Perspective COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS): clinical features and differences from typical pre-COVID-19 ARDS COVID-19 ARDS is a predictable serious complication of COVID-19 that requires early recognition and comprehensive management "T his disease is still too strange to us, and there are too many doubts", says Dr Ling Qin (LQ), after reviewing more than 400 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia in Wuhan Union Hospital, China. COVID-19 is a novel disease. We are familiar with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); however, when it occurs as part of COVID-19, it has different features and there remain unanswered questions.So if someone has COVID-19 ARDS, how does it compare and contrast with ARDS from other causes? To answer this question we provide a summary of the published literature (based on a PubMed search using the terms "COVID-19" and "ARDS", 17 April 2020) and current clinical experience from managing patients with COVID-19 ARDS in Singapore (SHP) and Wuhan (LQ).

This study aimed to explore changes in psychological responses (perceived stress, traumatic stress, stigma, coping) over time in residents, as well as their predictors. The level of perceived stress, traumatic stress, stigma, and coping responses were assessed using the Perceived Stress Scale, Impact of Event-Revised, Healthcare Workers Stigma Scale, and Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (COPE) Inventory, respectively. We collected responses from 274 residents at baseline and 221 residents at 3 months follow-up (timepoint 2) from the National Healthcare Group (NHG) residency programs in Singapore. All residents reported lower perceived stress and lower perceived stigma compared to baseline. Use of avoidance coping was associated with all three psychological responses (perceived stress, traumatic stress, and stigma) across the two timepoints. Compared to baseline, specific factors associated with perceived stress and traumatic stress at timepoint 2 were living alone, less problem solving, and seeking social support. Residency programs should encourage active coping strategies (e.g., seeking social support, positive thinking, problem solving) among residents, and proactively identify residents who may be at higher risk of psychological sequelae due to circumstances that contribute to isolation.

Background We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19. Methods In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04501978 . Findings Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50–72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74–1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67–1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74–1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68–1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91–...

Highlights Platypnea-orthodeoxia syndrome (POS) is observed in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) survivors. POS is associated with older age, lower body mass index and varying degrees of dyspnea. Arterial to end-tidal carbon dioxide and alveolar to arterial oxygen partial pressure differences were persistently elevated. POS is likely a gravitational exacerbation of intrapulmonary shunt in ARDS due to COVID-19 specific changes. POS may cause alarm and requires adjustment in the rehabilitation approach during the recovery period.

No abstract