Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a systemic disease characterized by a disproportionate inflammatory response in the acute phase. This study sought to identify clinical sequelae and their potential mechanism. Methods: We conducted a prospective single-center study (NCT04689490) of previously hospitalized COVID-19 patients with and without dyspnea during mid-term follow-up. An outpatient group was also evaluated. They underwent serial testing with a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET), transthoracic echocardiogram, pulmonary lung test, six-minute walking test, serum biomarker analysis, and quality of life questionaries. Results: Patients with dyspnea (n = 41, 58.6%), compared with asymptomatic patients (n = 29, 41.4%), had a higher proportion of females (73.2 vs. 51.7%; p = 0.065) with comparable age and prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors. There were no significant differences in the transthoracic echocardiogram and pulmonary function test. Patients who complained of persistent dyspnea had a significant decline in predicted peak VO₂ consumption (77.8 (64–92.5) vs. 99 (88–105); p < 0.00; p < 0.001), total distance in the six-minute walking test (535 (467–600) vs. 611 (550–650) meters; p = 0.001), and quality of life (KCCQ-23 60.1 ± 18.6 vs. 82.8 ± 11.3; p < 0.001). Additionally, abnormalities in CPET were suggestive of an impaired ventilatory efficiency (VE/VC_O2 slope 32 (28.1–37.4) vs. 29.4 (26.9–31.4); p = 0.022) and high PET_CO2 (34.5 (32–39) vs. 38 (36–40); p = 0.025). Interpretation: In this study, >50% of COVID-19 survivors present a symptomatic functional impairment irrespective of age or prior hospitalization. Our findings suggest a potential ventilation/perfusion mismatch or hyperventilation syndrome.

Recent works have demonstrated a significant reduction in cholesterol levels and increased oxidative stress in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The cause of this alteration is not well known. This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate their possible association during the evolution of COVID-19. This is an observational prospective study. The primary endpoint was to analyze the association between lipid peroxidation, lipid, and inflammatory profiles in COVID-19 patients. A multivariate regression analysis was employed. The secondary endpoint included the long-term follow-up of lipid profiles. COVID-19 patients presented significantly lower values in their lipid profile (total, low, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol) with greater oxidative stress and inflammatory response compared to the healthy controls. Lipid peroxidation was the unique oxidative parameter with a significant association with the total cholesterol (OR: 0.982; 95% CI: 0.969–0.996; p = 0.012), IL1-RA (OR: 0.999; 95% CI: 0.998–0.999; p = 0.021) IL-6 (OR: 1.062; 95% CI: 1.017–1.110; p = 0.007), IL-7 (OR: 0.653; 95% CI: 0.433–0.986; p = 0.042) and IL-17 (OR: 1.098; 95% CI: 1.010–1.193; p = 0.028). Lipid abnormalities recovered after the initial insult during long-term follow-up (IQR 514 days); however, those with high LPO levels at hospital admission had, during long-term follow-up, an atherogenic lipid profile. Our study suggests that oxidative stress in COVID-19 is associated with derangements of the lipid profile and inflammation. Survivors experienced a recovery in their lipid profiles during long-term follow-up, but those with stronger oxidative responses had an atherogenic lipid profile.

Background: The efficacy and safety of high versus medium doses of glucocorticoids for the treatment of patients with COVID‐19 has shown mixed outcomes in controlled trials and observational studies. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of methylprednisolone 250 mg bolus versus dexamethasone 6 mg in patients with severe COVID‐19.Methods: A randomised, open‐label, controlled trial was conducted between February and August 2021 at four hospitals in Spain. The trial was suspended after the first interim analysis since the investigators considered that continuing the trial would be futile. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive dexamethasone 6 mg once daily for up to 10 days or methylprednisolone 250 mg once daily for 3 days.Results: Of the 128 randomised patients, 125 were analysed (mean age 60 ± 17 years; 82 males [66%]). Mortality at 28 days was 4.8% in the 250 mg methylprednisolone group versus 4.8% in the 6 mg dexamethasone group (absolute risk difference, 0.1% [95% CI, −8.8 to 9.1%]; p = 0.98). None of the secondary outcomes (admission to the intensive care unit, non‐invasive respiratory or high‐flow oxygen support, additional immunosuppressive drugs, or length of stay), or prespecified sensitivity analyses were statistically significant. Hyperglycaemia was more frequent in the methylprednisolone group at 27.0 versus 8.1% (absolute risk difference, −18.9% [95% CI, −31.8 to ‐ 5.6%]; p = 0.007).Conclusions: Among severe but not critical patients with COVID‐19, 250 mg/d for 3 days of methylprednisolone compared with 6 mg/d for 10 days of dexamethasone did not result in a decrease in mortality or intubation.

Objectives. To assess the influence of corticosteroid pulses on 60‐day mortality in hospitalized patients with severe COVID‐19. Methods. We designed a multicenter retrospective cohort study in three teaching hospitals of Castilla y León, Spain (865,096 people). We selected patients with confirmed COVID‐19 and lung involvement with a pO2/FiO2<300, excluding those exposed to immunosuppressors before or during hospitalization, patients terminally ill at admission, or those who died in the first 24 hours. We performed a propensity score matching (PSM) adjusting covariates that modify the probability of being treated. Then, we used a Cox regression model in the PSM group to consider factors affecting mortality. Results. From 2933 patients, 257 fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. 124 patients were on corticosteroid pulses (250 mg of methylprednisolone for three days), and 133 were not. 30.3% (37/122) of patients died in the corticosteroid pulse group and 42.9% (57/133) in the nonexposed cohort. These differences (12.6%, 95% CI [8·54‐16.65]) were statically significant (log‐rank 4.72, p = 0, 03). We performed PSM using the exact method. Mortality differences remained in the PSM group (log‐rank 5.31, p = 0.021) and were still significant after a Cox regression model (HR for corticosteroid pulses 0.561; p = 0.039). Conclusions. This study provides evidence about treatment with corticosteroid pulses in severe COVID‐19 that might significantly reduce mortality. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria with that selection process set a reliable frame to compare mortality in both the exposed and nonexposed groups.

Background Acute exacerbation of interstitial lung disease (AE-ILD) is a severe complication with a poor prognosis. No clinical trials have supported the use of rituximab in AE-ILD associated with connective tissue disease. Methods We present a series of four cases in which administration of rituximab was associated with appropriate clinical, radiological and functional progress. Results The four patients were alive 30 days after discharge following their exacerbation. Conclusions Given the speed of action, safety and efficacy profile observed for rituximab, we believe that this agent should be further investigated in clinical trials so that it could be included in the daily clinical management of this severe condition.