COVID-19-associated ARDS treated with DEXamethasone (CoDEX): study design and rationale for a randomized trial

Discovery of a novel lead characterized by a stilbene-extended scaffold against sepsis as soluble epoxide hydrolase inhibitors

Recently, some inhibitors of soluble epoxide hydrolase (sEH) showed limited potential in treating sepsis by increasing survival time, but they have unfortunately failed to improve survival rates. In this study, we initially identified a new hit 11D, belonging to a natural skeleton known as stilbene and having an IC50 of 644 nM on inhibiting murine sEH. Natural scaffold-based sEH inhibitors are paid less attention. A combination of structure-activity relationships (SARs)-guided structural optimization and computer-aided skeleton growth led to a highly effective lead compound 70P (IC50: 4.0 nM). The dose-response study indicated that 70P (at doses of 0.5-5 mg/kg, ip.) significantly increased survival rates and survival time by reducing the levels of the inflammatory factors TNF-α and IL-6 in the liver. Interestingly, 70P exhibited much higher accumulation in the liver than in plasma (AUC ratio: 175). In addition, 70P exhibits equal IC50 value (1.5 nM) on inhibiting human sEH as EC5026 (1.7 nM). In conclusion, the natural scaffold-extended sEH inhibitor 70P has the potential to become a new promising lead for addressing the unmet medical need in sepsis treatment, which highlighted the importance of natural skeleton in developing sEH inhibitors.

Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the identification and treatment of hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome with protection, paralysis, and proning: A type-1 hybrid stepped-wedge cluster randomised effectiveness-implementation study

Objective

To describe a study protocol and statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the identification and treatment of hypoxemic respiratory failure (HRF) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with protection, paralysis, and proning (TheraPPP) study prior to completion of recruitment, electronic data retrieval, and analysis of any data.

Design

TheraPPP is a stepped-wedge cluster randomised study evaluating a care pathway for HRF and ARDS patients. This is a type-1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation study design evaluating both intervention effectiveness and implementation; however primarily powered for the effectiveness outcome.

Setting

Seventeen adult intensive care units (ICUs) across Alberta, Canada.

Participants

We estimate a sample size of 18816 mechanically ventilated patients, with 11424 patients preimplementation and 7392 patients postimplementation. We estimate 2688 sustained ARDS patients within our study cohort.

Intervention

An evidence-based, stakeholder-informed, multidisciplinary care pathway called Venting Wisely that standardises diagnosis and treatment of HRF and ARDS patients.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome is 28-day ventilator-free days (VFDs). The primary analysis will compare the mean 28-day VFDs preimplementation and postimplementation using a mixed-effects linear regression model. Prespecified subgroups include sex, age, HRF, ARDS, COVID-19, cardiac surgery, body mass index, height, illness acuity, and ICU volume.

Results

This protocol and SAP are reported using the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials guidance and the Guidelines for the Content of Statistical Analysis Plans in Clinical Trials. The study received ethics approval and was registered (ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT04744298) prior to patient enrolment.

Conclusions

TheraPPP will evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of an HRF and ARDS care pathway.

Explanatory predictive model for COVID-19 severity risk employing machine learning, shapley addition, and LIME

The rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 threatens global public health and impedes the operation of healthcare systems. Several studies have been conducted to confirm SARS-CoV-2 infection and examine its risk factors. To produce more effective treatment options and vaccines, it is still necessary to investigate biomarkers and immune responses in order to gain a deeper understanding of disease pathophysiology. This study aims to determine how cytokines influence the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We measured the plasma levels of 48 cytokines in the blood of 87 participants in the COVID-19 study. Several Classifiers were trained and evaluated using Machine Learning and Deep Learning to complete missing data, generate synthetic data, and fill in any gaps. To examine the relationship between cytokine storm and COVID-19 severity in patients, the Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) and the LIME (Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations) model were applied. Individuals with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection had elevated plasma levels of VEGF-A, MIP-1b, and IL-17. RANTES and TNF were associated with healthy individuals, whereas IL-27, IL-9, IL-12p40, and MCP-3 were associated with non-Severity. These findings suggest that these cytokines may promote the development of novel preventive and therapeutic pathways for disease management. In this study, the use of artificial intelligence is intended to support clinical diagnoses of patients to determine how each cytokine may be responsible for the severity of COVID-19, which could lead to the identification of several cytokines that could aid in treatment decision-making and vaccine development.

Risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019-Associated Pulmonary Aspergillosis Based on Corticosteroid Duration in Intensive Care Patients

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) is a potential complication in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Corticosteroids are standard of care for hospitalized COVID-19 patients but carry an increased risk of secondary infections including CAPA. The objective of this study was to evaluate if duration of corticosteroid therapy ≤10 days versus >10 days affects the risk of developing CAPA.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation who received at least 3 days of corticosteroid treatment. Incidence of CAPA and secondary outcomes were compared using appropriate bivariable analyses. Steroid duration was evaluated as an independent predictor in a logistic regression model.

Results

A total of 278 patients were included (n = 169 for ≤10 days' steroid duration; n = 109 for >10 days). CAPA developed in 20 of 278 (7.2%) patients. Patients treated with >10 days of corticosteroid therapy had significantly higher incidence of CAPA (11.9% vs 4.1%; P = .0156), and steroid duration >10 days was independently associated with CAPA (odds ratio, 3.17 [95% confidence interval, 1.02-9.83]). Secondary outcomes including inpatient mortality (77.1% vs 43.2%; P < .0001), mechanical ventilation-free days at 28 days (0 vs 1.5; P < .0001), and secondary infections (44.9% vs 28.4% P = .0220) were worse in the >10 days cohort.

Conclusions

Corticosteroid treatment >10 days in critically ill COVID-19 patients is associated with an increased risk of CAPA. Patients may require corticosteroids for reasons beyond COVID-19 and clinicians should be cognizant of risk of CAPA with prolonged courses.

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.

Thrombotic storm in coronavirus disease 2019: from underlying mechanisms to its management

Introduction. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, is associated with high mortality rates worldwide.

Hypothesis/Gap Statement. Thrombotic problems, such as coagulopathy, are common in COVID-19 patients. Despite anticoagulation, thrombosis is more common in patients in the intensive care unit and patients with more severe disease. Although the exact mechanisms of coagulopathy in COVID-19 patients are still unclear, studies showed that overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS), cytokine storm, endothelial damage, formation of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs), and also extracellular vesicles (EVs) in response to COVID-19 induced inflammation can lead to systemic coagulation and thrombosis.

Aim. The management of COVID-19 patients requires the use of basic and readily available laboratory markers, both on admission and during hospitalization. Because it is critical to understand the pathophysiology of COVID-19 induced coagulopathy and treatment strategies, in this review we attempt to explain the underlying mechanism of COVID-19 coagulopathy, its diagnosis, and the associated successful treatment strategies.

Conclusion. The exact mechanisms behind COVID-19-related coagulopathy are still unclear, but several studies revealed some mechanisms. More research is needed to determine the best anticoagulant regimen and to study other therapeutic options.

Comparison of a Target Trial Emulation Framework vs Cox Regression to Estimate the Association of Corticosteroids With COVID-19 Mortality

IMPORTANCE

Communication and adoption of modern study design and analytical techniques is of high importance for the improvement of clinical research from observational data.

OBJECTIVE

To compare a modern method for statistical inference, including a target trial emulation framework and doubly robust estimation, with approaches common in the clinical literature, such as Cox proportional hazards models.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study used longitudinal electronic health record data for outcomes at 28-days from time of hospitalization within a multicenter New York, New York, hospital system. Participants included adult patients hospitalized between March 1 and May 15, 2020, with COVID-19 and not receiving corticosteroids for chronic use. Data were analyzed from October 2021 to March 2022.

EXPOSURES

Corticosteroid exposure was defined as more than 0.5 mg/kg methylprednisolone equivalent in a 24-hour period. For target trial emulation, exposures were corticosteroids for 6 days if and when a patient met criteria for severe hypoxia vs no corticosteroids. For approaches common in clinical literature, treatment definitions used for variables in Cox regression models varied by study design (no time frame, 1 day, and 5 days from time of severe hypoxia).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was 28-day mortality from time of hospitalization. The association of corticosteroids with mortality for patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 was assessed using the World Health Organization (WHO) meta-analysis of corticosteroid randomized clinical trials as a benchmark.

RESULTS

A total of 3298 patients (median [IQR] age, 65 [53-77] years; 1970 [60%] men) were assessed, including 423 patients who received corticosteroids at any point during hospitalization and 699 patients who died within 28 days of hospitalization. Target trial emulation analysis found corticosteroids were associated with a reduced 28-day mortality rate, from 32.2%; (95% CI, 30.9%-33.5%) to 25.7% (95% CI, 24.5%-26.9%). This estimate is qualitatively identical to the WHO meta-analysis odds ratio of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.53-0.82). Hazard ratios using methods comparable with current corticosteroid research range in size and direction, from 0.50 (95% CI, 0.41-0.62) to 1.08 (95% CI, 0.80-1.47).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that clinical research based on observational data can be used to estimate findings similar to those from randomized clinical trials; however, the correctness of these estimates requires designing the study and analyzing the data based on principles that are different from the current standard in clinical research.

Corticosteroids showed more efficacy in treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 than standard care but the effect is minimal: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

During the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 has ignited worldwide debate. Previous systematic reviews, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective observational studies, found that corticosteroids have beneficial effects in treating COVID-19.

Aim

This systematic review and meta-analysis only included RCTs to assess the effectiveness and safety of corticosteroids in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Methods

Comprehensive research strategies (PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Coherence Library) were used to search for RCTs from December 2019 to January 2021.

Results

Five RCTs were included with 7,235 patients, of which 2,508 patients were receiving corticosteroid treatments (dexamethasone or methylprednisolone), and 4,727 received standard care. The primary outcome was mortality within 28 days. The use of corticosteroids decreased the 28-day mortality of patients with COVID-19, but the findings were not statistically significant (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78–1.06, p = 0.24). The secondary outcome was the duration of hospitalization; no differences were found between the corticosteroid and standard care groups. However, corticosteroids were associated with a higher hospital discharge rate than standard treatment, but the result was not statistically significant (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.95–1.96, p = 0.09).

Conclusions

The results suggest that corticosteroids are comparable to standard care in terms of safety in treating COVID-19. Corticosteroids showed greater efficacy than standard care; however, the effect was minimal.

Effects of corticosteroids on Covid-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis on clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Covid-19 disease is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Although corticosteroids have shown some promising results in Covid-19 patients, their effectiveness remains controversial. In this systematic review, we evaluated the effect of corticosteroids in mortality, Hospitalization, ICU admission, intubation, and mechanical ventilation in Covid-19 patients.

METHODS

We searched major databases from March-2020 to Jan-2021. Twenty-nine studies were included after evaluating the eligibility of the literature. The extracted data for mortality, hospitalization, admission to the ICU, intubation, and mechanical ventilation were analyzed with RevMan® 5.4. Categorical variables are presented with odds ratios (OR), and numerical variables are shown with the mean difference.

RESULT

Corticosteroid treatment had no impact on mortality in 18,190 covid patients with OR = 1.12[0.83-1.50]. When we include the randomized controlled trials, corticosteroids reduced the mortality by 20% (OR = 0.80 [0.73, 0.88]; P < 0.001). Additionally, the risk of admission to the ICU, the need for endotracheal intubation, and mechanical ventilation were comparable between patients receiving corticosteroids and controls. The duration of hospitalization was also similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Corticosteroid therapy may not be effective for reducing mortality, length of hospitalization, the likelihood of intubation and mechanical ventilation, and ICU admission in patients suffering from Covid-19 pneumonia.

COVID-19 and Cancer: A Review of the Registry-Based Pandemic Response

Importance

The COVID-19 pandemic has had consequences for patients with cancer worldwide and has been associated with delays in diagnosis, interruption of treatment and follow-up care, and increases in overall infection rates and premature mortality.

Observations

Despite the challenges experienced during the pandemic, the global oncology community has responded with an unprecedented level of investigation, collaboration, and technological innovation through the rapid development of COVID-19 registries that have allowed an increased understanding of the natural history, risk factors, and outcomes of patients with cancer who are diagnosed with COVID-19. This review describes 14 major registries comprising more than 28 500 patients with cancer and COVID-19; these ongoing registry efforts have provided an improved understanding of the impact and outcomes of COVID-19 among patients with cancer.

Conclusions and Relevance

An initiative is needed to promote active collaboration between different registries to improve the quality and consistency of information. Well-designed prospective and randomized clinical trials are needed to collect high-level evidence to guide long-term epidemiologic, behavioral, and clinical decision-making for this and future pandemics.

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.

The Role of Glucocorticoids in the Treatment of ARDS: A Multicenter Retrospective Study Based on the eICU Collaborative Research Database

Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common cause of respiratory failure in patients in intensive care unit (ICU). The therapeutic value of glucocorticoids (GCs) in the prognosis of ARDS remains controversial. The aim of this research is studying the impacts of GCs treatment on ARDS patients in ICU. Methods: We retrospectively studied 2,167 ARDS patients whose data were collected from the public eICU Collaborative Research Database, among which 254 patients who received glucocorticoid (GCs) treatment were 1:1 matched by propensity matching analysis (PSM). The primary outcome was ICU mortality. Every oxygenation index (PaO2/FiO2) measurement before death or ICU discharge was recorded. A joint model (JM) which combined longitudinal sub-model (mixed-effect model) and time-to-event sub-model (Cox regression model) by trajectory functions of PaO2/FiO2 was conducted to determine the effects of GCs treatment on both ICU mortality and PaO2/FiO2 level and further PaO2/FiO2's effect on event status. The marginal structural cox model (MSCM) adjusted the overall PaO2/FiO2 of patients to further validate the results. Results: The result of the survival sub-model showed that GCs treatment was significantly associated with reduced ICU mortality in ARDS patients [HR (95% CI) = 0.642 (0.453, 0.912)], demonstrating that GCs treatment was a protective factor of ICU mortality. In the longitudinal sub-model, GCs treatment was not correlated to the PaO2/FiO2. After adjusted by the JM, the HR of GCs treatment was 0.602 while GCs was still not significantly related to PaO2/FiO2 level. The JM-induced association showed that higher PaO2/FiO2 was a significant protective factor of mortality in ARDS patients and the HR was 0.991 which demonstrated that one level increase of PaO2/FiO2 level decreased 0.9% risk of ICU mortality. MSCM results also show that GCs can improve the prognosis of patients. Conclusion: Rational use of GCs can reduce the ICU mortality of ARDS patients in ICU. In addition to the use of GCs treatment, clinicians should also focus on the shifting trend of PaO2/FiO2 level to provide better conditions for patients' survival.

Quality of life and long-term outcomes after hospitalization for COVID-19: Protocol for a prospective cohort study (Coalition VII)

INTRODUCTION

The long-term effects caused by COVID-19 are unknown. The present study aims to assess factors associated with health-related quality of life and long-term outcomes among survivors of hospitalization for COVID-19 in Brazil.

METHODS

This is a multicenter prospective cohort study nested in five randomized clinical trials designed to assess the effects of specific COVID-19 treatments in over 50 centers in Brazil. Adult survivors of hospitalization due to proven or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection will be followed-up for a period of 1 year by means of structured telephone interviews. The primary outcome is the 1-year utility score of health-related quality of life assessed by the EuroQol-5D3L. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, rehospitalizations, return to work or study, physical functional status assessed by the Lawton-Brody Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, dyspnea assessed by the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale, need for long-term ventilatory support, symptoms of anxiety and depression assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder assessed by the Impact of Event Scale-Revised, and self-rated health assessed by the EuroQol-5D3L Visual Analog Scale. Generalized estimated equations will be performed to test the association between five sets of variables (1- demographic characteristics, 2- premorbid state of health, 3- characteristics of acute illness, 4- specific COVID-19 treatments received, and 5- time-updated postdischarge variables) and outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of all participant institutions. The results will be disseminated through conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Interleukin 6 (IL-6) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Their immunosuppressive effect might be valuable in patients with COVID-19 characterised by substantial immune system dysfunction by controlling inflammation and promoting disease tolerance.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or with placebo on efficacy and safety outcomes in COVID-19. We will update this assessment regularly.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (up to 11 February 2021) and the L-OVE platform, and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify trials up to 26 February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two review authors independently collected data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence with the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes such as clinical improvement (defined as hospital discharge or improvement on the scale used by trialists to evaluate clinical progression or recovery) (day (D) 28 / ≥ D60); WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above (i.e. the proportion of participants with mechanical ventilation +/- additional organ support OR death) (D28 / ≥ D60); all-cause mortality (D28 / ≥ D60); incidence of any adverse events; and incidence of serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 RCTs with available data including one platform trial comparing tocilizumab and sarilumab with standard of care. These trials evaluated tocilizumab (nine RCTs including two platform trials; seven were reported as peer-reviewed articles, two as preprints; 6428 randomised participants); and two sarilumab (one platform trial reported as peer reviewed article, one reported as preprint, 880 randomised participants). All trials included were multicentre trials. They were conducted in Brazil, China, France, Italy, UK, USA, and four were multi-country trials. The mean age range of participants ranged from 56 to 65 years; 4572 (66.3%) of trial participants were male. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The reported proportion of participants on oxygen at baseline but not intubated varied from 56% to 100% where reported. Five trials reported the inclusion of intubated patients at baseline. We identified a further 20 registered RCTs of tocilizumab compared to placebo/standard care (five completed without available results, five terminated without available results, eight ongoing, two not recruiting); 11 RCTs of sarilumab (two completed without results, three terminated without available results, six ongoing); six RCTs of clazakisumab (five ongoing, one not recruiting); two RCTs of olokizumab (one completed, one not recruiting); one of siltuximab (ongoing) and one RCT of levilimab (completed without available results). Of note, three were cancelled (2 tocilizumab, 1 clazakisumab). One multiple-arm RCT evaluated both tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard of care, one three-arm RCT evaluated tocilizumab and siltuximab compared to standard of care and consequently they appear in each respective comparison. Tocilizumab versus standard care alone or with placebo a. Effectiveness of tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 Tocilizumab probably results in little or no increase in the outcome of clinical improvement at D28 (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13; I² = 40.9%; 7 RCTs, 5585 participants; absolute effect: 31 more with clinical improvement per 1000 (from 0 fewer to 67 more); moderate-certainty evidence). However, we cannot exclude that some subgroups of patients could benefit from the treatment. We did not obtain data for longer-term follow-up (≥ D60). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level of 7 or above is uncertain at D28 (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.74; I² = 64.4%; 3 RCTs, 712 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not obtain data for longer-term follow-up (≥ D60). Tocilizumab reduces all-cause mortality at D28 compared to standard care alone or placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; I² = 0.0%; 8 RCTs, 6363 participants; absolute effect: 32 fewer deaths per 1000 (from 52 fewer to 9 fewer); high-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests uncertainty around the effect on mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.40; I² = 0.0%; 2 RCTs, 519 participants; low-certainty evidence). b. Safety of tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tocilizumab on adverse events (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.72; I² = 86.4%; 7 RCTs, 1534 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Nevertheless, tocilizumab probably results in slightly fewer serious adverse events than standard care alone or placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.06; I² = 0.0%; 8 RCTs, 2312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Sarilumab versus standard care alone or with placebo The evidence is uncertain about the effect of sarilumab on all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.36; 2 RCTs, 880 participants; low certainty), on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.0; 1 RCT, 420 participants; low certainty), and serious adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.77; 2 RCTs, 880 participants; low certainty). It is unlikely that sarilumab results in an important increase of adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.25; 1 RCT, 420 participants; moderate certainty). However, an increase cannot be excluded No data were available for other critical outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

On average, tocilizumab reduces all-cause mortality at D28 compared to standard care alone or placebo and probably results in slightly fewer serious adverse events than standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, tocilizumab probably results in little or no increase in the outcome clinical improvement (defined as hospital discharge or improvement measured by trialist-defined scales) at D28. The impact of tocilizumab on other outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. With the data available, we were not able to explore heterogeneity. Individual patient data meta-analyses are needed to be able to identify which patients are more likely to benefit from this treatment. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab is uncertain and evidence for other anti-IL6 agents is unavailable. Thirty-nine RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents with no results are currently registered, of which nine are completed and seven trials were terminated with no results available. The findings of this review will be updated as new data are made available on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).

A Journey From SARS-CoV-2 to COVID-19 and Beyond: A Comprehensive Insight of Epidemiology, Diagnosis, Pathogenesis, and Overview of the Progress into Its Therapeutic Management

The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), commonly known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), was first revealed in late 2019 in Wuhan city, Hubei province, China. It was subsequently spread globally and thereby declared as a pandemic by WHO in March 2020. The disease causes severe acute respiratory illness and is highly contagious due to the fast-onward transmission. As of the mid of November 2020, the disease has affected 220 countries with more than 16 million active cases and 1.3 million deaths worldwide. Males, pregnant women, the elderly, immunosuppressed patients, and those with underlying medical conditions are more vulnerable to the disease than the general healthy population. Unfortunately, no definite treatment is available. Although remdesivir as an antiviral had been approved for use in those above 12 years of age and 40 kg weight group, it has been observed to be ineffective in large-scale SOLIDARITY trials by WHO. Moreover, dexamethasone has been found to increase the recovery rate of ventilated patients; oxygen and inhaled nitric oxide as a vasodilator have been given emergency expanded access. In addition, more than 57 clinical trials are being conducted for the development of the vaccines on various platforms. Two vaccines were found to be significantly promising in phase III results. It is concluded that till the approval of a specific treatment or development of a vaccine against this deadly disease, the preventive measures should be followed strictly to reduce the spread of the disease.

Possible therapeutic targets for SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19

SARS-CoV-2 infection causes COVID-19, which has emerged as a health emergency worldwide. SARS-CoV-2 infects cells by binding to ACE2 receptors and enters into the cytoplasm following its escape from endolysosomes. Once in the cytoplasm, the virus replicates and eventually causes various pathological conditions including acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) that is caused by pro-inflammatory cytokine storms. Thus, endolysosomes and cytokine storms are important therapeutic targets to suppress SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19. Here, we discuss therapeutic targets of SARS-CoV-2 infection and available drugs that could be helpful in the suppression of the SARS-CoV-2 infection and pathological condition COVID-19. The urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic precludes the development of new drugs and increased focus on drug repurposing might provide the quickest way to finding effective medicines.

Repurposing INCI-registered compounds as skin prebiotics for probiotic Staphylococcus epidermidis against UV-B

Repurposing existing compounds for new indications may facilitate the discovery of skin prebiotics which have not been well defined. Four compounds that have been registered by the International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI) were included to study their abilities to induce the fermentation of Staphylococcusepidermidis (S. epidermidis), a bacterial species abundant in the human skin. Liquid coco-caprylate/caprate (LCC), originally used as an emollient, effectively initiated the fermentation of S. epidermidis ATCC 12228, produced short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), and provoked robust electricity. Application of LCC plus electrogenic S. epidermidis ATCC 12228 on mouse skin significantly reduced ultraviolet B (UV-B)-induced injuries which were evaluated by the formation of 4-hydroxynonenal (4-HNE), cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (CPD), and skin lesions. A S. epidermidis S2 isolate with low expressions of genes encoding pyruvate dehydrogenase (pdh), and phosphate acetyltransferase (pta) was found to be poorly electrogenic. The protective action of electrogenic S. epidermidis against UV-B-induced skin injuries was considerably suppressed when mouse skin was applied with LCC in combination with a poorly electrogenic S. epidermidis S2 isolate. Exploring new indication of LCC for promoting S. epidermidis against UV-B provided an example of repurposing INCI-registered compounds as skin prebiotics.