RationaleIn patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia, the clinical benefit of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) remains unclear. We aimed to examine whether HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) could prevent escalation of respiratory support in this patient population.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, parallel-group, open-label trial, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≤92% who required oxygen therapy were randomised to HFNO or COT. The primary outcome was the rate of escalation of respiratory support (ie, continuous positive airway pressure, non-invasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation) within 28 days. Among secondary outcomes, clinical recovery was defined as the improvement in oxygenation (SpO2 ≥96% with fractional inspired oxygen (FiO2) ≤30% or partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide/FiO2 ratio >300 mm Hg).ResultsAmong 364 randomised patients, 55 (30.3%) of 181 patients assigned to HFNO and 70 (38.6%) of 181 patients assigned to COT underwent escalation of respiratory support, with no significant difference between groups (absolute risk difference −8.2% (95% CI −18% to +1.4%); RR 0.79 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.05); p=0.09). There was no significant difference in clinical recovery (69.1% vs 60.8%; absolute risk difference 8.2% (95% CI −1.5% to +18.0%), RR 1.14 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.32)), intensive care unit admission (7.7% vs 11.0%, absolute risk difference −3.3% (95% CI −9.3% to +2.6%)), and in hospital length of stay (11 (IQR 8–17) vs 11 (IQR 7–20) days, absolute risk difference −1.0% (95% CI −3.1% to +1.1%)).ConclusionsAmong patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia, the use of HFNO did not significantly reduce the likelihood of escalation of respiratory support.Trial registration numberNCT04655638.

BackgroundAnti‐interleukin‐5 (IL‐5) monoclonal antibodies can be used as add‐on biological therapies in allergic and non‐allergic patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. However, within such a therapeutic context real‐life investigations are lacking.ObjectiveTherefore, the aim of the present observational study was to evaluate the effects of mepolizumab in allergic and non‐allergic subjects with severe eosinophilic asthma.MethodsRelevant clinical, functional, laboratory, and pharmacotherapeutic parameters were assessed in the above patient subgroups.ResultsAfter one year of add‐on biological treatment with mepolizumab, our 88 patients experienced a remarkable improvement of their severe asthma, documented by a better symptom control, expressed by a significant improvement in asthma control test (ACT) score. Indeed, the mean value (±standard deviation) of ACT score increased from 12.55 (±3.724) to 21.08 (±3.358). Moreover, significant improvements were also detected with regard to the median values (interquartile range) of forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), blood eosinophil numbers, annual rate of disease exacerbations, and daily intake of oral corticosteroids (OCS). In particular, FEV1 enhanced from 1640 mL (1110‐2275) to 1920 mL (1525‐2615), blood eosinophil count dropped from 711.0 cells/μL (500.0‐1022) to 90.00 cells/μL (50.00‐117.5), the annual rate of asthma exacerbations decreased from 3.000 (2.000‐6.000) to 0.000 (0.000‐1.000), and the daily prednisone intake fell from 6.250 mg (0.000‐25.00) to 0.000 mg (0.000‐0.000). After one year of mepolizumab treatment, the improvements in clinical, functional, and haematological parameters were quite similar in patient subgroups characterized by skin prick test (SPT) negativity or positivity, respectively. A significant correlation was observed between serum IgE levels and OCS intake decrease (r = −0.2257; P < .05).Conclusion and Clinical RelevanceHence, our real‐life data suggest that mepolizumab can represent a valid add‐on therapeutic option for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, irrespective of IgE serum concentrations, and allergic sensitization.

No abstract

No abstract

Background As the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is spreading worldwide, countries are dealing with different phases of the pandemic. Lately, scientific evidence has been growing about the measures for reopening respiratory outpatient services during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aim to summarize the key differences and similarities among recommendations by different national and international organizations. Methods We searched on Google and Pubmed for recently published National and International Recommendations/Guidelines/Position Papers from professional organizations and societies, offering a guidance to physicians on how to safely perform pulmonary function testing during COVID-19 pandemic. We also searched for spirometry manufacturers' operational indications. Results Indications on spirometry were released by the Chinese Task force, the American Thoracic Society, the European Respiratory Society, the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Société de Pneumologie de Langue Française, the Spanish Societies (Sociedad Espanola de Neumologia y Cirugia Toracica, Sociedad Espanola de Alergologia e Inmunologia Clinica, Asociacion de Especialistas en Enfermeria del trabajo, Asociacion de Enfermeria Comunitaria), the Sociedade Portuguesa de Pneumologia, the British Thoracic Society/Association for Respiratory Technology & Physiology, the Irish Thoracic Society, the Sociedad Uruguaya de Neumologia, the Italian Thoracic Society and the Italian Respiratory Society, Cleveland Clinic and Nebraska Medical Center. Detailed technical recommendations were found on manufacturers’ websites. We found several similarities across available guidelines for safely resuming pulmonary function services, as well as differences in criteria for selecting eligible patients for which spirometry is deemed essential and advice which was not homogenous on room ventilation precautions. Conclusions This study shows a synthesis of national/international guidelines allowing practicing physicians to adapt and shape the way to organize their outpatient services locally. There is generally good agreement on the importance of limiting pulmonary function testing to selected cases only. However, significant differences concerning the subsets of candidate patients, as well as on the management of adequate room ventilation, were observed.