The impact of SARS-COV2 pandemic on the management oF IPF patients: Our narrative experience.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has changed the health-care systems around the world in a remarkable way. We describe the strategies adopted to cope with the limitations imposed by the pandemic to the access to health care by patients diagnosed with idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational analysis including IPF patients under antifibrotic drugs (nintedanib and pirfenidone) that accessed to the Outpatient clinic of the University of Palermo, Italy. Patients received a phone number and an email address in case of any urgency and a virtual meeting was settled up monthly. RESULTS: 40 patients (M/F: 30/10) were followed up, 33 under nintedanib treatment, 7 under pirfenidone. Among patients under nintedanib, 1 patient reported high fever (T max 39 °C) and purulent sputum with no sign of infections, 1 had hemoptysis that was spontaneously resolved. 2 patients accessed to the emergency department for the worsening of dyspnea; 5 patients had diarrhea that resolved with symptomatic drugs in few days. 3 patients had an increase of alkaline phosphatase levels, leading to the withdrawal of the antifibrotic drug for 15 days, and subsequent normalization of the plasmatic levels. Among patients under pirfenidone, one subject had an increase of ferritin serum levels with no symptoms. The remaining subjects were in stable clinical conditions. None of the patients reported hospitalization or exacerbations, and did not experience antifibrotic withdrawal. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to demonstrate that by implementing alternative ways to monitor the disease, patients did not incur in increased rates of acute exacerbations or higher frequency of side effects and antifibrotic treatment withdrawal.

Comparison between Suspected and Confirmed COVID-19 Respiratory Patients: What Is beyond the PCR Test.

COVID-19 modified the healthcare system. Nasal-pharyngeal swab (NPS), with real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase (PCR), is the gold standard for the diagnosis; however, there are difficulties related to the procedure that may postpone it. The study aims to evaluate whether other elements than the PCR-NPS are reliable and confirm the diagnosis of COVID-19. This is a cross-sectional study on data from the Lung Unit of Pavia (confirmed) and at the Emergency Unit of Palermo (suspected). COVID-19 was confirmed by positive NPS, suspected tested negative. We compared clinical, laboratory and radiological variables and performed Logistic regression to estimate which variables increased the risk of COVID-19. The derived ROC-AUCcurve, assessed the accuracy of the model to distinguish between COVID-19 suspected and confirmed. We selected 50 confirmed and 103 suspected cases. High Reactive C-Protein (OR: 1.02; CI95%: 0.11-1.02), suggestive CT-images (OR: 11.43; CI95%: 3.01-43.3), dyspnea (OR: 10.48; CI95%: 2.08-52.7) and respiratory failure (OR: 5.84; CI95%: 1.73-19.75) increased the risk of COVID-19, whereas pleural effusion decreased the risk (OR: 0.15; CI95%: 0.04-0.63). ROC confirmed the discriminative role of these variables between suspected and confirmed COVID-19 (AUC 0.91). Clinical, laboratory and imaging features predict the diagnosis of COVID-19, independently from the NPS result.