Safety and Efficacy of Low-Dose Corticosteroids in Patients With Non-severe Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Retrospective Cohort Study

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.

Effectiveness of Systemic Corticosteroids Therapy for Nonsevere Patients With COVID-19: A Multicenter, Retrospective, Longitudinal Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

Corticosteroids were clinically used in the treatment of nonsevere patients with COVID-19, but the efficacy of such treatment lacked sufficient clinical evidence, and the impact of dose had never been studied. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of systemic corticosteroid use (SCU) in nonsevere patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study in Hubei Province. A total of 1726 patients admitted with nonsevere type COVID-19 were included. Mixed-effect Cox model, mixed-effect Cox model with time-varying exposure, multiple linear regression, and propensity score analysis (inverse probability of treatment weight and propensity score matching) were used to explore the association between SCU and progression into severe type, all-cause mortality, and length of stay.

RESULTS

During the follow-up of 30 days, 29.8% of nonsevere patients with COVID-19 received treatment with systemic corticosteroids. The use of systemic corticosteroids was associated with higher probability of developing severe type (adjusted hazard ratio 1.81; 95% confidence interval 1.47-2.21), all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 2.92; 95% confidence interval 1.39-6.15) in time-varying Cox analysis, and prolonged hospitalization (β 4.14; P < .001) in multiple linear regression. Analysis with 2 propensity score cohorts displayed similar results. Besides, increased corticosteroid dose was significantly associated with elevated probability of developing severe type (P < .001) and prolonged hospitalization (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Corticosteroid treatment against nonsevere patients with COVID-19 was significantly associated with worse clinical outcomes. The higher dose was significantly associated with elevated risk of poor disease progression. We recommend that SCU should be avoided unless necessary among nonsevere patients with COVID-19.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Right Bronchial Infiltration on Chest X-rays in Diagnosing COVID-19 Patients in the Early Stage of the Disease

Purpose

SARS-CoV-2 has been a diagnostic challenge for healthcare setups worldwide since 2019 due to its proximity to a myriad of pathological processes. Although reverse transcription - polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) have helped in the diagnosis of the disease, they are not as widely available as chest X-rays. This study aims to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of right bronchial infiltration in chest X-ray in diagnosing COVID-19.

Material and methods

This was a validation study conducted in a single center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A total of 114 patients were enrolled according to the selection criteria of the study. Consent was waived off on the condition of confidentiality maintenance as per the ethical review board. X-rays of suspected patients were viewed and analyzed by two blinded consultant radiologists. Patients were followed for their RT-PCR reports. Data were entered and analyzed in SPSS Statistics v.23.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, USA).

Results

Among the 114 patients, the mean age was 46.2±17.3 years and 85 (74.6%) were males. The total number of COVID-19-positive patients were 82 (71.9%) while the patients presenting with right bronchial infiltration (RBI) were 94 (82.5%). RBI was significantly associated with the presence and absence of COVID-19 on PCR (p<0.001) and the presence of comorbidities (p<0.001). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of the sign were 84.04%, 85.00%, 96.34%, 53.12%, and 84.21%, respectively.

Conclusions

RBI can be used as a diagnostic sign in X-rays for early identification of COVID-19 positive patients. This feature can be used in the triage of patients. This would decrease the spread of disease by providing early time to intervene to isolate patients.

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.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-021-00518-3.

Diagnostic Value of High-Resolution Computed Tomography Scan in COVID-19: Do We Need to Think Outside the Box?

Background and objective The ambiguous nature and high infectivity of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have caused soaring morbidity and mortality worldwide. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is preferred for detecting COVID-19. However, its poor sensitivity and the emerging use of high-resolution CT (HRCT) scan for disease severity make the use of RT-PCR quite obsolete. In light of this, our study aimed to explore the beneficial role of HRCT and compare the HRCT findings across various patient demographics and parameters. Methods This cross-sectional study included 100 patients with clinical suspicion of COVID-19. All patients underwent a chest HRCT scan preceded by RT-PCR testing. We used the CT severity score (CTSS) of the chest to calculate disease severity. Demographical data and results of radiological findings were tabulated and compared across RT-PCR positivity, age, and gender. Independent samples t-test and chi-square test were used to analyze the data. Results Glass ground opacity was the most prevalent finding in 99% of the patients, followed by lymph node involvement, consolidation, and crazy-paving pattern. Pleural effusion was observed in only 10% of the patients while pericardial effusion and hiatal hernia were present in 5%. In RT-PCR-positive patients, the posterior basal segment of the lower lobe of the right and left lungs were found to be dominantly involved; however, the upper and middle lobes of the right lung were more commonly involved than the left lung. The mean CTSS was significantly higher in patients aged above 50 years (p<0.001). The mean CTSS of RT-PCR-negative patients was higher than that of RT-PCR-positive patients (15.18 vs. 14.31, p=0.537). Conclusion RT-PCR has a limited role in the diagnosis of COVID-19. The HRCT scan can detect typical COVID-19 findings even in patients with negative RT-PCR results. Moreover, the use of HRCT scan in determining the disease severity and extent of lung damage can lead to a better assessment of critically ill patients.

Authors' response to the Letter to the Editor regarding: Preventive home therapy for symptomatic patients affected by COVID-19 and followed by teleconsultations

Dear Editor, We have carefully read the comments by Adiletta and colleagues...