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.

Background There is a scarcity of information about patients with mild or moderate symptoms during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This is especially true for those who attended and were followed up at primary care settings. Objectives We aim to measure the seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community sample of possible cases and among probable cases followed in primary care. Methods We selected a random sample of 600 individuals stratified by age groups from a total population of 19 899 individuals from a community area in Barcelona. We also invited all the patients that had been followed by General Practitioners (GPs). For both populations, we used COVID-19 rapid lateral flow immunoassays, which qualitatively assess the presence of patient-generated Immunoglobulins G (IgG) and Immunoglobulin M (IgM). Results Three hundred and eleven asymptomatic individuals from the randomly selected sample participated in the study. The mean age was 43.7 years [standard deviation (SD) = 21.79] and 55% were women. Seventeen individuals were seropositive for IgM and/or IgG, resulting in an overall prevalence of 5.47% (95% confidence interval = 3.44–8.58). Six hundred and thirty-four symptomatic patients were followed up by GPs. The mean age was 46.97 years (SD = 20.05) and 57.73% were women. Of these, 244 patients (38.49%) were seropositive. Results of the multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the odds ratio for a positive test was significantly increased in patients who had fever, ageusia and contact with a patient diagnosed with COVID-19. Conclusions The seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 among possible cases was lower than expected. Approximately, 40% of the symptomatic patients followed up by GPs during the peak months of the pandemic were positive.