Comparison of the effect of intravenous dexamethasone and methylprednisolone on the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial

Dexamethasone doses in patients with COVID-19 and hypoxia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal dose of dexamethasone for severe/critical COVID-19 is uncertain. We compared higher versus standard doses of dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 and hypoxia.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and trial registers until 23 June 2023 for randomised clinical trials comparing higher (>6 mg) versus standard doses (6 mg) of dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 and hypoxia. The primary outcome was mortality at 1 month. Secondary outcomes were mortality closest to 90 days; days alive without life support; and the occurrence of serious adverse events/reactions (SAEs/SARs) closest to 1 month. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB2 tool, risk of random errors using trial sequential analysis, and certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

We included eight trials (2478 participants), of which four (1293 participants) had low risk of bias. Higher doses of dexamethasone probably resulted in little to no difference in mortality at 1 month (relative risk [RR] 0.97, 95% CI: 0.79-1.19), mortality closest to Day 90 (RR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.86-1.20), and SAEs/SARs (RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.97-1.02). Higher doses of dexamethasone probably increased the number of days alive without invasive mechanical ventilation and circulatory support but had no effect on days alive without renal replacement therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on low to moderate certainty evidence, higher versus standard doses of dexamethasone probably result in little to no difference in mortality, SAEs/SARs, and days alive without renal replacement therapy, but probably increase the number of days alive without invasive mechanical ventilation and circulatory support.

[Current Status of Research on COVID-19 Patients With Concomitant Hyperglycemia and the Management Strategies of Hyperglycemia]

The global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) poses a serious threat to human health, leading to a relatively high mortality in patients with severe or critical conditions in particular. Hyperglycemia is one of the high-risk factors for poor prognosis in these patients. Patients with COVID-19 are more likely to develop hyperglycemia, regardless of whether there is a previous history of diabetes mellitus. Glucocorticoid therapy is an important part of the anti-inflammatory regimen for COVID-19. However, the use of glucocorticoid significantly increases the occurrence of hyperglycemic events in COVID-19 patients, ultimately leading to poor prognosis. Timely monitoring of blood glucose and early intervention for hyperglycemia contribute to the improvement in the outcome of COVID-19 patients. In this paper, we comprehensively reviewed the potential mechanisms of COVID-19 and concomitant hyperglycemia. We reviewed the latest findings on the blood glucose management strategies for COVID-19 patients with concomitant hyperglycemia, aiming to optimize the management of hyperglycemia in COVID-19 patients and improve the outcome of the disease.

An Update on SARS-CoV-2 Clinical Trial Results-What We Can Learn for the Next Pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has claimed over 7 million lives worldwide, providing a stark reminder of the importance of pandemic preparedness. Due to the lack of approved antiviral drugs effective against coronaviruses at the start of the pandemic, the world largely relied on repurposed efforts. Here, we summarise results from randomised controlled trials to date, as well as selected in vitro data of directly acting antivirals, host-targeting antivirals, and immunomodulatory drugs. Overall, repurposing efforts evaluating directly acting antivirals targeting other viral families were largely unsuccessful, whereas several immunomodulatory drugs led to clinical improvement in hospitalised patients with severe disease. In addition, accelerated drug discovery efforts during the pandemic progressed to multiple novel directly acting antivirals with clinical efficacy, including small molecule inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies. We argue that large-scale investment is required to prepare for future pandemics; both to develop an arsenal of broad-spectrum antivirals beyond coronaviruses and build worldwide clinical trial networks that can be rapidly utilised.

Efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids use in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and network meta‑analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, some meta-analyses on COVID-19 have suggested that glucocorticoids use can reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients, utilization rate of invasive ventilation, and improve the prognosis of patients. However, optimal regimen and dosages of glucocorticoid remain unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this network meta-analysis is to analyze the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids in treating COVID-19 at regimens.

METHODS

This meta-analysis retrieved randomized controlled trials from the earliest records to December 30, 2022, published in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI Database and Wanfang Database, which compared glucocorticoids with placebos for their efficacy and safety in the treatment of COVID-19, Effects of different treatment regimens, types and dosages (high-dose methylprednisolone, very high-dose methylprednisolone, Pulse therapy methylprednisolone, medium-dose hydrocortisone, high-dose hydrocortisone, high-dose dexamethasone, very high-dose dexamethasone and placebo) on 28-day all-caused hospitalization mortality, hospitalization duration, mechanical ventilation requirement, ICU admission and safety outcome were compared.

RESULTS

In this network meta-analysis, a total of 10,544 patients from 19 randomized controlled trials were finally included, involving a total of 9 glucocorticoid treatment regimens of different types and dosages. According to the analysis results, the 28-day all-cause mortality rate was the lowest in the treatment with pulse therapy methylprednisolone (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02, 0.42), but the use of high-dose methylprednisolone (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59, 1.22), very high-dose dexamethasone (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.67, 1.35), high-dose hydrocortisone (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.34, 1.22), medium-dose hydrocortisone (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49, 1.31) showed no benefit in prolonging the 28-day survival of patient. Compared with placebo, the treatment with very high-dose methylprednisolone (MD = -3.09;95%CI: -4.10, -2.08) had the shortest length of hospital stay, while high-dose dexamethasone (MD = -1.55;95%CI: -3.13,0.03) and very high-dose dexamethasone (MD = -1.06;95%CI: -2.78,0.67) did not benefit patients in terms of length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the available evidence, this network meta‑analysis suggests that the prognostic impact of glucocorticoids in patients with COVID-19 may depend on the regimens of glucocorticoids. It is suggested that pulse therapy methylprednisolone is associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality, very high-dose methylprednisolone had the shortest length of hospital stay in patients with COVID-19.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022350407 (22/08/2022).

Meta-analysis of the efficacy of budesonide and ambroxol hydrochloride inhalation in children with pneumonia and their effects on inflammatory response

Childhood pneumonia, often caused by acute upper respiratory tract infections or bronchitis, is one of the leading causes of mortality in children. Nebulized inhalation, as a low-risk treatment method, has garnered significant attention. However, its effectiveness and safety remain controversial. In this study, a systematic review of relevant literature on the use of budesonide (BUD) and ambroxol hydrochloride (AMB) inhalation in the treatment of childhood pneumonia was conducted, and a total of 10 articles were included. The meta-analysis revealed an odds ratio (OR) of 1.61 and an I2 value of 0.00 % for the effectiveness of combined BUD and AMB inhalation therapy in children with pneumonia, indicating no heterogeneity among the studies in terms of effectiveness. The OR values for BUD or AMB inhalation in alleviating cough, lung auscultation abnormalities, respiratory distress, body temperature, and cyanosis of the lips in children with pneumonia all favored the combined BUD therapy, showing significant relief of the aforementioned symptoms. However, due to variations in drug dosage and administration methods, high heterogeneity was observed. This study suggested that combined BUD and AMB inhalation therapy has better efficacy in treating childhood pneumonia, and BUD combined with AMB inhalation is more effective in alleviating symptoms such as cough, lung auscultation abnormalities, respiratory distress, normalizing body temperature, and reducing cyanosis of the lips. Nevertheless, further validation is required due to the limited sample size and substantial heterogeneity in the included studies. To sum up, this study provides the first analysis of the efficacy and inflammatory response of BUD and AMB inhalation in children with pneumonia. Future research should aim to verify and clarify these findings, considering the limitations of the existing studies in terms of sample size and heterogeneity.

Methylprednisolone or dexamethasone? How should we choose to respond to COVID-19?: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Methylprednisolone (MP) and dexamethasone (DXM) are commonly prescribed hormone drugs for treating coronavirus pandemic disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, but conflicting results from previous studies and meta-analyses on their efficacy and safety necessitate further investigation. Therefore, in this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to enhance the level of evidence and compare the efficacy and safety of MP and DXM in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to retrieve randomized clinical trials. Our primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality, with secondary outcomes including admission to the intensive care unit, length of hospital stay, mechanical ventilation, and adverse events.

RESULTS

This study analyzed six randomized controlled trials involving 1403 patients (MP group: 704; DXM group: 699). The results of the analysis showed no significant differences in mortality rates, admission to intensive care units, hospitalization time, mechanical ventilation, or adverse events between the MP and DXM groups (P > .05). However, a significant difference was observed in the incidence of hyperglycemia between these 2 groups (RR = 1.78, 95% CI [1.09, 2.89], P = .02, I2 = 78%).

CONCLUSION

The results of this meta-analysis showed that there was no difference in mortality, ICU admission rate, hospital stay, mechanical ventilation, or adverse events between MP and DXM in the treatment of COVID-19. The incidence of hyperglycemia with methylprednisolone was higher than that with dexamethasone.

Herbal Supplements as Treatment Options for COVID-19: A call for Clinical Development of Herbal Supplements for Emerging and Re-Emerging Viral Threats in Sub-Saharan Africa

The advent of Corona virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) distorted health systems of many countries. Efforts have been made to either develop new treatment solutions such as vaccines or repurpose previously adopted drugs. Challenges in accessing available treatment, inadequate, non-existent, or overstretched healthcare facilities, long COVID disease, cultural practices and beliefs about vaccination, vaccine hesitancy, availability, accessibility and perceived safety of herbal supplements seem to be major factors propelling individuals to use herbal supplements. Published reports advocating for clinical development of herbal supplements for COVID-19 and other emerging and re-emerging viral diseases are sparse. This paper aims to review the pathogenesis of COVID-19, use of herbal products during the pandemic and make case for clinical development of herbal supplements through the adoption of modern and acceptable technologies and research processes.

This was a scoping review. Database searches of Google Scholar, PubMed and ResearchGate among others were performed using related keywords to identify relevant journals and lists of primary articles. Clinical trial databases:-Clinicaltrial.gov, Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR) and WHO international clinical trial registry (ICTRP) were reviewed to extract data.

The use of herbal supplements during COVID-19 was not only peculiar to individuals living in Sub-Saharan Africa, but a global practice. Herbal supplements recommended to manage COVID-19 have not been validated using clinical trials. Available data showed that the number of herbal supplements undergoing clinical trial for COVID-19 indication in Africa was low.

The availability of medicinal plants in Sub-Saharan Africa if well explored has great potentials to address various emerging and re-emerging viral diseases confronting the region. The economic potential of clinically validated herbal supplements are huge, and tapping into this opportunity created by preference of population to herbal supplement could increase export of herbal supplement and gross domestic product (GDP) of respective countries in Africa.

Repurposing of Chemotherapeutics to Combat COVID-19

Severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel strain of SARS coronavirus. The COVID-19 disease caused by this virus was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). SARS-CoV-2 mainly spreads through droplets sprayed by coughs or sneezes of the infected to a healthy person within the vicinity of 6 feet. It also spreads through asymptomatic carriers and has negative impact on the global economy, security and lives of people since 2019. Numerous lives have been lost to this viral infection; hence there is an emergency to build up a potent measure to combat SARS-CoV-2. In view of the non-availability of any drugs or vaccines at the time of its eruption, the existing antivirals, antibacterials, antimalarials, mucolytic agents and antipyretic paracetamol were used to treat the COVID-19 patients. Still there are no specific small molecule chemotherapeutics available to combat COVID-19 except for a few vaccines approved for emergency use only. Thus, the repurposing of chemotherapeutics with the potential to treat COVID-19 infected people is being used. The antiviral activity for COVID-19 and biochemical mechanisms of the repurposed drugs are being explored by the biological assay screening and structure-based in silico docking simulations. The present study describes the various US-FDA approved chemotherapeutics repositioned to combat COVID-19 along with their screening for biological activity, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation.

Effect of corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

We sought to perform a network meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of the systemic administration of corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19.

METHODS

A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to combine the direct and indirect evidence. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve was obtained to estimate the ranking probability of the treatment agents for each outcome. The efficacy outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. The safety outcome was serious adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 16 trials with 2992 patients comparing four treatments (dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, methylprednisolone, and placebo) were identified. Direct analysis showed that corticosteroids were associated with a reduced risk of 28-day mortality compared with usual care (risk ratio [RR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CrI] 0.70-0.99). Network analysis showed that the pooled RR was 0.63 (95% CrI 0.39-0.93) for all-cause mortality at 28 days comparing methylprednisolone with usual care or placebo (surface under the cumulative ranking curve: 91%). Our analysis demonstrated that patients who received a low dose of corticosteroids (RR 0.80; 95% CrI 0.70-0.91) and a long course of treatment (RR 0.81; 95% CrI 0.71-0.91) had higher survival rates than patients in the placebo group.

CONCLUSION

Administration of corticosteroids was associated with a reduced all-cause mortality at 28 days compared with placebo or usual care. Our analysis also confirmed the mortality benefit associated with low-dose and long-term treatment with corticosteroids.