Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19

Implication of Admission Eosinophil Count and Prognosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Elderly Patients With COPD: A Territory-Wide Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to investigate the association between elderly patients with COPD with different blood eosinophil on admission and those without COPD and the prognosis of COVID-19.

METHOD

A territory-wide retrospective study was conducted to investigate the association between elderly COPD patients with different blood eosinophil on admission and the prognosis of COVID-19. Elderly patients admitted to public hospitals and community treatment facility in Hong Kong for COVID-19 from January 23, 2020, to September 31, 2021, were included in the study. Severe diseases were defined as those who develop respiratory complications, systemic complications and death.

RESULTS

Among the 1925 patients included, 133 had COPD. Forty had admission blood eosinophil count ≥ 150 cells/μL, and 93 had blood eosinophil count < 150 cells/μL. Patients with COPD and admission blood eosinophil count ≥ 150 cells/μL, but not those with admission blood eosinophil count < 150 cells/μL, had severe COVID-19 with the development of respiratory and systemic complications. They were more likely to develop respiratory failure (OR = 5.235, 95% CI = 2.088-13.122, p < 0.001) and require invasive mechanical ventilation (OR = 2.433, 95% CI = 1.022-5.791, p = 0.045) and intensive care unit admission (OR = 2.214, 95% CI = 1.004-4.881, p = 0.049).

DISCUSSION

Our study suggested that the blood eosinophil count on admission could have significant prognostic implications among elderly patients with COPD. Patients with COPD and admission blood eosinophil count ≥ 150 cells/μL, but not those with admission blood eosinophil count < 150 cells/μL, have significantly increased risks of developing respiratory and systemic complications from COVID-19, when compared with non-COPD patients.

A Retrospective Data Audit of Outcome of Moderate and Severe Covid-19 Patients Who Had Received MP and Dex: A Single Center Study

Purpose

To evaluate the necessity of the application of glucocorticoid (GC) in moderate COVID-19 patients, and which is the optimal choice between methylprednisolone (MP) and dexamethasone (DEX) in the clinical use of GC in different types of COVID-19 patients.

Patients and Methods

The study included patients with COVID-19 in Shanxi, China, from December 18, 2022, to March 1, 2023. The main clinical outcomes were 30-day mortality, disease exacerbations, and hospitalization days. Secondary outcomes included the demand for non-invasive ventilator-assisted ventilation (NIPPV)/invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), the need for GC regimen escalation in follow-up treatment, duration of GC treatment, and complications including hyperglycemia and fungal infection.

Results

In moderate patients (N = 351), the rate of exacerbation and the need for GC regimen escalation in follow-up treatment was highest in the no-use GC group (P = 0.025, P = 0.01), the rate of fungal infections was highest in the DEX group (P = 0.038), and MP 40 mg/day or DEX 5 mg/day reduced exacerbations with consistent effects. In severe patients (N = 371), the two GC regimens do not affect their 30-day mortality and exacerbation rate, but the number of hospital days was significantly lower in the MP group compared with the DEX group (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

GC use is beneficial in mitigating exacerbations in moderate patients and in patients with moderate COVID-19. In severe patients, MP reduces the number of hospitalization days compared with DEX and may be a superior choice.

The Role of Inflammation in the Pathogenesis of Viral Respiratory Infections

Viral respiratory infections (VRIs) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, making them a significant public health concern. During infection, respiratory viruses, including Influenza virus, SARS-CoV-2, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), trigger an antiviral immune response, specifically boosting the inflammatory response that plays a critical role in their pathogenesis. The inflammatory response induced by respiratory viruses can be a double-edged sword since it can be initially induced to be antiviral and protective/reparative from virus-induced injuries. Still, it can also be detrimental to host cells and tissues. However, the mechanisms that differentiate the complex crosstalk between favorable host inflammatory responses and harmful inflammatory responses are poorly understood. This review explores the complex interplay between viral pathogens and the host immune response, mainly focusing on the role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of VRIs. We discuss how inflammation can both contain and exacerbate the progression of viral infections, highlighting potential therapeutic targets and emerging drugs for modulating the aberrant inflammatory responses during VRIs.

Risk factors for invasive mold infection after COVID-19: case-control study

Background

Invasive mold infections (IMI) have become common in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, which are difficult to diagnose and treat, with a high mortality rate.

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine risk factors for invasive mold infections associated with COVID-19.

Methods

In this prospective, case-control study, patients treated for severe COVID-19 pneumonia in intensive care units with invasive mold infection were compared with severe COVID-19 pneumonia patients with no secondary infection (bacterial or fungal). Demographics, treatments received and outcomes were compared.

Results

Twenty patients were included in the IMI group and 19 patients in the control group. Invasive aspergillosis was observed in 13 patients (65.0%) while mucormycosis was observed in seven patients (35.0%). Demographics and clinical characteristics were similar between IMI and control group (p>0.005). The 28-day mortality was 60.0% in the IMI group and 15.8% in the control group (p=0.005). The use of steroids has been identified as the most important risk factor for developing IMI (90.0% vs. 15.8%, OR: 25.712, p=0.009).

Conclusion

Rationale use of steroids, with appropriate indication, dose and duration is important in the treatment of severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Timing of Dexamethasone Initiation and Its Impact on the Outcome of COVID-19 Patients

Introduction COVID-19 emerged in Wuhan in December 2019 and was declared a pandemic in March 2020. Severe cases manifest with respiratory distress. Corticosteroids, initially debated, are now recommended for severe cases following the RECOVERY (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy) trial findings. The timing of administration impacts outcomes, with earlier use potentially improving mortality and ICU stays. Regional studies on timing in severe cases are lacking, warranting further investigation. Methodology This retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Medical Department of King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Data were extracted from the BestCare database using a customized data collection sheet. Data were cleaned in Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA) and analyzed in IBM SPSS (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Results Our study included 791 COVID-19 patients with 43.1% being female (n = 341) and 56.9% being male (n = 450). The mean age was 69.5 years (SD = 16.1). Regarding BMI, 52.4% (n = 414) were obese. Most admissions were from the emergency department (90.6%, n = 717). Dexamethasone was administered to 80.3% (n = 635) of patients, with 53.0% (n = 419) receiving it early. Patients receiving early dexamethasone had significantly higher discharge rates (p < 0.001). Mortality was higher among those receiving late dexamethasone initiation (52.6%, p = 0.256). Moreover, there was an 87.5% death rate for doses >6 mg (p < 0.001). Intravenous administration was associated with higher mortality (62.3%, p < 0.001). Males had a higher likelihood of discharge (OR = 1.426, p = 0.043). Age and ventilation needs were strong mortality predictors (OR = 1.040, p < 0.001 and OR = 17.620, p < 0.001, respectively). Higher BMI slightly reduced mortality risk (OR = 0.978, p = 0.049). Conclusion Our study highlights significant associations between dexamethasone timing, dosage, and route of administration with COVID-19 outcomes. Early dexamethasone use correlated with higher discharge rates, while late initiation and higher doses were linked to increased mortality. Age and ventilation needs were critical predictors, with BMI showing a nuanced effect on mortality risk.

Glucocorticoid therapy for acute respiratory distress syndrome: Current concepts

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a fatal critical disease, is induced by various insults. ARDS represents a major global public health burden, and the management of ARDS continues to challenge healthcare systems globally, especially during the pandemic of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). There remains no confirmed specific pharmacotherapy for ARDS, despite advances in understanding its pathophysiology. Debate continues about the potential role of glucocorticoids (GCs) as a promising ARDS clinical therapy. Questions regarding GC agent, dose, and duration in patients with ARDS need to be answered, because of substantial variations in GC administration regimens across studies. ARDS heterogeneity likely affects the therapeutic actions of exogenous GCs. This review includes progress in determining the GC mechanisms of action and clinical applications in ARDS, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Glucocorticoids desensitize hypothalamic CRH neurons to norepinephrine and somatic stress activation via rapid nitrosylation-dependent regulation of α1 adrenoreceptor trafficking

Noradrenergic afferents to hypothalamic corticotropin releasing hormone (CRH) neurons provide a major excitatory drive for somatic stress activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. We showed that glucocorticoids rapidly desensitize CRH neurons to norepinephrine and suppress inflammation-induced HPA activation via a glucocorticoid receptor- and endocytosis-dependent mechanism. Here, we show that α1 adrenoreceptor (ARα1) trafficking is regulated by convergent glucocorticoid and nitric oxide synthase signaling mechanisms. Live-cell imaging of ARα1b-eGFP-expressing hypothalamic cells revealed rapid corticosterone-stimulated redistribution of internalized ARα1 from rapid recycling endosomes to late endosomes and lysosomes via a nitrosylation-regulated mechanism. Proximity assay demonstrated interaction of glucocorticoid receptors with ARα1b and β-arrestin, and showed corticosterone blockade of norepinephrine-stimulated ARα1b/β-arrestin interaction, which may prevent ARα1b from entering the rapid recycling endosomal pathway. These findings demonstrate a rapid glucocorticoid regulation of G protein-coupled receptor trafficking and provide a molecular mechanism for rapid glucocorticoid desensitization of noradrenergic signaling in CRH neurons.

Kinetics of pro- and anti-inflammatory spike-specific cellular immune responses in long-term care facility residents after COVID-19 mRNA primary and booster vaccination: a prospective longitudinal study in Japan

BACKGROUND

The magnitude and durability of cell-mediated immunity in older and severely frail individuals following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination remain unclear. A controlled immune response could be the key to preventing severe COVID-19; however, it is uncertain whether vaccination induces an anti-inflammatory cellular immune response. To address these issues, a 48-week-long prospective longitudinal study was conducted. A total of 106 infection-naive participants (57 long-term care facility [LTCF] residents [median age; 89.0 years], 28 outpatients [median age; 72.0 years], and 21 healthcare workers [median age; 51.0 years]) provided peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples for the assessment of spike-specific PBMC responses before primary vaccination, 24 weeks after primary vaccination, and three months after booster vaccination. Cellular immune responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 spike protein were examined by measuring interferon (IFN)-γ, tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin (IL)-2, IL-4, IL-6, and IL-10 levels secreted from the spike protein peptide-stimulated PBMCs of participants.

RESULTS

LTCF residents exhibited significantly lower IFN-γ, TNF, IL-2, and IL-6 levels than healthcare workers after the primary vaccination. Booster vaccination increased IL-2 and IL-6 levels in LTCF residents comparable to those in healthcare workers, whereas IFN-γ and TNF levels in LTCF residents remained significantly lower than those in healthcare workers. IL-10 levels were not significantly different from the initial values after primary vaccination but increased significantly after booster vaccination in all subgroups. Multivariate analysis showed that age was negatively associated with IFN-γ, TNF, IL-2, and IL-6 levels but not with IL-10 levels. The levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, including IFN-γ, TNF, IL-2, and IL-6, were positively correlated with humoral immune responses, whereas IL-10 levels were not.

CONCLUSIONS

Older and severely frail individuals may exhibit diminished spike-specific PBMC responses following COVID-19 vaccination compared to the general population. A single booster vaccination may not adequately enhance cell-mediated immunity in older and severely frail individuals to a level comparable to that in the general population. Furthermore, booster vaccination may induce not only a pro-inflammatory cellular immune response but also an anti-inflammatory cellular immune response, potentially mitigating detrimental hyperinflammation.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of hospitalized kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 infection in China during the Omicron wave: a single-center cohort study

BACKGROUND: Following the short-term outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in December 2022 in China, clinical data on kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) with COVID-19 are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective study to describe the clinical features, complications, and mortality rates of hospitalized KTRs infected with COVID-19 between Dec. 16, 2022 and Jan. 31, 2023. The patients were followed up until Mar. 31, 2023. RESULTS: A total of 324 KTRs with COVID-19 were included. The median age was 49 years. The median time between the onset of symptoms and admission was 13 d. Molnupiravir, azvudine, and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were administered to 67 (20.7%), 11 (3.4%), and 148 (45.7%) patients, respectively. Twenty-nine (9.0%) patients were treated with more than one antiviral agent. Forty-eight (14.8%) patients were treated with tocilizumab and 53 (16.4%) patients received baricitinib therapy. The acute kidney injury (AKI) occurred in 81 (25.0%) patients and 39 (12.0%) patients were admitted to intensive care units. Fungal infections were observed in 55 (17.0%) patients. Fifty (15.4%) patients lost their graft. The 28-d mortality rate of patients was 9.0% and 42 (13.0%) patients died by the end of follow-up. Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified that cerebrovascular disease, AKI incidence, interleukin (IL)‍-6 level of >6.8 pg/mL, daily dose of corticosteroids of >50 mg, and fungal infection were all associated with an increased risk of death for hospitalized patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that hospitalized KTRs with COVID-19 are at high risk of mortality. The administration of immunomodulators or the late application of antiviral drugs does not improve patient survival, while higher doses of corticosteroids may increase the death risk.

High-Dose or Low-Dose Corticosteroids - Which Regimen is More Effective in Patients with Moderate to Severe COVID-19? A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Although several studies have assessed corticosteroid therapy as a pivotal treatment for SARS-CoV-2, the net effectiveness of corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19 remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the conventional use of methylprednisolone and pulse therapy to determine the best method of administration of corticosteroids in patients with SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

A total of 52 patients with a diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19 with the same conditions were retrospectively enrolled in the present study. Participants were divided into two groups based on the corticosteroid therapy regimen received during hospitalization: low-dose and high-dose methylprednisolone. Clinical outcomes, including laboratory tests, improvement of oxygen saturation, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay (LOHS) and mortality, were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The distribution of sex, age, oxygen saturation on admission, pattern and location of lung involvement, and other medical conditions were similar between the two groups to avoid the effect of any possible confounding factor. There were no differences in laboratory tests (P=0.389), LOHS (P=0.107), improvement of oxygen saturation (P=0.721), the need for invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality (P=0.695) between groups.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of this study, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19 between low- and high-dose corticosteroid regimens. Further research is warranted to determine the best method of administration of corticosteroids in these patients.

Safety and efficacy of Paxlovid in the treatment of adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 during the omicron epidemic: a multicentre study from China

BACKGROUND

Since December 2022, the Omicron variant has led to a widespread pandemic in China. The study was to explore the safety and effectiveness of Paxlovid for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We included patients at risk of developing severe COVID-19, all of whom exhibited mild to moderate symptoms and were admitted to three hospital centers. Patients were divided into two groups: one received Paxlovid alongside standard care, while the other was given only standard care. We compared clinical characteristics, hospital stay duration, and clinical outcomes between two groups. Multi-factor analysis determined the independent risk factors influencing the duration of hospitalization and disease progression.

RESULTS

In the study, those treated with Paxlovid shorter hospital stays than those in the control group (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated that the absence of Paxlovid treatment was a distinct risk factor for hospitalizations lasting over 7 days (OR: 4.983, 95% CI: 3.828-6.486, p < 0.001) and 14 days (OR: 2.940, 95% CI: 2.402-3.597, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Amid the Omicron outbreak, Paxlovid has proven to be a safe and effective treatment for reducing hospitalization durations for patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

[COVID-19 in the intensive care unit]

The acute respiratory failure as well as ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome) have challenged clinicians since the initial description over 50 years ago. Various causes can lead to ARDS and therapeutic approaches for ARDS/ARF are limited to the support or replacement of organ functions and the prevention of therapy-induced consequences. In recent years, triggered by the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen, numerous cases of acute lung failure (C-ARDS) have emerged. The pathophysiological processes of classical ARDS and C-ARDS are essentially similar. In their final stages of inflammation, both lead to a disruption of the blood-air barrier. Treatment strategies for C-ARDS, like classical ARDS, focus on supporting or replacing organ functions and preventing consequential damage. This article summarizes the treatment strategies in the intensive care unit.

What the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic Has Taught Us About Immunosuppression, Vaccinations, and Immune Dysregulation: The Rheumatology Experience

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review reflects on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the field of rheumatology, emphasizing resulting insights related to the risks of viral infections in immunosuppressed patients, vaccine immunogenicity in immunocompromised patients, and immune dysregulation in the setting of viral infection.

RECENT FINDINGS

During the pandemic, global patient registries provided real-time insights into the risk factors associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatology patients. Updated evidence-based recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guided rheumatology practice during a time of considerable uncertainty. Studies on COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations enhanced our understanding of specific immunosuppressive therapies on vaccine efficacy. The immune dysregulation seen in severe COVID-19 underscored a role for immunomodulation in this and other severe infections. Furthermore, novel post-infectious conditions, namely multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) and Long COVID, reshaped our understanding of post-viral syndromes and revealed novel pathological mechanisms. Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate the power of collaborative research. The scientific revelations from this dreadful time will, nonetheless, benefit the practice of rheumatology for years to come.

Efficacy of different doses of corticosteroids in treating severe COVID-19 pneumonia

BACKGROUND

To investigate the efficacy of different doses of corticosteroids in treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia.

METHODS

Between May 01, 2023, and June 20, 2023, 48 patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia were treated at the Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine of Jinan Fourth People's Hospital. The observation group (21 patients) received standard care and high-dose corticosteroids, (high-dose group). The control group (27 patients) received standard care and low-dose corticosteroids (low-dose group). We collected baseline data and recorded inflammatory marker levels after 3 days of treatment, body temperature recovery time, length of stay, and 28-day all-cause mortality. The results of outpatient follow-up were recorded after 1 month.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in 28-day mortality and length of stay. The number of days it took for body temperature to return to normal in the high-dose group was less than in the low-dose group. The high-dose group had significantly more reduced inflammatory factors (C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6). A total of 20 discharged patients were given 8-16 mg of methylprednisolone, depending on chest computed tomography (CT) and clinical symptoms after 1 month; in all discharged patients using oral corticosteroids, CT features improved.

CONCLUSION

High-dose corticosteroids had a significantly positive effect on the reduction of inflammatory factors and shortening body temperature recovery time. In the treatment of severe COVID-19 pneumonia, early administration of high-dose, short-course corticosteroids should be implemented.

[Influence of underlying disease and immunosuppression on the immunocompetence in inflammatory rheumatic diseases]

Patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases have a higher risk of infections in comparison to the general population. For this patient group, in addition to cardiovascular diseases, infections play an important role with respect to morbidity and mortality. Even if it is difficult to make concrete statements with respect to individual diseases, it can be assumed that there is a lower risk of infections in inflammatory joint diseases in comparison to connective tissue diseases and vasculitides. The increased risk of infections is determined by multiple factors, whereby the underlying factors are classified into three main categories: patient-related factors (age, comorbidities, lifestyle), disease-related factors (immunological dysfunction as part of the disease pathophysiology) and drug-related factors (type and dosage of the immunosuppression and/or immunomodulation). An improved understanding of the complexity of these associations enables the optimization of treatment and disease control taking the individual risk factors into account, with the aim of a significant reduction in the risk of infections.

The Trend of C-Reactive Protein After Corticosteroid Therapy in COVID-19 Patients Admitted to IGIMS, Patna

BACKGROUND

C-reactive protein (CRP) is a routine inflammation biomarker. Increased CRP levels are correlated with COVID-19. We found a marked reduction in CRP concentration on corticosteroid therapy, which in turn led to reduced mortality and duration of hospital stay.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, CRP levels were measured on admission and at 72 hours and compared between two groups of patients, with and without corticosteroid therapy. The study sample consisted of 105 RT-PCR-confirmed patients admitted to the ICU of the COVID ward. Out of the total patients, 57 received one or more doses of dexamethasone in addition to usual treatment, and 48 were given only usual care.

RESULT

CRP at the time of admission was comparable for both groups. Also, a significant decrease in the CRP was noted in both groups 72 hours post-admission. Moreover, the decline was more marked in the steroid-administered group (CRP-baseline: 34.3mg/dL (+/-8.44), CRP at 72 hours 18.5mg/dL(+/-7.95) (p <0.00) compared to non-steroid group (CRP_baseline: 34.04mg/dL (+/-10.06), CRP at 72. Those with comorbidities were administered steroids (n=38, 66.7%) compared to those who were not (n=08, 16.7%). The average duration of hospital stay was less (5 to 7 days) in the corticosteroid-administered group compared to the other group (7 to 10 days).

CONCLUSION

Routine CRP tests can predict the outcome and treatment of severe coronavirus disease. Corticosteroid treatment in COVID-19 patients is associated with reduced CRP levels within 72 hours after therapy.

IL-6 Blockade in Cytokine Storm Syndromes

Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is a pro-inflammatory cytokine elevated in cytokine storm syndromes, including hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) and macrophage activation syndrome (MAS). It is also elevated in cytokine release syndrome (CRS) after immune activating cancer therapies such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells or bispecific T-cell engagers (BITEs) and in some patients after infection with SARS-CoV-2. The interaction of IL-6 with its receptor complex can happen in several forms, making effectively blocking this cytokine's effects clinically challenging. Fortunately, effective clinical agents targeting the IL-6 receptor (tocilizumab) and IL-6 directly (siltuximab) have been developed and are approved for use in humans. IL-6 blockade has now been used to safely and effectively treat several cytokine storm syndromes (CSS). Other methods of investigation in effective IL-6 blockade are underway.

Characteristics associated with high hospital spending over 1 year among patients hospitalised for COVID-19 in the USA: a cohort study

Introduction

Despite complex care needs during critical COVID-19, the associated long-term healthcare spending is poorly understood, limiting the ability of policy-makers to prioritise necessary care and plan for future medical countermeasures.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults hospitalised with COVID-19 in the USA (April‒June 2020) using data from the national PINC AI Healthcare Database. Patients were followed for 365 days to measure hospital spending starting on the date of admission. We used a multivariable logistic model to identify characteristics associated with high spending.

Results

Among 73 606 patients hospitalised with COVID-19, 73% were aged ≥50 years, 51% were female, and 37% were non-Hispanic white. Mean hospital spending per patient over 90 days was US$28 712 (SD=US$48 583) and over 365 days was US$31 768 (SD=US$52 811). Patients who received care in the intensive care unit (36% vs 23% no intensive care, p<0.001), received a non-recommended COVID-19 treatment (28% vs 25% no treatment, p<0.001), had a longer length of stay (p<0.001), and had Medicare (27% vs 22% commercial, p<0.001) or Medicaid (25% vs 22% commercial, p<0.001) insurance were associated with a higher predicted probability of high hospital spending over 365 days. Patients who received recommended treatment (21% vs 25% no treatment, p<0.001) and were Hispanic and any race (24% vs 26% non-Hispanic white, p<0.001), non-Hispanic Asian (25% vs 26% non-Hispanic white, p=0.011), 'other' or unknown race and ethnicity (24% vs 26% non-Hispanic white, p<0.001), or female (25% vs 26% male, p<0.001) were associated with a lower predicted probability of high hospital spending.

Conclusions

Most hospital spending incurred over 1 year was for care within 90 days of admission. Patients receiving complex care or non-recommended treatments were associated with higher spending, while those receiving recommended treatments were associated with lower spending. These findings can inform pandemic preparedness planning.

A novel approach for predicting upstream regulators (PURE) that affect gene expression

External factors such as exposure to a chemical, drug, or toxicant (CDT), or conversely, the lack of certain chemicals can cause many diseases. The ability to identify such causal CDTs based on changes in the gene expression profile is extremely important in many studies. Furthermore, the ability to correctly infer CDTs that can revert the gene expression changes induced by a given disease phenotype is a crucial step in drug repurposing. We present an approach for Predicting Upstream REgulators (PURE) designed to tackle this challenge. PURE can correctly infer a CDT from the measured expression changes in a given phenotype, as well as correctly identify drugs that could revert disease-induced gene expression changes. We compared the proposed approach with four classical approaches as well as with the causal analysis used in Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) on 16 data sets (1 rat, 5 mouse, and 10 human data sets), involving 8 chemicals or drugs. We assessed the results based on the ability to correctly identify the CDT as indicated by its rank. We also considered the number of false positives, i.e. CDTs other than the correct CDT that were reported to be significant by each method. The proposed approach performed best in 11 out of the 16 experiments, reporting the correct CDT at the very top 7 times. IPA was the second best, reporting the correct CDT at the top 5 times, but was unable to identify the correct CDT at all in 5 out of the 16 experiments. The validation results showed that our approach, PURE, outperformed some of the most popular methods in the field. PURE could effectively infer the true CDTs responsible for the observed gene expression changes and could also be useful in drug repurposing applications.

American Association for the Surgery of Trauma/American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma clinical protocol for management of acute respiratory distress syndrome and severe hypoxemia

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management: Level V.

DISCERN: deep single-cell expression reconstruction for improved cell clustering and cell subtype and state detection

BACKGROUND

Single-cell sequencing provides detailed insights into biological processes including cell differentiation and identity. While providing deep cell-specific information, the method suffers from technical constraints, most notably a limited number of expressed genes per cell, which leads to suboptimal clustering and cell type identification.

RESULTS

Here, we present DISCERN, a novel deep generative network that precisely reconstructs missing single-cell gene expression using a reference dataset. DISCERN outperforms competing algorithms in expression inference resulting in greatly improved cell clustering, cell type and activity detection, and insights into the cellular regulation of disease. We show that DISCERN is robust against differences between batches and is able to keep biological differences between batches, which is a common problem for imputation and batch correction algorithms. We use DISCERN to detect two unseen COVID-19-associated T cell types, cytotoxic CD4+ and CD8+ Tc2 T helper cells, with a potential role in adverse disease outcome. We utilize T cell fraction information of patient blood to classify mild or severe COVID-19 with an AUROC of 80% that can serve as a biomarker of disease stage. DISCERN can be easily integrated into existing single-cell sequencing workflow.

CONCLUSIONS

Thus, DISCERN is a flexible tool for reconstructing missing single-cell gene expression using a reference dataset and can easily be applied to a variety of data sets yielding novel insights, e.g., into disease mechanisms.

The obesity paradox in Japanese COVID-19 patients

Purpose: To investigate the effect of obesity on mortality and invasive respiratory care (IRC) in patients with COVID-19. Methods: We studied 1,105 patients for 34 months and collected data. The primary outcome was all-cause death at 29 days. The secondary outcome was IRC indicated by a pulse oximetry rate below 93% at a mask oxygenation rate of 5 L/min or more. Results: Age- and sex-adjusted multivariate regression analysis for 29-day deaths showed the significance of body mass index (BMI) > 19.6 kg/m2 (odds ratio 0.117, 95% confidence interval 0.052-0.265, P<0.001). The graphs with BMI in the abscissa showed, within a BMI between 11 and 25 kg/m2, a decreasing pattern for mortality and IRC rate, and no increase in overweight. Conclusion: In Japanese COVID-19 patients, the risk of mortality and the IRC rate decreased in underweight patients and remained low in overweight patients, suggesting the importance of the obesity paradox.

Strongyloides coinfection in COVID-19 patients treated with corticosteroids: A systematic review

The COVID-19 pandemic linked to the virus SARS-CoV-2, which began in China, affected ∼765 million people as of 30 April 2023. The widespread use of corticosteroids for the symptomatic treatment of COVID-19 could lead to the reactivation of infections of opportunistic pathogens, including Strongyloides. We sought to determine the clinical symptoms and demographic characteristics of SARS-CoV-2-Strongyloides co-infection, particularly in patients with severe disease and being treated with immunosuppressive drugs. To do this, we undertook a systematic review of the literature, and searched public accessible scientific databases-the Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed/Medline and Embase -for eligible studies (1 December 2019 to 30 August 2022). The review protocol is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022377062). Descriptive statistical analyses were used to present the clinical and laboratory parameters of the co-infection; for this, we calculated prevalence using the following formula: positive cases/total number of cases × 100. Of a total of 593 studies identified, 17 studies reporting 26 co-infected patients met the criteria for inclusion in this review. The median age of these patients was 55.14 years. Most of cases (53.8%) were treated with dexamethasone, followed by methylprednisolone (26.9%). Eighteen of 26 patients were immigrants living in European countries or the USA; most of these immigrants originated from Latin America (58%) and South-East Asia (11%). The commonest symptoms of co-infection were abdominal pain (50%), fever (46.1%), dyspnoea (30.7%) and cough (30.7%), and frequently reported laboratory findings were high absolute eosinophil count (38.4%), high white blood cell count (30.7%), high C-reactive protein (23.0%) and high neutrophil count (19.2%). Two of the 26 patients (7.7%) had fatal outcomes. Most of the SARS-CoV-2-Strongyloides coinfected cases were immigrants living in developed countries, emphasising the need for clinicians in these countries to be aware of clinical and laboratory parameters associated with such co-infections, as well as the key importance of rapid and accurate diagnostic tests for timely and effective diagnosis and patient management.

Corticosteroids in COVID-19: pros and cons

The wide and rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has placed an unanticipated burden on the global healthcare sector. This necessitated a swift response from the international community to reach a solution. Efforts were made in parallel to develop preventative and therapeutic modalities. Since then, drug repurposing has blossomed as a potentially rapid resolution and has included various agents with anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties. Corticosteroids, being potent anti-inflammatory agents, have been placed under extensive investigation. Various trials have recorded the beneficial outcome of corticosteroids in decreasing the mortality and morbidity of COVID-19. With the high pace of escalating events, the quality and study design of clinical trials are varied. Therefore, this study aims to explore the role of corticosteroids in COVID-19 disease. It inspects the molecular, pharmacologic, and clinical proof behind this theory.

Distinct pulmonary and systemic effects of dexamethasone in severe COVID-19

Dexamethasone is the standard of care for critically ill patients with COVID-19, but the mechanisms by which it decreases mortality and its immunological effects in this setting are not understood. We performed bulk and single-cell RNA sequencing of the lower respiratory tract and blood, and plasma cytokine profiling to study the effect of dexamethasone on systemic and pulmonary immune cells. We find decreased signatures of antigen presentation, T cell recruitment, and viral injury in patients treated with dexamethasone. We identify compartment- and cell- specific differences in the effect of dexamethasone in patients with severe COVID-19 that are reproducible in publicly available datasets. Our results highlight the importance of studying compartmentalized inflammation in critically ill patients.

Use and effectiveness of remdesivir for the treatment of patients with covid-19 using data from the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 infected patients (LEOSS): a multicentre cohort study

OBJECTIVES

The use of remdesivir (RDV) as the first drug approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains controversial. Based on the Lean European Open Survey on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infected patients (LEOSS), we aim to contribute timing-focused complementary real-world insights to its evaluation.

METHODS

SARS-CoV-2 infected patients between January 2020 and December 2021 treated with RDV were matched 1:1 to controls considering sociodemographics, comorbidities and clinical status. Multiple imputations were used to account for missing data. Effects on fatal outcome were estimated using uni- and multivariable Cox regression models.

RESULTS

We included 9,687 patients. For those starting RDV administration in the complicated phase, Cox regression for fatal outcome showed an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 0.59 (95%CI 0.41-0.83). Positive trends could be obtained for further scenarios: an aHR of 0.51 (95%CI 0.16-1.68) when RDV was initiated in uncomplicated and of 0.76 (95% CI 0.55-1.04) in a critical phase of disease. Patients receiving RDV with concomitant steroids exhibited a further reduction in aHR in both, the complicated (aHR 0.50, 95%CI 0.29-0.88) and critical phase (aHR 0.63, 95%CI 0.39-1.02).

CONCLUSION

Our study results elucidate that RDV use, in particular when initiated in the complicated phase and accompanied by steroids is associated with improved mortality. However, given the limitations of non-randomized trials in estimating the magnitude of the benefit of an intervention, further randomized trials focusing on the timing of therapy initiation seem warranted.

Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of living systematic reviews (LSRs) on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while the secondary objective is to investigate potential factors that may influence the overall quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

METHODS

Six representative databases, including Medline, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science, Technology Journal Database (VIP) were systematically searched for COVID-19 LSRs. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and then assessed the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs using the "A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2" (AMSTAR-2) tool and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) 2020 statement, respectively. Univariate linear regression and multivariate linear regression were used to explore eight potential factors that might affect the methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

RESULTS

A total of 64 COVID-19 LSRs were included. The AMSTAR-2 evaluation results revealed that the number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 13 ± 2.68 (mean ± standard deviation). Among them, 21.9% COVID-19 LSRs were rated as "high", 4.7% as "moderate", 23.4% as "low", and 50% as "critically low". The evaluation results of the PRISMA 2020 statement showed that the sections with poor adherence were methods, results and other information. The number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 21 ± 4.18 (mean ± standard deviation). The number of included studies and registration are associated with better methodological quality; the number of included studies and funding are associated with better reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement is needed in the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Researchers conducting COVID-19 LSRs should take note of the quality-related factors identified in this study to generate evidence-based evidence of higher quality.

Comparing severe COVID-19 outcomes of first and second/third waves: a prospective single-centre cohort study of health-related quality of life and pulmonary outcomes 6 months after infection

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare long-term outcomes in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors between the first and second/third waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. More specifically, to assess health-related quality of life (HRQL) and respiratory health 6 months post-ICU and to study potential associations between patient characteristic and treatment variables regarding 6-month outcomes.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Single-centre study of adult COVID-19 patients with respiratory distress admitted to two Swedish ICUs during the first wave (1 March 2020-1 September 2020) and second/third waves (2 September 2020- 1 August 2021) with follow-up approximately 6 months after ICU discharge.

PARTICIPANTS

Critically ill COVID-19 patients who survived for at least 90 days.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

HRQL, extent of residual changes on chest CT scan and pulmonary function were compared between the waves. General linear regression and multivariable logistic regression were used to present mean score differences (MSD) and ORs with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Of the 456 (67%) critically ill COVID-19 patients who survived at least 90 days, 278 (61%) were included in the study. Six months after ICU discharge, HRQL was similar between survivors in the pandemic waves, except that the second/third wave survivors had better role physical (MSD 20.2, 95% CI 7.3 to 33.1, p<0.01) and general health (MSD 7.2, 95% CI 0.7 to 13.6, p=0.03) and less bodily pain (MSD 12.2, 95% CI 3.6 to 20.8, p<0.01), while first wave survivors had better diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.5, p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that even though intensive care treatment strategies have changed with time, there are few differences in long-term HRQL and respiratory health seems to remain at 6 months for patients surviving critical COVID-19 in the first and second/third waves of the pandemic.

Efficacy and safety of molnupiravir for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of molnupiravir for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment is unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review until 1 November 2022 searching for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving COVID-19 patients comparing molnupiravir [±standard of care (SoC)] versus SoC and/or placebo. Data were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. Certainty of evidence was assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs were identified, eight investigated outpatients (29 254 participants) and one inpatients (304 participants). Compared with placebo/SoC, molnupiravir does not reduce mortality [risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% CI 0.07-1.02, high-certainty evidence] and probably does not reduce the risk for 'hospitalization or death' (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.55-1.20, moderate-certainty evidence) by Day 28 in COVID-19 outpatients. We are uncertain whether molnupiravir increases symptom resolution by Day 14 (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02-1.41, very-low-certainty evidence) but it may make no difference by Day 28 (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92-1.19, low-certainty evidence). In inpatients, molnupiravir may increase mortality by Day 28 compared with placebo (RR 3.78, 95% CI 0.50-28.82, low-certainty evidence). There is little to no difference in serious adverse and adverse events during the study period in COVID-19 inpatients/outpatients treated with molnupiravir compared with placebo/SoC (moderate- to high-certainty evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

In a predominantly immunized population of COVID-19 outpatients, molnupiravir has no effect on mortality, probably none on 'hospitalization or death' and effects on symptom resolution are uncertain. Molnupiravir was safe during the study period in outpatients although a potential increase in inpatient mortality requires careful monitoring in ongoing clinical research. Our analysis does not support routine use of molnupiravir for COVID-19 treatment in immunocompetent individuals.

Unpacking the Complexity of COVID-19 Fatalities: Adverse Events as Contributing Factors-A Single-Center, Retrospective Analysis of the First Two Years of the Pandemic

In a retrospective analysis of 477 fatal COVID-19 cases hospitalised at a single medical centre during the period from 6 March 2020 to 30 June 2022, several factors defining those patients at admission were assessed, as well as the course of the hospitalisation and factors contributing to death. There was a predominance of men (59.3% (283)) burdened by comorbidities, with increased inflammation at admission. Patients aged ≥ 81 years were significantly more likely to be admitted to and die in infectious diseases units (IDU) due to respiratory failure, their hospital stays were shorter, and they were most likely not to receive specialist treatment. The most common COVID-19 complications included acute kidney injury in 31.2% (149) patients and thromboembolic complications in 23.5% (112). The course of hospitalisation was complicated by healthcare-associated infections (HAI) in 33.3% (159) of cases, more often in those treated with baricitinib (p < 0.001). The initial use of an antibiotic, although common (94.8% (452)), was unwarranted in almost half of the cases (47.6% (215)). Complications of hospitalisation (46.1% (220)) and adverse events involving staff (49.7% (237)) were found in almost half of the patients. In 88.7% (423) of the cases, death was due to respiratory failure in the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Adverse events during hospitalisation should be considered as an additional factor that, in addition to the infection itself, may have influenced the death of patients.

Autophagy and SARS-CoV-2-Old Players in New Games

At present it is well-defined that autophagy is a fundamental process essential for cell life but its pro-viral and anti-viral role has been stated out with the COVID pandemic. However, viruses in turn have evolved diverse adaptive strategies to cope with autophagy driven host defense, either by blocking or hijacking the autophagy machinery for their own benefit. The mechanisms underlying autophagy modulation are presented in the current review which summarizes the accumulated knowledge on the crosstalk between autophagy and viral infections, with a particular emphasizes on SARS-CoV-2. The different types of autophagy related to infections and their molecular mechanisms are focused in the context of inflammation. In particular, SARS-CoV-2 entry, replication and disease pathogenesis are discussed. Models to study autophagy and to formulate novel treatment approaches and pharmacological modulation to fight COVID-19 are debated. The SARS-CoV-2-autophagy interplay is presented, revealing the complex dynamics and the molecular machinery of autophagy. The new molecular targets and strategies to treat COVID-19 effectively are envisaged. In conclusion, our finding underline the importance of development new treatment strategies and pharmacological modulation of autophagy to fight COVID-19.

COVID-19 in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a multicenter analysis by the Czech CLL study group

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have a high risk of poor outcomes related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This multicenter cohort study evaluated the impact of COVID-19 infection on the population of CLL patients in the Czech Republic. Between March 2020 and May 2021, 341 patients (237 males) with CLL and COVID-19 disease were identified. The median age was 69 years (range 38-91). Out of the 214 (63%) patients with the history of therapy for CLL, 97 (45%) were receiving CLL-directed treatment at diagnosis of COVID-19: 29% Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi), 16% chemoimmunotherapy (CIT), 11% Bcl-2 inhibitor, and 4% phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitor. Regarding the severity of COVID-19, 60% pts required admission to the hospital, 21% pts were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), and 12% received invasive mechanical ventilation. The overall case fatality rate was 28%. Major comorbidities, age over 72, male gender, CLL treatment in history, CLL-directed treatment at COVID-19 diagnosis were associated with increased risk of death. Of note, concurrent therapy with BTKi compared to CIT was not associated with better outcome of COVID-19.

Comparison of the efficacy of equivalent doses of dexamethasone, methylprednisolone, and hydrocortisone for treatment of COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective three-arm randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

This prospective controlled clinical trial aimed to compare the efficacy of methylprednisolone, dexamethasone, and hydrocortisone at equivalent doses in patients with severe COVID-19.

METHODS

In total, 106 patients with mild to moderate COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) were randomized to receive either dexamethasone (6 mg once a day), methylprednisolone (16 mg twice a day), or hydrocortisone (50 mg thrice a day) for up to 10 days. All participants received a standard of care for COVID-19. The primary and secondary efficacy outcomes included all-cause 28-day mortality, clinical status on day 28 assessed using the World Health Organization (WHO) eight-category ordinal clinical scale, number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit (ICU) care, number of ventilator-free days, length of hospital and ICU stay, change in PaO2:FiO2 ratios during the first 5 days after treatment, and incidence of serious adverse events. P-values below 0.008 based on Bonferroni's multiple-testing correction method were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

According to the obtained results, there was a trend toward more favorable clinical outcomes in terms of needing mechanical ventilation and ICU care, number of ventilator-free days, change in PaO2:FiO2 ratios during the first 5 days after treatment, clinical status score at day 28, length of ICU and hospital stay, and overall 28-day mortality in patients receiving dexamethasone compared to those receiving methylprednisolone or hydrocortisone; however, likely due to the study's small sample size, the difference between groups reached a significant level only in the case of clinical status score on day 28 (p-value = 0.003). There was no significant difference in the incidence of serious adverse events between the study groups.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results, severe cases of COVID-19 treated with dexamethasone might have a better clinical status at 28-day follow-up compared to methylprednisolone and hydrocortisone at an equivalent dose. Larger multicenter trials are required to confirm our findings.

Treating asthma in the time of COVID

The Precision Interventions for Severe and/or Exacerbation-Prone Asthma clinical trials network is actively assessing novel treatments for severe asthma during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and has needed to adapt to various clinical dilemmas posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Pharmacologic interactions between established asthma therapies and novel drug interventions for COVID-19 infection, including antivirals, biologics, and vaccines, have emerged as a critical and unanticipated issue in the clinical care of asthma. In particular, impaired metabolism of some long-acting beta-2 agonists by the cytochrome P4503A4 enzyme in the setting of antiviral treatment using ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir (NVM/r, brand name Paxlovid) may increase risk for adverse cardiovascular events. Although available data have documented the potential for such interactions, these issues are largely unappreciated by clinicians who treat asthma, or those dispensing COVID-19 interventions in patients who happen to have asthma. Because these drug-drug interactions have not previously been relevant to patient care, clinicians have had no guidance on management strategies to reduce potentially serious interactions between treatments for asthma and COVID-19. The Precision Interventions for Severe and/or Exacerbation-Prone Asthma network considered the available literature and product information, and herein share our considerations and plans for treating asthma within the context of these novel COVID-19-related therapies.

Oral Candidiasis in Adult and Pediatric Patients with COVID-19

Oral Candidiasis (OC) is an opportunistic fungal infection of the oral cavity, frequently reported under local and systemic predisposing circumstances. While the recurrence of OC HIV-infected subjects has been well described and reported, the association between oral candidiasis and the SARS-CoV-2 infection is a recent finding that still is worthy of further study. The present paper focuses on this novel association, reporting the incidence and prevalence of OC occurring during and after COVID-19 and the possible etiopathogenic mechanisms underlying the onset of OC in COVID-19 subjects. The work found that the immune inflammatory hypo reactions and immunosuppression found in children and adults with COVID-19 could favor the proliferation colonization of Candida species and the following infection. At the same time, poor oral hygiene and iatrogenic causes seem to be the main risk factors.

Steroid Pulse Therapy as a Treatment for Patients With COVID-19 Pneumonia at an Intensive Care Unit: A Single-Center Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Evidence supporting the use of steroid pulse therapy in severely ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia is lacking. Few studies have evaluated the efficacy of high-dose (1000 mg/day) methylprednisolone (mPSL), which is commonly used in Japan.

AIM

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes with and without steroid pulse therapy (mPSL 1000 or 500 mg/day for three days) in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

Study design was retrospective observational study. The inclusion criterion was severe to critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring ICU admission. The exclusion criteria were as follows: patients (1) with a "Do not attempt to resuscitate" order; (2) with a "Do not intubate" order; or (3) admitted to the ICU owing to other infectious diseases were excluded. Treatment strategy was as follows: Patients were divided into two groups: steroid pulse therapy (Group P) and steroids without pulse therapy (Group NP). Group P received mPSL 1000 or 500 mg/day on ICU days 1-3, and Group NP received dexamethasone 6.6 mg or mPSL 1 or 2 mg/kg/day. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality.

RESULTS

We enrolled 82 patients. Out of 70 who met the inclusion criteria, 48 and 22 were included in Groups P and NP, respectively. No difference in 28-day survival was observed between the Groups P and NP (log-rank P=0.11). After adjusting for covariates (age, sex, interleukin-6 level, and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score on ICU admission) using a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model, treatment with steroid pulse therapy significantly improved 28-day mortality (hazard ratio, 0.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.86; P=0.03).

CONCLUSION

Steroid pulse therapy may improve the 28-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in the ICU.

Optimal Duration of Systemic Corticosteroids in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids confer a survival benefit in individuals hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who require oxygen. This meta-analysis seeks to determine the duration of corticosteroids needed to optimize this mortality benefit.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to 9 March 2022, for studies reporting corticosteroid versus no corticosteroid treatment in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We estimated the effect of corticosteroids on mortality by random-effects meta-analyses. Subgroup analyses and meta-analyses were conducted to assess the optimal duration of corticosteroid treatment while adjusting for the severity of disease, age, duration of symptoms, and proportion of control group given steroids.

RESULTS

We identified 27 eligible studies consisting of 13 404 hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Seven randomized controlled trials and 20 observational studies were included in the meta-analysis of mortality, which suggested a protective association with corticosteroid therapy (risk ratio [RR], 0.71 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .58-.87]). Pooled analysis of 18 studies showed the greatest survival benefit for a treatment duration up to 6 days (RR, 0.54 [95% CI, .39-.74]). Survival benefit was 0.65 (95% CI, .51-.83) up to 7 days, and no additional survival benefit was observed beyond 7 days of treatment (RR, 0.64 [95% CI, .44-.93]). The survival benefit was not confounded by severity of disease, age, duration of symptoms, or proportion of control group given steroids.

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, optimal duration of corticosteroid treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients was up to 6 days, with no additional survival benefit with >7 days of treatment.

Warmer ambient air temperatures reduce nasal turbinate and brain infection, but increase lung inflammation in the K18-hACE2 mouse model of COVID-19

Warmer climatic conditions have been associated with fewer COVID-19 cases. Herein we infected K18-hACE2 mice housed at the standard animal house temperature of ∼22 °C, or at ∼31 °C, which is considered to be thermoneutral for mice. On day 2 post infection, RNA-Seq analyses showed no significant differential gene expression lung in lungs of mice housed at the two temperatures, with almost identical viral loads and type I interferon responses. There was also no significant difference in viral loads in lungs on day 5, but RNA-Seq and histology analyses showed clearly elevated inflammatory signatures and infiltrates. Thermoneutrality thus promoted lung inflammation. On day 2 post infection mice housed at 31 °C showed reduced viral loads in nasal turbinates, consistent with increased mucociliary clearance at the warmer ambient temperature. These mice also had reduced virus levels in the brain, and an ensuing amelioration of weight loss and a delay in mortality. Warmer air temperatures may thus reduce infection of the upper respiratory track and the olfactory epithelium, resulting in reduced brain infection. Potential relevance for anosmia and neurological sequelae in COVID-19 patients is discussed.

Insights from comparison of the clinical presentation and outcomes of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in an Italian internal medicine ward during first and third wave

Background

The reasons of variability of clinical presentation of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) across different pandemic waves are not fully understood, and may include individual risk profile, SARS-CoV-2 lineage and seasonal variations of viral spread. The objective of this retrospective study was to compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted with confirmed coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) in the same season during the first (March 2020) and the third pandemic wave (March 2021, dominance of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 lineage) in an internal medicine ward of a large teaching hospital in Italy.

Materials and methods

Data of 769 unvaccinated patients (399 from the first and 370 from the third wave) were collected from clinical records, including symptom type and duration, extension of lung abnormalities on chest computed tomography (CT) and PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio on admission arterial blood gas analysis.

Results

Third wave patients were in average younger (median 65, interquartile range [IQR] 55-75, vs. 72, IQR 61-81 years old, p < 0.001), with less comorbidities and better pulmonary (CT visual score median 25, IQR 15-40, vs. 30, IQR 15-50, age- and sex-adjusted p = 0.017) and respiratory involvement (PaO₂/FiO₂ median 288, IQR 237-338, vs. 233, IQR 121-326 mmHg, age- and sex-adjusted p < 0.001) than first wave patients. Hospital mortality was lower (19% vs. 36%, p < 0.001), but not for subjects over 75 years old (46 vs. 49%). Age, number of chronic illnesses, PCT levels, CT visual score [Odds Ratio (OR) 1.022, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.009-1.036, p < 0.001] and PaO₂/FiO₂ (OR 0.991, 95% CI 0.988-0.994, p < 0.001), but not the pandemic wave, were associated with mortality on stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Conclusion

Despite the higher virulence of B.1.1.7 lineage, we detected milder clinical presentation and improved mortality in patients hospitalized during the third COVID-19 wave, with involvement of younger subjects. The reasons of this discrepancy are unclear, but could involve the population effect of vaccination campaigns, that were being conducted primarily in older frail subjects during the third wave.

Methylprednisolone pulse therapy for critically ill patients with COVID-19: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

The guidelines recommend the use of dexamethasone 6 mg or an equivalent dose in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who require supplemental oxygen. Given that the severity of COVID-19 varies, we investigated the effect of a pulse dose of corticosteroids on the clinical course of critically ill patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted between September and December 2021, which was when the Delta variant of the COVID-19 virus was predominant. We evaluated the mortality and oxygenation of severe to critical COVID-19 cases between groups that received dexamethasone 6 mg for 10 days (control group) and methylprednisolone 250 mg/day for 3 days (pulse group).

RESULTS

Among 44 patients, 14 and 30 patients were treated with control steroids and pulse steroids, respectively. There was no difference in disease severity, time from COVID-19 diagnosis to steroid administration, or use of remdesivir or antibacterial agents between the two groups. The pulse steroid group showed a significant improvement in oxygenation before and after steroid treatment (P<0.001) compared with the control steroid group (P=0.196). There was no difference in in-hospital mortality (P=0.186); however, the pulse steroid group had a lower mortality rate (23.3%) than the control steroid group (42.9%). There was a significant difference in the length of hospital stay between both two groups (P=0.039).

CONCLUSIONS

Pulse steroids showed no mortality benefit but were associated with oxygenation improvement and shorter hospital stay than control steroids. Hyperglycemia should be carefully monitored with pulse steroids.

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This led to widespread implementation, although the available evidence remains inconsistent. This update aims to fill current knowledge gaps by identifying, describing, evaluating, and synthesising all evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of remdesivir on clinical outcomes in COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of remdesivir and standard care compared to standard care plus/minus placebo on clinical outcomes in patients treated for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv) as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies, without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 31 May 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included RCTs evaluating remdesivir and standard care for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to standard care plus/minus placebo irrespective of disease severity, gender, ethnicity, or setting. We excluded studies that evaluated remdesivir for the treatment of other coronavirus diseases.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for outcomes that were reported according to our prioritised categories: all-cause mortality, in-hospital mortality, clinical improvement (being alive and ready for discharge up to day 28) or worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28), quality of life, serious adverse events, and adverse events (any grade). We differentiated between non-hospitalised individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 and hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs with 11,218 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and a mean age of 53.6 years, of whom 5982 participants were randomised to receive remdesivir. Most participants required low-flow oxygen at baseline. Studies were mainly conducted in high- and upper-middle-income countries. We identified two studies that are awaiting classification and five ongoing studies. Effects of remdesivir in hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19 With moderate-certainty evidence, remdesivir probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.06; risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 6 more; 4 studies, 7142 participants), day 60 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; RD 35 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 73 fewer to 12 more; 1 study, 1281 participants), or in-hospital mortality at up to day 150 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03; RD 11 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 25 fewer to 5 more; 1 study, 8275 participants). Remdesivir probably increases the chance of clinical improvement at up to day 28 slightly (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.17; RD 68 more per 1000, 95% CI 37 more to 105 more; 4 studies, 2514 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening within 28 days (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.82; RD 135 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 198 fewer to 69 fewer; 2 studies, 1734 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Remdesivir may make little or no difference to the rate of adverse events of any grade (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.18; RD 23 more per 1000, 95% CI 46 fewer to 104 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.07; RD 44 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 96 fewer to 19 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low, with some concerns for mortality and clinical course. We had some concerns for safety outcomes because participants who had died did not contribute information. Without adjustment, this leads to an uncertain amount of missing values and the potential for bias due to missing data. Effects of remdesivir in non-hospitalised individuals with mild COVID-19 One of the nine RCTs was conducted in the outpatient setting and included symptomatic people with a risk of progression. No deaths occurred within the 28 days observation period. We are uncertain about clinical improvement due to very low-certainty evidence. Remdesivir probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening (hospitalisation) at up to day 28 (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.75; RD 46 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 57 fewer to 16 fewer; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not find any data for quality of life. Remdesivir may decrease the rate of serious adverse events at up to 28 days (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.70; RD 49 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 60 fewer to 20 fewer; 562 participants; low-certainty evidence), but it probably makes little or no difference to the risk of adverse events of any grade (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.10; RD 42 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 111 fewer to 46 more; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low for mortality, clinical improvement, and safety outcomes. We identified a high risk of bias for clinical worsening.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence up to 31 May 2022, remdesivir probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality or in-hospital mortality of individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19. The hospitalisation rate was reduced with remdesivir in one study including participants with mild to moderate COVID-19. It may be beneficial in the clinical course for both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients, but certainty remains limited. The applicability of the evidence to current practice may be limited by the recruitment of participants from mostly unvaccinated populations exposed to early variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus at the time the studies were undertaken.  Future studies should provide additional data on the efficacy and safety of remdesivir for defined core outcomes in COVID-19 research, especially for different population subgroups.

Effect of intravenous pulses of methylprednisolone 250 mg versus dexamethasone 6 mg in hospitalised adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: An open-label randomised trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of high versus medium doses of glucocorticoids for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 has shown mixed outcomes in controlled trials and observational studies. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of methylprednisolone 250 mg bolus versus dexamethasone 6 mg in patients with severe COVID-19.

METHODS

A randomised, open-label, controlled trial was conducted between February and August 2021 at four hospitals in Spain. The trial was suspended after the first interim analysis since the investigators considered that continuing the trial would be futile. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive dexamethasone 6 mg once daily for up to 10 days or methylprednisolone 250 mg once daily for 3 days.

RESULTS

Of the 128 randomised patients, 125 were analysed (mean age 60 ± 17 years; 82 males [66%]). Mortality at 28 days was 4.8% in the 250 mg methylprednisolone group versus 4.8% in the 6 mg dexamethasone group (absolute risk difference, 0.1% [95% CI, -8.8 to 9.1%]; p = 0.98). None of the secondary outcomes (admission to the intensive care unit, non-invasive respiratory or high-flow oxygen support, additional immunosuppressive drugs, or length of stay), or prespecified sensitivity analyses were statistically significant. Hyperglycaemia was more frequent in the methylprednisolone group at 27.0 versus 8.1% (absolute risk difference, -18.9% [95% CI, -31.8 to - 5.6%]; p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Among severe but not critical patients with COVID-19, 250 mg/d for 3 days of methylprednisolone compared with 6 mg/d for 10 days of dexamethasone did not result in a decrease in mortality or intubation.

Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: A Living, Rapid Review for the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND

Clinicians and patients want to know the benefits and harms of outpatient treatment options for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

PURPOSE

To assess the benefits and harms of 12 different COVID-19 treatments in the outpatient setting.

DATA SOURCES

Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE Platform, searched on 4 April 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori-defined criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared COVID-19 treatments in adult outpatients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

One reviewer extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence (COE). A second reviewer verified data abstraction and assessments.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The 26 included studies collected data before the emergence of the Omicron variant. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduced hospitalizations (1% vs. 6% [1 RCT] and 1% vs. 4% [1 RCT], respectively; moderate COE). Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir probably reduced all-cause mortality (0% vs. 1% [1 RCT]; moderate COE), and regdanvimab probably improved recovery (87% vs. 72% [1 RCT]; moderate COE). Casirivimab-imdevimab reduced time to recovery by a median difference of 4 days (10 vs. 14 median days [1 RCT]; high COE). Molnupiravir may reduce all-cause mortality, sotrovimab may reduce hospitalization, and remdesivir may improve recovery (low COE). Lopinavir-ritonavir and azithromycin may have increased harms, and hydroxychloroquine may result in lower recovery rates (low COE). Other treatments had insufficient evidence or no statistical difference in efficacy and safety versus placebo.

LIMITATION

Many outcomes had few events and small samples.

CONCLUSION

Some antiviral medications and monoclonal antibodies may improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. However, the generalizability of the findings to the currently dominant Omicron variant is limited.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022323440).

The Efficacy of High-Dose Pulse Therapy vs. Low-Dose Intravenous Methylprednisolone on Severe to Critical COVID-19 Clinical Outcomes: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

It remains unclear which formulation of the corticosteroid regimen has the optimum efficacies on COVID-19 pneumonia.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of 2 different regimens in the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by COVID-19: Methylprednisolone at a dose of 1 mg/kg every 12 hours (low-dose group) and 1000 mg/day pulse therapy for 3 days following 1 mg/kg methylprednisolone every 12 hours (high-dose group).

Methods

In this randomized clinical trial, patients with mild to moderate ARDS due to COVID-19 were randomly assigned to receive either low-dose (n = 47) or high-dose (n = 48) intravenous methylprednisolone regimens. Two groups were matched for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), comorbidities, leukocytes, lymphocytes, neutrophil/lymphocyte, platelet, hemoglobin, and inflammatory markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR], C-reactive protein [CRP], and ferritin). Both regimens were initiated upon admission and continued for 10 days. The clinical outcome and secondary complications were evaluated.

Results

Evaluating in-hospital outcomes, no difference was revealed in the duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stays (5.4 ± 4.6 vs. 4.5 ± 4.9; P = 0.35), total hospital stays (8 ± 3.1 vs. 6.9 ± 3.4; P = 0.1), requirement rate for invasive ventilation (29.2% vs. 36.2%; P = 0.4) or non-invasive ventilation (16.6% vs 23.4%; P = 0.4), and hemoperfusion (16.6% vs 11.3%; P = 0.3) between the low- and high-dose groups. There was no significant difference in fatality due to ARDS (29.2% vs. 38.3%; P = 0.3) and septic shock (4.2% vs. 6.4%; P = 0.3) between the low- and high-dose groups. Patients in the high-dose group had significantly higher bacterial pneumonia co-infection events compared with those in the low-dose group (18.7% vs 10.6%; P = 0.01).

Conclusions

The use of adjuvant pulse therapy with intravenous methylprednisolone did not result in improved in-hospital clinical outcomes among patients with mild to moderate ARDS due to COVID-19. A higher risk of bacterial pneumonia should be considered in such cases as receiving a higher dose of steroids.

Efficacy and safety profile of corticosteroids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in COVID-19 management: A narrative review

Due to the fact that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still prevalent, and current reports show that some parts of the world have seen increase in incidence, it is relevant that health professionals and scientists know about recent or novel trends, especially drug treatments. Additionally, the safety profiles of these drug treatments need to be documented and shared with the public. Some studies have demonstrated the clinical benefits of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and corticosteroids in COVID-19 treatment. On the contrary, others have also reported that NSAIDs and corticosteroids may worsen symptoms associated with COVID-19. While some researchers have suggested that corticosteroids may be helpful if used in the early stages of COVID-19, there are still some conflicting findings regarding the use of corticosteroids in certain viral infections. Our review suggests that methylprednisolone, dexamethasone, and ibuprofen have therapeutic potential in reducing mortality due to COVID-19 among hospitalized patients. This review also highlights the fact that the use of NSAIDs is not associated with adverse outcomes of COVID-19. In reality, evidence suggests that NSAIDs do not increase the risk of COVID-19 infections. Also, the literature reviewed suggests that corticosteroid treatment in COVID-19 was linked with a decrease in all-cause mortality and disease progression, without increase in adverse events when compared to no corticosteroid treatment.

Real-world Evidence of the Effects of Novel Treatments for COVID-19 on Mortality: A Nationwide Comparative Cohort Study of Hospitalized Patients in the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Waves in the Netherlands

Background

Large clinical trials on drugs for hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients have shown significant effects on mortality. There may be a discrepancy with the observed real-world effect. We describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands during 4 pandemic waves and analyze the association of the newly introduced treatments with mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and discharge alive.

Methods

We conducted a nationwide retrospective analysis of hospitalized COVID-19 patients between February 27, 2020, and December 31, 2021. Patients were categorized into waves and into treatment groups (hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, neutralizing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 monoclonal antibodies, corticosteroids, and interleukin [IL]-6 antagonists). Four types of Cox regression analyses were used: unadjusted, adjusted, propensity matched, and propensity weighted.

Results

Among 5643 patients from 11 hospitals, we observed a changing epidemiology during 4 pandemic waves, with a decrease in median age (67-64 years; P < .001), in in-hospital mortality on the ward (21%-15%; P < .001), and a trend in the ICU (24%-16%; P = .148). In ward patients, hydroxychloroquine was associated with increased mortality (1.54; 95% CI, 1.22-1.96), and remdesivir was associated with a higher rate of discharge alive within 29 days (1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.31). Corticosteroids were associated with a decrease in mortality (0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96); the results of IL-6 antagonists were inconclusive. In patients directly admitted to the ICU, hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids, and IL-6 antagonists were not associated with decreased mortality.

Conclusions

Both remdesivir and corticosteroids were associated with better outcomes in ward patients with COVID-19. Continuous evaluation of real-world treatment effects is needed.

[SARS-CoV-2 antibody response to the second COVID-19 vaccination in neuromuscular disease patients under immune modulating treatment]

Successful vaccination (adequate elevation of anti-spike protein antibodies) is attributed with sufficient protection against a severe course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For patients with chronic inflammatory diseases (CID) and immunosuppression the success of vaccination is an ongoing scientific discourse. Therefore, we evaluated the antibody titer against the S1 antigen of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) 2 weeks after complete immunization in patients with an underlying neuromuscular disease (NMD), who presented to our neurological day clinic and outpatient department for regular infusions of immunoglobulins. The data show that patients with chronic autoimmune NMD and simultaneous immunosuppressive or immune modulating treatment show an antibody response after vaccination with both mRNA and vector vaccines. In comparison to healthy subjects there is a comparable number of seroconversions due to the vaccination. A correlation between immunoglobulin dose and vaccination response could not be found; however, in contrast, there was a significant reduction of specific antibody synthesis, especially for the combination of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and prednisolone.

Corticosteroids use for COVID-19: an overview of systematic reviews

PURPOSE

A reappraisal of the validity of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses related to corticosteroids use for the treatment of COVID-19.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An overview of SRs (umbrella review). The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed using tha AMSTAR-2 checklist; quality of the evidence was appraised following the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

35 SRs were included in this overview. Data were from 307 overlapping reports, based on 121 individual primary studies (25 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 96 non-RCTs. In critically ill patients the use of steroids significantly reduced mortality compared to standard of care in 80% of the SRs, more often with moderate/high level of certainty; however, in patients not requiring oxygen supplementation the use of steroids increased the overall mortality in 2/3 of the comparisons. Clinical progression of diseases (need for mechanical ventilation, or for intensive care admission) was more commonly observed among controls compared to steroids recipients (in 9 out of 14 comparisons; certainty of evidence from very-low to moderate). The occurrence of adverse events was similar among steroids recipients and controls. Other outcomes (i.e., viral clearance, length of hospital stay) or issue related to optimal dose and type of steroids were addressed in a minority of SRs, with a high level of uncertainty, so that no definitive conclusions can be drawn.

CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate certainty of evidence that corticosteroids reduce mortality and progression of disease in critically ill COVID-19 patients compared to standard of care, without increasing the occurrence of adverse events.