Since SARS-CoV-2-based disease (COVID-19) spreads as a pandemic, the necessity of a highly sensitive molecular diagnosis that can drastically reduce false negatives reverse transcription PCR (rtPCR) results, raises as a major clinical need. Here we evaluated the performance of a ddPCR-based assay to quantify SARS-CoV-2 titer in 55 suspected COVID-19 cases with negative rtPCR results thanks to in-house ddPCR assay (targeting RdRp and host RNaseP). Samples were collected at ASST-GOM Niguarda between February and May 2020 at hospital admission. Clinical and imaging data were obtained for clinical staging and definition of disease severity. Patients were mainly female (45.5%) with a median age of 73 (57-84) years. ddPCR-based assay detected SARS-CoV-2 genome in nasopharyngeal samples of 19 (34.5%) patients (median viral-load: 128 copies/mL, IQR: 72-345). In 15 of them (78.9%), chest CT showed a classical COVID-19 bilateral interstitial pneumonia; 14 patients (73.7%) showed severe COVID-19 manifestations. ddPCR did not identify any trace of SARS-CoV-2 genome in the respiratory samples of the remaining 36 patients. The serological assay performed in a subgroup of 34 patients at the later stage of illness (from 3 days to 90 days after) confirmed the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in all patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in ddPCR (100%). Contrariwise, negative tests were observed in 95.0% ddPCR negative patients (P<0.001). Thanks to a ddPCR-based assay, we achieved a rapid and accurate SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in rtPCR-negative respiratory

Background: As the novel SARS-CoV-2 pandemic occurred, no specific treatment was yet available. Inflammatory response secondary to viral infection might be the driver of severe diseases. We report the safety and efficacy (in terms of overall survival and hospital discharge) of the anti-IL6 tocilizumab (TCZ) in subjects with COVID-19. Methods: This retrospective, single-center analysis included all the patients consecutively admitted to our Hospital with severe or critical COVID-19 who started TCZ treatment from March 13th to April 03rd, 2020. A 1:2 matching to patients not treated with TCZ was performed according to age, sex, severity of disease, P/F, Charlson Comorbidity Index and length of time between symptoms onset and hospital admittance. Descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests to compare the groups were applied. Kaplan Meier probability curves and Cox regression models for survival, hospital discharge and orotracheal intubation were used. Results: Seventy-four patients treated with TCZ were matched with 148 matched controls. They were mainly males (81.5%), Caucasian (82.0%) and with a median age of 59 years. The majority (69.8%) showed critical stage COVID-19 disease. TCZ use was associated with a better overall survival (HR 0.499 [95% CI 0.262-0.952], p = 0.035) compared to controls but with a longer hospital stay (HR 1.658 [95% CI 1.088-2.524], p = 0.019) mainly due to biochemical, respiratory and infectious adverse events. Discussion: TCZ use resulted potentially effective on COVID-19 in terms of overall survival. Caution is warranted given the potential occurrence of adverse events. Financial support: Some of the tocilizumab doses used in the subjects included in this analysis were provided by the "Multicenter study on the efficacy and tolerability of tocilizumab in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia" (EudraCT Number: 2020-001110-38) supported by the Italian National Agency for Drugs (AIFA). No specific funding support was planned for study design, data collection and analysis and manuscript writing of this paper.

Aim To compare the efficacy of two different therapies (amino acid glycine abrasive powder and a desiccant material) and their combination in the non‐surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis. Materials and Methods This was an examiner‐blind randomized clinical trial, with 2‐factorial design with a follow‐up of 6 months. The combination of the two factors resulted in four interventions: (a) non‐surgical debridement alone (C); (b) non‐surgical debridement and a desiccant material (H); (c) non‐surgical debridement and glycine powder (G); and (d) non‐surgical debridement, desiccant material and glycine powder (HG). Results Sixty‐four patients with peri‐implantitis were randomized, 16 for each intervention. After six months, two implants failed in the G intervention. Mean pocket depth reduction was higher in patients treated with the desiccant material (estimated difference: 0.5 mm; 95% CI from 0.1 to 0.9 mm, p = .0229) while there was no difference in the patients treated with glycine powder (estimated difference: 0.1 mm; 95% CI from −0.3 to 0.5 mm, p = .7333). VAS for pain during intervention and VAS for pain after one week were higher for patients treated with glycine powder (p = .0056 and p = .0339, respectively). The success criteria and other variables did not reveal differences between interventions. Conclusions In this 6‐month follow‐up study, pocket reduction was more pronounced in patients using the desiccant material. Pain was higher in patients using glycine. All the interventions resulted in low success rate.

Objectives We aimed to develop and validate a risk score to predict severe respiratory failure (SRF) among patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Methods We performed a multicentre cohort study among hospitalized (>24 hours) patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from 22 February to 3 April 2020, at 11 Italian hospitals. Patients were divided into derivation and validation cohorts according to random sorting of hospitals. SRF was assessed from admission to hospital discharge and was defined as: Sp o 2 <93% with 100% Fi o 2 , respiratory rate >30 breaths/min or respiratory distress. Multivariable logistic regression models were built to identify predictors of SRF, β-coefficients were used to develop a risk score. Trial Registration NCT04316949 . Results We analysed 1113 patients (644 derivation, 469 validation cohort). Mean (±SD) age was 65.7 (±15) years, 704 (63.3%) were male. SRF occurred in 189/644 (29%) and 187/469 (40%) patients in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. At multivariate analysis, risk factors for SRF in the derivation cohort assessed at hospitalization were age ≥70 years (OR 2.74; 95% CI 1.66–4.50), obesity (OR 4.62; 95% CI 2.78–7.70), body temperature ≥38°C (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.30–2.29), respiratory rate ≥22 breaths/min (OR 3.75; 95% CI 2.01–7.01), lymphocytes ≤900 cells/mm 3 (OR 2.69; 95% CI 1.60–4.51), creatinine ≥1 mg/dL (OR 2.38; 95% CI 1.59–3.56), C-reactive protein ≥10 mg/dL (OR 5.91; 95% CI 4.88–7.17) and lactate dehydrogenase ≥350 IU/L (OR 2.39; 95% CI 1.11–5.11). Assigning points to each variable, an individual risk score (PREDI-CO score) was obtained. Area under the receiver-operator curve was 0.89 (0.86–0.92). At a score of >3, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 71.6% (65%–79%), 89.1% (86%–92%), 74% (67%–80%) and 89% (85%–91%), respectively. PREDI-CO score showed similar prognostic ability in the validation cohort: area under the receiver-operator curve 0.85 (0.81–0.88). At a score of >3, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 80% (73%–85%), 76% (70%–81%), 69% (60%–74%) and 85% (80%–89%), respectively. Conclusion PREDI-CO score can be useful to allocate resources and prioritize treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background It is uncertain whether higher doses of anticoagulants than recommended for thromboprophylaxis are necessary in COVID‐19 patients hospitalized in general wards Methods This is a multicentre, open‐label, randomized trial performed in 9 Italian centres, comparing 40 mg b.i.d. versus 40 mg o.d. enoxaparin in COVID‐19 patients, between April 30 2020 and April 25 2021. Primary efficacy outcome was in‐hospital incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE): asymptomatic or symptomatic proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) diagnosed by serial compression ultrasonography (CUS), and/or symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosed by computed tomography angiography (CTA). Secondary endpoints included each individual component of the primary efficacy outcome and a composite of death, VTE, mechanical ventilation, stroke, myocardial infarction, admission to ICU. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Results The study was interrupted prematurely due to slow recruitment. We included 183 (96%) of the 189 enrolled patients in the primary analysis (91 in b.i.d., 92 in o.d.). Primary efficacy outcome occurred in 6 patients (6.5%, 0 DVT, 6 PE) in the o.d. group and 0 in the b.id. group (ARR 6.5, 95% CI: 1.5–11.6). The absence of concomitant DVT and imaging characteristics suggests that most pulmonary artery occlusions were actually caused by local thrombi rather than PE. Statistically nonsignificant differences in secondary and safety endpoints were observed, with two major bleeding events in each arm. Conclusions No DVT developed in COVID‐19 patients hospitalized in general wards, independently of enoxaparin dosing used for thromboprophylaxis. Pulmonary artery occlusions developed only in the o.d. group. Our trial is underpowered and with few events.