Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

COVID-19 phenotypes: leading or misleading?

Luciano Gattinoni, Luigi Camporota, John J. Marini
European Respiratory Journal 2020 56: 2002195; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02195-2020
Luciano Gattinoni
1Dept of Anesthesiology, Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Luciano Gattinoni
  • For correspondence: gattinoniluciano@gmail.com
Luigi Camporota
2Dept of Adult Critical Care, Guy's and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, King's Health Partners, and Division of Asthma, Allergy and Lung Biology, King's College London, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John J. Marini
3Regions Hospital and University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Comment on the editorial by Bos et al. about “perils of premature phenotyping in COVID-19”, querying the risks of COVID-19 phenotypes and how the arguments put forward can further the cause of patients and clinicians https://bit.ly/2Y6VZz9

To the Editor:

We read the editorial by Bos et al. [1] with a mixture of interest, irritation and serious concern.

Our interest derives from a simple fact: the debate on terms like “typical acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)” or “atypical ARDS” is not just a question of semantics; these terms represent concepts linked to specific clinical, mechanical and radiological criteria, and are not merely based on the severity of gas exchange. It should not be a surprise to the authors that different radiological patterns and mechanical characteristics should suggest different ventilatory strategies, each with possible benefits and harm. The management of individual patients needs to take into consideration various factors, and not just the gas exchange that currently defines ARDS. This is precisely the point of bringing attention to the novel “L” and “H” phenotypes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that bracket the extremes of the clinical encounter [2]. Usually, there is overlap, depending in large part on disease duration. The “L” and “H” were not intended to be tightly prescriptive nor mutually exclusive “bins” into which each patient falls, as we clearly stated previously [3]. Rather, the object was to alert clinicians, in order to avert potential harm from assuming usual ARDS associations between hypoxaemia and mechanics at all stages. In so doing, we hoped to help prevent use of high positive end-expiratory pressure when there is no benefit and, equally important, to avoid maintaining low pressures when higher pressures can be beneficial.

The irritation derives from the fact that Bos et al. [1] seem to have deliberately decided to ignore the pathophysiological “evidence” readily available and ventured into a philosophical and semantic discourse against “premature phenotyping”, and in so doing committing the greater sin of “premature adjudication”. After reading sentences such as “By needlessly clouding the clinical picture, false phenotypes […] upon inspection of patient data, simply do not exist”, it is not clear to us (and without a doubt to most readers) what sort of clear and self-evident truth we (and other authors) have been trying to cloud. The fact that COVID-19 patients with similar oxygenation efficiency may have markedly different compliance (and risk of ventilator-induced lung injury) is apparent to any clinician who has ever looked after a number of these patients. The reasoning put forward by the editorialists seems purely argumentative and inflammatory, as it seems to imply that what we propose is based on non-existent data, i.e. a perception that we invented.

Our concern derives from noting that the observations of Bos et al. [1] are expressed with a tone that goes beyond healthy and reasonable scientific debate. We note also with concern the conclusions of the editorial: “By prematurely phenotyping patients with COVID-19, we expose ourselves and our patients to considerable and preventable risk” and we invite the authors to express with clarity the risks they are referring to and how their argument is furthering the cause of patients and clinicians. Time and emerging literature will undoubtedly demonstrate where “truth” lies.

Shareable PDF

Supplementary Material

This one-page PDF can be shared freely online.

Shareable PDF ERJ-02195-2020.Shareable

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: L. Gattinoni has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: L. Camporota has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: J.J. Marini has nothing to disclose.

  • Received June 6, 2020.
  • Accepted June 11, 2020.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2020
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Bos LDJ,
    2. Sinha P,
    3. Dickson RP
    . The perils of premature phenotyping in COVID-19: a call for caution. Eur Respir J 2020; 56: 2001768. doi:10.1183/13993003.01768-2020
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Gattinoni L,
    2. Chiumello D,
    3. Caironi P, et al.
    COVID-19 pneumonia: different respiratory treatments for different phenotypes? Intensive Care Med 2020; 46: 1099–1102. doi:10.1007/s00134-020-06033-2
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Marini JJ,
    2. Gattinoni L
    . Management of COVID-19 respiratory distress. JAMA 2020; 323: 2329–2330.doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.6825
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 56 Issue 2 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 56 (2)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
COVID-19 phenotypes: leading or misleading?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
COVID-19 phenotypes: leading or misleading?
Luciano Gattinoni, Luigi Camporota, John J. Marini
European Respiratory Journal Aug 2020, 56 (2) 2002195; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02195-2020

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
COVID-19 phenotypes: leading or misleading?
Luciano Gattinoni, Luigi Camporota, John J. Marini
European Respiratory Journal Aug 2020, 56 (2) 2002195; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02195-2020
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Shareable PDF
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

Agora

  • Airway immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination in COPD patients
  • Wider access to rifapentine-based regimens is needed for TB care globally
  • Screening for PVOD in heterozygous EIF2AK4 variant carriers
Show more Agora

Correspondence

  • Treatable traits in ILD: why not consider acute exacerbations?
  • Inclusion of lung health outcomes in TB treatment trials
  • Understanding confounding in Mendelian randomisation studies
Show more Correspondence

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society