Since the beginning of 2020, the new pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 and named coronavirus disease 19 (COVID 19) has changed our socio-economic life. In just a few months, SARS-CoV-2 was able to spread worldwide at an unprecedented speed, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, especially among the weakest part of the population. Indeed, especially at the beginning of this pandemic, many reports highlighted how people, suffering from other pathologies, such as hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes, are more at risk of severe outcomes if infected. Although this pandemic has put the entire academic world to the test, it has also been a year of intense research and many important contributions have advanced our understanding of SARS-CoV-2 origin, its molecular structure and its mechanism of infection. Unfortunately, despite this great effort, we are still a long way from fully understanding how SARS-CoV-2 dysregulates organismal physiology and whether the current vaccines will be able to protect us from possible future pandemics. Here, we discuss the knowledge we have gained during this year and which questions future research should address.

COVID-19 encompasses a broad spectrum of clinical conditions caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. More severe cases experience acute respiratory and/or multiorgan failure. KL-6 is a glycoprotein expressed mainly from type II alveolar cells with pro-fibrotic properties. Serum KL-6 concentrations have been found in patients with COVID-19. However, the relevance of KL-6 in patients with severe and critical COVID-19 has not been fully elucidated. Methods: Retrospective data from consecutive severe to critical COVID-19 patients were collected at UOC Clinica Pnuemologica “Vanvitelli”, A.O. dei Colli, Naples, Italy. The study included patients with a positive rhinopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 RNA with severe or critical COVID-19. Results: Among 87 patients, 24 had poor outcomes. The median KL-6 value in survivors was significantly lower when compared with dead or intubated patients (530 U/mL versus 1069 U/mL p < 0.001). KL-6 was correlated with body mass index (BMI) (r: 0.279, p: 0.009), lung ultrasound score (LUS) (r: 0.429, p < 0.001), Chung Score (r: 0.390, p < 0.001). KL-6 was associated with the risk of death or oro-tracheal intubation (IOT) after adjusting for gender, BMI, Charlson Index, Chung Score, and PaO₂/FIO₂ (OR 1.003 95% CI 1.001–1.004, p < 0.001). Serum KL-6 value of 968 has a sensitivity of 79.2%, specificity of 87.1%, PPV 70.4%, NPV 91.5%, AUC: O.85 for risk of death or IOT. Conclusions: The presented research highlights the relevance of serum KL-6 in severe to critical COVID-19 patients in predicting the risk of death or IOT.

The aim of this study was to investigate the presence of subclinical cardiac dysfunction in recovered coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, who were stratified according to a previous diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) as a complication of COVID-19 pneumonia. Out of 68 patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia followed up for one year, 44 patients (mean age 58.4 ± 13.3, 70% males) without known cardiopulmonary disease were divided in two groups (PE+ and PE−, each comprising 22 patients) and underwent clinical and transthoracic echocardiographic examination, including right-ventricle global longitudinal strain (RV-GLS), and RV free wall longitudinal strain (RV-FWLS). While no significant differences were found in the left- or right-heart chambers’ dimensions between the two study groups, the PE+ patients showed a significant reduction in RV-GLS (−16.4 ± 2.9 vs. −21.6 ± 4.3%, p < 0.001) and RV-FWLS (−18.9 ± 4 vs. −24.6 ± 5.12%, p < 0.001) values compared to the PE- patients. According to the ROC-curve analysis, RV-FWLS < 21% was the best cut-off with which to predict PE diagnosis in patients after SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (sensitivity 74%, specificity 89%, area under the curve = 0.819, p < 0.001). According to the multivariate logistic regression model, RV-FWLS < 21% was independently associated with PE (HR 34.96, 95% CI:3.24–377.09, p = 0.003) and obesity (HR 10.34, 95% CI:1.05–101.68, p = 0.045). In conclusion, in recovered COVID-19 patients with a history of PE+, there is a persistence of subclinical RV dysfunction one year after the acute phase of the disease, detectable by a significant impairment in RV-GLS and RV-FWLS. A reduction in RV-FWLS of lower than 21% is independently associated with COVID-related PE.

Introduction: Medical pleuroscopy (MP) is an invasive technique that provides access to the pleural space with a rigid or semi-rigid work instrument, allowing for visualization and the obtaining of bioptic pleural samples. Using pulmonologist-based analgosedation to perform pleuroscopy is still debated for safety reasons. The aim of this real-life study is to demonstrate the safety and diagnostic yield of MP performed under balanced analgosedation by a pulmonologist team with expertise in the management of critically ill patients in the respiratory intensive care unit (RICU) and interventional pulmonology unit as compared to video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) performed by a thoracic surgeon team under anesthesiologist-based analgosedation. Methods: In this multicentric retrospective controlled study, the inclusion criteria were patients older than 18 years old with pleural effusion of unknown diagnosis consecutively admitted in the years 2017–2022 to the pulmonology unit and RICU of San Donato Hospital in Arezzo (Italy, Tuscany) and to the thoracic surgery unit of Santa Maria Le Scotte in Siena (Italy, Tuscany) to undergo, respectively, MP under balanced propofol-based analgosedation on spontaneous breathing with local anesthesia provided by a pulmonologist team (Group A), and VATS provided by a surgeon team under propofol-based analgosedation managed by an anesthesiologist using invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) via endotracheal intubation (ETI) (Group B). The primary endpoints were (1) a comparison between the two groups in terms of the diagnostic yield of pleural effusion, and (2) major and minor complications of pleuroscopic procedures. The secondary endpoints were (1) the length of the pleuroscopic procedure; (2) the duration of hospitalization; (3) propofol doses; and (4) the patient’s comfort after the procedure assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Results: We enrolled 91 patients in Group A and 116 patients in Group B. A conclusive diagnosis was obtained in 97.8% of Group A vs. 100% of Group B (p = 0.374). Malignant effusion was diagnosed in 59.3% of Group A and in 55.1% of Group B; p = 0.547. No intraoperative or postoperative mortality events or major complications were observed in Group A. The major complications observed in Group B were three major bleeding events (p = 0.079) and one exitus (p = 0.315) not related to the interventional procedure. No significant difference emerged between the two groups in terms of minor complications. The duration of the intervention was significantly lower in Group A (40.0 min ± 12.6 versus 51.5 ± 31.0; p = 0.001). Pain control and, therefore, patient comfort were better in Group A, with an average VAS of 0.34 ± 0.65 versus 2.58 ± 1.26, p < 0.001. The duration of hospitalization was lower in Group B (5.1 ± 2.6 vs. 15.5 ± 8.0, p < 0.001). The average overall dose of propofol administered was significantly lower in Group A (65.6 ± 35.8 mg versus 280 ± 20.0 mg; p < 0.001). Conclusions: This real-life study shows that the MP performed under propofol-based analgosedation by an independent pneumologist team is a safe and well-tolerated procedure with a diagnostic yield and complication rates similar to those obtained with VATS.

COVID-19 is an infective disease resulting in widespread respiratory and non-respiratory symptoms prompted by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Interaction between SARS-CoV-2 and host cell receptors prompts activation of pro-inflammatory pathways which are involved in epithelial and endothelial damage mechanisms even after viral clearance. Since inflammation has been recognized as a critical step in COVID-19, anti-inflammatory therapies, including both steroids and non-steroids as well as cytokine inhibitors, have been proposed. Early treatment of COVID-19 has the potential to affect the clinical course of the disease regardless of underlying comorbid conditions. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which are widely used for symptomatic relief of upper airway infections, became the mainstay of early phase treatment of COVID-19. In this review, we discuss the current evidence for using NSAIDs in early phases of SARS-CoV-2 infection with focus on ketoprofen lysine salt based on its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic features.

SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to a heterogenous spectrum of clinical conditions ranging from self-limiting upper airway infection to severe respiratory failure. Carbocysteine is a thioether mucolytic with antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities. Carbocysteine has been shown to have anti-viral effects on human rhinovirus, RSV and the influenza virus as well as interfering with upper airway ciliary motility, the first site of SARS-CoV-2 infection, leading to more effective mucus clearance and potential containment of viral spread towards the lower airway. Positive effects, in terms of limiting superimposed bacterial infection and reducing oxidative stress, have also been documented in COPD patients. Accordingly, Carbocysteine should also be considered in both post-exposure prophylaxis and early-phase treatment of COVID-19 in combination with other agents (monoclonal antibodies, antivirals, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents, and inhaled corticosteroids). In this review, we explored the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic aspects of Carbocysteine to delineate its potential therapeutic impact in patients with COVID-19.