relevant difference in FEV1 and ACT.Results: After three months of treatment with dupilumab, ACT had a significant improvement (mean ACT pre 13.25±4.65 vs mean ACT post 19.17±4.45; p<0.01), so as FEV1% (mean FEV1% pre 62.58±15.73 vs mean FEV1% post 71.00±13.11; p<0.01). FeNO had a significant reduction (median FeNO 32 pre, IQR 19-48.5 vs median FeNO19 post, IQR 16.5-26), differently from eosinophils blood count (median eosinophils pre 280, IQR 193.8-647.3 vs median eosinophils post 349.5, IQR 103-836.8; p=0.52). Four patients (33%) had a positive MCID for FEV1, and eight patients (67%) had a positive MCID for ACT.Conclusions: In RCTs performed during clinical development program dupilumab showed an early efficacy in increasing FEV1, reducing FeNO and improving asthma control. Our study demonstrates early improvement in asthmatic symptoms, lung function and FeNO in severe type-2 asthma patients after only 3 months of dupilumab biologic therapy. The introduction of FeNO levels evaluation in the selection criteria for dupilumab, further helps the identification of eligible patients among type-2 severe asthma patients and lets a complete outpatient assessment. Further real-life studies with a longer follow-up time will be useful to confirm dupilumab efficacy and to promote its use in clinical practice.