Dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg for patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia: a pre-planned, secondary Bayesian analysis of the COVID STEROID 2 trial

Empirical meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for adult patients with sepsis (EMPRESS) trial: Protocol

BACKGROUND

Piperacillin/tazobactam may be associated with less favourable outcomes than carbapenems in patients with severe bacterial infections, but the certainty of evidence is low.

METHODS

The Empirical Meropenem versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Adult Patients with Sepsis (EMPRESS) trial is an investigator-initiated, international, parallel-group, randomised, open-label, adaptive clinical trial with an integrated feasibility phase. We will randomise adult, critically ill patients with sepsis to empirical treatment with meropenem or piperacillin/tazobactam for up to 30 days. The primary outcome is 30-day all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes are serious adverse reactions within 30 days; isolation precautions due to resistant bacteria within 30 days; days alive without life support and days alive and out of hospital within 30 and 90 days; 90- and 180-day all-cause mortality and 180-day health-related quality of life. EMPRESS will use Bayesian statistical models with weak to somewhat sceptical neutral priors. Adaptive analyses will be conducted after follow-up of the primary outcome for the first 400 participants concludes and after every 300 subsequent participants, with adaptive stopping for superiority/inferiority and practical equivalence (absolute risk difference <2.5%-points) and response-adaptive randomisation. The expected sample sizes in scenarios with no, small or large differences are 5189, 5859 and 2570 participants, with maximum 14,000 participants and ≥99% probability of conclusiveness across all scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

EMPRESS will compare the effects of empirical meropenem against piperacillin/tazobactam in adult, critically ill patients with sepsis. Due to the pragmatic, adaptive design with high probability of conclusiveness, the trial results are expected to directly inform clinical practice.

Impact of the PATH Statement on Analysis and Reporting of Heterogeneity of Treatment Effect in Clinical Trials: A Scoping Review

Background

The Predictive Approaches to Treatment Effect Heterogeneity (PATH) Statement provides guidance for using predictive modeling to identify differences (i.e., heterogeneity) in treatment effects (benefits and harms) among participants in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). It distinguished risk modeling, which uses a multivariable model to predict risk of trial outcome(s) and then examines treatment effects within strata of predicted risk, from effect modeling, which predicts trial outcomes using models that include treatment, individual participant characteristics and interactions of treatment with selected characteristics.

Purpose

To describe studies of heterogeneous treatment effects (HTE) that use predictive modeling in RCT data and cite the PATH Statement.

Data Sources

The Cited By functions in PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science and SCOPUS databases (Jan 7, 2020 - June 5, 2023).

Study Selection

42 reports presenting 45 predictive models.

Data Extraction

Double review with adjudication to identify risk and effect modeling and examine consistency with Statement consensus statements. Credibility of HTE findings was assessed using criteria adapted from the Instrument to assess Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN). Clinical importance of credible HTE findings was also assessed.

Data Synthesis

The numbers of reports, especially risk modeling reports, increased year-on-year. Consistency with consensus statements was high, except for two: only 15 of 32 studies with positive overall findings included a risk model; and most effect models explored many candidate covariates with little prior evidence for effect modification. Risk modeling was more likely than effect modeling to identify both credible HTE (14/19 vs 5/26) and clinically important HTE (10/19 vs 4/26).

Limitations

Risk of reviewer bias: reviewers assessing credibility and clinical importance were not blinded to adherence to PATH recommendations.

Conclusions

The PATH Statement appears to be influencing research practice. Risk modeling often uncovered clinically important HTE; effect modeling was more often exploratory.

Lower versus higher blood pressure targets in comatose patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest-Protocol for a secondary Bayesian analysis of the box trial

BACKGROUND

The management of blood pressure targets during intensive care after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains a topic of debate. The blood Pressure and Oxygenation Targets After OHCA (BOX) trial explored the efficacy of two different blood pressure targets in 789 patients during intensive care after OHCA. In the primary frequentist analysis, no statistically significant differences were found for neurological outcome after 90 days.

METHODS

This protocol outlines secondary Bayesian analyses of 365-day all-cause mortality and two secondary outcomes: neurological outcome after 365 days, and plasma neuron-specific enolase, a biomarker of brain injury, after 48 h. We will employ adjusted Bayesian logistic and linear regressions, presenting results as relative and absolute differences with 95% confidence intervals. We will use weakly informative priors for the primary analyses, and skeptical and evidence-based priors (where available) in sensitivity analyses. Exact probabilities for any benefit/harm will be presented for all outcomes, along with probabilities of clinically important benefit/harm (risk differences larger than 2%-points absolute) and no clinically important differences for the binary outcomes. We will assess whether heterogeneity of treatment effects on mortality is present according to lactate at admission, time to return of spontaneous circulation, primary shockable rhythm, age, hypertension, and presence of ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

DISCUSSION

This secondary analysis of the BOX trial aim to complement the primary frequentist analysis by quantifying the probabilities of beneficial or harmful effects of different blood pressure targets. This approach seeks to provide clearer insights for researchers and clinicians into the effectiveness of these blood pressure management strategies in acute medical conditions, particularly focusing on mortality, neurological outcomes, and neuron-specific enolase.

Anti-inflammatory therapies are associated with delayed onset of anemia and reduction in transfusion requirements in critically ill patients: results from two studies

BACKGROUND

Anemia is a hallmark of critical illness, which is largely inflammatory driven. We hypothesized that the use of anti-inflammatory agents limits the development of anemia and reduces the need for red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in patients with a hyper-inflammatory condition due to COVID-19.

METHODS

An observational cohort (n = 772) and a validation cohort (a subset of REMAP-CAP, n = 119) of critically ill patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 were analyzed, who either received no treatment, received steroids or received steroids plus IL-6 blocking agents. The trajectory of hemoglobin (Hb) decline and the need for RBC transfusions were compared using descriptive statistics as well as multivariate modeling.

RESULTS

In both cohorts, Hb level was higher in the treated groups compared to the untreated group at all time points. In the observational cohort, incidence and number of transfused patients were lower in the group receiving the combination treatment compared to the untreated groups. In a multivariate analysis controlling for baseline Hb imbalance and mechanical ventilation, receipt of steroids remained associated with a slower decline in Hb level and the combination treatment remained associated with a slower decline of Hb and with less transfusions. Results remained the same in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSION

Immunomodulatory treatment was associated with a slower decline in Hb level in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and with less transfusion. Findings point toward inflammation as an important cause for the occurrence of anemia in the critically ill.

Symptoms and Impaired Quality of Life After COVID-19 Hospitalization: Effect of Therapeutic Heparin in Non-ICU Patients in the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines 4 Acute Trial: Effect on 3-Month Symptoms and Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic-dose heparin decreased days requiring organ support in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, but its impact on persistent symptoms or quality of life (QOL) is unclear.

RESEARCH QUESTION

In the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines 4 ACUTE (ACTIV-4a) trial, was randomization of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 illness to therapeutic-dose vs prophylactic heparin associated with fewer symptoms and better QOL at 90 days?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was an open-label randomized controlled trial at 34 hospitals in the United States and Spain. A total of 727 noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from September 2020 to June 2021 were randomized to therapeutic-dose vs prophylactic heparin. Only patients with 90-day data on symptoms and QOL were analyzed. We ascertained symptoms and QOL by the EQ-5D-5L at 90-day follow-up in a preplanned analysis for the ACTIV-4a trial. Individual domains assessed by the EQ-5D-5L included mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Among 571 patients, 288 (50.4%) reported at least one symptom. Among 410 patients, 148 (36.1%) reported moderate to severe impairment in one or more domains of the EQ-5D-5L. The presence of 90-day symptoms was associated with moderate-severe impairment in the EQ-5D-5L domains of mobility (adjusted OR [aOR], 2.37; 95% CI, 1.22-4.59), usual activities (aOR, 3.66; 95% CI, 1.75-7.65), pain (aOR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.43-4.12), and anxiety (aOR, 4.32; 95% CI, 2.06-9.02), compared with patients reporting no symptoms There were no differences in symptoms or in the overall EQ-5D-5L index score between treatment groups. Therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with less moderate-severe impairment in all physical functioning domains (mobility, self-care, usual activities) but was independently significant only in the self-care domain (aOR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11-0.96).

INTERPRETATION

In a randomized controlled trial of hospitalized noncritically ill patients with COVID-19, therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with less severe impairment in the self-care domain of EQ-5D-5L. However, this type of impairment was uncommon, affecting 23 individuals.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04505774; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

Glucocorticoid-Induced Hyperglycemia: A Neglected Problem

Glucocorticoids provide a potent therapeutic response and are widely used to treat a variety of diseases, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. However, the issue of glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia (GIH), which is observed in over one-third of patients treated with glucocorticoids, is often neglected. To improve the clinical course and prognosis of diseases that necessitate glucocorticoid therapy, proper management of GIH is essential. The key pathophysiology of GIH includes systemic insulin resistance, which exacerbates hepatic steatosis and visceral obesity, as well as proteolysis and lipolysis of muscle and adipose tissue, coupled with β-cell dysfunction. For patients on glucocorticoid therapy, risk stratification should be conducted through a detailed baseline evaluation, and frequent glucose monitoring is recommended to detect the onset of GIH, particularly in high-risk individuals. Patients with confirmed GIH who require treatment should follow an insulin-centered regimen that varies depending on whether they are inpatients or outpatients, as well as the type and dosage of glucocorticoid used. The ideal strategy to maintain normoglycemia while preventing hypoglycemia is to combine basal-bolus insulin and correction doses with a continuous glucose monitoring system. This review focuses on the current understanding and latest evidence concerning GIH, incorporating insights gained from the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

Guidance for prevention and management of COVID-19 in children and adolescents: A consensus statement from the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society Pediatric COVID-19 Therapies Taskforce

BACKGROUND

Since November 2019, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has created challenges for preventing and managing COVID-19 in children and adolescents. Most research to develop new therapeutic interventions or to repurpose existing ones has been undertaken in adults, and although most cases of infection in pediatric populations are mild, there have been many cases of critical and fatal infection. Understanding the risk factors for severe illness and the evidence for safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of therapies for COVID-19 in children is necessary to optimize therapy.

METHODS

A panel of experts in pediatric infectious diseases, pediatric infectious diseases pharmacology, and pediatric intensive care medicine from 21 geographically diverse North American institutions was re-convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys and a systematic review with meta-analysis of data for risk factors, a guidance statement comprising a series of recommendations for risk stratification, treatment, and prevention of COVID-19 was developed and refined based on expert consensus.

RESULTS

There are identifiable clinical characteristics that enable risk stratification for patients at risk for severe COVID-19. These risk factors can be used to guide the treatment of hospitalized and non-hospitalized children and adolescents with COVID-19 and to guide preventative therapy where options remain available.

Restrictive versus standard IV fluid therapy in adult ICU patients with septic shock-Bayesian analyses of the CLASSIC trial

BACKGROUND

The CLASSIC trial assessed the effects of restrictive versus standard intravenous (IV) fluid therapy in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock. This pre-planned study provides a probabilistic interpretation and evaluates heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE).

METHODS

We analysed mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), serious adverse reactions (SARs) and days alive without life-support within 90 days using Bayesian models with weakly informative priors. HTE on mortality was assessed according to five baseline variables: disease severity, vasopressor dose, lactate levels, creatinine values and IV fluid volumes given before randomisation.

RESULTS

The absolute difference in mortality was 0.2%-points (95% credible interval: -5.0 to 5.4; 47% posterior probability of benefit [risk difference <0.0%-points]) with restrictive IV fluid. The posterior probabilities of benefits with restrictive IV fluid were 72% for SAEs, 52% for SARs and 61% for days alive without life-support. The posterior probabilities of no clinically important differences (absolute risk difference ≤2%-points) between the groups were 56% for mortality, 49% for SAEs, 90% for SARs and 38% for days alive without life-support. There was 97% probability of HTE for previous IV fluid volumes analysed continuously, that is, potentially relatively lower mortality of restrictive IV fluids with higher previous IV fluids. No substantial evidence of HTE was found in the other analyses.

CONCLUSION

We could not rule out clinically important effects of restrictive IV fluid therapy on mortality, SAEs or days alive without life-support, but substantial effects on SARs were unlikely. IV fluids given before randomisation might interact with IV fluid strategy.

The impact of high versus standard enteral protein provision on functional recovery following intensive care admission: Protocol for a pre-planned secondary Bayesian analysis of the PRECISe trial

BACKGROUND

The PRECISe trial is a pragmatic, multicenter randomized controlled trial that evaluates the effect of high versus standard enteral protein provision on functional recovery in adult, mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. The current protocol presents the rationale and analysis plan for an evaluation of the primary and secondary outcomes under the Bayesian framework, with an emphasis on clinically important effect sizes.

METHODS

This protocol was drafted in agreement with the ROBUST-statement, and is submitted for publication before database lock and primary data analysis. The primary outcome is health-related quality of life as measured by the EQ-5D-5L health utility score and is longitudinally assessed. Secondary outcomes comprise the 6-min walking test and handgrip strength over the entire follow-up period (longitudinal analyses), and 60-day mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, and EQ-5D-5L health utility scores at 30, 90 and 180 days (cross-sectional). All analyses will primarily be performed under weakly informative priors. When available, informative priors elicited from contemporary literature will also be incorporated under alternative scenarios. In all other cases, objectively formulated skeptical and enthusiastic priors will be defined to assess the robustness of our results. Relevant identified subgroups were: patients with acute kidney injury, severe multi-organ failure and patients with or without sepsis. Results will be presented as absolute risk differences, mean differences, and odds ratios, with accompanying 95% credible intervals. Posterior probabilities will be estimated for clinically important benefit and harm.

DISCUSSION

The proposed secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis of the PRECISe trial will provide additional information on the effects of high protein on functional and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients, such as probabilistic interpretation, probabilities of clinically important effect sizes, and the integration of prior evidence. As such, it will complement the interpretation of the primary outcome as well as several secondary and subgroup analyses.

Patterns of corticosteroid use among remdesivir and matched patients and associated clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to investigate patterns of corticosteroid use and their relationship with remdesivir use and clinical outcomes in a large real-life cohort of COVID-19 patients treated in a tertiary-level institution.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed a total of 1558 severe and critical COVID-19 patients, including 779 patients treated with remdesivir and 779 matched control patients.

RESULTS

A total of 167 (10.7%) patients received none, 710 (45.6%) low, 539 (34.6%) high, and 142 (9.1%) very high corticosteroid doses. Patients treated with remdesivir had significantly longer exposure to corticosteroids, received higher average and maximal daily doses, and cumulative corticosteroid doses. In the multivariate analysis remdesivir use, lower cumulative comorbidity burden, higher severity of COVID-19 symptoms, and mechanical ventilation were recognized as mutually independent predictors of the use of higher corticosteroid doses. Higher corticosteroid doses were associated with significantly increased mortality.Among non-remdesivir treated patients, there was a U-shaped relationship between maximal daily corticosteroid dose and mortality. Among remdesivir treated patients gradual increase in mortality with increasing corticosteroid doses was observed.

CONCLUSION

Patterns of corticosteroid use differ regarding the use of remdesivir and may moderate its association with survival among severe and critical COVID-19 patients.

Case report: Enhancing prognosis in severe COVID-19 through human herpes virus coinfection treatment strategies

Background

In the context of increasing reports of co-infection with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), particularly with human herpes viruses (HHVs), it is important to consider the appropriate treatment options for HHVs that have been reactivated by COVID-19.

Case presentation

This study presents two cases of severe COVID-19 with HHV co-infection. The first case involved a critically ill patient with COVID-19 co-infected with herpes simplex virus type 1, confirmed using metagenomic next-generation sequencing, and another patient with severe COVID-19 experiencing Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) reactivation, as evidenced by elevated EBV-DNA levels in the serum. Treatment included high-dose glucocorticoids and sivelestat sodium, with notable improvements observed after initiating ganciclovir anti-herpesvirus therapy.

Conclusion

This study underscores the significance of recognizing HHV co-infections in severe COVID-19 cases and highlights the potential of combining anti-HHV treatment, increased glucocorticoid dosages, and anti-cytokine storm therapy to enhance prognosis.

Corticosteroid Dosing Level, Incidence and Profile of Bacterial Blood Stream Infections in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

COVID-19 patients with severe or critical symptoms are often treated with corticosteroids, per contemporary guidelines. Due to their immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory properties, corticosteroids are associated with the development of superinfections. We aimed to retrospectively assess patterns of corticosteroid use and the profiles of bacterial blood stream infections associated with exposure to different dosing levels, in a cohort of 1558 real-life adult COVID-19 patients. A total of 1391 (89.3%) patients were treated with corticosteroids, with 710 (45.6%) patients receiving low, 539 (34.6%) high and 142 (9.1%) very high corticosteroid doses. Bacteremia developed in a total of 178 (11.4%) patients. The risk of bacteremia was of similar magnitude between the no and low-dose corticosteroid treatments (p = 0.352), whereas it progressively increased with high (OR 6.18, 95% CI (2.66-14.38), p < 0.001) and very high corticosteroid doses (OR 8.12, 95% CI (3.29-20.05), p < 0.001), compared to no corticosteroid treatment. These associations persisted after multivariate adjustments and were present independently of sex, comorbidity burden, and mechanical ventilation. The profiles of individual bacterial pathogens differed depending on the used corticosteroid doses. High and very high corticosteroid doses are frequently used for real-life COVID-19 patients with severe and critical clinical presentations and are associated with a higher risk of bacteremia independently of sex, comorbidity burden, and mechanical ventilation use.

Heterogeneity of treatment effect of higher dose dexamethasone by geographic region (Europe vs. India) in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia - a post hoc evaluation of the COVID STEROID 2 trial

Background

In the COVID-STEROID 2 trial there was suggestion of heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) between patients enrolled from Europe vs. India on the primary outcome. Whether there was HTE for the remaining patient-centred outcomes is unclear.

Methods

In this post hoc analysis of the COVID-STEROID 2 trial, which compared 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, we evaluated HTE by geographical region (Europe vs. India) for secondary outcomes with analyses adjusted for stratification variables. Results are presented as risk differences (RDs) or mean differences (MDs) with 99% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values from interaction tests.

Findings

There were differences in mortality at day 28 (RD for Europe -8.3% (99% CI: -17.7 to 1.0) vs. India 0.1% (99% CI: -10.0 to 10.0)), mortality at day 90 (RD for Europe -7.4% (99% CI: -17.1 to 2.0) vs. India -1.4% (99% CI: -12.8 to 9.8)), mortality at day 180 (RD for Europe -6.7% (99% CI: -16.4 to 2.9) vs. India -1.0% (99% CI: -12.3 to 10.3)), and number of days alive without life support at day 90 (MD for Europe 6.1 days (99% CI: -1.3 to 13.4) vs. India 1.7 days (99% CI: -8.4 to 11.8)). For serious adverse reactions, the direction was reversed (RD for Europe -1.0% (99% CI: -7.1 to 5.2) vs. India -5.3% (99% CI: -16.2 to 5.0).

Interpretation

Our analysis suggests higher dose dexamethasone may have less beneficial effects for patients in India as compared with those in Europe; however, the evidence is weak, and this could represent a chance finding.

Funding

None for this analysis. The COVID STEROID 2 trial was funded by The Novo Nordisk Foundation and supported by Rigshospitalet's Research Council.

The II Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 Joint Guidelines of the Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia and Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia

OBJECTIVE

To update the recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil.

METHODS

Experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method.

RESULTS

Twenty-one recommendations were generated, including strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen and conditional recommendations for the use of tocilizumab and baricitinib for patients on supplemental oxygen or on noninvasive ventilation and anticoagulants to prevent thromboembolism. Due to suspension of use authorization, it was not possible to make recommendations regarding the use of casirivimab + imdevimab. Strong recommendations against the use of azithromycin in patients without suspected bacterial infection, hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, and lopinavir + ritonavir and conditional recommendations against the use of ivermectin and remdesivir were made.

CONCLUSION

New recommendations for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were generated, such as those for tocilizumab and baricitinib. Corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are still recommended, the latter with conditional recommendation. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and to promote resource economy.

A practical guide to adopting Bayesian analyses in clinical research

Background

Bayesian statistical approaches are extensively used in new statistical methods but have not been adopted at the same rate in clinical and translational (C&T) research. The goal of this paper is to accelerate the transition of new methods into practice by improving the C&T researcher's ability to gain confidence in interpreting and implementing Bayesian analyses.

Methods

We developed a Bayesian data analysis plan and implemented that plan for a two-arm clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of a new opioid in reducing time to discharge from the post-operative anesthesia unit and nerve block usage in surgery. Through this application, we offer a brief tutorial on Bayesian methods and exhibit how to apply four Bayesian statistical packages from STATA, SAS, and RStan to conduct linear and logistic regression analyses in clinical research.

Results

The analysis results in our application were robust to statistical package and consistent across a wide range of prior distributions. STATA was the most approachable package for linear regression but was more limited in the models that could be fitted and easily summarized. SAS and R offered more straightforward documentation and data management for the posteriors. They also offered direct programming of the likelihood making them more easily extendable to complex problems.

Conclusion

Bayesian analysis is now accessible to a broad range of data analysts and should be considered in more C&T research analyses. This will allow C&T research teams the ability to adopt and interpret Bayesian methodology in more complex problems where Bayesian approaches are often needed.

Cumulative steroid dose in hospitalized patients and COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis

BACKGROUND

Severe COVID-19 elicits a hyperimmune response frequently amenable to steroids, which in turn increase the risk for opportunistic infections. COVID-19 associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) is a complication known to be associated with immunomodulatory treatment. The role of cumulative steroid dose in the development of CAPA is unclear. This study evaluates the relationship between cumulative steroid dose in hospitalized individuals with COVID-19 pneumonia and the risk for CAPA.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study includes 135 hospitalized patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia at a tertiary centre in north Mexico. Patients who developed CAPA were matched by age and gender to two controls with COVID-19 pneumonia who did not develop CAPA defined and classified as possible, probable, or proven according to 2020 ECMM/ISHAM criteria. Cumulative steroid dose in dexamethasone equivalents was obtained from admission until death, discharge, or diagnosis of CAPA (whichever occurred first). The risk of CAPA by the continuous cumulative steroid dose was assessed using a logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients were diagnosed with CAPA and matched to 90 controls. Mean age was 61 ± 14 years, and 72% were male. Mean cumulative steroid dose was 66 ± 75 mg in patients without CAPA vs 195 ± 226 mg in patients with CAPA (P<0.001). The risk for CAPA increased with higher cumulative dose of steroids (OR 1.0075, 95% CI: 1.0033-1.0116).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who developed CAPA had a history of higher cumulative steroid dose during hospitalization. The risk for CAPA increases ∼8% for every 10 mg of dexamethasone used.

Positive single-center randomized trials and subsequent multicenter randomized trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

It is unclear how often survival benefits observed in single-center randomized controlled trials (sRCTs) involving critically ill patients are confirmed by subsequent multicenter randomized controlled trials (mRCTs). We aimed to perform a systemic literature review of sRCTs with a statistically significant mortality reduction and to evaluate whether subsequent mRCTs confirmed such reduction.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for sRCTs published in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, or Lancet, from inception until December 31, 2016. We selected studies reporting a statistically significant mortality decrease using any intervention (drug, technique, or strategy) in adult critically ill patients. We then searched for subsequent mRCTs addressing the same research question tested by the sRCT. We compared the concordance of results between sRCTs and mRCTs when any mRCT was available. We registered this systematic review in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023455362).

RESULTS

We identified 19 sRCTs reporting a significant mortality reduction in adult critically ill patients. For 16 sRCTs, we identified at least one subsequent mRCT (24 trials in total), while the interventions from three sRCTs have not yet been addressed in a subsequent mRCT. Only one out of 16 sRCTs (6%) was followed by a mRCT replicating a significant mortality reduction; 14 (88%) were followed by mRCTs with no mortality difference. The positive finding of one sRCT (6%) on intensive glycemic control was contradicted by a subsequent mRCT showing a significant mortality increase. Of the 14 sRCTs referenced at least once in international guidelines, six (43%) have since been either removed or suggested against in the most recent versions of relevant guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Mortality reduction shown by sRCTs is typically not replicated by mRCTs. The findings of sRCTs should be considered hypothesis-generating and should not contribute to guidelines.

Detailed statistical analysis plan for a secondary Bayesian analysis of the SafeBoosC-III trial: a multinational, randomised clinical trial assessing treatment guided by cerebral oximetry monitoring versus usual care in extremely preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Extremely preterm infants have a high mortality and morbidity. Here, we present a statistical analysis plan for secondary Bayesian analyses of the pragmatic, sufficiently powered multinational, trial-SafeBoosC III-evaluating the benefits and harms of cerebral oximetry monitoring plus a treatment guideline versus usual care for such infants.

METHODS

The SafeBoosC-III trial is an investigator-initiated, open-label, randomised, multinational, pragmatic, phase III clinical trial with a parallel-group design. The trial randomised 1601 infants, and the frequentist analyses were published in April 2023. The primary outcome is a dichotomous composite outcome of death or severe brain injury. The exploratory outcomes are major neonatal morbidities associated with neurodevelopmental impairment later in life: (1) bronchopulmonary dysplasia; (2) retinopathy of prematurity; (3) late-onset sepsis; (4) necrotising enterocolitis; and (5) number of major neonatal morbidities (count of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, retinopathy of prematurity, and severe brain injury). The primary Bayesian analyses will use non-informed priors including all plausible effects. The models will use a Hamiltonian Monte Carlo sampler with 1 chain, a sampling of 10,000, and at least 25,000 iterations for the burn-in period. In Bayesian statistics, such analyses are referred to as 'posteriors' and will be presented as point estimates with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs), encompassing the most probable results based on the data, model, and priors selected. The results will be presented as probability of any benefit or any harm, Bayes factor, and the probability of clinical important benefit or harm. Two statisticians will analyse the blinded data independently following this protocol.

DISCUSSION

This statistical analysis plan presents a secondary Bayesian analysis of the SafeBoosC-III trial. The analysis and the final manuscript will be carried out and written after we publicise the primary frequentist trial report. Thus, we can interpret the findings from both the frequentists and Bayesian perspective. This approach should provide a better foundation for interpreting of our findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.org, NCT03770741. Registered on 10 December 2018.

Anti-inflammatory effects of dexamethasone in COVID-19 patients: Translational population PK/PD modeling and simulation

Dexamethasone (DEX) given at a dose of 6 mg once-daily for 10 days is a recommended dosing regimen in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring oxygen therapy. We developed a population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PopPK/PD) model of DEX anti-inflammatory effects in COVID-19 and provide simulations comparing the expected efficacy of four dosing regimens of DEX. Nonlinear mixed-effects modeling and simulations were performed using Monolix Suite version 2021R1 (Lixoft, France). Published data for DEX PK in patients with COVID-19 exhibited moderate variability with a clearance of about half that in healthy adults. No accumulation of the drug was expected even with daily oral doses of 12 mg. Indirect effect models of DEX inhibition of TNFα, IL-6, and CRP plasma concentrations were enacted and simulations performed for DEX given at 1.5, 3, 6, and 12 mg daily for 10 days. The numbers of individuals that achieved specified reductions in inflammatory biomarkers were compared among the treatment groups. The simulations indicate the need for 6 or 12 mg daily doses of DEX for 10 days for simultaneous reductions in TNFα, IL-6, and CRP. Possibly beneficial is DEX given at a dose of 12 mg compared to 6 mg. The PopPK/PD model may be useful in the assessment of other anti-inflammatory compounds as well as drug combinations in the treatment of cytokine storms.

Which severe COVID-19 patients could benefit from high dose dexamethasone? A Bayesian post-hoc reanalysis of the COVIDICUS randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The respective benefits of high and low doses of dexamethasone (DXM) in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov2) and acute respiratory failure (ARF) are controversial, with two large triple-blind RCTs reaching very important difference in the effect-size. In the COVIDICUS trial, no evidence of additional benefit of high-dose dexamethasone (DXM20) was found. We aimed to explore whether some specific patient phenotypes could benefit from DXM20 compared to the standard of care 6 mg dose of DXM (DXMSoC).

METHODS

We performed a post hoc exploratory Bayesian analysis of 473 patients who received either DXMSoc or DXM20 in the COVIDICUS trial. The outcome was the 60 day mortality rate of DXM20 over DXMSoC, with treatment effect measured on the hazard ratio (HR) estimated from Cox model. Bayesian analyses allowed to compute the posterior probability of a more than trivial benefit (HR < 0.95), and that of a potential harm (HR > 1.05). Bayesian measures of interaction then quantified the probability of interaction (Pr Interact) that the HR of death differed across the subsets by 20%. Primary analyses used noninformative priors, centred on HR = 1.00. Sensitivity analyses used sceptical and enthusiastic priors, based on null (HR = 1.00) or benefit (HR = 0.95) effects.

RESULTS

Overall, the posterior probability of a more than trivial benefit and potential harm was 29.0 and 51.1%, respectively. There was some evidence of treatment by subset interaction (i) according to age (Pr Interact, 84%), with a 86.5% probability of benefit in patients aged below 70 compared to 22% in those aged above 70; (ii) according to the time since symptoms onset (Pr Interact, 99%), with a 99.9% probability of a more than trivial benefit when lower than 7 days compared to a < 0.1% probability when delayed by 7 days or more; and (iii) according to use of remdesivir (Pr Interact, 91%), with a 90.1% probability of benefit in patients receiving remdesivir compared to 19.1% in those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

In this exploratory post hoc Bayesian analysis, compared with standard-of-care DXM, high-dose DXM may benefit patients aged less than 70 years with severe ARF that occurred less than 7 days after symptoms onset. The use of remdesivir may also favour the benefit of DXM20. Further analysis is needed to confirm these findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04344730, date of registration April 14, 2020 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04344730?term=NCT04344730&draw=2&rank=1 ); EudraCT: 2020-001457-43 ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2020-001457-43 ).

Balanced resuscitation and earlier mortality end points: bayesian post hoc analysis of the PROPPR trial

Introduction

The Pragmatic Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios (PROPPR) trial failed to demonstrate a mortality difference for hemorrhaging patients receiving a balanced (1:1:1) vs a 1:1:2 resuscitation at 24 hours and 30 days. Recent guidelines recommend earlier mortality end points for hemorrhage-control trials, and the use of contemporary statistical methods. The aim of this post hoc analysis of the PROPPR trial was to evaluate the impact of a balanced resuscitation strategy at early resuscitation time points using a Bayesian analytical framework.

Methods

Bayesian hierarchical models were created to assess mortality differences at the 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 hours time points between study cohorts. Posterior probabilities and Bayes factors were calculated for each time point.

Results

A 1:1:1 resuscitation displayed a 96%, 99%, 94%, 92%, 96%, and 94% probability for mortality benefit at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 hours, respectively, when compared with a 1:1:2 approach. Associated Bayes factors for each respective time period were 21.2, 142, 14.9, 11.4, 26.4, and 15.5, indicating 'strong' to 'decisive' supporting evidence in favor of balanced transfusions.

Conclusion

This analysis provides evidence in support that a 1:1:1 resuscitation has a high probability of mortality benefit when compared with a 1:1:2 strategy, especially at the newly defined more proximate time points during the resuscitative period. Researchers should consider using Bayesian approaches, along with more proximate end points when assessing hemorrhage-related mortality, for the analysis of future clinical trials.

Level of evidence

Level III/Therapeutic.

Lower or higher oxygenation targets for acute Hypoxaemic respiratory failure: Protocol for an individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Supplemental oxygen therapy is central to the treatment of acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, a condition which remains a major driver for morbidity and mortality in intensive care. Despite several large randomised clinical trials comparing a higher versus a lower oxygenation target for these patients, significant differences in study design impede analysis of aggregate data and final clinical recommendations.

METHODS

This paper presents the protocol for conducting an individual patient data meta-analysis where full individual patient data according to the intention-to-treat principle will be pooled from the HOT-ICU and HOT-COVID trials in a one-step procedure. The two trials are near-identical in design. We plan to use a hierarchical general linear mixed model that accounts for data clustering at a trial and site level. The primary outcome will be 90-day all-cause mortality while the secondary outcome will be days alive without life-support at 90 days. Further, we outline 14 clinically relevant predefined subgroups which we will analyse for heterogeneity in the intervention effects and interactions, and we present a plan for assessing the credibility of the subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSION

The presented individual patient data meta-analysis will synthesise individual level patient data from two of the largest randomised clinical trials on targeted oxygen therapy in intensive care. The results will provide a re-analysis of the intervention effects on the pooled intention-to-treat populations and facilitate subgroup analyses with an increased power to detect clinically important effect modifications.

Rhinocerebral Mucormycosis Following COVID-19 Infection in Iran

Background & Objective

Mucormycosis (also called black fungus) is an opportunistic serious fungal infection caused by mucormycetes. It can occur in diabetes mellitus patients and other immunosuppressive conditions with recent predisposing factors such as maxillofacial surgery and corticosteroid usage.

Methods

In this study, 14 patients were referred to the otorhinolaryngology or ophthalmology ward of Shafa Hospital (Kerman, Iran) with primary symptoms of nasal fullness and facial nerve dysfunction; they were admitted to the hospital to rule out the fungal infection. An endoscopic biopsy was taken from facial sinuses or orbit, and a microscopic evaluation was performed using hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and periodic acid-Schiff (PAS) staining methods to rule out mucormycosis.

Results

In the histopathological examination, broad-based nonseptate branching fungal hyphae were found in nasal sinuses through the endoscopic biopsy. Most of the patients had diabetes mellitus with a primary symptom of facial nerve palsy; also, most of them received corticosteroids (intravenous [IV] or intramuscular [IM] injection). All patients have recently been infected with COVID-19 (less than 1 month ago).

Conclusion

COVID-19 infection might be a predisposing factor for many opportunistic infections, such as fungal elements); thus, the physician should be aware of the dosage and duration of corticosteroid therapy to prevent the development of these infections.

Optimal Dosing and Timing of High-Dose Corticosteroid Therapy in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: Study Protocol for a Retrospective Observational Multicenter Study (SELECT)

BACKGROUND

In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the dosing and timing of corticosteroids vary widely. Low-dose dexamethasone therapy reduces mortality in patients requiring respiratory support, but it remains unclear how to treat patients when this therapy fails. In critically ill patients, high-dose corticosteroids are often administered as salvage late in the disease course, whereas earlier administration may be more beneficial in preventing disease progression. Previous research has revealed that increased levels of various biomarkers are associated with mortality, and whole blood transcriptome sequencing has the ability to identify host factors predisposing to critical illness in patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE

Our goal is to determine the most optimal dosing and timing of corticosteroid therapy and to provide a basis for personalized corticosteroid treatment regimens to reduce morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, observational, multicenter study that includes adult patients who were hospitalized due to COVID-19 in the Netherlands. We will use the differences in therapeutic strategies between hospitals (per protocol high-dose corticosteroids or not) over time to determine whether high-dose corticosteroids have an effect on the following outcome measures: mechanical ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula therapy, in-hospital mortality, and 28-day survival. We will also explore biomarker profiles in serum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and use whole blood transcriptome analysis to determine factors that influence the relationship between high-dose corticosteroids and outcome. Existing databases that contain routinely collected electronic data during ward and intensive care admissions, as well as existing biobanks, will be used. We will apply longitudinal modeling appropriate for each data structure to answer the research questions at hand.

RESULTS

As of April 2023, data have been collected for a total of 1500 patients, with data collection anticipated to be completed by December 2023. We expect the first results to be available in early 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

This study protocol presents a strategy to investigate the effect of high-dose corticosteroids throughout the entire clinical course of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, from hospital admission to the ward or intensive care unit until hospital discharge. Moreover, our exploration of biomarker and gene expression profiles for targeted corticosteroid therapy represents a first step towards personalized COVID-19 corticosteroid treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05403359; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05403359.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/48183.

Steroid in the Treatment of Outpatient COVID-19: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Early treatment of COVID-19 patients could reduce hospitalization and death. The effect of corticosteroids in the outpatient setting is still unknown. This study aimed to determine the effect of corticosteroids in the prevention of hospitalization of nonsevere cases.

Materials and Methods

This study is a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Seventy five nonsevere COVID-19 patients presented between days 7 and 14 of their symptoms received either prednisolone or placebo. The primary outcome was hospitalization. The study protocol was registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials on December 2, 2020 (IRCT20171219037964N2).

Results

Although the rate of hospitalization in the prednisolone group was higher than the placebo group (10.8% vs. 7.9%, respectively), it was not statistically significant (P value.,6). One patient in each group reported an adverse event and withdrew the medication.

Conclusion

Considering the null effect of corticosteroids in the prevention of hospitalization in outpatient settings, it is suggested not to consider corticosteroids for outpatient treatment.

Drug treatment of COVID-19 infection

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

COVID-19 pandemic has caused more than 6.6 million deaths globally. Tremendous efforts have been committed for the development of new and repurposed drugs for the treatment of COVID-19. Although different international and national guidelines share consensus in the management of COVID-19 disease with different levels of severity, new challenges have emerged, steering the need for ongoing research in advancing the clinical management of COVID-19.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review focuses on recent data from randomized trials and postmarketing real-world evidence for the treatment of mild to moderate disease in the outpatient setting and patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with varying level of severity. Relevant data for treatment of the latest omicron sub-variants in people who received vaccination are presented. Challenges in special populations, including immunocompromised hosts, patients with renal failure and pregnant women, are also discussed.

SUMMARY

Treatment of COVID-19 should be personalized according to host characteristics, degree of severity and available treatment options.

Causal Bayesian machine learning to assess treatment effect heterogeneity by dexamethasone dose for patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia

The currently recommended dose of dexamethasone for patients with severe or critical COVID-19 is 6 mg per day (mg/d) regardless of patient features and variation. However, patients with severe or critical COVID-19 are heterogenous in many ways (e.g., age, weight, comorbidities, disease severity, and immune features). Thus, it is conceivable that a standardized dosing protocol may not be optimal. We assessed treatment effect heterogeneity in the COVID STEROID 2 trial, which compared 6 mg/d to 12 mg/d, using a causal inference framework with Bayesian Additive Regression Trees, a flexible modeling method that detects interactive effects and nonlinear relationships among multiple patient characteristics simultaneously. We found that 12 mg/d of dexamethasone, relative to 6 mg/d, was probably associated with better long-term outcomes (days alive without life support and mortality after 90 days) among the entire trial population (i.e., no signals of harm), and probably more beneficial among those without diabetes mellitus, that were older, were not using IL-6 inhibitors at baseline, weighed less, or had higher level respiratory support at baseline. This adds more evidence supporting the use of 12 mg/d in practice for most patients not receiving other immunosuppressants and that additional study of dosing could potentially optimize clinical outcomes.

Higher- versus Lower-Dose Corticosteroids for Severe to Critical COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-analysis

Rationale: Corticosteroids are standard of care for patients with severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, the optimal dose is uncertain. Objectives: To compare higher doses of corticosteroids with lower doses in patients with COVID-19. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MedRxiv, and Web of Science from inception to August 1, 2022, for trials that randomized patients with severe-to-critical COVID-19 to corticosteroids, standard care, or placebo. Reviewers, working in duplicate, screened references, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using a modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. We performed a dose-response meta-analysis and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess the certainty of evidence. We present our results both in relative risk and absolute risk difference per 1,000, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: We included 20 trials, with 10,155 patients. We show that, compared with lower-dose corticosteroids, higher-dose corticosteroids probably reduce mortality (absolute risk difference, 14 fewer deaths per 1,000 [95% CI, 26 fewer to 2 fewer]; moderate certainty) and may reduce the need for mechanical ventilation (absolute risk difference, 11.6 fewer per 1,000 [95% CI, 23.2 fewer to 6.9 more]; low certainty). The effect of corticosteroids on nosocomial infections is uncertain (16.7 fewer infections per 1,000 [95% CI, 5.4 fewer to 25.0 fewer]; very low certainty). Conclusions: Relatively higher doses of corticosteroids may be beneficial in patients with severe-to-critical COVID-19 and may not increase the risk of nosocomial infections.

Haloperidol vs. placebo for the treatment of delirium in ICU patients: a pre-planned, secondary Bayesian analysis of the AID–ICU trial

PURPOSE

The AID-ICU trial was a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial investigating effects of haloperidol versus placebo in acutely admitted, adult patients admitted in intensive care unit (ICU) with delirium. This pre-planned Bayesian analysis facilitates probabilistic interpretation of the AID-ICU trial results.

METHODS

We used adjusted Bayesian linear and logistic regression models with weakly informative priors to analyse all primary and secondary outcomes reported up to day 90, and with sensitivity analyses using other priors. The probabilities for any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm, and no clinically important differences with haloperidol treatment according to pre-defined thresholds are presented for all outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean difference for days alive and out of hospital to day 90 (primary outcome) was 2.9 days (95% credible interval (CrI) - 1.1 to 6.9) with probabilities of 92% for any benefit and 82% for clinically important benefit. The risk difference for mortality was - 6.8 percentage points (95% CrI - 12.8 to - 0.8) with probabilities of 99% for any benefit and 94% for clinically important benefit. The adjusted risk difference for serious adverse reactions was 0.3 percentage points (95% CrI - 1.3 to 1.9) with 98% probability of no clinically important difference. Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses using different priors, with more than 83% probability of benefit and less than 17% probability of harm with haloperidol treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

We found high probabilities of benefits and low probabilities of harm with haloperidol treatment compared with placebo in acutely admitted, adult ICU patients with delirium for the primary and most secondary outcomes.

Effects of 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone on thromboembolism and bleeding in patients with critical COVID-19 - a post hoc analysis of the randomized, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Thromboembolism is more common in patients with critical COVID-19 than in other critically ill patients, and inflammation has been proposed as a possible mechanism. The aim of this study was to investigate if 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone daily reduced the composite outcome of death or thromboembolism in patients with critical COVID-19.

METHODS

Using additional data on thromboembolism and bleeding we did a post hoc analysis of Swedish and Danish intensive care unit patients enrolled in the blinded randomized COVID STEROID 2 trial comparing 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone daily for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of death or thromboembolism during intensive care. Secondary outcomes were thromboembolism, major bleeding, and any bleeding during intensive care.

RESULTS

We included 357 patients. Whilst in intensive care, 53 patients (29%) in the 12 mg group and 53 patients (30%) in the 6 mg group met the primary outcome with an unadjusted absolute risk difference of - 0.5% (95% CI - 10 to 9.5%, p = 1.00) and an adjusted OR of 0.93 (CI 95% 0.58 to 1.49, p = 0.77). We found no firm evidence of differences in any of the secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with critical COVID-19, 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone daily did not result in a statistically significant difference in the composite outcome of death or thromboembolism. However, uncertainty remains due to the limited number of patients.

A Bayesian Reanalysis of a Trial of Psilocybin versus Escitalopram for Depression

Objectives

To perform a Bayesian reanalysis of a recent trial of psilocybin (COMP360) versus escitalopram for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) in order to provide a more informative interpretation of the indeterminate outcome of a previous frequentist analysis.

Design

Reanalysis of a two-arm double-blind placebo controlled trial.

Participants

Fifty-nine patients with MDD.

Interventions

Two doses of psilocybin 25mg and daily oral placebo versus daily escitalopram and 2 doses of psilocybin 1mg, with psychological support for both groups.

Outcome measures

Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (QIDS SR-16), and three other depression scales as secondary outcomes: HAMD-17, MADRS, and BDI-1A.

Results

Using Bayes factors and 'skeptical priors' which bias estimates towards zero, for the hypothesis that psilocybin is superior by any margin, we found indeterminate evidence for QIDS SR-16, strong evidence for BDI-1A and MADRS, and extremely strong evidence for HAMD-17. For the stronger hypothesis that psilocybin is superior by a 'clinically meaningful amount' (using literature defined values of the minimally clinically important difference), we found moderate evidence against it for QIDS SR-16, indeterminate evidence for BDI-1A and MADRS, and moderate evidence supporting it for HAMD-17. Furthermore, across the board we found extremely strong evidence for psilocybin's non-inferiority versus escitalopram. These findings were robust to prior sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions

This Bayesian reanalysis supports the following inferences: 1) that psilocybin did indeed outperform escitalopram in this trial, but not to an extent that was clinically meaningful--and 2) that psilocybin is almost certainly non-inferior to escitalopram. The present results provide a more precise and nuanced interpretation to previously reported results from this trial, and support the need for further research into the relative efficacy of psilocybin therapy for depression with respect to current leading treatments.

Trial registration number

NCT03429075.

Pulmonary Cryptococcosis and Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Complication of COVID-19 Pneumonia

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and pulmonary fibrosis (PF) are increasingly identified as complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, the latter being managed with tapering dose glucocorticoids. Studies have shown improved outcomes with steroid use in this subset of patients; however, the use of high doses of steroids predisposes these patients to develop various complications such as opportunistic infections. The incidence of pulmonary cryptococcosis (PC) in patients with post-COVID-19 PF is not known. Here, we discuss a middle-aged male, with no pulmonary comorbidities, who developed PC secondary to the immunocompromised state from high-dose steroid use for the management of post-COVID-19 PF.

Steroid exposure and outcome in COVID-19 pneumonia

Background

Corticosteroids are used to treat COVID-19 pneumonia. However, the optimal dose is unclear. This study describes the association between corticosteroid exposure with disease severity and outcome in COVID-19 pneumonia.

Methods

This is a single-centre retrospective, observational study including adult ICU patients who received systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 pneumonia between March 2020 and March 2021. We recorded patient characteristics, disease severity, total steroid exposure, respiratory support and gas exchange data, and 90-day mortality.

Results

We included 362 patients. We allocated patients to groups with increasing disease severity according to the highest level of respiratory support that they received: high-flow nasal oxygen or continuous positive airway pressure (HFNO/CPAP) in 12.7%, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in 61.6%, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in 25.7%. For these three groups, the median (inter-quartile range [IQR]) age was 61 (54-71) vs 58 (50-66) vs 46 (38-53) yr, respectively (P<0.001); median (IQR) APACHE (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) II scores were 12 (9-15) vs 14 (12-18) vs 15 (12-17), respectively (P=0.006); the median (IQR) lowest P a O 2 /FiO₂ ratio was 15.1 (11.8-21.7) vs 15.1 (10.7-22.2) vs 9.5 (7.9-10.9) kPa, respectively (P<0.001). Ninety-day mortality was 9% vs 27% vs 37% (P=0.002). Median (IQR) dexamethasone-equivalent exposure was 37 (24-62) vs 174 (86-504) vs 535 (257-1213) mg (P<0.001). 'Pulsed' steroids were administered to 26% of the IMV group and 48% of the ECMO group. Patients with higher disease severity who received pulse steroids had a higher 90-day mortality.

Conclusions

Corticosteroid exposure increased with the severity of COVID-19 pneumonia. Pulsed dose steroids were used more frequently in patients receiving greater respiratory support. Future studies should address patient selection and outcomes associated with pulsed dose steroids in patients with severe and deteriorating COVID-19 pneumonia.

Heterogeneous treatment effects of dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia-Post hoc exploratory analyses of the COVID STEROID 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids improve outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19. In the COVID STEROID 2 randomised clinical trial, we found high probabilities of benefit with dexamethasone 12 versus 6 mg daily. While no statistically significant heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE) was found in the conventional, dichotomous subgroup analyses, these analyses have limitations, and HTE could still exist.

METHODS

We assessed whether HTE was present for days alive without life support and mortality at Day 90 in the trial according to baseline age, weight, number of comorbidities, category of respiratory failure (type of respiratory support system and oxygen requirements) and predicted risk of mortality using an internal prediction model. We used flexible models for continuous variables and logistic regressions for categorical variables without dichotomisation of the baseline variables of interest. HTE was assessed both visually and with p and S values from likelihood ratio tests.

RESULTS

There was no strong evidence for substantial HTE on either outcome according to any of the baseline variables assessed with all p values >.37 (and all S values <1.43) in the planned analyses and no convincingly strong visual indications of HTE.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no strong evidence for HTE with 12 versus 6 mg dexamethasone daily on days alive without life support or mortality at Day 90 in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia, although these results cannot rule out HTE either.

The development of COVID-19 treatment

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused a pandemic named coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that has become the greatest worldwide public health threat of this century. Recent studies have unraveled numerous mysteries of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis and thus largely improved the studies of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutic strategies. However, important questions remain regarding its therapy. In this review, the recent research advances on COVID-19 mechanism are quickly summarized. We mainly discuss current therapy strategies for COVID-19, with an emphasis on antiviral agents, neutralizing antibody therapies, Janus kinase inhibitors, and steroids. When necessary, specific mechanisms and the history of therapy are present, and representative strategies are described in detail. Finally, we discuss key outstanding questions regarding future directions of the development of COVID-19 treatment.

[Should we interfere with the interleukin-6 receptor during COVID-19: What do we know?]

COVID-19 is a viral infection with predominant respiratory tropism. In its most severe forms, the initial viral aggression leads to acute respiratory failure due to damage secondary to an exacerbated inflammatory response provoked by the activation of innate, followed by adaptive immunity. The inflammatory response may entail respiratory distress syndrome, if not multivisceral failure and death. IL-6 receptor inhibitors (Tocilizumab and Sarilumab) have been proposed as treatments. Numerous studies have provided new information, which remains heterogeneous and difficult to interpret. This review is aimed at clarifying the potential role of IL-6 receptor inhibitors in severe forms of COVID-19.

Should We Interfere with the Interleukin-6 Receptor During COVID-19: What Do We Know So Far?

Severe manifestations of COVID-19 consist of acute respiratory distress syndrome due to an initially local reaction leading to a systemic inflammatory response that results in hypoxia. Many therapeutic approaches have been attempted to reduce the clinical consequences of an excessive immune response to viral infection. To date, systemic corticosteroid therapy is still the most effective intervention. More recently, new hope has emerged with the use of interleukin (IL)-6 receptor inhibitors (tocilizumab and sarilumab). However, the great heterogeneity of the methodology and results of published studies obfuscate the true value of this treatment, leading to a confusing synthesis in recent meta-analyses, and the persistence of doubts in terms of patient groups and the appropriate time to treat. Moreover, their effects on the anti-infectious or pro-healing response are still poorly studied. This review aims to clarify the potential role of IL-6 receptor inhibitors in the treatment of severe forms of COVID-19.

A Bayesian Interpretation of a Pediatric Cardiac Arrest Trial (THAPCA-OH)

BACKGROUND: Pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest results in high morbidity and mortality. Currently, there are no recommended therapies beyond supportive care. The THAPCA-OH (Therapeutic Hypothermia after Pediatric Cardiac Arrest Out-of-Hospital) trial compared hypothermia (33.0°C) with normothermia (36.8°C) in 295 children. Good neurobehavioral outcome and survival at 1 year were higher in the hypothermia group (20 vs. 12% and 38 vs. 29%, respectively). These differences did not meet the planned statistical threshold of P75% for all informative prior integrations with the THAPCA-OH results, except those with the most pessimistic priors. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high probability that hypothermia provides a modest benefit in neurobehavioral outcome and survival at 1 year. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00878644.)

Management of COVID-19 Infection in Pregnancy

Although the majority of pregnant patients who contract severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 will have a mild course of illness, pregnant patients with coronavirus disease-2019 are more likely than their nonpregnant counterparts to develop a severe illness with an increased risk of poor maternal and fetal outcomes. Although the extent of research in this specific patient population remains limited, there are tenets of care with which physicians and other providers must be familiar to increase the chances of better outcomes for the two patients in their care.

The Effect of Corticosteroid Therapy on Choroidal Thickness in Patients With Covid-19 Infection: A Prospective, Comparative, and Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has many different ocular manifestations. This study evaluates the effects of the disease and the steroid used in this disease on ocular structures.

PURPOSE

 To evaluate the effects of Covid-19 and the steroids used in the treatment of severe infection on ocular structures and choroidal thickness.

METHODS

This prospective study included 76 eyes of 76 patients who were hospitalized due to Covid-19 and 30 eyes of 30 healthy volunteering controls. Group I included 35 eyes who were hospitalized due to moderate-to-severe involvement that received steroid treatment, group II included 41 eyes with moderate involvement that did not require steroid treatment, and group III included 30 eyes with age- and gender-matched control subjects. Ophthalmological examination and imaging results of the patients obtained in the third week and third month after the diagnosis were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Mean age of all participants was 40.2 ± 6.1 years. In the third week after the diagnosis of Covid-19, choroidal thickness in all regions (subfoveal, nasal, and temporal) was significantly greater in group I than in group II (for all, p<0.001). Moreover, choroidal thicknesses were significantly higher in group I and group II than in the control group (for all, p<0.001). In the third month, all the groups had similar choroidal thickness values (for subfoveal, nasal, and temporal; p=0.058, p=0.111, p=0.079, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Our findings showed that Covid-19 infection causes choroidal thickening by affecting the choroidal layer and that steroid treatment further increases this thickness in the acute period. In addition, the reversal of this thickening to the normal level within a period of three months indicates that the effect of the disease on the choroid is reversible.

High-dose corticosteroids in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia: an observational study of comparative effectiveness

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether high- compared with low-dose corticosteroids started upon hospitalization reduce mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia or in subgroups stratified by severity of respiratory impairment on admission.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required oxygen supplementation upon hospitalization between March 1 and December 31, 2020. In-hospital death was analyzed using logistic regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting of receiving low- or high-dose corticosteroid (dexamethasone 6-10 mg daily or >10-20 mg daily or other corticosteroid equivalents).

RESULTS

We analyzed 13,366 patients who received low-dose and 948 who received high-dose corticosteroids, of whom 31.3% and 40.4% had severe respiratory impairment (>15 l/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation) upon admission, respectively. There were no differences in the propensity score-adjusted odds of death (odds ratio 1.17, 95% CI 0.72-1.90) or infections (odds ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.44-1.11) for patients who received high-dose compared with low-dose corticosteroids, beginning on the day of admission. No significant differences in subgroups stratified by severity of respiratory impairment were found.

CONCLUSION

Initiating high-dose compared with low-dose corticosteroids among newly hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia did not improve survival. However, benefit of high-dose corticosteroids in specific subgroups cannot be excluded.

Effect of methylprednisolone therapy on hospital stay and viral clearance in patients with moderate COVID-19

Background

The benefits and harms of methylprednisolone treatment in patients with moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain controversial. In this study, we investigated the effect of methylprednisolone on mortality rate, viral clearance, and hospitalization stay in patients with moderate COVID-19.

Methods

This retrospective study included 4827 patients admitted to Wuhan Huoshenshan and Wuhan Guanggu hospitals from February to March 2020 diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia. The participants' epidemiological and demographic data, comorbidities, laboratory test results, treatments, outcomes, and vital clinical time points were extracted from electronic medical records. The primary outcome was in-hospital death; secondary outcomes were time from admission to viral clearance and hospital stay. Univariate and multivariate logistic or linear regression analysis were used to assess the roles of methylprednisolone in different outcomes. The propensity score matching (PSM) method was used to control for confounding factors.

Results

A total of 1320 patients were included in this study, of whom 100 received methylprednisolone. Overall, in-hospital mortality was 0.91% (12/1320); the 12 patients who died were all in the methylprednisolone group, though multivariate logistic regression analysis showed methylprednisolone treatment was not a risk factor for in-hospital death in moderate patients before or after adjustment for confounders by PSM. Methylprednisolone treatment was correlated with longer length from admission to viral clearance time and hospital stay before and after adjustment for confounders.

Conclusions

Methylprednisolone therapy was not associated with increased in-hospital mortality but with delayed viral clearance and extended hospital stay in moderate COVID-19 patients.

Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19: Equity-related analyses and update on evidence

BACKGROUND

Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. Nonetheless, size of effect, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether and at which doses systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, to explore equity-related aspects in subgroup analyses, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 6 January 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19. We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids and the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care, different types, doses and timings (early versus late) of corticosteroids. We excluded corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality up to 30 and 120 days, discharged alive (clinical improvement), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (clinical worsening), serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 RCTs in 9549 participants, of whom 8271 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 4532 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 3766). These studies included participants mostly older than 50 years and male. We also identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design. Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo We included 11 RCTs (8019 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analyses included outcome data from 10 studies. Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care compared to standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.97; 7898 participants; estimated absolute effect: 274 deaths per 1000 people not receiving systemic corticosteroids compared to 246 deaths per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95% CI 230 to 265 per 1000 people); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.34; 485 participants). The chance of clinical improvement (discharged alive at day 28) may slightly increase (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11; 6786 participants; low-certainty evidence) while the risk of clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death) may slightly decrease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; 5586 participants; low-certainty evidence). For serious adverse events (two RCTs, 678 participants), adverse events (three RCTs, 447 participants), hospital-acquired infections (four RCTs, 598 participants), and invasive fungal infections (one study, 64 participants), we did not perform any analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence (high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting). Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids We identified one RCT (86 participants) comparing methylprednisolone to dexamethasone, thus the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of methylprednisolone on all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.07; 86 participants). None of the other outcomes of interest were reported in this study. We included four RCTs (1383 participants) comparing high-dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) to low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg). High-dose dexamethasone compared to low-dose dexamethasone may reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04; 1269 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of high-dose dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 1383 participants) and it may have little or no impact on clinical improvement (discharged alive at 28 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 200 participants; low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report data on clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death). For serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections, we did not perform analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence. We could not identify studies for comparisons of different timing and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances. Equity-related subgroup analyses We conducted the following subgroup analyses to explore equity-related factors: sex, age (< 70 years; ≥ 70 years), ethnicity (Black, Asian or other versus White versus unknown) and place of residence (high-income versus low- and middle-income countries). Except for age and ethnicity, no evidence for differences could be identified. For all-cause mortality up to 30 days, participants younger than 70 years seemed to benefit from systemic corticosteroids in comparison to those aged 70 years and older. The few participants from a Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic group showed a larger estimated effect than the many White participants. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease There are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality up to 30 days in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19, while the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality up to 120 days. For younger people (under 70 years of age) there was a potential advantage, as well as for Black, Asian, or people of a minority ethnic group; further subgroup analyses showed no relevant effects. Evidence related to the most effective type, dose, or timing of systemic corticosteroids remains immature. Currently, there is no evidence on asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). Due to the low to very low certainty of the current evidence, we cannot assess safety adequately to rule out harmful effects of the treatment, therefore there is an urgent need for good-quality safety data. Findings of equity-related subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution because of their explorative nature, low precision, and missing data. We identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design, suggesting there may be possible changes of the effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future.

Glucocorticoids and COVID-19

Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19) is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates globally, representing the greatest health and economic challenge today. Several drugs are currently approved for the treatment of COVID-19. Among these, glucocorticoids (GCs) have received particular attention due to their anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects. In fact, GC are widely used in current clinical practice to treat inflammatory, allergic and autoimmune diseases. Major mechanisms of GC action include inhibition of innate and adaptive immune activity. In particular, an important role is played by the inhibition of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines, and the induction of proteins with anti-inflammatory activity. Overall, as indicated by various national and international regulatory agencies, GCs are recommended for the treatment of COVID-19 in patients requiring oxygen therapy, with or without mechanical ventilation. Regarding the use of GCs for the COVID-19 treatment of non-hospitalized patients at an early stage of the disease, many controversial studies have been reported and regulatory agencies have not recommended their use. The decision to start GC therapy should be based not only on the severity of COVID-19 disease, but also on careful considerations of the benefit/risk profile in individual patients, including monitoring of adverse events. In this review we summarize the effects of GCs on the major cellular and molecular components of the inflammatory/immune system, the benefits and the adverse common reactions in the treatment of inflammatory/autoimmune diseases, as well as in the management of COVID-19.

Low-dose versus high-dose dexamethasone for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: A randomized clinical trial

Background

Dexamethasone 6 mg daily for 10 days is the recommended treatment for patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The evidence on the benefit of high-dose dexamethasone is limited. The goal of this study was to assess the effects of 6 mg daily vs. 20 mg daily of dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Methods

We conducted a single-center, randomized, clinical trial involving hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Participants were randomized 1:1 to dexamethasone 6 mg daily or dexamethasone 20 mg daily, and were stratified by the WHO-Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement (OSCI). The primary outcome was clinical improvement equal to or greater than 2 points by OSCI on day 28. Secondary outcomes were 28-day mortality, intensive care unit-free days, and ventilator-free days on day 28.

Results

Of the 107 patients who enrolled and completed the follow up, 55 patients enrolled in the low-dose group and 52 patients enrolled in the high-dose group. Treatment with dexamethasone 20 mg daily compared with dexamethasone 6 mg daily did not result in better clinical improvement based on OSCI on day 28 (71.2% vs. 78.2%; odds ratio, 1.45 [0.55–3.86]; p = 0.403). For participants who required high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at randomization, the 6-mg group had better survival than the 20-mg group on day 28 (100% vs. 57.1%; p = 0.025). Although more participants in the 6-mg group received immune modulators (40% vs. 21.2%; p = 0.035), 50% of death cases in the 20-mg group who required high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at randomization received immune modulators.

Conclusions

Dexamethasone 20 mg daily did not result in better clinical outcome improvement, and was probably associated with higher 28-day mortality in patients on high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation, compared with dexamethasone 6 mg daily.

Trial registration

Clinialtrials.gov number, NCT04707534, registered January 13, 2021