Limitations of the ARDS criteria during high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation : evidence from critically ill COVID-19 patients

Background: The ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to inspired oxygen fraction (PaO2/FIO2) during invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) is used as criteria to grade the severity of respiratory failure in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). During the SARS-CoV2 pandemic, the use of PaO2/FIO2 ratio has been increasingly used in non-invasive respiratory support such as high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV). The grading of hypoxemia in non-invasively ventilated patients is uncertain. The main hypothesis, investigated in this study, was that the PaO2/FIO2 ratio does not change when switching between MV, NIV and HFNC. Methods: We investigated respiratory function in critically ill patients with COVID-19 included in a single-center prospective observational study of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at Uppsala University Hospital in Sweden. In a steady state condition, the PaO2/FIO2 ratio was recorded before and after any change between two of the studied respiratory support techniques (i.e., HFNC, NIV and MV). Results: A total of 148 patients were included in the present analysis. We find that any change in respiratory support from or to HFNC caused a significant change in PaO2/FIO2 ratio. Changes in respiratory support between NIV and MV did not show consistent change in PaO2/FIO2 ratio. In patients classified as mild to moderate ARDS during MV, the change from HFNC to MV showed a variable increase in PaO2/FIO2 ratio ranging between 52 and 140 mmHg (median of 127 mmHg). This made prediction of ARDS severity during MV from the apparent ARDS grade during HFNC impossible. Conclusions: HFNC is associated with lower PaO2/FIO2 ratio than either NIV or MV in the same patient, while NIV and MV provided similar PaO2/FIO2 and thus ARDS grade by Berlin definition. The large variation of PaO2/FIO2 ratio indicates that great caution should be used when estimating ARDS grade as a measure of pulmonary damage during HFNC

High dose pollen intralymphatic immunotherapy : Two RDBPC trials question the benefit of dose increase

Background: The same dosing schedule, 1000 SQ-U times three, with one-month intervals, have been evaluated in most trials of intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). The present studies evaluated if a dose escalation in ILIT can enhance the clinical and immunological effects, without compromising safety. Methods: Two randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials of ILIT for grass pollen-induced AR were performed. The first included 29 patients that had recently ended 3 years of SCIT and the second contained 39 not previously vaccinated patients. An up-dosage of 1000–3000–10,000 (5000 + 5000 with 30 minutes apart) SQ-U with 1 month in between was evaluated. Results: Doses up to 10,000 SQ-U were safe after recent SCIT. The combined symptom-medication scores (CSMS) were reduced by 31% and the grass-specific IgG4 levels in blood were doubled. In ILIT de novo, the two first patients that received active treatment developed serious adverse reactions at 5000 SQ-U. A modified up-dosing schedule; 1000–3000–3000 SQ-U appeared to be safe but failed to improve the CSMS. Flow cytometry analyses showed increased activation of lymph node-derived dendritic but not T cells. Quality of life and nasal provocation response did not improve in any study. Conclusion: Intralymphatic immunotherapy in high doses after SCIT appears to further reduce grass pollen-induced seasonal symptoms and may be considered as an add-on treatment for patients that do not reach full symptom control after SCIT. Up-dosing schedules de novo with three monthly injections that exceeds 3000 SQ-U should be avoided