The Portuguese Severe Asthma Registry: Development, Features, and Data Sharing Policies

The Portuguese Severe Asthma Registry (Registo de Asma Grave Portugal, RAG) was developed by an open collaborative network of asthma specialists. RAG collects data from adults and pediatric severe asthma patients that despite treatment optimization and adequate management of comorbidities require step 4/5 treatment according to GINA recommendations. In this paper, we describe the development and implementation of RAG, its features, and data sharing policies. The contents and structure of RAG were defined in a multistep consensus process. A pilot version was pretested and iteratively improved. The selection of data elements for RAG considered other severe asthma registries, aiming at characterizing the patient's clinical status whilst avoiding overloading the standard workflow of the clinical appointment. Features of RAG include automatic assessment of eligibility, easy data input, and exportable data in natural language that can be pasted directly in patients' electronic health record and security features to enable data sharing (among researchers and with other international databases) without compromising patients' confidentiality. RAG is a national web-based disease registry of severe asthma patients, available at asmagrave.pt. It allows prospective clinical data collection, promotes standardized care and collaborative clinical research, and may contribute to inform evidence-based healthcare policies for severe asthma.The authors thank all members of the REAG (Rede de Especialistas em Asma Grave), namely, Ana Morete, Ana Sofia Barroso, António Reis, Aurora Carvalho, Carmen Botelho, Catarina Ferreira, Cláudia Pinto, Dolores Moniz, Elza Tomás, Emília Alvares, Eugénia Almeida, Filipe Inácio, Isabel Car-rapatoso, Isabel Pereira, Jorge Romariz, José Pedro Moreira da Silva, Leonor Cunha, Luísa Barata, Luísa Geraldes, Luísa Semedo, Madalena Emiliano, Manuel Barbosa, Margarida Raposo, Maria José Silvestre, Mariana Mendes, Marta Dias Sousa, Nuno Sousa, Orlando Santos, Paula Duarte, Rosário Ferreira, Sofia Furtado, and Vítor Teixeira. RAG was financed by an unrestricted grant from Novartis Farma-Produtos Farmacêuticos, S.A., which had no participation in any part of the development and implementation of the registry and has no access to the stored data for any purpose. The first author is financed by a PhD Grant (PD/BD/113665/2015) and financed by the European Social Fund and national funds of MCTES (Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior)through FCT (Funda¸cão para a Ciência e Tecnologia, I.P) PhD Programme Ref. PD/0003/2013-Doctoral Programme in Clinical and Health Services Research (PDICSS). The publication of this article was supported by ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) through the operation POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007746 funded by the Programa Operacional Com-petitividade e Internacionalizac¸ão – COMPETE2020 and by National Funds through FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia within CINTESIS, R&D Unit (reference UID/IC/4255/2013)

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable