Rationale: In patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia, the clinical benefit of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) remains unclear. We aimed to examine whether HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) could prevent escalation of respiratory support in this patient population.Methods: In this multicentre, randomised, parallel-group, open-label trial, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) ≤92% who required oxygen therapy were randomised to HFNO or COT. The primary outcome was the rate of escalation of respiratory support (ie, continuous positive airway pressure, non-invasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation) within 28 days. Among secondary outcomes, clinical recovery was defined as the improvement in oxygenation (SpO₂≥96% with fractional inspired oxygen (FiO₂) ≤30% or partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide/FiO₂ratio >300 mm Hg).Results: Among 364 randomised patients, 55 (30.3%) of 181 patients assigned to HFNO and 70 (38.6%) of 181 patients assigned to COT underwent escalation of respiratory support, with no significant difference between groups (absolute risk difference −8.2% (95% CI −18% to +1.4%); RR 0.79 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.05); p=0.09). There was no significant difference in clinical recovery (69.1% vs 60.8%; absolute risk difference 8.2% (95% CI −1.5% to +18.0%), RR 1.14 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.32)), intensive care unit admission (7.7% vs 11.0%, absolute risk difference −3.3% (95% CI −9.3% to +2.6%)), and in hospital length of stay (11 (IQR 8–17) vs 11 (IQR 7–20) days, absolute risk difference −1.0% (95% CI −3.1% to +1.1%)).Conclusions: Among patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia, the use of HFNO did not significantly reduce the likelihood of escalation of respiratory support.Trial registration number: NCT04655638.

Introduction: Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-4Rα recently licensed for severe asthma (SA). A Named Patients Program (NPP) was created in Italy before its commercial availability for SA patients with no other available therapeutic options. We aimed to assess the real-world effectiveness of dupilumab in patients with SA and unmet needs. Methods: We performed a multicentre retrospective study, including SA patients admitted to the NPP treated with dupilumab for 12 months. Data on the number of exacerbations, Asthma Control Test (ACT), pre-bronchodilator FEV₁%, oral corticosteroids (OCSs) use, FeNO and eosinophils count in peripheral blood were recorded at baseline and after 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: We included 18 SA patients (mean age 53.3± 12.4 years, 66.7% female). Eleven (61.1%) were OCSs dependent. Five patients (27.8%) received previous anti-IgE and/or anti-IL-5 agents. A significant improvement in ACT score (from 15.7± 5.1 to 18.8± 4.8, p=0.023), OCSs intake [10 (5– 25) mg/day to 0 (0– 5) mg/day, p=0.0333] and FeNO [from 25 (20– 80) ppb to 21 (10.9– 55.3) ppb, p=0.0190] was already detected after 3 months of treatment. After 12 months, a statistically significant decrease in the number of exacerbations from 2 (0– 3) to 0 (0– 1) (p< 0.0068) and increase in FEV₁% from 73.5± 19.5% to 87.1± 19.2% (p=0.0407) and ACT to a mean value of 22.4± 1.7 (p< 0.0001) and the interruption of OCSs in all the patients (p< 0.0001) was observed. A transient increase in the eosinophil count was observed in five patients (above 1000 cells/μL in 2 cases) after 3 months, without any clinical effect. Conclusion: Dupilumab improved all the explored clinical outcomes after 12 months, and the transient hypereosinophilia did not modify treatment response. These real-world data confirm the results reported in randomized controlled trials and provide an important opportunity to characterize the clinical impact of the treatment in a non-trial setting. Further real-world studies with a larger cohort of patients are needed to confirm these findings.

As the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is spreading worldwide, countries are dealing with different phases of the pandemic. Lately, scientific evidence has been growing about the measures for reopening respiratory outpatient services during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aim to summarize the key differences and similarities among recommendations by different national and international organizations. We searched on Google and Pubmed for recently published National and International Recommendations/Guidelines/Position Papers from professional organizations and societies, offering a guidance to physicians on how to safely perform pulmonary function testing during COVID-19 pandemic. We also searched for spirometry manufacturers' operational indications. Indications on spirometry were released by the Chinese Task force, the American Thoracic Society, the European Respiratory Society, the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Société de Pneumologie de Langue Française, the Spanish Societies (Sociedad Espanola de Neumologia y Cirugia Toracica, Sociedad Espanola de Alergologia e Inmunologia Clinica, Asociacion de Especialistas en Enfermeria del trabajo, Asociacion de Enfermeria Comunitaria), the Sociedade Portuguesa de Pneumologia, the British Thoracic Society/Association for Respiratory Technology & Physiology, the Irish Thoracic Society, the Sociedad Uruguaya de Neumologia, the Italian Thoracic Society and the Italian Respiratory Society, Cleveland Clinic and Nebraska Medical Center. Detailed technical recommendations were found on manufacturers’ websites. We found several similarities across available guidelines for safely resuming pulmonary function services, as well as differences in criteria for selecting eligible patients for which spirometry is deemed essential and advice which was not homogenous on room ventilation precautions. This study shows a synthesis of national/international guidelines allowing practicing physicians to adapt and shape the way to organize their outpatient services locally. There is generally good agreement on the importance of limiting pulmonary function testing to selected cases only. However, significant differences concerning the subsets of candidate patients, as well as on the management of adequate room ventilation, were observed.

Data on mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (EA) and comorbidities are needed to assess whether randomized controlled trial results are applicable in the real world. To evaluate real-life effectiveness and the presence/absence of predictors of treatment response in patients with one or more comorbidities (nasal polyps, allergic rhinitis, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, nonallergic rhinitis with eosinophilia syndrome, obesity, bronchiectasis) who received mepolizumab (MEPO) for the treatment of severe EA. We performed a single-center retrospective study in patients with severe asthma and presence of comorbidities treated with mepolizumab at the respiratory outpatient clinic, Policlinico-Vittorio Emanuele, Catania, Italy. Health records of 31 severe asthmatic patients were retrieved and analyzed. Asthma control test (ACT) score, blood eosinophil count, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), FEV1% of predicted and FEV1/FVC (Forced Vital Capacity) ratio, oral corticosteroid (OCS) dosage, and exacerbations were recorded at baseline (T0), after 3 (T1), 6 (T3), 9 (T6), and 12 months (T12). Clinical response was defined when 3 of these 4 criteria were fulfilled: i) 30% exacerbation decrease; ii) 80% blood eosinophilia reduction; iii) 3 point ACT increase; iv) FEV1 increase ≥200 mL. 83.87% of patients were classified as responsive to MEPO treatment. Substantial depletion of the blood eosinophils (>80%) was found in 87.1% of patients, FEV1 > 200 mL was seen in 54.84% of patients, a 3-point ACT improvement from baseline was recorded in 80.65% 25 of patients and a 30% reduction of exacerbations rates was seen in 96.77% of patients. Moreover, the majority 38.71% of patients met 3/4 parameters after 12 months. Neither the comorbidities nor other characteristics (sex, BMI, age, smoking) influenced treatment response. MEPO in patients with severe EA is effective regardless of the presence of comorbidities.