Objectives To describe clinical characteristics, management and outcome of individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); and to evaluate risk factors for all-cause in-hospital mortality. Methods This retrospective study from a University tertiary care hospital in northern Italy, included hospitalized adult patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 between 25 February 2020 and 25 March 2020. Results Overall, 317 individuals were enrolled. Their median age was 71 years and 67.2% were male (213/317). The most common underlying diseases were hypertension (149/317; 47.0%), cardiovascular disease (63/317; 19.9%) and diabetes (49/317; 15.5%). Common symptoms at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis included fever (285/317; 89.9%), shortness of breath (167/317; 52.7%) and dry cough (156/317; 49.2%). An ‘atypical’ presentation including at least one among mental confusion, diarrhoea or nausea and vomiting was observed in 53/317 patients (16.7%). Hypokalaemia occurred in 25.8% (78/302) and 18.5% (56/303) had acute kidney injury. During hospitalization, 111/317 patients (35.0%) received non-invasive respiratory support, 65/317 (20.5%) were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and 60/317 (18.5%) required invasive mechanical ventilation. All-cause in-hospital mortality, assessed in 275 patients, was 43.6% (120/275). On multivariable analysis, age (per-year increase OR 1.07; 95% CI 1.04–1.10; p < 0.001), cardiovascular disease (OR 2.58; 95% CI 1.07–6.25; p 0.03), and C-reactive protein levels (per-point increase OR 1.009; 95% CI 1.004–1.014; p 0.001) were independent risk factors for all-cause in-hospital mortality. Conclusions COVID-19 mainly affected elderly patients with predisposing conditions and caused severe illness, frequently requiring non-invasive respiratory support or ICU admission. Despite supportive care, COVID-19 remains associated with a substantial risk of all-cause in-hospital mortality.

Background The prevalence of kidney involvement during SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported to be high. Nevertheless, data are lacking about the determinants of acute kidney injury (AKI) and the combined effect of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and AKI in COVID-19 patients. Methods We collected data on patient demographics, comorbidities, chronic medications, vital signs, baseline laboratory test results and in-hospital treatment in patients with COVID-19 consecutively admitted to our Institution. Chronic kidney disease was defined as eGFR < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or proteinuria at urinalysis within 180 days prior to hospital admission. AKI was defined according to KDIGO criteria. The primary and secondary outcomes were the development of AKI and death. Results Of 777 patients eligible for the study, acute kidney injury developed in 176 (22.6%). Of these, 79 (45%) showed an acute worsening of a preexisting CKD, and 21 (12%) required kidney replacement therapy. Independent associates of AKI were chronic kidney disease, C-reactive protein (CRP) and ventilation support. Among patients with acute kidney injury, 111 died (63%) and its occurrence increased the risk of death by 60% (HR 1.60 [95% IC 1.21–2.49] p = 0.002) independently of potential confounding factors including hypertension, preexisting kidney damage, and comorbidities. Patients with AKI showed a significantly higher rate of deaths attributed to bleeding compared to CKD and the whole population (7.5 vs 1.5 vs 3.5%, respectively). Conclusion Awareness of kidney function, both preexisting CKD and development of acute kidney injury, may help to identify those patients at increased risk of death.

Background Coronavirus disease‐19 (COVID‐19) ranges from asymptomatic infection to severe cases requiring admission to the intensive care unit. Together with supportive therapies (ventilation in particular), the suppression of the pro‐inflammatory state has been a hypothesized target. Pharmacological therapies with corticosteroids and interleukin‐6 (IL‐6) receptor antagonists have reduced mortality. The use of extracorporeal cytokine removal, also known as hemoperfusion (HP), could be a promising non‐pharmacological approach to decrease the pro‐inflammatory state in COVID‐19. Methods We conducted a systematic review of PubMed and EMBASE databases in order to summarize the evidence regarding HP therapy in COVID‐19. We included original studies and case series enrolling at least five patients. Results We included 11 articles and describe the characteristics of the populations studied from both clinical and biological perspectives. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally low. Only two studies had a control group, one of which included 101 patients in total. The remaining studies had a range between 10 and 50 patients included. There was large variability in the HP techniques implemented and in clinical and biological outcomes reported. Most studies described decreasing levels of IL‐6 after HP treatment. Conclusion Our review does not support strong conclusions regarding the role of HP in COVID‐19. Considering the very low level of clinical evidence detected, starting HP therapies in COVID‐19 patients does not seem supported outside of clinical trials. Prospective randomized data are needed.

Purpose Asthma is a heterogeneous disease with a wide range of symptoms. Severe asthma exacerbations (SAEs) are characterized by worsening symptoms and bronchospasm requiring emergency department visits. In addition to conventional strategies for SAEs (inhaled β-agonists, anticholinergics, and systemic corticosteroids), another pharmacological option is represented by ketamine. We performed a systematic review to explore the role of ketamine in refractory SAEs. Methods We performed a systematic search on PubMed and EMBASE up to August 12th, 2021. We selected prospective studies only, and outcomes of interest were oxygenation/respiratory parameters, clinical status, need for invasive ventilation and effects on weaning. Results We included a total of seven studies, five being randomized controlled trials (RCTs, population range 44–92 patients). The two small prospective studies (n = 10 and n = 11) did not have a control group. Four studies focused on adults, and three enrolled a pediatric population. We found a large heterogeneity regarding sample size, age and gender distribution, inclusion criteria (different severity scores, if any) and ketamine dosing (bolus and/or continuous infusion). Of the five RCTs, three compared ketamine to placebo, while one used fentanyl and the other aminophylline. The outcomes evaluated by the included studies were highly variable. Despite paucity of data and large heterogeneity, an overview of the included studies suggests absence of clear benefit produced by ketamine in patients with refractory SAE, and some signals towards side effects. Conclusion Our systematic review does not support the use of ketamine in refractory SAE. A limited number of prospective studies with large heterogeneity was found. Well-designed multicenter RCTs are desirable.