Roberto Tonelli

Dr. Roberto Tonelli

Azienda Ospedaliero - Universitaria di Modena Policlinico, Modena, Italy
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

15Years (2012-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 August 2020 in The Lancet Rheumatology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
GGGiovanni Guaraldi
Giovanni Guaraldi
MMMarianna Meschiari
Marianna Meschiari
ACAlessandro Cozzi-Lepri
Alessandro Cozzi-Lepri
JMJovana Milic
Jovana Milic
Roberto TonelliRoberto Tonelli
Roberto Tonelli
CMCristina Mussini
Cristina Mussini

6 July 2020 in Nature Communications
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SBSara De Biasi
Sara De Biasi
MMMarianna Meschiari
Marianna Meschiari
LGLara Gibellini
Lara Gibellini
CBCaterina Bellinazzi
Caterina Bellinazzi
RBRebecca Borella
Rebecca Borella
ACAndrea Cossarizza
Andrea Cossarizza
The immune system of patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 is severely impaired. Detailed investigation of T cells and cytokine production in patients affected by COVID-19 pneumonia are urgently required. Here we show that, compared with healthy controls, COVID-19 patients’ T cell compartment displays several alterations involving naïve, central memory, effector memory and terminally differentiated cells, as well as regulatory T cells and PD1+CD57+ exhausted T cells. Significant alterations exist also in several lineage-specifying transcription factors and chemokine receptors. Terminally differentiated T cells from patients proliferate less than those from healthy controls, whereas their mitochondria functionality is similar in CD4+ T cells from both groups. Patients display significant increases of proinflammatory or anti-inflammatory cytokines, including T helper type-1 and type-2 cytokines, chemokines and galectins; their lymphocytes produce more tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interferon-γ, interleukin (IL)-2 and IL-17, with the last observation implying that blocking IL-17 could provide a novel therapeutic strategy for COVID-19.

1 August 2020 in American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
Roberto TonelliRoberto Tonelli
Roberto Tonelli
RFRiccardo Fantini
Riccardo Fantini
LTLuca Tabbì
Luca Tabbì
ICIvana Castaniere
Ivana Castaniere
LPLara Pisani
Lara Pisani
AMAlessandro Marchioni
Alessandro Marchioni
Rationale: The role of inspiratory effort still has to be determined as a potential predictor of noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) failure in acute hypoxic de novo respiratory failure. Objectives: To explore the hypothesis that inspiratory effort might be a major determinant of NIV failure in these patients. Methods: Thirty consecutive patients with acute hypoxic de novo respiratory failure admitted to a single center and candidates for a 24-hour NIV trial were enrolled. Clinical features, tidal change in esophageal pressure (ΔPes), tidal change in dynamic transpulmonary pressure (ΔPl), expiratory Vt, and respiratory rate were recorded on admission and 2–4 to 12–24 hours after NIV start and were tested for correlation with outcomes. Measurements and Main Results: ΔPes and ΔPes/ΔPl ratio were significantly lower 2 hours after NIV start in patients who successfully completed the NIV trial (n = 18) compared with those who needed endotracheal intubation (n = 12) (median [interquartile range], 11 [8–15] cm H2O vs. 31.5 [30–36] cm H2O; P < 0.0001), whereas other variables differed later. ΔPes was not related to other predictors of NIV failure at baseline. NIV-induced reduction in ΔPes of 10 cm H2O or more after 2 hours of treatment was strongly associated with avoidance of intubation and represented the most accurate predictor of treatment success (odds ratio, 15; 95% confidence interval, 2.8–110; P = 0.001 and area under the curve, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.91–1; P < 0.0001). Conclusions: The magnitude of inspiratory effort relief as assessed by ΔPes variation within the first 2 hours of NIV was an early and accurate predictor of NIV outcome at 24 hours. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 03826797).

3 August 2020 in European Respiratory Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CFCosimo Franco
Cosimo Franco
NFNicola Facciolongo
Nicola Facciolongo
Roberto TonelliRoberto Tonelli
Roberto Tonelli
RDRoberto Dongilli
Roberto Dongilli
Andrea VianelloAndrea Vianello
Andrea Vianello
stefano navastefano nava
stefano nava
Introduction: The severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 outbreak spread rapidly in Italy and the lack of intensive care unit (ICU) beds soon became evident, forcing the application of noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) outside the ICU, raising concerns over staff contamination. We aimed to analyse the safety of the hospital staff and the feasibility and outcomes of NRS applied to patients outside the ICU.Methods: In this observational study, data from 670 consecutive patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 referred to pulmonology units in nine hospitals between March 1 and May 10, 2020 were analysed. Data collected included medication, mode and usage of NRS (i.e.high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), noninvasive ventilation (NIV)), length of stay in hospital, endotracheal intubation (ETI) and deaths.Results: 42 (11.1%) healthcare workers tested positive for infection, but only three of them required hospitalisation. Data are reported for all patients (69.3% male), whose mean±sdage was 68±13 years. The arterial oxygen tension/inspiratory oxygen fraction ratio at baseline was 152±79, and the majority (49.3%) of patients were treated with CPAP. The overall unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was 26.9%, with 16%, 30% and 30% for HFNC, CPAP and NIV, respectively, while the total ETI rate was 27%, with 29%, 25% and 28%, respectively; the relative probability of death was not related to the NRS used after adjustment for confounders. ETI and length of stay were not different among the groups. Mortality rate increased with age and comorbidity class progression.Conclusions: The application of NRS outside the ICU is feasible and associated with favourable outcomes. Nonetheless, it was associated with a risk of staff contamination.

24 April 2020 in Frontiers in Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Nicola VeroneseNicola Veronese
Nicola Veronese
JDJacopo Demurtas
Jacopo Demurtas
Lin YangLin Yang
Lin Yang
Roberto TonelliRoberto Tonelli
Roberto Tonelli
MBMario Barbagallo
Mario Barbagallo
Lee SmithLee Smith
Lee Smith
The aim was to investigate the effectiveness of glucocorticoid therapy in patients with COVID-19. A systematic search of the literature across nine databases was conducted from inception until 15th March 2020, following the PRISMA guidelines. Patients with a validated diagnosis of COVID-19 and using corticosteroids were included, considering all health outcomes. Four studies with 542 Chinese participants were included. Two studies reported negative findings regarding the use of corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19, i.e., corticosteroids had a detrimental impact on clinical outcomes. One study reported no significant association between the use of corticosteroids and clinical outcomes. However, one study, on 201 participants with different stages of pneumonia due to COVID-19, found that in more severe forms, the administration of methylprednisolone significantly reduced the risk of death by 62%. The literature to date does not fully support the routine use of corticosteroids in COVID-19, but some findings suggest that methylprednisolone could lower mortality rate in more severe forms of the condition.

14 December 2020 in Critical Care
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
TIthe H. F.-AECOPD study investigators
the H. F.-AECOPD study investigators
Andrea CortegianiAndrea Cortegiani
Andrea Cortegiani
FLFederico Longhini
Federico Longhini
FMFabiana Madotto
Fabiana Madotto
PGPaolo Groff
Paolo Groff
Cesare GregorettiCesare Gregoretti
Cesare Gregoretti
Background: The efficacy and safety of high flow nasal therapy (HFNT) in patients with acute hypercapnic exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are unclear. Our aim was to evaluate the short-term effect of HFNT versus NIV in patients with mild-to-moderate AECOPD, with the hypothesis that HFNT is non-inferior to NIV on CO2 clearance after 2 h of treatment. Methods: We performed a multicenter, non-inferiority randomized trial comparing HFNT and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in nine centers in Italy. Patients were eligible if presented with mild-to-moderate AECOPD (arterial pH 7.25–7.35, PaCO2 ≥ 55 mmHg before ventilator support). Primary endpoint was the mean difference of PaCO2 from baseline to 2 h (non-inferiority margin 10 mmHg) in the per-protocol analysis. Main secondary endpoints were non-inferiority of HFNT to NIV in reducing PaCO2 at 6 h in the per-protocol and intention-to-treat analysis and rate of treatment changes. Results: Seventy-nine patients were analyzed (80 patients randomized). Mean differences for PaCO2 reduction from baseline to 2 h were − 6.8 mmHg (± 8.7) in the HFNT and − 9.5 mmHg (± 8.5) in the NIV group (p = 0.404). By 6 h, 32% of patients (13 out of 40) in the HFNT group switched to NIV and one to invasive ventilation. HFNT was statistically non-inferior to NIV since the 95% confidence interval (CI) upper boundary of absolute difference in mean PaCO2 reduction did not reach the non-inferiority margin of 10 mmHg (absolute difference 2.7 mmHg; 1-sided 95% CI 6.1; p = 0.0003). Both treatments had a significant effect on PaCO2 reductions over time, and trends were similar between groups. Similar results were found in both per-protocol at 6 h and intention-to-treat analysis. Conclusions: HFNT was statistically non-inferior to NIV as initial ventilatory support in decreasing PaCO2 after 2 h of treatment in patients with mild-to-moderate AECOPD, considering a non-inferiority margin of 10 mmHg. However, 32% of patients receiving HFNT required NIV by 6 h. Further trials with superiority design should evaluate efficacy toward stronger patient-related outcomes and safety of HFNT in AECOPD. Trial registration: The study was prospectively registered on December 12, 2017, in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03370666).