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

Association between glucocorticoid administration and outcomes in patients with ARDS based on the MIMIC-III database

This study aimed to investigate the association between glucocorticoid administration and outcomes in critically ill patients with ARDS using the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-III database. Data were collected from the MIMIC-III database, which consists of critically ill participants between 2001 and 2012 in the USA. A total of 1831 adult critically ill patients with ARDS were enrolled from the MIMIC-III database. The 60-day and in-hospital mortality, were the primary endpoints. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS) in the hospital and intensive care unit (ICU), 28-day ventilator-free days, ICU mortality, and 28-day mortality. A total of 1831 patients were included in the data analysis. After propensity score (PS) matching, 464 patients diagnosed with ARDS were matched between the glucocorticoid treatment and control groups. Glucocorticoids were associated with increased in-hospital mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.32; 95% CI 1.01-1.71; P = .039], longer ICU stay [HR 2.25; 95% CI 0.84-3.65; P = .002], and shorter ventilation-free days at 28 days in all ARDS patients [HR -2.70; 95% CI -4.28--1.13; P = .001]. The 60-day mortality was higher in the glucocorticoid group (44.83% vs 35.34%; P = .154; HR 1.24; 95% CI 0.93-1.66). Excluding the impact of the glucocorticoid initiation time, from day 15 to day 60, mortality was significantly higher in the glucocorticoid group compared to the non-glucocorticoid group (27.16% vs 12.70%; P < .001; HR 1.75; 95% CI 1.32-2.32). Glucocorticoid administration was associated with worse 60-day and in-hospital survival, longer ICU stay, and shorter ventilator-free days on day 28 in patients with ARDS. Our findings suggest careful consideration of glucocorticoids for ARDS.

Sivelestat improves acute lung injury by inhibiting PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the therapeutic effect and mechanism of sivelestat sodium on acute lung injury (AIL).

METHODS

A rat model for ALI/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ALI/ARDS) was established. Pathological examination of lung tissue was conducted to assess lung injury. Blood gas in the arteries was measured using a blood analyzer. Changes in PaO2, PaO2/FiO2, and lung wet/dry (W/D) weight ratio were carefully compared. ELISA assay was conducted to estimate cell adhesion and inflammation response. Finally, real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and western blotting assay was used to determine the activation of PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway.

RESULTS

ARDS in vivo model was successfully constructed by LPS injection. Compared with the sham group, PaO2 and PaO2/FiO2 were significantly lower in the vehicle group, while the lung W/D ratio, the lung injury score, NE, VCAM-1, IL-8 andTNF-αwere significantly increased. After treatment with different doses of sivelestat sodium, we found PaO2, PaO2/FiO2 were prominently increased, while the lung W/D ratio, the lung injury score, NE, VCAM-1, IL-8, TNF-α levels were decreased in the dose-dependent manner. Meanwhile, compared with the vehicle group, the expression levels of Bax, PI3K, Akt and mTOR were significantly lower, and the expression of Bcl-2 was significantly higher after injection with sivelestat sodium.

CONCLUSION

Sivelestat sodium has an interventional effect on ALI in sepsis by inhibiting the PI3K/AKT/mTOR signalling pathway.

Comprehensive evaluation of six interventions for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A propensity score matching study

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of either hydroxychloroquine, triple combination therapy (TCT), favipiravir, dexamethasone, remdesivir, or COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in comparison with standard-of-care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 using real-world data from Saudi Arabia.

Patients and methods

A secondary database analysis was conducted using the Saudi Ministry of Health database for patients with COVID-19. Adult (≥ 18 years) hospitalized patients with COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021 were included in the analysis. A propensity score matching technique was used to establish comparable groups for each therapeutic approach. Lastly, an independent t-test and chi-square test were used to compare the matching groups in the aspects of the duration of hospitalization, length of stay (LOS) in intensive care units (ICU), in-hospital mortality, and composite poor outcome. Multilevel logistic regression model was used to assess the association between the severity stage of COVID-19 and the outcomes while using the medication or intervention used as a grouping variable in the model.

Results

The mean duration of hospitalization was significantly longer for patients who received TCT, favipiravir, dexamethasone, or CCP compared to patients who did not receive these therapies, with a mean difference ranging between 2.2 and 4.9 days for dexamethasone and CCP, respectively. Furthermore, the use of favipiravir or CCP was associated with a longer stay in ICU. Remdesivir was the only agent associated with in-hospital mortality benefit. A higher risk of mortality and poorer composite outcome were associated with the use of favipiravir or dexamethasone. However, the logistic regression model reveled that the difference between the two matched cohorts was due to the severity stage not the medication. Additionally, the use of hydroxychloroquine, TCT, or CCP had no impact on the incidence of in-hospital mortality or composite poor outcomes.

Conclusion

Remdesivir was the only agent associated with in-hospital mortality benefit. The observed worsened treatment outcomes associated with the use of dexamethasone or FPV shall be attributed to the severity stage rather than the medication use. In light of these varied results, additional studies are needed to continue evaluating the actual benefits of these therapies.

Methylprednisolone pulse therapy for critically ill patients with COVID-19: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

The guidelines recommend the use of dexamethasone 6 mg or an equivalent dose in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who require supplemental oxygen. Given that the severity of COVID-19 varies, we investigated the effect of a pulse dose of corticosteroids on the clinical course of critically ill patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted between September and December 2021, which was when the Delta variant of the COVID-19 virus was predominant. We evaluated the mortality and oxygenation of severe to critical COVID-19 cases between groups that received dexamethasone 6 mg for 10 days (control group) and methylprednisolone 250 mg/day for 3 days (pulse group).

RESULTS

Among 44 patients, 14 and 30 patients were treated with control steroids and pulse steroids, respectively. There was no difference in disease severity, time from COVID-19 diagnosis to steroid administration, or use of remdesivir or antibacterial agents between the two groups. The pulse steroid group showed a significant improvement in oxygenation before and after steroid treatment (P<0.001) compared with the control steroid group (P=0.196). There was no difference in in-hospital mortality (P=0.186); however, the pulse steroid group had a lower mortality rate (23.3%) than the control steroid group (42.9%). There was a significant difference in the length of hospital stay between both two groups (P=0.039).

CONCLUSIONS

Pulse steroids showed no mortality benefit but were associated with oxygenation improvement and shorter hospital stay than control steroids. Hyperglycemia should be carefully monitored with pulse steroids.

Drugs for COVID-19: An Update

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was the seventh known human coronavirus, and it was identified in Wuhan, Hubei province, China, in 2020. It caused the highly contagious disease called coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 11 March 2020. A great number of studies in the search of new therapies and vaccines have been carried out in these three long years, producing a series of successes; however, the need for more effective vaccines, therapies and other solutions is still being pursued. This review represents a tracking shot of the current pharmacological therapies used for the treatment of COVID-19.

Inhibition of coronavirus HCoV-OC43 by targeting the eIF4F complex

The translation initiation complex 4F (eIF4F) is a rate-limiting factor in protein synthesis. Alterations in eIF4F activity are linked to several diseases, including cancer and infectious diseases. To this end, coronaviruses require eIF4F complex activity to produce proteins essential for their life cycle. Efforts to target coronaviruses by abrogating translation have been largely limited to repurposing existing eIF4F complex inhibitors. Here, we report the results of a high throughput screen to identify small molecules that disrupt eIF4F complex formation and inhibit coronavirus RNA and protein levels. Of 338,000 small molecules screened for inhibition of the eIF4F-driven, CAP-dependent translation, we identified SBI-1232 and two structurally related analogs, SBI-5844 and SBI-0498, that inhibit human coronavirus OC43 (HCoV-OC43; OC43) with minimal cell toxicity. Notably, gene expression changes after OC43 infection of Vero E6 or A549 cells were effectively reverted upon treatment with SBI-5844 or SBI-0498. Moreover, SBI-5844 or SBI-0498 treatment effectively impeded the eIF4F complex assembly, with concomitant inhibition of newly synthesized OC43 nucleocapsid protein and OC43 RNA and protein levels. Overall, we identify SBI-5844 and SBI-0498 as small molecules targeting the eIF4F complex that may limit coronavirus transcripts and proteins, thereby representing a basis for developing novel therapeutic modalities against coronaviruses.

The Effect of Dexamethasone Treatment on COVID-19 Prognosis in Cancer Patients

Background: Dexamethasone is used to treat cancer, relieve chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, enhance cancer patients’ appetites, and treat COVID-19 patients. There is little evidence of the impact of a dexamethasone treatment plan on the severity of COVID-19 infections in cancer patients. This study explores whether dexamethasone treatment plan influences the severity of COVID-19 in dexamethasone-treated cancer patients. Methods: The medical records of 108 cancer patients receiving dexamethasone at King Hussein Cancer Center with a COVID-19 infection and 343 without corticosteroid treatment were reviewed. Patients on dexamethasone within seven days before infection, after infection, or both were included. Ventilation support, hospitalization, and mortality within 28 days of a COVID-19 diagnosis were key severity factors. Results: We found that dexamethasone before a COVID-19 infection increased the risk of requiring ventilation assistance and mortality within 28 days by a factor of 5.8 (2.8−12.0) relative to control (p < 0.005). Continuing dexamethasone treatment after a COVID-19 infection, or starting it after infection, had a risk factor equivalent to control. Conclusion: Our data showed that dexamethasone therapy protocol affected COVID-19 prognoses in cancer patients, and it is preferable to not discontinue therapy after infection. A rigorous prospective comparison between early and late dexamethasone dosing is needed to determine the best protocol for treatment.

Efficacy and Safety Comparison of Two Different Doses of Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Objective

The current study aims to investigate high- versus low-dose dexamethasone administration to control the disease with minor complications.

Methods

The current multicentric randomized clinical trial was conducted on 119 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and assigned into two groups of low-dose (8 mg daily intravenous dose for at least 7 days or until discharge) (n = 61) versus high-dose dexamethasone (24 mg for 3 days followed by daily 8 mg for the at least 4 days later or until discharge) (n = 58) during 2020-2021. Oxygen saturation, dyspnea severity based on the Borg scale, and laboratory indices were assessed at 3, 5, and 7 days of corticosteroid therapy. Patients were compared regarding the length of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission requirement, and noninvasive or invasive ventilation. The other investigations included corticosteroid-related adverse effects and mortality rates within a month after the medications.

Findings

Oxygen saturation, Borg scale, and C-reactive protein levels were significantly altered by the time in both the groups (P < 0.05). In contrast, the trend of improvements in Borg scale (P = 0.007) and lactate dehydrogenase levels (P = 0.034) were superior in high-dose treated cases. Drug-related adverse (P = 0.809), mortality rate (P = 0.612), hospitalization duration (P = 0.312), ICU admission requirement (P = 0.483), and noninvasive (P = 0.396) and invasive ventilation (P = 0.420) did not differ between the groups.

Conclusion

According to this study, low- versus high-dose dexamethasone therapy did not affect the outcomes, so low-dose dexamethasone is recommended for COVID-19 pneumonia to achieve optimal results and prevent potential adverse events.

PBPK Modelling of Dexamethasone in Patients With COVID-19 and Liver Disease

The aim of the study was to apply Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling to predict the effect of liver disease (LD) on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of dexamethasone (DEX) in the treatment of COVID-19. A whole-body PBPK model was created to simulate 100 adult individuals aged 18–60 years. Physiological changes (e.g., plasma protein concentration, liver size, CP450 expression, hepatic blood flow) and portal vein shunt were incorporated into the LD model. The changes were implemented by using the Child-Pugh (CP) classification system. DEX was qualified using clinical data in healthy adults for both oral (PO) and intravenous (IV) administrations and similarly propranolol (PRO) and midazolam (MDZ) were qualified with PO and IV clinical data in healthy and LD adults. The qualified model was subsequently used to simulate a 6 mg PO and 20 mg IV dose of DEX in patients with varying degrees of LD, with and without shunting. The PBPK model was successfully qualified across DEX, MDZ and PRO. In contrast to healthy adults, the simulated systemic clearance of DEX decreased (35%–60%) and the plasma concentrations increased (170%–400%) in patients with LD. Moreover, at higher doses of DEX, the AUC ratio between healthy/LD individuals remained comparable to lower doses. The exposure of DEX in different stages of LD was predicted through PBPK modelling, providing a rational framework to predict PK in complex clinical scenarios related to COVID-19. Model simulations suggest dose adjustments of DEX in LD patients are not necessary considering the low dose administered in the COVID-19 protocol.

Remdesivir significantly reduces SARS-CoV-2 viral load on nasopharyngeal swabs in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a retrospective case-control study

Remdesivir is a broad‐spectrum antiviral agent able to inhibit the RNA polymerase of SARS‐CoV‐2. At present, studies focusing on the effect of remdesivir on viral load (VL) are few and with contrasting results. Aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of remdesivir on SARS‐CoV‐2 VL from nasopharyngeal swabs (cycle threshold criterion) in a sample of patients treated with the drug, compared with patients who did not receive the antiviral treatment. This retrospective analysis evaluated patients with (1) real‐time polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) confirmed COVID‐19 diagnosis and (2) availability of at least two positive nasopharyngeal swabs analysed with the same analytic platform (ORF target gene, Ingenius ELITe, ELITechGroup, Puteaux, France). Upper respiratory specimens from nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at admission (T0) and 7–14 days after treatment, upon clinical decision. A total of 27 patients treated with remdesivir (Group A) met the inclusion criteria and were compared with 18 patients (Group B) treated with standard care, matched for baseline clinical characteristics. At baseline, both remdesivir‐treated and nontreated patients showed comparable VLs (21.73 ± 6.81 vs. 19.27 ± 5.24, p = 0.348). At the second swab, remdesivir‐treated patients showed a steeper VL reduction with respect to controls (34.28 ± 7.73 vs. 27.22 ± 3.92; p < 0.001). Longitudinal linear model estimated a mean decrease in cycle threshold equal to 0.61 (SE: 0.09) per day in remdesivir‐treated versus 0.33 (SE: 0.10) per day in remdesivir nontreated patients (p for heterogeneity = 0.045). The present study shows that the administration of remdesivir in hospitalized COVID‐19 patients significantly reduces the VL on nasopharyngeal swabs.

Remdesivir's effect on viral load has not been extensively studied

Remdesivir‐treated patients showed a steeper viral load reduction compared to controls

This could impact on the optimal timing of administration to prevent disease progression

Preliminary study regarding the predicted body weight-based dexamethasone therapy in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia

BACKGROUND

The RECOVERY clinical trial reported that 6 mg of dexamethasone once daily for up to 10 days reduces the 28-day mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) receiving respiratory support. In our clinical setting, a fixed dose of dexamethasone has prompted the question of whether inflammatory modulation effects sufficiently reduce lung injury. Therefore, preliminary verification on the possibility of predicted body weight (PBW)-based dexamethasone therapy was conducted in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study was conducted in a Japanese University Hospital to compare the treatment strategies/management in different periods. Consecutive patients (n = 90) with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring oxygen therapy and were treated with dexamethasone between June 2020 and May 2021 were analyzed. Initially, 60 patients administered a fixed dexamethasone dose of 6.6 mg/day were defined as the conventional group, and then, 30 patients were changed to PBW-based therapy. The 30-day discharged alive rate and duration of oxygen therapy were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. The multivariable Cox regression was used to evaluate the effects of PBW-based dexamethasone therapy on high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), or mechanical ventilation (MV).

RESULTS

In the PBW-based group, 9, 13, and 8 patients were administered 6.6, 9.9, and 13.2 mg/day of dexamethasone, respectively. Additional respiratory support including HFNC, NIV, or MV was significantly less frequently used in the PBW-based group (P = 0.0046), with significantly greater cumulative incidence of being discharged alive and shorter oxygen demand within 30 days (92 vs. 89%, log-rank P = 0.0094, 90 vs. 92%, log-rank P = 0.0002, respectively). Patients treated with PBW-based therapy significantly decreased the use of additional respiratory support after adjusting for baseline imbalances (adjusted odds ratio, 0.224; 95% confidence interval, 0.062-0.813, P = 0.023). Infection occurred in 13 (21%) and 2 (7%) patients in the conventional and PBW-based groups, respectively (P = 0.082).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring oxygen therapy, PBW-based dexamethasone therapy may potentially shorten the length of hospital stay and duration of oxygen therapy and risk of using HFNC, NPPV, or MV without increasing serious adverse events or 30-day mortality.

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).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43440-021-00341-0.