For survivors of severe COVID-19 disease, having defeated the virus is just the beginning of an uncharted recovery path. What follows after the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection depends on the extension and severity of viral attacks in different cell types and organs. Despite the ridiculously large number of papers that have flooded scientific journals and preprinthosting websites, a clear clinical picture of COVID-19 aftermath is vague at best. Without larger prospective observational studies that are only now being started, clinicians can retrieve information just from case reports and or small studies. This is the time to understand how COVID-19 goes forward and what consequences survivors may expect to experience. To this aim, a multidisciplinary post-acute care service involving several specialists has been established at the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCSS (Rome, Italy). Although COVID-19 is an infectious disease primarily affecting the lung, its multi-organ involvement requires an interdisciplinary approach encompassing virtually all branches of internal medicine and geriatrics. In particular, during the post-acute phase, the geriatrician may serve as the case manager of a multidisciplinary team. The aim of this article is to describe the importance of the interdisciplinary approach-coordinated by geriatrician-to cope the potential post-acute care needs of recovered COVID-19 patients.

Background Interleukin-6 signal blockade showed preliminary beneficial effects in treating inflammatory response against SARS-CoV-2 leading to severe respiratory distress. Herein we describe the outcomes of off-label intravenous use of Sarilumab in severe SARS-CoV-2-related pneumonia. Methods 53 patients with SARS-CoV-2 severe pneumonia received intravenous Sarilumab; pulmonary function improvement or Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission rate in medical wards, live discharge rate in ICU treated patients and safety profile were recorded. Sarilumab 400 mg was administered intravenously on day 1, with eventual additional infusion based on clinical judgement, and patients were followed for at least 14 days, unless previously discharged or dead. Findings Of the 53 SARS-CoV-2 pos patients receiving Sarilumab, 39(73·6%) were treated in medical wards [66·7% with a single infusion; median PaO 2 /FiO 2 :146(IQR:120–212)] while 14(26·4%) in ICU [92·6% with a second infusion; median PaO 2 /FiO 2 : 112(IQR:100–141.5)]. Within the medical wards, 7(17·9%) required ICU admission, 4 of whom were re-admitted to the ward within 5–8 days. At 19 days median follow-up, 89·7% of medical inpatients significantly improved (46·1% after 24 h, 61·5% after 3 days), 70·6% were discharged from the hospital and 85·7% no longer needed oxygen therapy. Within patients receiving Sarilumab in ICU, 64·2% were discharged from ICU to the ward and 35·8% were still alive at the last follow-up. Overall mortality rate was 5·7%. Interpretation IL-6R inhibition appears to be a potential treatment strategy for severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and intravenous Sarilumab seems a promising treatment approach showing, in the short term, an important clinical outcome and good safety.

Objective Increasing evidence points to endothelial dysfunction as a key pathophysiological factor in coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). No specific methods have been identified to predict, detect and quantify the microvascular alterations during COVID-19. Our aim was to assess microvasculature through nailfold videocapillaroscopy (NVC) in COVID-19 patients. Methods We performed NVC in patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia. Elementary alterations were reported for each finger according to a semi-quantitative score. Capillary density, number of enlarged and giant capillaries, number of micro-hemorrhages and micro-thrombosis (NEMO score) were registered. Results We enrolled 82 patients (mean age 58.8 ± 13.2 years, male 68.3%) of whom 28 during the hospitalization and 54 after recovery and hospital discharge. At NVC examination we found abnormalities classifiable as non-specific pattern in 53 patients (64.6%). Common abnormalities were pericapillary edema (80.5%), enlarged capillaries (61.0%), sludge flow (53.7%), meandering capillaries and reduced capillary density (50.0%). No pictures suggestive of scleroderma pattern have been observed. Acute COVID-19 patients, compared to recovered patients, showed a higher prevalence of hemosiderin deposits as a result of micro-hemorrhages ( P = .027) and micro-thrombosis ( P < .016), sludge flow ( P = .001), and pericapillary edema ( P < .001), while recovered patients showed a higher prevalence of enlarged capillaries ( P < .001), loss of capillaries ( P = .002), meandering capillaries ( P < .001), and empty dermal papillae ( P = .006). Conclusion COVID-19 patients present microvascular abnormalities at NVC. Currently ill and recovered subjects are characterized by a different distribution of elementary capillaroscopic alterations, resembling acute and post-acute microvascular damage. Further studies are needed to assess the clinical relevance of NVC in COVID-19.

No abstract

Importance: Interleukin-6 signal blockade has shown preliminary beneficial effects in treating aberrant host inflammatory response against SARS-CoV-2 leading to severe respiratory distress. Objective: to describe the effect of off-label intravenous use of Sarilumab in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2-related pneumonia. Design: Observational clinical cohort study. Setting: Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS as Italian Covid reference center. Participants: Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and respiratory distress with PaO2/FiO2 ratio<300 treated with Sarilumab between March 23rd − April 4th, 2020. Date of final follow-up was April 18, 2020. Main outcomes and measures: We describe the clinical outcomes of 53 patients with SARS−CoV−2 severe pneumonia treated with intravenous Sarilumab in terms of pulmonary function improvement or Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission rate in medical wards setting and of live discharge rate in ICU treated patients as well as in terms of safety. Each patient received Sarilumab 400 mg administered intravenously on day 1, with eventual additional infusion based on clinical judgement, and was followed for at least 14 days, unless previously discharged or dead. No gluco-corticosteroids were used at baseline. Results: Of the 53 SARS−CoV−2pos patients receiving Sarilumab, 39 (73.6%) were treated in medical wards (66.7% with a single infusion) while 14 (26.4%) in ICU (92.6% with a second infusion). The median PaO2/FiO2 of patients in the Medical Ward was 146(IQR:120−212) while the median PaO2/FiO2 of patients in ICU was 112(IQR:100−141.5), respectively. Within the medical wards, 7(17.9%) required ICU admission, 4 of whom were re−admitted to the ward within 5-8 days. At 19 days median follow−up, 89.7% of medical inpatients significantly improved (46.1% after 24 hours, 61.5% after 3 days), 70.6% were discharged from the hospital and 85.7% no longer needed oxygen therapy. Within patients receiving Sarilumab in ICU, 64.2% were discharged from ICU to the ward and 35.8% were still alive at the last follow-up. Overall mortality rate was 5.7% after Sarilumab administration: 1(2.5%) patient died in the Medical Ward whilst 2(14.2%) patients died in ICU, respectively. Conclusions and relevance: IL6−R inhibition appears to be a potential treatment strategy for severe SARS−CoV−2 pneumonia and intravenous Sarilumab seems a promising treatment approach showing, in the short term, an important clinical benefit and good safety.

Introduction The novel coronavirus SARS-Cov-2 can infect the respiratory tract causing a spectrum of disease varying from mild to fatal pneumonia, and known as COVID-19. Ongoing clinical research is assessing the potential for long-term respiratory sequelae in these patients. We assessed the respiratory function in a cohort of patients after recovering from SARS-Cov-2 infection, stratified according to PaO2/FiO2 (p/F) values. Method Approximately one month after hospital discharge, 86 COVID-19 patients underwent physical examination, arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis, pulmonary function tests (PFTs), and six-minute walk test (6MWT). Patients were also asked to quantify the severity of dyspnoea and cough before, during, and after hospitalization using a visual analogic scale (VAS). Seventy-six subjects with ABG during hospitalization were stratified in three groups according to their worst p/F values: above 300 (n = 38), between 200 and 300 (n = 30) and below 200 (n = 20). Results On PFTs, lung volumes were overall preserved yet, mean percent predicted residual volume was slightly reduced (74.8 ± 18.1%). Percent predicted diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) was also mildly reduced (77.2 ± 16.5%). Patients reported residual breathlessness at the time of the visit (VAS 19.8, p < 0.001). Patients with p/F below 200 during hospitalization had lower percent predicted forced vital capacity (p = 0.005), lower percent predicted total lung capacity (p = 0.012), lower DLCO (p < 0.001) and shorter 6MWT distance (p = 0.004) than patients with higher p/F. Conclusion Approximately one month after hospital discharge, patients with COVID-19 can have residual respiratory impairment, including lower exercise tolerance. The extent of this impairment seems to correlate with the severity of respiratory failure during hospitalization.

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion is the gold standard in the management of interstitial lung disease (ILD). The rheumatologist is not routinely involved in MDT, even if up to 20% of ILD are related to systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD). The study aims to assess the agreement and its variation over time between rheumatologists and pulmonologists in the screening of SARD and between rheumatologists and an MDT extended to rheumatologists (eMDT) in evaluating the progression of SARD. We computed the agreement between the pulmonologist and rheumatologist in the identification of red flags for SARDs of 81 ILD cases and between the rheumatologist alone and eMDT in the confirmation of 70 suspected SARD-ILD progressions. The agreement between rheumatologists and pulmonologists was moderate for the detection of autoimmunity test positivity (κ = 0.475, p < 0.001) and family history of SARD (κ = 0.491, p < 0.001) and fair for the identification of extrapulmonary symptoms (κ = 0.225, p = 0.064) or routine laboratory abnormalities consistent with SARD. The average agreement between the rheumatologist and eMDT in the identification of ILD progression was moderate (κ = 0.436, p < 0.001). The class of agreement improved from the first to the third semester. The average agreement with the rheumatologist ranged from fair to moderate, suggesting that a shared evaluation of SARD-ILD in eMDT could improve the diagnostic work-up and the evaluation of ILD progression.

No abstract