COVID-19 has overloaded national health services worldwide. Thus, early identification of patients at risk of poor outcomes is critical. Our objective was to analyse SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in serum as a severity biomarker in COVID-19. Retrospective observational study including 193 patients admitted for COVID-19. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in serum (viremia) was performed with samples collected at 48–72 h of admission by two techniques from Roche and Thermo Fischer Scientific (TFS). Main outcome variables were mortality and need for ICU admission during hospitalization for COVID-19. Viremia was detected in 50–60% of patients depending on technique. The correlation of Ct in serum between both techniques was good (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.612; p < 0.001). Patients with viremia were older (p = 0.006), had poorer baseline oxygenation (PaO₂/FiO₂; p < 0.001), more severe lymphopenia (p < 0.001) and higher LDH (p < 0.001), IL-6 (p = 0.021), C-reactive protein (CRP; p = 0.022) and procalcitonin (p = 0.002) serum levels. We defined "relevant viremia" when detection Ct was < 34 with Roche and < 31 for TFS. These thresholds had 95% sensitivity and 35% specificity. Relevant viremia predicted death during hospitalization (OR 9.2 [3.8–22.6] for Roche, OR 10.3 [3.6–29.3] for TFS; p < 0.001). Cox regression models, adjusted by age, sex and Charlson index, identified increased LDH serum levels and relevant viremia (HR = 9.87 [4.13–23.57] for TFS viremia and HR = 7.09 [3.3–14.82] for Roche viremia) as the best markers to predict mortality. Viremia assessment at admission is the most useful biomarker for predicting mortality in COVID-19 patients. Viremia is highly reproducible with two different techniques (TFS and Roche), has a good consistency with other severity biomarkers for COVID-19 and better predictive accuracy.

The importance of artificial nutritional therapy is underrecognized, typically being considered an adjunctive rather than a primary therapy. We aimed to evaluate the influence of nutritional therapy on mortality in critically ill patients. This multicenter prospective observational study included adult patients needing artificial nutritional therapy for >48 h if they stayed in one of 38 participating intensive care units for ≥72 h between April and July 2018. Demographic data, comorbidities, diagnoses, nutritional status and therapy (type and details for ≤14 days), and outcomes were registered in a database. Confounders such as disease severity, patient type (e.g., medical, surgical or trauma), and type and duration of nutritional therapy were also included in a multivariate analysis, and hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) were reported. We included 639 patients among whom 448 (70.1%) and 191 (29.9%) received enteral and parenteral nutrition, respectively. Mortality was 25.6%, with non-survivors having the following characteristics: older age; more comorbidities; higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (6.6 ± 3.3 vs 8.4 ± 3.7; P < 0.001); greater nutritional risk (Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill [NUTRIC] score: 3.8 ± 2.1 vs 5.2 ± 1.7; P < 0.001); more vasopressor requirements (70.4% vs 83.5%; P=0.001); and more renal replacement therapy (12.2% vs 23.2%; P=0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that older age (HR: 1.023; 95% CI: 1.008-1.038; P=0.003), higher SOFA score (HR: 1.096; 95% CI: 1.036-1.160; P=0.001), higher NUTRIC score (HR: 1.136; 95% CI: 1.025-1.259; P=0.015), requiring parenteral nutrition after starting enteral nutrition (HR: 2.368; 95% CI: 1.168-4.798; P=0.017), and a higher mean Kcal/Kg/day intake (HR: 1.057; 95% CI: 1.015-1.101; P=0.008) were associated with mortality. By contrast, a higher mean protein intake protected against mortality (HR: 0.507; 95% CI: 0.263-0.977; P=0.042). Old age, higher organ failure scores, and greater nutritional risk appear to be associated with higher mortality. Patients who need parenteral nutrition after starting enteral nutrition may represent a high-risk subgroup for mortality due to illness severity and problems receiving appropriate nutritional therapy. Mean calorie and protein delivery also appeared to influence outcomes. ClinicaTrials.gov NCT: 03634943.

Lung ultrasound (LUS) allows for the detection of a series of manifestations of COVID-19, such as B-lines and consolidations. The objective of this work was to study the inter-rater reliability (IRR) when detecting signs associated with COVID-19 in the LUS, as well as the performance of the test in a longitudinal or transverse orientation. Thirty-three physicians with advanced experience in LUS independently evaluated ultrasound videos previously acquired using the ULTRACOV system on 20 patients with confirmed COVID-19. For each patient, 24 videos of 3 s were acquired (using 12 positions with the probe in longitudinal and transverse orientations). The physicians had no information about the patients or other previous evaluations. The score assigned to each acquisition followed the convention applied in previous studies. A substantial IRR was found in the cases of normal LUS (κ = 0.74), with only a fair IRR for the presence of individual B-lines (κ = 0.36) and for confluent B-lines occupying < 50% (κ = 0.26) and a moderate IRR in consolidations and B-lines > 50% (κ = 0.50). No statistically significant differences between the longitudinal and transverse scans were found. The IRR for LUS of COVID-19 patients may benefit from more standardized clinical protocols.