High-dose methylprednisolone in nonintubated patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia

A meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of immunomodulators in the treatment of severe COVID-19

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of immunomodulators in the treatment of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsA literature search for the meta-analysis was performed using PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Wanfang Data, CNKI, and Web of Science to identify randomized controlled trials assessing the outcomes of patients treated with corticosteroids alone and/or interleukin-6 receptor antagonists for COVID-19. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane method. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registry number: CRD42022356904).ResultsCompared with patients receiving standard of care, patients treated with corticosteroids alone had an increased risk of 14-day in-hospital death, whereas those treated with interleukin-6 receptor antagonists alone or in combination with corticosteroids had a lower risk of 14-day in-hospital death. Corticosteroid therapy alone was associated with increased risk of several adverse events, including intensive care unit admission and non-invasive ventilation, whereas interleukin-6 receptor antagonists alone or in combination with corticosteroids were not linked to adverse effects.ConclusionsThe findings supported the safety and efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, either alone or together with corticosteroids, in patients with severe COVID-19; evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids monotherapy is lacking.

Exploring drug-target interaction prediction on cold-start scenarios via meta-learning-based graph transformer

Predicting drug-target interaction (DTI) is of great importance for drug discovery and development. With the rapid development of biological and chemical technologies, computational methods for DTI prediction are becoming a promising approach. However, there are few solutions to the cold-start problem in DTI prediction scenarios, as these methods rely on existing interaction information to support their modeling. Consequently, they are unable to effectively predict DTIs for new drugs or targets with limited interaction data in the existing work. To this end, we propose a graph transformer method based on meta-learning named MGDTI (short for Meta-learning-based Graph Transformer for Drug-Target Interaction prediction) to fill this gap. Technically, we employ drug-drug similarity and target-target similarity as additional information to mitigate the scarcity of interactions. Besides, we trained MGDTI via meta-learning to be adaptive to cold-start tasks. Moreover, we employed graph transformer to prevent over-smoothing by capturing long-range dependencies. Extensive results on the benchmark dataset demonstrate that MGDTI is effective on DTI prediction under cold-start scenarios.

Longer duration of high-dose corticosteroids provides benefit for hospitalized COVID-19 patients with high oxygen requirement

The optimal corticosteroids dose in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring high oxygen remains unknown. In this retrospective study of patients with COVID-19 requiring high oxygen and receiving corticosteroids, the efficacy, safety, and duration of high-dose treatment were evaluated. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality during follow-up. Safety outcomes included infection, gastrointestinal bleeding, and venous thromboembolic events. 210 patients were included, with 126 in Group A (corticosteroids at a equivalent dose <1 mg/kg/d prednisone), 44 in Group B (corticosteroids at a equivalent dose ≥1 mg/kg/d prednisone for ≤5 days), and 40 in Group C (corticosteroids at a equivalent dose ≥1 mg/kg/d prednisone for >5 days). The all-cause mortality risk was lower in Group C but higher in Group B than in Group A. Safety outcomes did not differ significantly, except for Group C, which had the highest venous thromboembolism rate. Our results suggest that high-dose corticosteroids for a longer course decrease mortality with comparable safety outcome.

Corticosteroids for hospitalized patients with severe/critical COVID-19: a retrospective study in Chongqing, China

Corticosteroids have always been recommended for severe cases of COVID-19. However, the efficacy of treatment with corticosteroids for COVID-19 during the SARS-CoV-2 omicron outbreak in China has not been reported. Clinical data from 406 patients hospitalized for severe/critical COVID-19 from December 2022 to January 2023 at six hospitals in Chongqing were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 28 days in the groups with and without corticosteroids treatment after propensity score matching (PSM). Secondary outcomes were to compare in-hospital mortality and length of survival time with corticosteroids and those without corticosteroids. This study included 406 patients with severe or critical COVID-19, divided into the corticosteroids group (231, 56.9%) and non-corticosteroids group (175, 43.1%). After PSM, the use of corticosteroids did not reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (42.5% vs. 39.1%). Univariate analysis showed that corticosteroids were not associated with improved all-cause mortality at 28 days [hazard ratio (HR), 1.019; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.639-1.623; p = 0.938]. Multivariate analysis showed similar results (HR, 1.047; 95% CI, 0.633-1.732; p = 0.858). Among non-survivors, the survival time was significantly larger in those who received corticosteroids compared with the non-corticosteroid users [median 13 (IQR 6.5-15.5) vs. 6 (4-11.25), p = 0.007]. The use of systemic corticosteroids in severe/critical COVID-19 may provide certain potential survival benefits but does not improve prognosis.

The role of methylprednisolone in severe COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis

Background

The purpose of this study is to assess the effectiveness of methylprednisolone in severe COVID-19.

Methods

PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched for literatures comparing methylprednisolone and control treatment in severe COVID-19 patients. Statistical pooling was reported as risk ratio (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). The outcomes of interest in the literature survey were mortality and adverse events.

Results

A total of 13 studies were included, including 3,138 patients with severe COVID-19, of which 1,634 patients were treated with methylprednisolone and 1,504 patients were treated with control treatment. Five of the 13 studies reported severe adverse events. Our meta-analysis indicates that methylprednisolone treatment in COVID-19 patients is associated with a significant reduction in mortality (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46-0.85, p = 0.003) compared to control treatment, without an increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92-1.56, p = 0.17). Moreover, high-dose methylprednisolone treatment (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.40-0.82, p = 0.003) and short-course methylprednisolone treatment (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.38-0.89, p = 0.01) found to significantly reduce mortality. Additionally, it was found that younger severe COVID-19 patients (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.20-0.80, p = 0.01) had better outcomes to methylprednisolone than older patients.

Conclusion

Methylprednisolone was correlated with lower mortality compared with control treatment in severe COVID-19 patients without increasing serious adverse reactions. Furthermore, high-doses and short-term of methylprednisolone treatment were linked with better younger COVID-19 reported higher benefit from methylprednisolone than older COVID-19 patients.

Methylprednisolone use in hospitalised COVID-19 patients: a retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Trials have demonstrated the benefits of methylprednisolone in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, data on optimal dose, duration and timing of administration are limited. This study investigates the outcome of various methylprednisolone treatment regimens among hospitalised COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on hospitalised adult COVID-19 patients admitted between June and August 2021 in general COVID-19 wards, treated with methylprednisolone. Clinical outcomes evaluated include in-hospital mortality, thirty-day mortality, clinical efficacy (C-reactive protein (CRP), total white blood cells (TWBC) and oxygen requirement) as well as the safety of methylprednisolone.

RESULTS

Of 278 patients, 1(0.4%) received weight-based dosing of 1 mg/kg/day, 101(36.3%) received weight-based dosing of 2 mg/kg/day, 130(46.8%) received fixed dosing methylprednisolone 250 mg/day and 46(16.5%) received fixed dosing methylprednisolone 500 mg/day. There was a significant difference in in-hospital mortality rates following different methylprednisolone doses whereby in-hospital mortality occurred in 22.5% (n = 23) of patients with 1 or 2 mg/kg/day methylprednisolone, 32.3% (n = 42) with 250 mg/day and 39.1% (n = 18) with 500 mg/day (p = 0.023). On the other hand, no significant difference in thirty-day mortality, clinical efficacy and safety was observed between different dosing regimens (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The use of methylprednisolone weight-based dosing in hospitalised COVID-19 patients should be considered due to the positive outcome associated with lower in-hospital mortality.

Dexamethasone versus methylprednisolone for multiple organ dysfunction in COVID-19 critically ill patients: a multicenter propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

Dexamethasone usually recommended for patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to reduce short-term mortality. However, it is uncertain if another corticosteroid, such as methylprednisolone, may be utilized to obtain better clinical outcome. This study assessed dexamethasone's clinical and safety outcomes compared to methylprednisolone.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted between March 01, 2020, and July 31, 2021. It included adult COVID-19 patients who were initiated on either dexamethasone or methylprednisolone therapy within 24 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The primary outcome was the progression of multiple organ dysfunction score (MODS) on day three of ICU admission. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:3 ratio) based on the patient's age and MODS within 24 h of ICU admission.

RESULTS

After Propensity Score (PS) matching, 264 patients were included; 198 received dexamethasone, while 66 patients received methylprednisolone within 24 h of ICU admission. In regression analysis, patients who received methylprednisolone had a higher MODS on day three of ICU admission than those who received dexamethasone (beta coefficient: 0.17 (95% CI 0.02, 0.32), P = 0.03). Moreover, hospital-acquired infection was higher in the methylprednisolone group (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.01, 4.66; p = 0.04). On the other hand, the 30-day and the in-hospital mortality were not statistically significant different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Dexamethasone showed a lower MODS on day three of ICU admission compared to methylprednisolone, with no statistically significant difference in mortality.

Cross-view contrastive representation learning approach to predicting DTIs via integrating multi-source information

Drug-target interaction (DTI) prediction serves as the foundation of new drug findings and drug repositioning. For drugs/targets, the sequence data contains the biological structural information, while the heterogeneous network contains the biochemical functional information. These two types of information describe different aspects of drugs and targets. Due to the complexity of DTI machinery, it is necessary to learn the representation from multiple perspectives. We hereby try to design a way to leverage information from multi-source data to the maximum extent and find a strategy to fuse them. To address the above challenges, we propose a model, named MOVE (short for integrating multi-source information for predicting DTI via cross-view contrastive learning), for learning comprehensive representations of each drug and target from multi-source data. MOVE extracts information from the sequence view and the network view, then utilizes a fusion module with auxiliary contrastive learning to facilitate the fusion of representations. Experimental results on the benchmark dataset demonstrate that MOVE is effective in DTI prediction.

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.

Factors Associated With Prolonged Ventilation in Patients Receiving Prone Positioning Protocol With Muscle Relaxants for Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Prone positioning and neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) are frequently used to treat severe respiratory failure from COVID-19 pneumonia. Prone positioning has shown to improve mortality, whereas NMBAs are used to prevent ventilator asynchrony and reduce patient self-inflicted lung injury. However, despite the use of lung-protective strategies, high death rates in this patient population have been reported.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined the factors affecting prolonged mechanical ventilation in subjects receiving prone positioning plus muscle relaxants. The medical records of 170 patients were reviewed. Subjects were divided into 2 groups according to ventilator-free days (VFDs) at day 28. Whereas subjects with VFDs < 18 d were defined as prolonged mechanical ventilation, subjects with VFDs ≥18 d were defined as short-term mechanical ventilation. Subjects' baseline status, status at ICU admission, therapy before ICU admission, and treatment in the ICU were studied.

RESULTS

Under the proning protocol for COVID-19, the mortality rate in our facility was 11.2%. The prognosis may be improved by avoiding lung injury in the early stages of mechanical ventilation. According to multifactorial logistic regression analysis, persistent SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding in blood (P = .03), higher daily corticosteroid use before ICU admission (P = .007), delayed recovery of lymphocyte count (P < .001), and higher maximal fibrinogen degradation products (P = .039) were associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation. A significant relationship was found between daily corticosteroid use before admission and VFDs by squared regression analysis (y = -0.00008522x2 + 0.01338x + 12.8; x: daily corticosteroids dosage before admission [prednisolone mg/d]; y: VFDs/28 d, R2 = 0.047, P = .02). The peak point of the regression curve was 13.4 d at 78.5 mg/d of the equivalent prednisolone dose, which corresponded to the longest VFDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Persistent SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding in blood, high corticosteroid dose from the onset of symptoms to ICU admission, slow recovery of lymphocyte counts, and high levels of fibrinogen degradation products after admission were associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation in subjects with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

A Comparison of the Effects of Dexamethasone and Methylprednisolone, Used on Level-3 Intensive Care COVID-19 Patients, on Mortality: A Multi-Center Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is often a mild disease, usually manifesting with respiratory complaints, and is sometimes mortal due to multiple organ failure. Hyperinflammation is a known COVID-19 component and is associated with organ dysfunction, disease severity and mortality. Controlling hyperinflammatory response is crucial in determining treatment direction. An important agent in providing this control is corticosteroids. This study aimed to determine whether dexamethasone and methylprednisolone, doses, administration time and duration in COVID-19 treatment are associated with improved treatment outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter study was conducted with participation of 6 healthcare centers which collected data by retrospectively examining files of 1,340 patients admitted to intensive care unit due to COVID-19 between March 2020 and September 2021, diagnosed with polymerase chain reaction (+) and/or clinically and radiologically.

RESULTS

Mortality in the pulse methylprednisolone group was statistically significantly higher than that in the other 3 groups. Mortality was higher in older patients with comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney failure, coronary artery disease, and dementia. Pulse and mini-pulse steroid doses were less effective than standard methylprednisolone and dexamethasone doses, pulse steroid doses being associated with high mortality. Standard-dose methylprednisolone and dexamethasone led to similar effects, but standard dose methylprednisolone was more effective in severe patients who required mechanical ventilation (MV). Infection development was related to steroid treatment duration, not cumulative steroid dose.

CONCLUSION

Corticosteroids are shown to be beneficial in critical COVID-19, but the role of early corticosteroids in mild COVID-19 patients remains unclear. The anti-inflammatory effects of corticosteroids may have a positive effect by reducing mortality in severe COVID-19 patients. Although dexamethasone was first used for this purpose, methylprednisolone was found to be as effective at standard doses. Methylprednisolone administered at standard doses was associated with greater PaO₂/FiO₂ ratios than dexamethasone, especially in the severe group requiring MV. High dose pulse steroid doses are closely associated with mortality and standard methylprednisolone dose is recommended.

Timing of corticosteroids in non-severe non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients: open-label, two-center, randomized controlled study (TICS-COV19 study)

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Corticosteroids (CSs) are frequently used in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, their utility remains controversial in mild to moderate cases. The timing of CSs initiation during the disease course remains unaddressed. The study aims to evaluate the impact of early CSs in non-severe COVID-19.

METHODS

A randomized controlled, open-label study was conducted on 754 COVID-19 patients randomized into a study group (n = 377) in which patients received CSs with COVID-19 protocol and a control group (n = 377) in which patients received COVID-19 protocol only.

RESULTS

Both groups were comparable regarding baseline characteristics, presenting symptoms, and inflammatory markers. The composite endpoint (need for O2, need for hospitalization or 28-day mortality) was significantly (p = 0.004) lower in the CS group 42 (11.14%) versus the control group 70 (18.67%) with odds ratio 0.55 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36 to 0.83), absolute risk reduction 7.53% (95% CI, 2.46% to 12.59%) and number needed to treat of 13.29 (95% CI, 7.94 to 40.61). Regarding severity at day 10, only (11.1%) of the study group patients were severe versus (18.7%) of the control group patients (p < 0.001). The median time-to-return to daily activity in the CS group was 8.0 days, while in the control group, it was 22.0 days (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In non-severe COVID-19, CS may decrease hospitalization, severity, and mortality.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Early Stage Combination Treatment with Methylprednisolone Pulse and Remdesivir for Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the clinical outcomes of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia treated with remdesivir plus standard corticosteroid treatment (SCT) or with remdesivir plus high-dose corticosteroid pulse therapy (HDCPT).

METHODS

One hundred and two patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and respiratory failure were included. The patients were divided into two cohorts. The first comprised patients who received remdesivir and SCT, consisting of 6 mg dexamethasone daily for up to 10 days or until hospital discharge. The second included patients who received remdesivir and HDCPT, composed of 250 mg iv of methylprednisolone for three days, followed by a slow reduction in the dose of steroids. The severity of hypoxemia was assessed using the SaO2/FiO2 peripheral oxygen saturation index.

RESULTS

55 received remdesivir plus HDCPT, and 47 received remdesivir plus SCT. Mortality at 30 days was significantly lower among patients who received remdesivir plus HDCPT (4/55) than among those who did not (15/47). In patients who received remdesivir plus HDCPT, 7.3% required invasive mechanical ventilation and admission to the ICU and 36.4% non-invasive ventilation versus 29.8% and 61.7%, respectively, among those treated with remdesivir plus SCT. Remdesivir plus HDCPT induced a significantly faster improvement in the SaO2/FiO2 index.

CONCLUSION

Early combination treatment with remdesivir plus HDCPT reduced in-hospital mortality and the need for admission to the ICU. Furthermore, it improved the SaO2/FiO2 index faster in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Pharmacokinetic Study of Intranasal Dexamethasone and Methylprednisolone Compared with Intravenous Administration: Two Open-Label, Single-Dose, Two-Period, Two-Sequence, Cross-Over Study in Healthy Volunteers

Dexamethasone (DXM) and methylprednisolone (MEP) are potent glucocorticoids used to control several inflammatory conditions. Evidence of delayed DXM reaching the central nervous system (CNS) as well as tachyphylaxis and systemic, undesirable side effects are the main limitations of peripheral delivery. Intranasal administration offers direct access to the brain as it bypasses the blood-brain barrier. The Mucosal Atomization Device is an optimal tool that can achieve rapid absorption into the CNS and the bloodstream across mucosal membranes. This study was designed to evaluate and compare the bioavailability of DXM and MEP after intranasal versus intravenous administration. Two open-label, balanced, randomized, two-treatment, two-period, two-sequence, single-dose, crossover studies were conducted, which involved healthy male and female adult volunteers. After intranasal administration, DXM and MEP were detected in plasma after the first sampling time. Mean peak concentrations of DXM and MEP were 86.61 ng/mL at 60 min and 843.2 ng/mL at 1.5 h post-administration, respectively. DXM and MEP showed high absolute bioavailability, with values of 80% and 95%, respectively. No adverse effects were observed. DXM and MEP systemic bioavailability by intranasal administration was comparable with the intravenous one, suggesting that the intranasal route can be used as a non-invasive and appropriate alternative for systemic drug delivery.

Early Short-Term Use of Different Doses of Corticosteroid in Hospitalized Pediatric Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia

Objective Encouraged by reports of favorable outcomes following the use of corticosteroids in patients with moderate-to-severe coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia, we aimed to present our experience with early short-term corticosteroid use at our center in pediatric patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Methods One hundred and twenty-nine pediatric patients were included in the study. Patients were divided into four groups according to the type and dose of corticosteroids given: Group 1 (those receiving dexamethasone 0.15 mg/kg/d); Group 2 (those receiving methylprednisolone 1 mg/kg/d); Group 3 (those receiving methylprednisolone 2 mg/kg/d); and Group 4 (those receiving pulse methylprednisolone 10–30 mg/kg/d).

Results Of 129 patients, 19 (14.7%) patients were assigned to Group 1, 30 (23.3%) patients to Group 2, 30 (23.3%) patients to Group 3, and 50 (38.8%) patients to Group 4. Thirty-two (24.8%) patients were followed in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU), of whom 13 (10%) required mechanical ventilation, and 7 (%5.4) died. In Group 4, the hospitalization length was significantly longer than in other groups (p < 0.001, p < 0.001). No significant difference was found among the groups in terms of mortality (p = 0.15). The most common comorbidity was obesity (33%). A significant association was found between the presence of comorbidity and mortality (p < 0.001). All patients who died had an underlying disease. Cerebral palsy was the most common underlying disease among the patients who died. Worsening of lymphopenia was significant in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia at the time of transfer to the PICU (p = 0.011).

Conclusion Although children usually have a milder course of COVID-19 than adults, underlying diseases and obesity increase the severity of disease manifestations also in children. Further studies are needed to define the exact role of corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients.

Efficacy of Dexamethasone and Methylprednisolone in Hospitalization Outcomes of COVID-19 Patients: A Comparative Retrospective Study

Background: Control of the COVID-19 pandemic, its treatment, and prevention of mortality and morbidity have been the main focus of researchers over the past two years. Due to disagreement on the usefulness of different corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19, this work compared the efficacy of dexamethasone and methylprednisolone in the treatment outcomes of intensive critical care (ICU) patients. Methods: The present retrospective cohort study examined clinical records of 105 COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the ICUs of Firoozabadi Hospital in 2021. Clinical outcomes, including the length of hospital stay, the need for a ventilator, and mortality, were compared between patients who received either dexamethasone (DXM) or methylprednisolone (MP). Data were analyzed by SPSS V.20 software at P < 0.05 as statistical significance. Results: The mean ± SD ages of the patients in the DXM and MP groups were 58.82 ± 19.29 and 60.66 ± 14.17 years, respectively, without a statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). The mean duration of hospitalization was 8.14 ± 4.36 days in the DXM group and 6.80 ± 3.34 days in the MP group (P = 0.295). Also, 19 (33.3%) cases in the DXM group an, 19 (39.6%) in the MP group needed mechanical ventilation during hospitalization (P = 0.546). Finally, 30 (52.6%) patients in the DXM group and 27 (56.2%) in the MP group died. Conclusions: The findings indicated no significant difference in the mean duration of hospitalization, the need for a ventilator, and mortality in COVID-19 ICU patients treated with methylprednisolone or dexamethasone. There is a need to perform meta-analyses owing to conflicting results regarding the effects of different corticosteroids on the COVID-19 course.

Characteristics of our hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia patients receiving corticosteroids and mortality-associated factors

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is a disease associated with diffuse lung injury that has no proven effective treatment yet. It is thought that glucocorticoids may reduce inflammation-mediated lung injury, disease progression, and mortality. We aimed to evaluate our patient's characteristics and treatment outcomes who received corticosteroids for COVID-19 pneumonia.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter retrospective study and reviewed 517 patients admitted due to COVID-19 pneumonia who were hypoxemic and administered steroids regarding demographic, laboratory, and radiological characteristics, treatment response, and mortality-associated factors.

RESULTS

Of our 517 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who were hypoxemic and received corticosteroids, the mortality rate was 24.4% (n = 126). The evaluation of mortality-associated factors revealed that age, comorbidities, a CURB-65 score of ≥ 2, higher SOFA scores, presence of MAS, high doses of steroids, type of steroids, COVID-19 treatment, stay in the intensive care unit, high levels of d-dimer, CRP, ferritin, and troponin, and renal dysfunction were associated with mortality.

CONCLUSION

Due to high starting and average steroid doses are more associated with mortality, high-dose steroid administration should be avoided. We believe that knowing the factors associated with mortality in these cases is essential for close follow-up. The use of CURB-65 and SOFA scores can predict prognosis in COVID-19 pneumonia.

Utility of hematological and inflammatory biomarkers in predicting recovery in critical Covid-19 patients: Our experience in the largest Covid-19 treating center in Lebanon

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 pandemic has led to a catastrophic shortage of ICU beds. This has resulted in the need to identify patients that can be discharged early before full clinical recovery. We designed this study to determine if in changes routine tests like CBCD and CRP can be a useful complement to clinical status when deciding to discharge patients from ICU.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted in Rafic Hariri University Hospital. Levels of biomarkers measured at admission (T1) and within 3 days of outcome (T2) were collected and ratios (T2/T1) were calculated. The Odds Ratios of association between the changes in these biomarkers and outcome were estimated. Multivariate analysis and AUC for the performance of these biomarkers were also conducted.

RESULTS

We found on multivariate analysis that reduction in counts of lymphocyte and platelets and elevation in counts of neutrophils and level of CRP (T2/T1 ratio > 1) are strongly associated with mortality with respective ORs estimated at 6.74, 3.26, 5.65 and 4.34 [p-values < 0.001]. AUCs were found to lie in a range of 0.68 to 0.81 indicating fair to good performance. Other factors found to impact survival were AKI, AF and ACS [p-values < 0.01]. In contrast to other studies, risk factors didn't show an association with survival when adjusted for effects of complications and changes in biomarker levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm that inexpensive tests like lymphocyte count and CRP can be reliably used to follow COVID-19 patients in ICU and to support the decision to discharge patients.

Effect of treatment regimens in severe COVID pneumonia at an Indian tertiary care hospital: An observational, real-world study

Background

Corticosteroids have attracted attention as a treatment option for severe Coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, published data on steroid therapy is debatable, and real-world data is lacking. This study evaluated the effect of treatment regimens, especially Pulse steroid therapy (Injection Methyl Prednisolone 250 mg iv once a day for three days) in severe-COVID-19 pneumonia at an Indian tertiary care hospital.

Methods

This observational cross-sectional study included severe COVID-19 pneumonia patients aged >18 years, requiring assisted ventilation. As part of the hospital protocol, patients received either pulse steroid therapy, remdesivir or tocilizumab in addition to the recommended steroid doses i.e., injection of dexamethasone 6 mg iv once a day. The association of factors and treatment regimens to patient outcomes was evaluated.

Results

Data of eighty-three patients were assessed, majority being above 60 years (n = 30, 36.14%) and males (n = 45/83, 54.21%). The commonest comorbidities were hypertension (n = 26), diabetes (n = 23) and obesity (n = 19), fifty-five patients (66.26%) reported at least one comorbidity. Sixty-one patients (73.49%) had received pulse steroid regimen, forty-eight patients (57.83%) were administered remdesivir-based regimen while twelve patients (14.46%) had received tocilizumab treatment. 54.1% patients managed with pulse steroid regimens were discharged after treatment, statistically similar to remdesivir-managed subgroup (62.5%, p > 0.05). On sub-group analysis, pulse steroids showed better outcomes in young males with no comorbidities. No comorbidity had significant relationship with patient outcomes (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Pulse steroid therapy is an effective therapy in management of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia in a real-world setting, with better outcomes in young males without comorbidities. Pulse steroids can be considered a viable option for severe-COVID-19 pneumonia management.

The roles of methylprednisolone treatment in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The roles of methylprednisolone in treatment of patients with COVID-19 remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone in treatment of COVID-19 patients. PubMed, Cochrane and Web of Science were searched for studies comparing methylprednisolone and no glucocorticoids treatment in patients with COVID-19. Statistical pooling was reported as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI). Thirty-three studies were eligible, including 5 randomized trials and 28 observational studies. Meta-analysis showed that compared with no glucocorticoids, methylprednisolone in treatment of COVID-19 patients was associated with reduced short-term mortality (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.60-0.89), less need for ICU admission (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.66-0.91) and mechanical ventilation (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.57-0.84), increased 28-day ventilator-free days (MD 2.81; 95% CI 2.64-2.97), without increasing risk of secondary infections (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.82-1.32), but could prolong duration of viral shedding (MD 1.03; 95% CI 0.25-1.82). Subgroup analyses revealed that low-dose (≤2mg/kg/day) methylprednisolone treatment for ≤ 7 days in severe COVID-19 patients was associated with relatively better clinical outcomes, without increasing duration of viral shedding. Compared with no glucocorticoids, methylprednisolone treatment in COVID-19 patients is associated with reduced short-term mortality and better clinical outcomes, without increasing secondary infections, but could slightly prolong duration of viral shedding. Patients with severe COVID-19 are more likely to benefit from short-term low-dose methylprednisolone treatment (1-2 mg/kg/day for ≤ 7 days).

Efficacy and safety of corticosteroid regimens for the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis

Aim

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids for treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Materials & methods

Efficacy outcomes included time to negative SARS-CoV-2 tests, length of stay, duration and incidence of intensive unit care stay, incidence of mortality and duration and incidence of mechanical ventilation. Safety outcomes included the incidence of adverse events and severe adverse events, incidence of hyperglycemia and incidence of nosocomial infections.

Results

Ninety-five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (n = 42,205) were included. Corticosteroids were associated with increased length of stay (based on RCT only), increased time to negative tests, decreased length of mechanical ventilation and increased odds of hyperglycemia.

Conclusion

Corticosteroids should be considered in patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and glycemic monitoring may be needed when administering corticosteroids.

Upper gastrointestinal system bleedings in COVID-19 patients: Risk factors and management/a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal system bleeding (UGIB) that occurs with the effect of coagulopathy due to COVID-19 disease itself and drugs such as LMWH and steroids used in the treatment negatively affects the outcomes. In this study, we aimed to examine the frequency of gastrointestinal system bleeding in COVID-19 patients, risk factors, effect on outcomes, and management.

METHODS

Institutional center (a third-level pandemic center) database was searched for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 11, 2020, and December 17, 2020, retrospectively. Patients with UGIB symptoms/signs were included in the study. Age, gender, body mass index (kg/m2), hospital department where bleeding was diagnosed, previous bleeding history, comorbidities, and medication were steroid, anticoagulant, low weight molecule heparin, and proton-pomp inhibitor, endoscopic findings/treatment, transfusion, and mortality rates were evaluated. Patients were divided into two groups as survivors and non-survivors and parameters were compared.

RESULTS

Forty-five of a total 5484 patients under COVID-19 treatment had upper gastrointestinal bleeding (0.8%). The average age of the patients was 70.1 years and 73% bleeders were male. Nineteen patients (44%) underwent endoscopy. The most common etiologies of bleeding were gastric/duodenal ulcer (n=9), erosive gastritis (n=4), and hemorrhagic gastritis (n=3). Active bleeding re-quiring intervention was detected in only one patient; therapeutic band ligation was applied to only 1 (2%) of all patients. The most common etiologies of bleeding were gastric/duodenal ulcer (n=9), erosive gastritis (n=4), and hemorrhagic gastritis (n=3). In terms of statistical significance, it was observed that the rate of steroid treatment (77% vs. 39%) and the number of days of steroid treatment were higher in non-survivor group.

CONCLUSION

UGIB is less common in COVID-19 patients compared to other hospitalized patients. However, it significantly increases mortality. Mortality risk increases even more in patients using steroids. These risks should be considered in patients under COVID-19 treatment. The majority of the bleeding patients does not require endoscopic treatment and should be managed conser-vatively. It is worth considering reducing unnecessary endoscopies in the pandemic.

Predictors and microbiology of respiratory and bloodstream bacterial infection in patients with COVID-19: living rapid review update and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of bacterial infection in patients with COVID-19 is low, however, empiric antibiotic use is high. Risk stratification may be needed to minimize unnecessary empiric antibiotic use.

OBJECTIVE

To identify risk factors and microbiology associated with respiratory and bloodstream bacterial infection in patients with COVID-19.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, OVID Epub and EMBASE for published literature up to 5 February 2021.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies including at least 50 patients with COVID-19 in any healthcare setting.

METHODS

We used a validated ten-item risk of bias tool for disease prevalence. The main outcome of interest was the proportion of COVID-19 patients with bloodstream and/or respiratory bacterial co-infection and secondary infection. We performed meta-regression to identify study population factors associated with bacterial infection including healthcare setting, age, comorbidities and COVID-19 medication.

RESULTS

Out of 33 345 studies screened, 171 were included in the final analysis. Bacterial infection data were available from 171 262 patients. The prevalence of co-infection was 5.1% (95% CI 3.6-7.1%) and secondary infection was 13.1% (95% CI 9.8-17.2%). There was a higher odds of bacterial infection in studies with a higher proportion of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) (adjusted OR 18.8, 95% CI 6.5-54.8). Female sex was associated with a lower odds of secondary infection (adjusted OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55-0.97) but not co-infection (adjusted OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.80-1.37). The most common organisms isolated included Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci and Klebsiella species.

CONCLUSIONS

While the odds of respiratory and bloodstream bacterial infection are low in patients with COVID-19, meta-regression revealed potential risk factors for infection, including ICU setting and mechanical ventilation. The risk for secondary infection is substantially greater than the risk for co-infection in patients with COVID-19. Understanding predictors of co-infection and secondary infection may help to support improved antibiotic stewardship in patients with COVID-19.

Role of Dexamethasone and Methylprednisolone Corticosteroids in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalized Patients: A Review

The WHO announced coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a pandemic disease globally on March 11, 2020, after it emerged in China. The emergence of COVID-19 has lasted over a year, and despite promising vaccine reports that have been produced, we still have a long way to go until such remedies are accessible to everyone. The immunomodulatory strategy has been kept at the top priority for the research agenda for COVID-19. Corticosteroids have been used to modulate the immune response in a wide range of diseases for the last 70 years. These drugs have been shown to avoid and reduce inflammation in tissues and the bloodstream through non-genomic and genomic effects. Now, the use of corticosteroids increased the chance of survival and relief by combating the viral strong inflammatory impacts and has moved to the forefront in the management of patients seeking supplemental oxygen. The goal of this review is to illuminate dexamethasone and methylprednisolone, i.e., in terms of their chemical and physical properties, role in COVID-19 patients suffering from pneumonia, the proposed mode of action in COVID-19, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, clinical outcomes in immunocompromised populations with COVID-19, interaction with other drugs, and contradiction to explore the trends and perspectives for future research. Literature was searched from scientific databases such as Science Direct, Wiley, Springer, PubMed, and books for the preparation of this review. The RECOVERY trial, a massive, multidisciplinary, randomized, and open-label trial, is mainly accountable for recommendations over the usage of corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients. The corticosteroids such as dexamethasone and methylprednisolone in the form of medication have anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and anti-allergic characteristics, including the ability to inhibit the immune system. These drugs are also recommended for treating symptoms of multiple ailments such as rheumatic and autoimmune diseases, leukemia, multiple myeloma, and Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma along with other drugs. Toxicology studies proved them safe usually at low dosage via oral or other routes.

Comparison between methylprednisolone infusion and dexamethasone in COVID-19 ARDS mechanically ventilated patients

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causing severe acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) still has no solid effective therapy.From previous studies, dexamethasone has led to a decrease in mortality in patients who required oxygen supplementation mainly invasive mechanical ventilation; at the same time, it is unknown if another corticosteroid can be effective when used and what is the optimal dose and its duration, to achieve improvement in clinical outcome.The cornerstone of the study was to compare the differences in clinical outcome and laboratory results in intensive care patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia treated with dexamethasone 6 mg/day: doses versus those treated with methylprednisolone 2 mg/kg/day infusion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective cohort study with a survival analysis of 414 patients diagnosed with severe COVID-19 pneumonia confirmed by polymerase chain reaction, for SARS-CoV-2 according to the Berlin definition of ARDS, who were admitted in the intensive care unit in the Helwan University Hospitals; the duration is from June 2020 till October 2021.Patients included in the study were mechanically ventilated with radiological confirmation of pneumonia by chest tomography; patients were included in the study according to the Berlin definition of ARDS and met the inclusion criteria of the study; 222 patients were treated with methylprednisolone infusion with a dose of 2 mg/kg/day versus 192 patients treated with dexamethasone 6 mg/day; both groups were treated for 10 days and were mechanically ventilated; the clinical out come and differences in the laboratory results were evaluated during the 10-day course for each group.

RESULTS

Four hundred fourteen patients had COVID-19 pneumonia, diagnosed and confirmed by ground glass opacities in chest tomography and arterial partial pressure of oxygen/inspired oxygen and fraction of inspired oxygen (P/F ratio) less than 300.Two hundred twenty-two patients received methylprednisolone infusion at a dose of 2 mg/kg/day, and 192 patients received dexamethasone 6 mg daily; both groups were treated for 10 days.Inflammatory markers for cytokine storm were improved in the methylprednisolone group in comparison to the patients who were given dexamethasone when comparing the on-admission markers to the results of the inflammatory markers after 10 days, like ferritin after 10 days in methylprednisolone group 292.26 ± 330.10 versus the dexa group 648.10 ± 329.09 (p value < 0.001).D-dimer in the methylprednisolone group was 1301.75 ± 1515.51 versus 2523.78 ± 843.18 in the dexa group (p value < 0.001); CRP was 49.65 ± 19.91 in the methylprednisolone group versus 100.54 ± 36.75 (p value < 0.001) in the dexa group; LDH after 10 days in methylprednisolone group was 345.09 ± 128.31, and in the dexa group, it was 731.87 ± 195.09 (p value < 0.001); neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (N:L ratio) after 10 days of treatment in the methylprednisolone group was 17.27 ± 5.09 versus 26.68 ± 7.19 (p value < 0.001) in the dexa group; also, the length of stay was shorter in the methylprednisolone group (7.33 ± 1.71) versus in the dexa group (19.43 ± 5.42) (p value < 0.001), together with mechanical ventilation MV days which are 3.82 ± 1.14 in the methyl group versus 16.57 ± 4.71 in the dexa group (p value < 0.001).Also, the radiological findings are improved in the methyl group (20.3%) versus the dexa group (73.4%) with p value < 0.001, and discharge from ICU in the methyl group was 79.7% versus 26.6% in the dexa group with p value < 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of severe COVID-19 pneumonia, Patients who were mechanically ventilated with methylprednisolone infusion 2 mg/kg/day for 10 days versus dexamethasone 6 mg for 10 days showed a statistically significant improvement in the MV days and length of stay in the intensive care unit, together with the overall mortality and severity inflammatory markers of cytokine storm c-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer, ferritin, LDH, and N:L ratio.

Comparing efficacy and safety of different doses of dexamethasone in the treatment of COVID-19: a three-arm randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Corticosteroids are commonly used in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The goals of the present study were to compare the efficacy and safety of different doses of dexamethasone in the treatment of patients with a diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19.

METHODS

Hospitalized patients with a diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19 were assigned to intravenous low-dose (8 mg once daily), intermediate-dose (8 mg twice daily) or high-dose (8 mg thrice daily) dexamethasone for up to 10 days or until hospital discharge. Clinical response, 60-day survival and adverse effects were the main outcomes of the study.

RESULTS

In the competing risk survival analysis, patients in the low-dose group had a higher clinical response than the high-dose group when considering death as a competing risk (HR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.23-3.33, p = 0.03). Also, the survival was significantly longer in the low-dose group than the high-dose group (HR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.15-0.83, p = 0.02). Leukocytosis and hyperglycemia were the most common side effects of dexamethasone. Although the incidence was not significantly different between the groups, some adverse effects were numerically higher in the intermediate-dose and high-dose groups than in the low-dose group.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher doses of dexamethasone not only failed to improve efficacy but also resulted in an increase in the number of adverse events and worsen survival in hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 compared to the low-dose dexamethasone. (IRCT20100228003449N31).

Methylprednisolone Treatment Versus Standard Supportive Care for Adult COVID-19 Mechanically Ventilated, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Patients

A myriad of symptoms presented by severely ill mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients has added pressure on the caregivers to explore therapeutic options. Systemic steroids have been reported to therapeutically benefit patients, with elevated inflammatory markers, during the severe acute respiratory syndrome, and the Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreak. COVID-19 disease is characterized by inflammation of the respiratory system and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Given the lack of specific treatment for COVID-19, the current study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic benefit of methylprednisolone as an add-on treatment for mechanically ventilated hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe COVID pneumonia. Data were collected retrospectively from the electronic patient medical records, and interrater reliability was determined to limit selection bias. Descriptive and inferential statistical methods were used to analyze the data. The variables were cross-tabulated with the clinical outcome, and the chi-square test was used to determine the association between the outcomes and other independent variables. Sixty-one percent (43/70) of the COVID-19 ARDS patients received standard supportive care, and the remainder were administered, methylprednisolone (minimum 40 mg daily to a maximum 40 mg q 6 h). A 28-day all-cause mortality rate, in the methylprednisolone group, was 18% (5/27, p < 0.01) significantly lower, compared to the group receiving standard supportive care (51%, 22/43). The median number of days, for the hospital length of stay (18 days), ICU length of stay (9.5 days), and the number of days intubated (6 days) for the methylprednisolone-treated group, was significantly lower (p < 0.01) when compared with the standard supportive care group. Methylprednisolone treatment also reduced the C-reactive protein levels, compared to the standard care group on day 7. Our results strengthen the evidence for the role of steroids in reducing mortality, ICU length of stay, and ventilator days in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients with respiratory distress syndrome.

Clinical Management of Adult Patients with COVID-19 Outside Intensive Care Units: Guidelines from the Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA) and the Italian Society of Pulmonology (SIP)

INTRODUCTION

The Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA) and the Italian Society of Pulmonology (SIP) constituted an expert panel for developing evidence-based guidance for the clinical management of adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outside intensive care units.

METHODS

Ten systematic literature searches were performed to answer ten different key questions. The retrieved evidence was graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology (GRADE).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The literature searches mostly assessed the available evidence on the management of COVID-19 patients in terms of antiviral, anticoagulant, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)/non-invasive ventilation (NIV) treatment. Most evidence was deemed as of low certainty, and in some cases, recommendations could not be developed according to the GRADE system (best practice recommendations were provided in similar situations). The use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies may be considered for outpatients at risk of disease progression. For inpatients, favorable recommendations were provided for anticoagulant prophylaxis and systemic steroids administration, although with low certainty of evidence. Favorable recommendations, with very low/low certainty of evidence, were also provided for, in specific situations, remdesivir, alone or in combination with baricitinib, and tocilizumab. The presence of many best practice recommendations testified to the need for further investigations by means of randomized controlled trials, whenever possible, with some possible future research directions stemming from the results of the ten systematic reviews.

Efficacy and Safety of Corticosteroid Use in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

We conducted a comprehensive literature review to synthesize evidence for the relationship between corticosteroid use and mortality in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

The PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to March 13, 2021. We searched and analyzed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OSs) that examined corticosteroid use in patients with COVID-19. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, while the secondary outcome was the need for mechanical ventilation (MV) and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 11 RCTs and 44 OSs involving 7893 and 41,164 patients with COVID-19 were included in the study. Corticosteroid use was associated with lower COVID-19 mortality in RCTs, but was not statistically significant (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77-1.07; I2 = 63.4%). The subgroup analysis of pulse dose corticosteroid showed survival benefit statistically (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.15-0.56). Moreover, the corticosteroid use may reduce the need for MV (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51-0.90; I2 = 7.5%) with no significant increase in serious adverse reactions (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.30-2.37; I2 = 33.3%). In addition, the included OSs showed that the pulse dose (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45-0.95; I2 = 30.8%) might lower the mortality in patients with COVID-19. The pulse dose of methylprednisolone (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45-0.80; I2 = 0%) had a beneficial effect on survival. It was especially significant when the duration of pulse methylprednisolone use was less than 7 days (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43-0.80; I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis indicated that corticosteroid use might cause a slight reduction in COVID-19 mortality. However, it could significantly reduce the MV requirement in patients with COVID-19 and restrict serious adverse events. Additionally, the pulse dose of methylprednisolone for less than 7 days may be a good treatment choice for patients with COVID-19.

Clinical drug therapies and biologicals currently used or in clinical trial to treat COVID-19

The potential emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants capable of escaping vaccine-generated immune responses poses a looming threat to vaccination efforts and will likely prolong the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the prevalence of beta coronaviruses circulating in animals and the precedent they have set in jumping into human populations indicates that they pose a continuous threat for future pandemics. Currently, only one therapeutic is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in treating COVID-19, remdesivir, although other therapies are authorized for emergency use due to this pandemic being a public health emergency. In this review, twenty-four different treatments are discussed regarding their use against COVID-19 and any potential future coronavirus-associated illnesses. Their traditional use, mechanism of action against COVID-19, and efficacy in clinical trials are assessed. Six treatments evaluated are shown to significantly decrease mortality in clinical trials, and ten treatments have shown some form of clinical efficacy.

Comparison of standard dose with high dose of methylprednisolone in the management of COVID-19 patients admitted in ICU

CONTEXT

The pathological progression in severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) includes an excessive and unregulated pro-inflammatory cytokine storm. Though the efficacy of corticosteroids like methylprednisolone (MPS) in severe COVID-19 is proven now, its dose and duration are not precise.

AIMS

Our study aimed to compare the effect of a standard dose (SD) of MPS (60-120 mg/day) to a high dose (HD) of MPS (>120 mg/day) on the outcome of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

This study was a cross-sectional study. Patients admitted to AIIMS, Bhopal's intensive care unit (ICU) from July 2020 to March 2021 were enrolled in the study.

METHODS AND MATERIAL

The patient's medical records were extracted from the medical record section of the hospital. The primary endpoint was the all-cause mortality during the hospital stay. The secondary endpoints were the need for mechanical ventilation, the use of vasopressors, the occurrence of acute kidney injury (AKI), and secondary infections.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

Data were entered in the MS Excel spreadsheet and coded appropriately.

RESULTS

Our data showed that survival, the need for mechanical ventilation, the occurrence of AKI, and secondary bacterial infection are comparable among the two groups with no significant difference. The logistic regression analysis showed that there is a slightly higher risk of death for patients with an acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving HD of corticosteroids compared to SD, though these results were found to be statistically non-significant.

CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalized patients suffering from severe COVID-19 pneumonia, an SD of MPS is as effective as an HD of MPS in terms of reduction in mortality and need for mechanical ventilation.

OM-85 Broncho-Vaxom®, a Bacterial Lysate, Reduces SARS-CoV-2 Binding Proteins on Human Bronchial Epithelial Cells

In clinical studies, OM-85 Broncho-Vaxom®, a bacterial lysate, reduced viral respiratory tract infection. Infection of epithelial cells by SARS-CoV-2 depends on the interaction of its spike-protein (S-protein) with host cell membrane proteins. In this study, we investigated the effect of OM-85 on the expression of S-protein binding proteins by human bronchial epithelial cells. Human bronchial epithelial cells were treated with OM-85 over 5 days. The expression of SARS-CoV-2 receptor angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), transmembrane protease serine subtype 2 (TMPRSS2), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4), and a disintegrin and metalloprotease 17 (ADAM17) were determined by Western blotting and quantitative RT-PCR. Soluble (s)ACE2, heparan sulfate, heparanase, and hyaluronic acid were assessed by ELISA. OM-85 significantly reduced the expression of ACE2 (p < 0.001), TMPRSS2 (p < 0.001), DPP4 (p < 0.005), and cellular heparan sulfate (p < 0.01), while ADAM17 (p < 0.02) expression was significantly upregulated. Furthermore, OM-85 increased the level of sACE2 (p < 0.05), hyaluronic acid (p < 0.002), and hyaluronan synthase 1 (p < 0.01). Consequently, the infection by a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein pseudo-typed lentivirus was reduced in cells pretreated with OM-85. All effects of OM-85 were concentration- and time-dependent. The results suggest that OM-85 might reduce the binding of SARS-CoV-2 S-protein to epithelial cells by modification of host cell membrane proteins and specific glycosaminoglycans. Thus, OM-85 might be considered as an add-on for COVID-19 therapy.

The effect of glucocorticoids on mortality in severe COVID-19 patients: Evidence from 13 studies involving 6612 cases

BACKGROUND

Since the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there is an urgent need for effective therapies for patients with COVID-19. In this study, we aimed to assess the therapeutic efficacy of glucocorticoids in severe COVID-19.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed across PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (up to June 26, 2021). The literature investigated the outcomes of interest were mortality and invasive mechanical ventilation.

RESULTS

The search identified 13 studies with 6612 confirmed severe COVID-19 patients. Our meta-analysis found that using glucocorticoids could significantly decrease COVID-19 mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.79, P < .001), relative to non-use of glucocorticoids. Meanwhile, using glucocorticoids also could significantly decrease the risk of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation for severe COVID-19 patients (HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.58-0.83, P < .001). Compared with using dexamethasone (HR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.92, P = .012), methylprednisolone use had a better therapeutic effect for reducing the mortality of patients (HR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.19-0.64, P = .001).

CONCLUSION

The result of this meta-analysis showed that using glucocorticoids could reduce mortality and risk of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 patients.

High-dose dexamethasone treatment for COVID-19 severe acute respiratory distress syndrome: a retrospective study

Low-dose dexamethasone reduces mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy of high-dose dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS and evaluated factors affecting the composite outcome (death or invasive mechanical ventilation). From March 4th to April 1st 2020, 98 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were included. Those who after at least 7 days from symptom onset presented a worsening of the respiratory function or of inflammatory biomarkers were started on intravenous high-dose dexamethasone (20 mg daily for 5 days, followed by 10 mg daily for 5 days). Most patients were males (62%) with a mean age of 69 years. Hypertension and cardiovascular disease (CVD) were prevalent. Following dexamethasone treatment, a significant improvement in PaO₂/FiO₂ (277.41 [178.5-374.8] mmHg vs. 146.75 [93.62-231.16] mmHg, p < 0.001), PaO₂ (88.15 [76.62-112.0] mmHg vs. 65.65 [57.07-81.22] mmHg, p < 0.001), and SpO₂ (96 [95-98]% vs. 94 [90-96]%, p < 0.001) was observed. A concomitant decrease in C-reactive protein and ferritin levels was found (132.25 [82.27-186.5] mg/L vs. 7.3 [3.3-24.2] mg/L and 1169 [665-2056] ng/mL vs. 874.0 [569.5-1434] ng/mL, respectively; p < 0.001 for both vs. baseline). CVD was found to increase the risk of the composite outcome (RR 7.64, 95% CI 1.24-47.06, p = 0.028). In hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related ARDS, high-dose dexamethasone rapidly improves the clinical status and decreases inflammatory biomarkers. CVD was found to increase the risk of the composite outcome. These data support the importance of randomized clinical trials with high-dose dexamethasone in COVID-19 patients.

Association of Serum Ferritin Levels and Methylprednisolone Treatment With Outcomes in Nonintubated Patients With Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia

IMPORTANCE

Serum ferritin, an acute phase marker of inflammation, has several physiologic functions, including limiting intracellular oxidative stress. Whether the effectiveness of corticosteroids differs according to serum ferritin level in COVID-19 has not been reported.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between admission serum ferritin level and methylprednisolone treatment outcomes in nonintubated patients with severe COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study included patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an academic referral center in Stony Brook, New York, from March 1 to April 15, 2020, receiving high-flow oxygen therapy (fraction of inspired oxygen, ≥50%). The outcomes of treatment with methylprednisolone were estimated using inverse probability of treatment weights, based on a propensity score comprised of clinical and laboratory variables. Patients were followed up for 28 days. Data were analyzed from December 19, 2020, to July 22, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Systemic methylprednisolone administered per the discretion of the treating physician.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcome was a composite of death or mechanical ventilation at 28 days.

RESULTS

Among 380 patients with available ferritin data (median [IQR] age, 60 years [49-72] years; 130 [34.2%] women; 250 [65.8%] men; 310 White patients [81.6%]; 47 Black patients [12.4%]; 23 Asian patients [6.1%]), 142 patients (37.4%) received methylprednisolone (median [IQR] daily dose, 160 [120-240] mg). Ferritin levels were similar in patients who received methylprednisolone vs those who did not (median [IQR], 992 [509-1610] ng/mL vs 893 [474-1467] ng/mL; P = .32). In weighted analyses using tertiles of ferritin values (lower: 29-619 ng/mL; middle: 623-1316 ng/mL; upper: 1322-13 418 ng/mL), methylprednisolone was associated with lower mortality in patients with ferritin in the upper tertile (HR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.45) and higher mortality in those with ferritin in the middle (HR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.15-5.28) and lower (HR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.13-5.22) tertiles (P for interaction < .001). Composite end point rates were lower with methylprednisolone in patients with ferritin in the upper tertile (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25-0.80) but not in those with ferritin in the middle (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.50-1.39) and lower (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.51-1.55) tertiles (P for interaction = .11).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study of nonintubated patients with severe COVID-19, methylprednisolone was associated with improved clinical outcomes only among patients with admission ferritin in the upper tertile of values.

Do high-dose corticosteroids improve outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients?

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized by dysregulated hyperimmune response and steroids have been shown to decrease mortality. However, whether higher dosing of steroids results in better outcomes has been debated. This was a retrospective observation of COVID-19 admissions between March 1, 2020, and March 10, 2021. Adult patients (≥18 years) who received more than 10 mg daily methylprednisolone equivalent dosing (MED) within the first 14 days were included. We excluded patients who were discharged or died within 7 days of admission. We compared the standard dose of steroids (<40 mg MED) versus the high dose of steroids (>40 mg MED). Inverse probability weighted regression adjustment (IPWRA) was used to examine whether higher dose steroids resulted in improved outcomes. The outcomes studied were in-hospital mortality, rate of acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring hemodialysis, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), hospital-associated infections (HAI), and readmissions. Of the 1379 patients meeting study criteria, 506 received less than 40 mg of MED (median dose 30 mg MED) and 873 received more than or equal to 40 mg of MED (median dose 78 mg MED). Unadjusted in-hospital mortality was higher in patients who received high-dose corticosteroids (40.7% vs. 18.6%, p < 0.001). On IPWRA, the use of high-dose corticosteroids was associated with higher odds of death (odds ratio [OR] 2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45-3.14, p < 0.001) but not with the development of HAI, readmissions, or requirement of IMV. High-dose corticosteroids were associated with lower rates of AKI requiring hemodialysis (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.18-0.63). In COVID-19, corticosteroids more than or equal to 40 mg MED were associated with higher in-hospital mortality.

Dexamethasone in the Treatment of COVID-19: Primus Inter Pares?

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has rapidly spread globally, becoming a huge public health challenge. Even though the vast majority of patients are asymptomatic, some patients present with pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), septic shock, and death. It has been shown in several studies that the severity and clinical outcomes are related to dysregulated antiviral immunity and enhanced and persistent systemic inflammation. Corticosteroids have been used for the treatment of COVID-19 patients, as they are reported to elicit benefits by reducing lung inflammation and inflammation-induced lung injury. Dexamethasone has gained a major role in the therapeutic algorithm of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring supplemental oxygen or on mechanical ventilation. Its wide anti-inflammatory action seems to form the basis for its beneficial action, taming the overwhelming "cytokine storm". Amid a plethora of scientific research on therapeutic options for COVID-19, there are still unanswered questions about the right timing, right dosing, and right duration of the corticosteroid treatment. The aim of this review article was to summarize the data on the dexamethasone treatment in COVID-19 and outline the clinical considerations of corticosteroid therapy in these patients.

A short course of corticosteroids reduces the risk of mechanical ventilation and death in patients with moderate to severe COVID 19 pneumonia: results of a retrospective monocentric cohort

Background

Reduced mortality at 28 days in patients treated with corticosteroids was demonstrated, but this result was not confirmed by certain large epidemiological studies. Our aim was to determine whether corticosteroids improve the outcomes of our patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Methods

Our retrospective, single centre cohort study included consecutive patients hospitalized for moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia between March 15 and April 15 2020. An early short course of corticosteroids was given during the second phase of the study. The primary composite endpoint was the need for mechanical ventilation or mortality within 28 days of admission. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to estimate the propensity score, i.e. the probability of each patient receiving corticosteroid therapy based on the initial variables.

Results

About 120 consecutive patients were included, 39 in the “corticosteroids group”, 81 in the “no corticosteroids group”; their mean ages (±SD) were 66.4 ± 14.1 and 66.1 ± 15.2 years, respectively. Mechanical ventilation-free survival at 28 days was higher in the “corticosteroids group” than in the “no corticosteroids group” (71% and 29% of cases, respectively, p < .0001). The effect of corticosteroids was confirmed with HR .28 (95%CI .10–.79), p = .02. In older and comorbid patients who were not eligible for intensive care, the effect of corticosteroid therapy was also beneficial (HR .36 (95%CI .16–.80), p = .01).

Conclusion

A short course of corticosteroids reduced the risks of death or mechanical ventilation in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia in all patients and also in older and comorbid patients not eligible for intensive care.

Severity and Mortality Associated with Steroid Use among Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

There are controversial suggestions about steroid use to treat patients infected with COVID-19. Conclusive evidence regarding the use of steroids to treat COVID-19 is still lacking. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the mortality and severity associated with corticosteroid therapy compared to noncorticosteroid treatment in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

The information was collected from electronic databases: PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, and Google scholar through January 30, 2021. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed using random effect models. Endnote citation manager software version X9 for Windows was utilized to collect and organize search outcomes (into relevant and irrelevant studies) and to remove duplicate articles.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies were included in the meta-analysis, including 14,659 COVID-19 patients. No significant differences in mortality between the steroid and nonsteroid treatment groups (RR = 0.95; 95% CI: 0.80-1.13; p = 0.57). There was no significant reduction in mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with corticosteroid (RR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.62-1.27; p = 0.52). Significant differences were observed in severe disease conditions between the steroid and nonsteroid treatment groups (RR = 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the steroid and nonsteroid treatment users' of COVID-19 patients. There was no significant reduction of all-cause mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with corticosteroids.

Prevalence and outcomes of co-infection and superinfection with SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The recovery of other pathogens in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported, either at the time of a SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis (co-infection) or subsequently (superinfection). However, data on the prevalence, microbiology, and outcomes of co-infection and superinfection are limited. The purpose of this study was to examine the occurrence of co-infections and superinfections and their outcomes among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We searched literature databases for studies published from October 1, 2019, through February 8, 2021. We included studies that reported clinical features and outcomes of co-infection or superinfection of SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens in hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients. We followed PRISMA guidelines, and we registered the protocol with PROSPERO as: CRD42020189763.

RESULTS

Of 6639 articles screened, 118 were included in the random effects meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of co-infection was 19% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14%-25%, I2 = 98%) and that of superinfection was 24% (95% CI: 19%-30%). Pooled prevalence of pathogen type stratified by co- or superinfection were: viral co-infections, 10% (95% CI: 6%-14%); viral superinfections, 4% (95% CI: 0%-10%); bacterial co-infections, 8% (95% CI: 5%-11%); bacterial superinfections, 20% (95% CI: 13%-28%); fungal co-infections, 4% (95% CI: 2%-7%); and fungal superinfections, 8% (95% CI: 4%-13%). Patients with a co-infection or superinfection had higher odds of dying than those who only had SARS-CoV-2 infection (odds ratio = 3.31, 95% CI: 1.82-5.99). Compared to those with co-infections, patients with superinfections had a higher prevalence of mechanical ventilation (45% [95% CI: 33%-58%] vs. 10% [95% CI: 5%-16%]), but patients with co-infections had a greater average length of hospital stay than those with superinfections (mean = 29.0 days, standard deviation [SD] = 6.7 vs. mean = 16 days, SD = 6.2, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that as many as 19% of patients with COVID-19 have co-infections and 24% have superinfections. The presence of either co-infection or superinfection was associated with poor outcomes, including increased mortality. Our findings support the need for diagnostic testing to identify and treat co-occurring respiratory infections among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Heart-lung interactions in COVID-19: prognostic impact and usefulness of bedside echocardiography for monitoring of the right ventricle involvement

Due to the SARS-CoV-2 infection–related severe pulmonary tissue damages associated with a relative specific widespread thrombotic microangiopathy, the pathophysiologic role of heart–lung interactions becomes crucial for the development and progression of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction. The high resistance in the pulmonary circulation, as a result of small vessel thrombosis and hypoxemia, is the major cause of right heart failure associated with a particularly high mortality in severe COVID-19. Timely identification of patients at high risk for RV failure, optimization of mechanical ventilation to limit its adverse effects on RV preload and afterload, avoidance of medication-related increase in the pulmonary vascular resistance, and the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in refractory respiratory failure with hemodynamic instability, before RV failure develops, can improve patient survival. Since it was confirmed that the right-sided heart is particularly involved in the clinical deterioration of patients with COVID-19 and pressure overload-induced RV dysfunction plays a key role for patient outcome, transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) received increasing attention. Limited TTE focused on the right heart appears highly useful in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and particularly beneficial for monitoring of critically ill patients. In addition to detection of right-sided heart dilation and RV dysfunction, it enables assessment of RV-pulmonary arterial coupling and evaluation of RV adaptability to pressure loading which facilitate useful prognostic statements to be made. The increased use of bedside TTE focused on the right heart could facilitate more personalized management and treatment of hospitalized patients and can contribute towards reducing the high mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Methylprednisolone or dexamethasone, which one is superior corticosteroid in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a triple-blinded randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although almost a year has passed since the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak and promising reports of vaccines have been presented, we still have a long way until these measures are available for all. Furthermore, the most appropriate corticosteroid and dose in the treatment of COVID-19 have remained uncertain. We conducted a study to assess the effectiveness of methylprednisolone treatment versus dexamethasone for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

In this prospective triple-blinded randomized controlled trial, we enrolled 86 hospitalized COVID-19 patients from August to November 2020, in Shiraz, Iran. The patients were randomly allocated into two groups to receive either methylprednisolone (2 mg/kg/day; intervention group) or dexamethasone (6 mg/day; control group). Data were assessed based on a 9-point WHO ordinal scale extending from uninfected (point 0) to death (point 8).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the groups on admission. However, the intervention group demonstrated significantly better clinical status compared to the control group at day 5 (4.02 vs. 5.21, p = 0.002) and day 10 (2.90 vs. 4.71, p = 0.001) of admission. There was also a significant difference in the overall mean score between the intervention group and the control group, (3.909 vs. 4.873 respectively, p = 0.004). The mean length of hospital stay was 7.43 ± 3.64 and 10.52 ± 5.47 days in the intervention and control groups, respectively (p = 0.015). The need for a ventilator was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (18.2% vs 38.1% p = 0.040).

CONCLUSION

In hospitalized hypoxic COVID-19 patients, methylprednisolone demonstrated better results compared to dexamethasone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered with IRCT.IR (08/04/2020-No. IRCT20200204046369N1 ).

A review on function and side effects of systemic corticosteroids used in high-grade COVID-19 to prevent cytokine storms

In December 2019, a cluster of pneumonia caused by a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), officially known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), emerged in Wuhan, Hubei province, China. Cytokine storm is an uncontrolled systemic inflammatory response resulting from the release of large amounts of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines that occurs at phase 3 of viral infection. Such emergence led to the development of many clinical trials to discover efficient drugs and therapeutic protocols to fight with this single-stranded RNA virus. Corticosteroids suppress inflammation of the lungs during the cytokine storm, weaken immune responses, and inhibit the elimination of pathogen. For this reason, in COVID-19 corticosteroid therapy, systemic inhibition of inflammation is observed with a wide range of side effects. The present review discusses the effectiveness of the corticosteroid application in COVID-19 infection and the related side effects of these agents. In summary, a number of corticosteroids, including and especially methylprednisolone and dexamethasone, have demonstrated remarkable efficacy, particularly for COVID-19 patients who underwent mechanical ventilation.