Low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (COVID STEROID) trial-Protocol and statistical analysis plan

Comparative Efficacy of Inhaled and Intravenous Corticosteroids in Managing COVID-19-Related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening condition in which the lungs fail to provide sufficient oxygen to the body's vital organs. It is commonly associated with COVID-19 patients. Severe cases of COVID-19 can lead to lung damage and organ failure due to an immune response in the body. To mitigate these effects, corticosteroids, which are known for their anti-inflammatory properties, have been suggested as a potential treatment option. The primary focus of this study was to assess the impact of various corticosteroid administration methods on the outcomes of patients with COVID-19. Methods: The current study was conducted on COVID-19 patients divided into three groups. The first group was administered 6 mg of intravenous (IV) dexamethasone; the second group received 1 mg/kg of IV methylprednisolone (methylprednisolone); and the third group received budesonide respirable solution at a dosage of 1mg twice daily. The neubilizer used was a vibrating mesh nebulizer (VMN). All patients received standard care. We found that dexamethasone administered intravenously led to a significant reduction in C-reactive protein levels, surpassing the effectiveness of both IV methylprednisolone and inhaled budesonide. Oxygen saturation without mask change over time showed statistically significant differences (p = 0.004) in favor of the budesonide and dexamethasone groups for all days. Individuals who received methylprednisolone showed a significant decrease in mortality rate and an extended survival duration, with statistical significance observed at p = 0.024. The rest of the parameters, including ferritin, lymphocytes, total leukocyte count, platelets, hemoglobin, urea, serum potassium, serum sodium, serum creatinine, serum glutamic-pyruvic transaminase, serum glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase, uric acid, albumin, globulin, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, international normalized ratio, oxygen saturation with flow, and oxygen flow, showed no statistically significant differences between the three drugs. In conclusion, treatment with IV methylprednisolone (1 mg/kg) resulted in a shorter hospital stay, decreased reliance on ventilation, and improved health outcomes for COVID-19 patients compared to using dexamethasone at a daily dosage of 6 mg or budesonide respirable solution at a dosage of 1mg twice daily.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients With COVID-19 (September 2022)

There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials. The objective was to develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Based on the most recent search conducted on 31 May 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 32 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and postexposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, and hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines. At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were conducted that provided much-needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved, which we hope future trials can answer.

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.

The concentration-dependent effect of hydrocortisone on the structure of model lung surfactant monolayer by using an in silico approach

Understanding the adsorption mechanism of corticosteroids in the lung surfactant requires the knowledge of corticosteroid molecular interactions with lung surfactant monolayer (LSM). We employed coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulation to explore the action of hydrocortisone on an LSM comprised of a phospholipid, cholesterol and surfactant protein. The structural and dynamical morphology of the lung surfactant monolayer at different surface tensions were investigated to assess the monolayer compressibility. The simulations were also conducted at the two extreme ends of breathing cycles: exhalation (0 mN m-1 surface tension) and inhalation (20 mN m-1 surface tension). The impact of surface tension and hydrocortisone concentration on the monolayer compressibility and stability are significant, resulting the monolayer expansion at higher surface tension. However, at low surface tension, the highly compressed monolayer induces monolayer instability in the presence of the drug due to the accumulation of surfactant protein and drug. The constant area per lipid simulation results demonstrate that the surface pressure-area isotherms show a decrease in area-per-lipid with increased drug concentration. The drug-induced expansion causes considerable instability in the monolayer after a specific drug concentration is attained at inhalation breathing condition, whereas, for exhalation breathing, the monolayer gets more compressed, causing the LSM to collapse. The monolayer collapse occurs for inhalation due to the higher drug concentration, whereas for exhalation due to the accumulation of surfactant proteins and drugs. The findings from this study will aid in enhancing the knowledge of molecular interactions of corticosteroid drugs with lung surfactants to treat respiratory diseases.

Microbiological and Clinical Findings of SARS-CoV-2 Infection after 2 Years of Pandemic: From Lung to Gut Microbiota

Early recognition and prompt management are crucial for improving survival in COVID-19 patients, and after 2 years of the pandemic, many efforts have been made to obtain an early diagnosis. A key factor is the use of fast microbiological techniques, considering also that COVID-19 patients may show no peculiar signs and symptoms that may differentiate COVID-19 from other infective or non-infective diseases. These techniques were developed to promptly identify SARS-CoV-2 infection and to prevent viral spread and transmission. However, recent data about clinical, radiological and laboratory features of COVID-19 at time of hospitalization could help physicians in early suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection and distinguishing it from other etiologies. The knowledge of clinical features and microbiological techniques will be crucial in the next years when the endemic circulation of SARS-CoV-2 will be probably associated with clusters of infection. In this review we provide a state of the art about new advances in microbiological and clinical findings of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitalized patients with a focus on pulmonary and extrapulmonary characteristics, including the role of gut microbiota.

Immune-based therapeutic approaches in COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), a member of the Coronaviridae family. On March 11, 2020 the World Health Organization (WHO) has named the newly emerged rapidly-spreading epidemic as a pandemic. Besides the risk-reduction measures such as physical and social distancing and vaccination, a wide range of treatment modalities have been developed; aiming to fight the disease. The immune system is known as a double-edged sword in COVID-19 pathogenesis, with respect to its role in eliminating the pathogen and in inducing complications such as cytokine storm syndrome. Hence, immune-based therapeutic approaches have become an interesting field of COVID-19 research, including corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), interferon therapy, and more COVID-19-specific approaches such as anti-SARS-CoV-2-monoclonal antibodies. Herein, we did a comprehensive review on immune-based therapeutic approaches for COVID-19. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT: Not applicable.

Clinical care of children and adolescents with COVID-19: recommendations from the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce

INTRODUCTION

The epidemiology and clinical manifestations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are different in children and adolescents compared with adults. Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) appears to be less common in children, with milder disease overall, severe complications may occur, including paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome (PIMS-TS). Recognising the distinct needs of this population, the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce formed a Paediatric and Adolescent Care Panel to provide living guidelines for Australian clinicians to manage children and adolescents with COVID-19 and COVID-19 complications. Living guidelines mean that these evidence-based recommendations are updated in near real time to give reliable, contemporaneous advice to Australian clinicians providing paediatric care.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

To date, the Taskforce has made 20 specific recommendations for children and adolescents, including definitions of disease severity, recommendations for therapy, respiratory support, and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for COVID-19 and for the management of PIMS-TS.

CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THE GUIDELINES

The Taskforce currently recommends corticosteroids as first line treatment for acute COVID-19 in children and adolescents who require oxygen. Tocilizumab could be considered, and remdesivir should not be administered routinely in this population. Non-invasive ventilation or high flow nasal cannulae should be considered in children and adolescents with hypoxaemia or respiratory distress unresponsive to low flow oxygen if appropriate infection control measures can be used. Children and adolescents with PIMS-TS should be managed by a multidisciplinary team. Intravenous immunoglobulin and corticosteroids, with concomitant aspirin and thromboprophylaxis, should be considered for the treatment of PIMS-TS. The latest updates and full recommendations are available at www.covid19evidence.net.au.

ESCMID COVID-19 living guidelines: drug treatment and clinical management

SCOPE

In January 2021, the ESCMID Executive Committee decided to launch a new initiative to develop ESCMID guidelines on several COVID-19-related issues, including treatment of COVID-19.

METHODS

An ESCMID COVID-19 guidelines task force was established by the ESCMID Executive Committee. A small group was established, half appointed by the chair, and the remaining selected with an open call. Each panel met virtually once a week. For all decisions, a simple majority vote was used. A long list of clinical questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) format was developed at the beginning of the process. For each PICO, two panel members performed a literature search with a third panellist involved in case of inconsistent results. Voting was based on the GRADE approach.

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE GUIDELINE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A synthesis of the available evidence and recommendations is provided for each of the 15 PICOs, which cover use of hydroxychloroquine, bamlanivimab alone or in combination with etesevimab, casirivimab combined with imdevimab, ivermectin, azithromycin and empirical antibiotics, colchicine, corticosteroids, convalescent plasma, favipiravir, remdesivir, tocilizumab and interferon β-1a, as well as the utility of antifungal prophylaxis and enoxaparin. In general, the panel recommended against the use of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, azithromycin, colchicine and interferon β-1a. Conditional recommendations were given for the use of monoclonal antibodies in high-risk outpatients with mild-moderate COVID-19, and remdesivir. There was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for use of favipiravir and antifungal prophylaxis, and it was recommended that antibiotics should not be routinely prescribed in patients with COVID-19 unless bacterial coinfection or secondary infection is suspected or confirmed. Tocilizumab and corticosteroids were recommended for treatment of severe COVID-19 but not in outpatients with non-severe COVID-19.

SCOPE

The aim of the present guidance is to provide evidence-based recommendations for management of adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). More specifically, the goal is to aid clinicians managing patients with COVID-19 at various levels of severity including outpatients, hospitalized patients, and those admitted to intensive care unit. Considering the composition of the panel, mostly clinical microbiologists or infectious disease specialists with no pulmonology or intensive care background, we focus only on pharmacological treatment and do not give recommendations on oxygen supplement/support. Similarly, as no paediatricians were included in the panel; the recommendations are only for adult patients with COVID-19. Considering the current literature, no guidance was given for special populations such as the immunocompromised.

Races of small molecule clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19: An up-to-date comprehensive review

The coronavirus disease‐19 (COVID‐19) pandemic has become a global threat since its first outbreak at the end of 2019. Several review articles have been published recently, focusing on the aspects of target biology, drug repurposing, and mechanisms of action (MOAs) for potential treatment. This review gathers all small molecules currently in active clinical trials, categorizes them into six sub‐classes, and summarizes their clinical progress. The aim is to provide the researchers from both pharmaceutical industries and academic institutes with the handful information and dataset to accelerate their research programs in searching effective small molecule therapy for treatment of COVID‐19.

Efficacy and Safety of Immunomodulators in Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Introduction

Many immunomodulators have been studied in clinical trials for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, data identifying the most effective and safest treatment are lacking. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to rank immunomodulators in the treatment of COVID-19 according to their efficacy and safety.

Methods

Published and peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of immunomodulators in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were searched up to June 30, 2021. Direct and network meta-analyses were applied to assess the outcomes. The probability of efficacy and safety was estimated, and the drugs were awarded a numerical ranking.

Results

Twenty-six studies were eligible. Compared with standard of care, dexamethasone and tocilizumab had significantly lower mortality rates with pooled risk ratios (RRs) of 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84–0.99) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.82–0.96), respectively. Meanwhile, the most effective corticosteroid, interleukin-6 antagonist, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor were hydrocortisone, sarilumab, and ruxolitinib, respectively. However, when superimposed infection was considered, ruxolitinib was the best treatment followed by baricitinib. Moreover, methylprednisolone had the worst combined efficacy and safety among the examined treatments.

Conclusions

Overall, immunomodulators were more effective than standard of care. Important differences exist among immunomodulators regarding both efficacy and safety in favor of ruxolitinib and baricitinib. Further well-conducted randomized controlled trials should focus on JAK inhibitors. Methylprednisolone use should be discouraged because of its poor efficacy and high risk of superimposed infection.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO registration identifier CRD 42021257421.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-021-00545-0.

Corticosteroids for treatment of COVID-19: effect, evidence, expectation and extent

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) announced the COVID-19 occurrence as a global pandemic in March 2020. The treatment of SARS-CoV-2 patients is based on the experience gained from SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV infection during 2003. There is no clinically accepted therapeutic drug(s) accessible yet for the treatment of COVID-19.

MAIN BODY

Corticosteroids, i.e., dexamethasone, methylprednisolone, hydrocortisone and prednisone are used alone or in combination for the treatment of moderate, severe and critically infected COVID-19 patients who are hospitalized and require supplemental oxygen as per current management strategies and guidelines for COVID-19 published by the National Institutes of Health. Corticosteroids are recorded in the WHO model list of essential medicines and are easily accessible worldwide at a cheaper cost in multiple formulations and various dosage forms. Corticosteroid can be used in all age group of patients, i.e., children, adult, elderly and during pregnancy or breastfeeding women. Corticosteroids have potent anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects in both primary and secondary immune cells, thereby reducing the generation of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines and lowering the activation of T cells, monocytes and macrophages. The corticosteroids should not be used in the treatment of non-severe COVID-19 patients because corticosteroids suppress the immune response and reduce the symptoms and associated side effects such as slow recovery, bacterial infections, hypokalemia, mucormycosis and finally increase the chances of death.

CONCLUSION

Intensive research on corticosteroid therapy in COVID-19 treatment is urgently needed to elucidate their mechanisms and importance in contributing toward successful prevention and treatment approaches. Hence, this review emphasizes on recent advancement on corticosteroid therapy for defining their importance in overcoming SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, their mechanism, efficacy and extent of corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.

Low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia: The COVID STEROID randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Background

In the early phase of the pandemic, some guidelines recommended the use of corticosteroids for critically ill patients with COVID‐19, whereas others recommended against the use despite lack of firm evidence of either benefit or harm. In the COVID STEROID trial, we aimed to assess the effects of low‐dose hydrocortisone on patient‐centred outcomes in adults with COVID‐19 and severe hypoxia.

Methods

In this multicentre, parallel‐group, placebo‐controlled, blinded, centrally randomised, stratified clinical trial, we randomly assigned adults with confirmed COVID‐19 and severe hypoxia (use of mechanical ventilation or supplementary oxygen with a flow of at least 10 L/min) to either hydrocortisone (200 mg/d) vs a matching placebo for 7 days or until hospital discharge. The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support at day 28 after randomisation.

Results

The trial was terminated early when 30 out of 1000 participants had been enrolled because of external evidence indicating benefit from corticosteroids in severe COVID‐19. At day 28, the median number of days alive without life support in the hydrocortisone vs placebo group were 7 vs 10 (adjusted mean difference: −1.1 days, 95% CI −9.5 to 7.3, P = .79); mortality was 6/16 vs 2/14; and the number of serious adverse reactions 1/16 vs 0/14.

Conclusions

In this trial of adults with COVID‐19 and severe hypoxia, we were unable to provide precise estimates of the benefits and harms of hydrocortisone as compared with placebo as only 3% of the planned sample size were enrolled.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04348305. European Union Drug Regulation Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) Database: 2020‐001395‐15.

Use of steroids in COVID-19 patients: A meta-analysis

Background

Emerging reports have shown the benefits of steroids in hospitalized COVID-19 patients as life-saving drugs. However, the use of steroids in COVID-19 patients is confusing among many physicians.

Aim

The aim of the current study was to find out the exact association of steroids in the deaths of COVID-19 patients.

Methods

The relevant studies were searched in PubMed, Google scholar, and Clinical trials registries till May 25, 2021 and sorted out based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of studies was assessed using a standard scale. The pooled odds ratio was calculated with a 95% confidence interval. The sensitivity and sub-group analyses were also done. The publication bias was assessed qualitatively. The Rev Man 5 was used for all analyses with a random-effect model.

Results

The quantitative analysis was done with 9922 patients (6265-male and 3657-females) from 21 relevant studies. The pooled estimate results i.e. 0.52 [0.34, 0.80] have shown a significant reduction in deaths of COVID-19 patients in the steroidal group as compared to the non-steroidal group. The sensitivity analyses did not alter our conclusions. In subgroup analysis, methylprednisolone has shown a significant reduction in deaths of COVID-19 patients as compared to the non-steroidal group, however, more clinical evidence is required for dexamethasone and hydrocortisone.

Conclusion

The use of steroids in hospitalized COVID-19 patients is useful to reduce deaths.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 Infection and Autoimmunity 1 Year Later: The Era of Vaccines

Impressive efforts have been made by researchers worldwide in the development of target vaccines against the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and in improving the management of immunomodulating agents. Currently, different vaccine formulations, such as viral vector, mRNA, and protein-based, almost all directed toward the spike protein that includes the domain for receptor binding, have been approved. Although data are not conclusive, patients affected by autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) seem to have a slightly higher disease prevalence, risk of hospitalization, and death from coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) than the general population. Therefore, ARD patients, under immunosuppressive agents, have been included among the priority target groups for vaccine administration. However, specific cautions are needed to optimize vaccine safety and effectiveness in these patients, such as modification in some of the ongoing immunosuppressive therapies and the preferential use of mRNA other than vector-based vaccines. Immunomodulating agents can be a therapeutic opportunity for the management of COVID-19 patients; however, their clinical impact depends on how they are handled. To place in therapy immunomodulating agents in the correct window of opportunity throughout the identification of surrogate markers of disease progression and host immune response is mandatory to optimize patient's outcome.

Comparing the clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19-associate pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA): a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis has been increasingly recognized in COVID-19 patients, termed COVID-19-associate pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA). Our meta-analysis aims to assess the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients diagnosed with CAPA compared to those without CAPA.

METHODS

We searched the Pubmed, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases for studies published between January 1, 2020 and August 1, 2021, containing comparative data of patients diagnosed with CAPA and those without CAPA.

RESULTS

Eight cohort studies involving 729 critically ill COVID-19 patients with comparative data were included. CAPA patients were older (mean age 66.58 vs. 59.25 years; P = 0.007) and had underlying chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (13.7 vs. 6.1%; OR 2.75; P = 0.05). No differences in gender, body mass index (BMI), and comorbidities of diabetes and cancer were observed. CAPA patients were more likely to receive long-term corticosteroid treatment (15.0 vs. 5.3%; OR 3.53; P = 0.03). CAPA patients had greater severity of illness based on sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score with a higher all-cause in-hospital mortality rate (42.6 vs. 26.5%; OR 3.39; P < 0.001) and earlier ICU admission from illness onset (mean 11.00 vs. 12.00 days; P = 0.003). ICU length of stay (LOS), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) duration, the requirement of inotropic support and renal replacement therapy were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

CAPA patients are typically older with underlying COPD and received long-term corticosteroid treatment. Furthermore, CAPA is associated with higher SOFA scores, mortality, and earlier onset of ICU admission from illness onset.

ACE2 Netlas: In silico Functional Characterization and Drug-Gene Interactions of ACE2 Gene Network to Understand Its Potential Involvement in COVID-19 Susceptibility

Angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) receptor has been identified as the key adhesion molecule for the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2. However, there is no evidence that human genetic variation in ACE2 is singularly responsible for COVID-19 susceptibility. Therefore, we performed an integrative multi-level characterization of genes that interact with ACE2 (ACE2-gene network) for their statistically enriched biological properties in the context of COVID-19. The phenome-wide association of 51 genes including ACE2 with 4,756 traits categorized into 26 phenotype categories, showed enrichment of immunological, respiratory, environmental, skeletal, dermatological, and metabolic domains (p < 4e-4). Transcriptomic regulation of ACE2-gene network was enriched for tissue-specificity in kidney, small intestine, and colon (p < 4.7e-4). Leveraging the drug-gene interaction database we identified 47 drugs, including dexamethasone and spironolactone, among others. Considering genetic variants within ± 10 kb of ACE2-network genes we identified miRNAs whose binding sites may be altered as a consequence of genetic variation. The identified miRNAs revealed statistical over-representation of inflammation, aging, diabetes, and heart conditions. The genetic variant associations in RORA, SLC12A6, and SLC6A19 genes were observed in genome-wide association study (GWAS) of COVID-19 susceptibility. We also report the GWAS-identified variant in 3p21.31 locus, serves as trans-QTL for RORA and RORC genes. Overall, functional characterization of ACE2-gene network highlights several potential mechanisms in COVID-19 susceptibility. The data can also be accessed at https://gpwhiz.github.io/ACE2Netlas/.

Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19

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. So far, systemic corticosteroids are one of the few treatment options for COVID-19. Nonetheless, size of effect, certainty of the evidence, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, 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 16 April 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, participant age, gender or ethnicity.  We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids. We included the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (plus/minus placebo), dose comparisons, timing comparisons (early versus late), different types of corticosteroids and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances.  We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome or Middle East respiratory syndrome), 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 evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, ventilator-free days, new need for invasive mechanical ventilation, quality of life, serious adverse events, adverse events, and hospital-acquired infections.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs in 8075 participants, of whom 7041 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 3072 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 2322). We also identified 42 ongoing studies and 16 studies reported as being completed or terminated in a study registry, but without results yet.  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 10 RCTs (7989 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analysis included outcome data from nine studies.  All-cause mortality (at longest follow-up available): systemic corticosteroids plus standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality slightly in people with COVID-19 compared to standard care alone (median 28 days: risk difference of 30 in 1000 participants fewer than the control group rate of 275 in 1000 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.00; 9 RCTs, 7930 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  Ventilator-free days: corticosteroids may increase ventilator-free days (MD 2.6 days more than control group rate of 4 days, 95% CI 0.67 to 4.53; 1 RCT, 299 participants; low-certainty evidence). Ventilator-free days have inherent limitations as a composite endpoint and should be interpreted with caution.  New need for invasive ventilation: the evidence is of very low certainty. Because of high risk of bias arising from deaths that occurred before ventilation we are uncertain about the size and direction of the effects. Consequently, we did not perform analysis beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics.  Quality of life/neurological outcome: no data were available. Serious adverse events: we included data on two RCTs (678 participants) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids compared to standard care (plus/minus placebo); for adverse events and hospital-acquired infections, we included data on five RCTs (660 participants). Because of high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting we are uncertain about the size and direction of the effects. Consequently, we did not perform analysis beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics (very low-certainty evidence).    Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids  We identified one study that compared methylprednisolone with dexamethasone. The evidence for mortality and new need for invasive mechanical ventilation is very low certainty due to the small number of participants (n = 86). No data were available for the other outcomes. We did not identify comparisons of different dosages or timing. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease Currently, there are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may also be a reduction in ventilator-free days. Since we are unable to  adjust for the impact of early death on subsequent endpoints, the findings for ventilation outcomes and harms have limited applicability to inform treatment decisions. Currently, there is no evidence for asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants).  There is an urgent need for good-quality evidence for specific subgroups of disease severity, for which we propose level of respiratory support at randomisation. This applies to the comparison or subgroups of different types and doses of corticosteroids, too. Outcomes apart from mortality should be measured and analysed appropriately taking into account confounding through death if applicable.  We identified 42 ongoing and 16 completed but not published RCTs in trials registries suggesting possible changes of effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future. Most ongoing studies target people who need respiratory support at baseline. With the living approach of this review, we will continue to update our search and include eligible trials and published data.

Patient-important outcomes other than mortality in recent ICU trials: Protocol for a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in intensive care units (ICUs) frequently focus on all-cause mortality, but other patient-important outcomes are increasingly used and recommended. Their use, however, is not straightforward: choices and definitions, operationalisation of death, handling of missing data, choice of effect measures, and statistical analyses for these outcomes vary greatly.

METHODS

We will conduct a scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. We will search 10 selected general and speciality journals for RCTs conducted in adult ICU patients from 2018 and onwards reporting at least 1 patient-important outcome other than mortality (including days alive without life support/days alive and out of hospital-type outcomes, health-related quality of life, functional/cognitive/neurological outcomes, and other general patient-important outcomes). We will summarise data on outcome measures and definitions, assessment time points, proportions and handling of death, proportions and handling of missing data, and effect measures and statistical methods used for analysis.

DISCUSSION

The outlined scoping review will provide an overview of choices, definitions and handling of patient-important outcomes other than mortality in contemporary RCTs conducted in adult ICU patients. This may guide discussions with patients and relatives, the design of future RCTs, and research on optimal outcome choices and handling.

Immunomodulation as a Potent COVID-19 Pharmacotherapy: Past, Present and Future

In the first year of its appearance, the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has affected more than 150 million individuals and killed 3 million people worldwide. The pandemic has also triggered numerous global initiatives to tackle the newly emerging disease, including the development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the attempt to discover potential pharmacological therapies. Nonetheless, despite the success of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development, COVID-19 therapy remains challenging. Several repurposed drugs that were documented to be useful in small clinical trials have been shown to be ineffective in larger studies. Additionally, the pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection displayed the predominance of hyperinflammation and immune dysregulation in inducing multiorgan damage. Therefore, the potential benefits of both immune modulation and suppression in COVID-19 have been extensively discussed. Here, we reviewed the roles of immunomodulation as potential COVID-19 pharmacological modalities based on the existing data and proposed several new immunologic targets to be tested in the foreseeable future.

Higher vs Lower Doses of Dexamethasone in Patients with COVID-19 and Severe Hypoxia (COVID STEROID 2) trial: Protocol for a secondary Bayesian analysis

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to severe hypoxic respiratory failure and death. Corticosteroids decrease mortality in severely or critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, the optimal dose remains unresolved. The ongoing randomised COVID STEROID 2 trial investigates the effects of higher vs lower doses of dexamethasone (12 vs 6 mg intravenously daily for up to 10 days) in 1,000 adult patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia.

METHODS

This protocol outlines the rationale and statistical methods for a secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis of the primary outcome (days alive without life support at day 28) and all secondary outcomes registered up to day 90. We will use hurdle-negative binomial models to estimate the mean number of days alive without life support in each group and present results as mean differences and incidence rate ratios with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). Additional count outcomes will be analysed similarly and binary outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression models with results presented as probabilities, relative risks and risk differences with 95% CrIs. We will present probabilities of any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and probabilities of effects smaller than pre-defined clinically minimally important differences for all outcomes analysed. Analyses will be adjusted for stratification variables and conducted using weakly informative priors supplemented by sensitivity analyses using sceptic priors.

DISCUSSION

This secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis will supplement the primary, conventional analysis and may help clinicians, researchers and policymakers interpret the results of the COVID STEROID 2 trial while avoiding arbitrarily dichotomised interpretations of the results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04509973; EudraCT: 2020-003363-25.

The proportion and effect of corticosteroid therapy in patients with COVID-19 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains a global challenge. Corticosteroids constitute a group of anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive drugs that are widely used in the treatment of COVID-19. Comprehensive reviews investigating the comparative proportion and efficacy of corticosteroid use are scarce. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials to evaluate the proportion and efficacy of corticosteroid use for the treatment of COVID-19.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive literature review and meta-analysis of research articles, including observational studies and clinical trials, by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry, and China Academic Journal Network Publishing databases. Patients treated between December 1, 2019, and January 1, 2021, were included. The outcome measures were the proportion of patients treated with corticosteroids, viral clearance and mortality. The effect size with the associated 95% confidence interval is reported as the weighted mean difference for continuous outcomes and the odds ratio for dichotomous outcomes.

Results

Fifty-two trials involving 15710 patients were included. The meta-analysis demonstrated that the proportion of COVID-19 patients who received corticosteroids was significantly lower than that of patients who did not receive corticosteroids (35.19% vs. 64.49%). In addition, our meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in the proportions of severe and nonsevere cases treated with corticosteroids (27.91% vs. 20.91%). We also performed subgroup analyses stratified by whether patients stayed in the intensive care unit (ICU) and found that the proportion of patients who received corticosteroids was significantly higher among those who stayed in the ICU than among those who did not. The results of our meta-analysis indicate that corticosteroid treatment significantly delayed the viral clearance time. Finally, our meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 between patients who died and those who survived. This result indicates that mortality is not correlated with corticosteroid therapy.

Conclusion

The proportion of COVID-19 patients who received corticosteroids was significantly lower than that of patients who did not receive corticosteroids. Corticosteroid use in subjects with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections delayed viral clearance and did not convincingly improve survival; therefore, corticosteroids should be used with extreme caution in the treatment of COVID-19.

ACE2 Netlas: In-silico functional characterization and drug-gene interactions of ACE2 gene network to understand its potential involvement in COVID-19 susceptibility

Angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 ( ACE2 ) receptor has been identified as the key adhesion molecule for the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2. However, there is no evidence that human genetic variation in ACE2 is singularly responsible for COVID-19 susceptibility. Therefore, we performed a multi-level characterization of genes that interact with ACE2 (ACE2-gene network) for their over-represented biological properties in the context of COVID-19. The phenome-wide association of 51 genes including ACE2 with 4,756 traits categorized into 26 phenotype categories, showed enrichment of immunological, respiratory, environmental, skeletal, dermatological, and metabolic domains (p<4e-4). Transcriptomic regulation of ACE2-gene network was enriched for tissue-specificity in kidney, small intestine, and colon (p<4.7e-4). Leveraging the drug-gene interaction database we identified 47 drugs, including dexamethasone and spironolactone, among others. Considering genetic variants within ± 10 kb of ACE2-network genes we characterized functional consequences (among others) using miRNA binding-site targets. MiRNAs affected by ACE2-network variants revealed statistical over-representation of inflammation, aging, diabetes, and heart conditions. With respect to variants mapped to the ACE2-network, we observed COVID-19 related associations in RORA, SLC12A6 and SLC6A19 genes. Overall, functional characterization of ACE2-gene network highlights several potential mechanisms in COVID-19 susceptibility. The data can also be accessed at https://gpwhiz.github.io/ACE2Netlas/.

Low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (COVID STEROID) trial-Protocol and statistical analysis plan

INTRODUCTION

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has caused a pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) with many patients developing hypoxic respiratory failure. Corticosteroids reduce the time on mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit and potentially also mortality in similar patient populations. However, corticosteroids have undesirable effects, including longer time to viral clearance. Clinical equipoise on the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 exists.

METHODS

The COVID STEROID trial is an international, randomised, stratified, blinded clinical trial. We will allocate 1000 adult patients with COVID-19 receiving ≥10 L/min of oxygen or on mechanical ventilation to intravenous hydrocortisone 200 mg daily vs placebo (0.9% saline) for 7 days. The primary outcome is days alive without life support (ie mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, and renal replacement therapy) at day 28. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse reactions at day 14; days alive without life support at day 90; days alive and out of hospital at day 90; all-cause mortality at day 28, day 90, and 1 year; and health-related quality of life at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to this protocol, including interim analyses for every 250 patients followed for 28 days. The primary outcome will be compared using the Kryger Jensen and Lange test in the intention to treat population and reported as differences in means and medians with 95% confidence intervals.

DISCUSSION

The COVID STEROID trial will provide important evidence to guide the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19 and severe hypoxia.