Daily Ards Research Analysis
A double-blind randomized pilot trial found that inhaled solnatide did not improve ventilator-free days or survival in COVID-19-related ARDS, though it appeared safe. A registered exploratory RCT protocol will test video-based CBT plus respiratory biofeedback for post COVID-19 bodily distress. A case-based review underscores the diagnostic complexity of infective vs non-infective endocarditis in an ICU patient with influenza-related ARDS.
Summary
A double-blind randomized pilot trial found that inhaled solnatide did not improve ventilator-free days or survival in COVID-19-related ARDS, though it appeared safe. A registered exploratory RCT protocol will test video-based CBT plus respiratory biofeedback for post COVID-19 bodily distress. A case-based review underscores the diagnostic complexity of infective vs non-infective endocarditis in an ICU patient with influenza-related ARDS.
Research Themes
- ENaC-targeted therapy for pulmonary permeability edema in COVID-19 ARDS
- Psychological and respiratory biofeedback interventions for post COVID-19
- Diagnostic differentiation of infective vs non-infective endocarditis in critical care
Selected Articles
1. Efficacy of solnatide to treat pulmonary permeability edema in SARS-CoV-2 positive patients with moderate to severe ARDS: A randomized controlled pilot-trial.
In this double-blind RCT of 30 ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS, inhaled solnatide did not increase 28-day ventilator-free days or survival compared with placebo. Safety was acceptable with no treatment-related adverse events identified.
Impact: This is one of the few randomized, double-blind evaluations of an ENaC-targeted therapy for pulmonary permeability edema in ARDS, providing rigorous negative evidence and safety data.
Clinical Implications: Solnatide should not be expected to improve short-term liberation from ventilation or survival in COVID-19 ARDS, though its safety profile supports consideration for study in different phenotypes or earlier disease windows.
Key Findings
- No difference in 28-day ventilator-free days: median 0 in both solnatide and placebo groups (p=0.653).
- 28-day survival was 66.7% overall (73.3% solnatide vs 60% placebo); 60-day survival differences were minimal.
- No adverse events were deemed related to study drug; safety profile appeared acceptable.
Methodological Strengths
- Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design
- Prospective registration (EudraCT 2020-001244-26)
Limitations
- Early trial termination with small sample size (n=30 of planned 40)
- COVID-19-specific ARDS may limit generalizability to non-COVID ARDS phenotypes
Future Directions: Larger, adequately powered trials should test ENaC-targeted strategies in carefully phenotyped ARDS, including non-COVID cohorts and timing earlier in disease.
BACKGROUND: Because of the initially urgent need for treatments for COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the efficacy and tolerability of inhaled solnatide, a direct activator of the epithelial sodium channel (ENaC) under clinical investigation for the treatment of ARDS, were assessed in a pilot trial. METHODS: This randomized controlled double-blind clinical trial was performed at two study centers in Vienna, Austria. Adult mechanically ventilated patients with moderate to severe ARDS (Berlin Definition) caused by COVID-19 were randomized 1:1 to inhalation of solnatide (100 mg) or placebo twice daily for seven days. The primary outcome parameter was ventilator-free days (VFDs) within 28 days; survival was assessed at 28 and 60 days as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: A total of 30 out of the 40 planned patients were included, 15 randomized to solnatide and 15 to placebo. Then the trial was stopped early due to slow recruitment. The median VFDs were 0 in both groups (p = 0.653). Twenty out of 30 patients (66.7%) survived until day 28 [solnatide group: n = 11 (73.3%), placebo group: n = 9 (60%)]. One additional patient per group died until day 60. In total, 41 adverse events (AEs) and 10 serious AEs occurred in the solnatide group, and 26 AEs and 14 serious AEs in the placebo group. No AE was considered to be related to the study treatment. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in VFDs or survival between the solnatide and the placebo group. Solnatide appeared safe in this limited cohort of critically ill patients with COVID-19. REGISTRATION: EU clinical trials register, EudraCT number 2020-001244-26.
2. Respiratory biofeedback and psycho-education for patients with post COVID- 19 symptoms and bodily distress: study protocol of the randomized, controlled explorative intervention trial POSITIV.
This protocol describes a randomized, controlled exploratory trial testing video-based group CBT plus mobile respiratory biofeedback versus treatment as usual for post COVID-19 condition with bodily distress disorder. The primary endpoint is change in self-efficacy; 60 participants will be enrolled and outcomes span psychological and somatic domains.
Impact: Addresses a major unmet need by rigorously testing a scalable, blended mind–body intervention for post COVID-19, with clear primary and secondary outcomes and trial registration.
Clinical Implications: If effective, video-based CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) and respiratory biofeedback could offer accessible, non-pharmacologic management to improve self-efficacy and reduce symptom burden in post COVID-19.
Key Findings
- Randomized, controlled exploratory design with 60 participants (30 per arm).
- Intervention integrates 6-week video group CBT and 4-week mobile respiratory biofeedback.
- Primary outcome is change in self-efficacy; registered in DRKS (DRKS00030565).
Methodological Strengths
- Prospective trial registration and predefined outcomes
- Randomized controlled design with blended digital and physiologic intervention
Limitations
- Exploratory pilot scale may limit statistical power and generalizability
- Protocol paper; no clinical outcomes reported yet
Future Directions: If signals of efficacy emerge, scale to multicenter, adequately powered RCTs and explore mechanistic mediators (e.g., autonomic regulation, dyspnea perception).
BACKGROUND: A high number of individuals report suffering from physical and psychological sequelae symptoms after COVID-19-the so-called post COVID-19 condition. Commonly reported complaints include physical symptoms such as fatigue, headache, attention and concentration deficits or dyspnea and anxiety, symptoms of post-traumatic stress, or depression. Evidence-based treatment recommendations are still lacking up to this point. Associations between physical and psychological symptoms in chronic diseases are known for a long time. Support in coping with the disease and improvement of self-efficacy can have a positive effect on the course of diseases. For this reason, we designed a randomized, controlled explorative intervention trial as a treatment of bodily distress disorder in COVID-19 recovered persons. METHODS: Patients with a post COVID-19 condition meeting to the criteria of the WHO, along with a bodily distress disorder, are randomized in an intervention and control arm (TAU). Randomization takes place after a diagnostic interview, screening, and informed consent. In total, 60 patients will be included in the trial (30 per group). The intervention group receives a cognitive behavioral therapy as a video-conference-based group therapy (6 weeks) and mobile, respiratory biofeedback treatment (for 4 weeks). At several time points, both groups are assessed in terms of psychological and physical health status, treatment expectation, and satisfaction with the intervention. Furthermore, they will get biofeedback examination appointments. The primary outcome is the change in self-efficacy; secondary outcomes include assessed parameters of mental health, somatic symptoms, and satisfaction with the intervention. Data will be analyzed primarily using R and SPSS. DISCUSSION: The randomized, controlled, explorative intervention trial POSITIV is one of the very first interventions for patients with post COVID-19 condition and psychological burden due to their different symptoms. The aim of the study is to generate new evidence and help patients to cope with the disease and thus, increase their quality of life and reduce symptomatology. We expect with a high probability that the patients' self-efficacy and health status will improve as a result of the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS); DRKS-ID: DRKS00030565. Registered on December 22, 2022.
3. Infective or Non-Infective Endocarditis: A Brief Literature Review Based on a Case Report.
This case report outlines a stepwise diagnostic evaluation of multi-valvular lesions in an ICU patient with influenza-related ARDS, addressing the differential between infective and non-infective endocarditis. It synthesizes key literature to guide clinical reasoning in complex critical care presentations.
Impact: Highlights a diagnostically challenging overlap of critical illness (influenza-related ARDS) and multi-valvular pathology, providing a structured framework informed by literature.
Clinical Implications: Encourages systematic echocardiographic assessment and careful differentiation of infective vs non-infective etiologies in ICU patients with valvular lesions and respiratory failure.
Key Findings
- ICU patient with influenza-related ARDS had multi-valvular lesions (aortic, mitral, tricuspid) on echocardiography.
- Case presentation follows a step-by-step diagnostic approach anchored to clinical questions.
- Narrative review summarizes literature on differentiating infective vs non-infective endocarditis in complex ICU contexts.
Methodological Strengths
- Structured, question-driven diagnostic framework
- Integration of case data with targeted literature review
Limitations
- Single-case report limits generalizability
- No comparative or outcome data to quantify diagnostic strategies
Future Directions: Prospective cohorts integrating echocardiography, microbiology, and inflammatory biomarkers could refine diagnostic algorithms for endocarditis in critically ill patients with respiratory failure.
In the present report, we describe a patient presenting in the intensive care unit with fever, respiratory failure, and multiple lesions on cardiac valves. The patient, with a history of multiple myeloma under treatment, was intubated due to ARDS from influenza, and cardiac ultrasonography revealed lesions in the aortic, mitral, and tricuspid valves. There is a step-by-step approach in the case presentation, with clinical questions, while there is a review of the current literature concerning the issue.