Comparison of efficacy of dexamethasone and methylprednisolone in moderate to severe covid 19 disease. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2020;60:413-416. [PMID: 33200031 PMCID: PMC7654232 DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2020.11.027]

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

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

Evaluation of the use of methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in asthma critically ill patients with COVID-19: a multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown mortality benefits with corticosteroids in Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). However, there is inconsistency regarding the use of methylprednisolone over dexamethasone in COVID-19, and this has not been extensively evaluated in patients with a history of asthma. This study aims to investigate and compare the effectiveness and safety of methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in critically ill patients with asthma and COVID-19.

METHODS

The primary endpoint was the in-hospital mortality. Other endpoints include 30-day mortality, respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation (MV), acute kidney injury (AKI), acute liver injury, length of stay (LOS), ventilator-free days (VFDs), and hospital-acquired infections. Propensity score (PS) matching, and regression analyses were used.

RESULTS

A total of one hundred-five patients were included. Thirty patients received methylprednisolone, whereas seventy-five patients received dexamethasone. After PS matching (1:1 ratio), patients who received methylprednisolone had higher but insignificant in-hospital mortality in both crude and logistic regression analysis, [(35.0% vs. 18.2%, P = 0.22) and (OR 2.31; CI: 0.56 - 9.59; P = 0.25), respectively]. There were no statistically significant differences in the 30-day mortality, respiratory failure requiring MV, AKI, acute liver injury, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, and hospital-acquired infections.

CONCLUSIONS

Methylprednisolone in COVID-19 patients with asthma may lead to increased in-hospital mortality and shorter VFDs compared to dexamethasone; however, it failed to reach statistical significance. Therefore, it is necessary to interpret these data cautiously, and further large-scale randomized clinical trials are needed to establish more conclusive evidence and support these conclusions.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of glucocorticoids treatment in severe COVID-19: methylprednisolone versus dexamethasone

OBJECTIVE

The preferred agent of glucocorticoids in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19 is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19.

METHODS

By searching the electronic literature database including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science, the clinical studies comparing methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in the treatment of severe COVID-19 were selected according to the inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria. Relevant data were extracted and literature quality was assessed. The primary outcome was short-term mortality. The secondary outcomes were the rates of ICU admission and mechanical ventilation, PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, plasma levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, hospital stay, and the incidence of severe adverse events. Statistical pooling applied the fixed or random effects model and reported as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.1.0.

RESULTS

Twelve clinical studies were eligible, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nine non-RCTs. A total of 2506 patients with COVID-19 were analyzed, of which 1242 (49.6%) received methylprednisolone and 1264 (50.4%) received dexamethasone treatment. In general, the heterogeneity across studies was significant, and the equivalent doses of methylprednisolone were higher than that of dexamethasone. Our meta-analysis showed that methylprednisolone treatment in severe COVID-19 patients was related to significantly reduced plasma ferritin and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio compared with dexamethasone, and that no significant difference in other clinical outcomes between the two groups was found. However, subgroup analyses of RCTs demonstrated that methylprednisolone treatment was associated with reduced short-term mortality, and decreased CRP level compared with dexamethasone. Moreover, subgroup analyses observed that severe COVID-19 patients treated with a moderate dose (2 mg/kg/day) of methylprednisolone were related to a better prognosis than those treated with dexamethasone.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that compared with dexamethasone, methylprednisolone could reduce the systemic inflammatory response in severe COVID-19, and its effect was equivalent to that of dexamethasone on other clinical outcomes. It should be noted that the equivalent dose of methylprednisolone used was higher. Based on the evidence of subgroup analyses of RCTs, methylprednisolone, preferably at a moderate dose, has an advantage over dexamethasone in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19.

Safety and efficacy of methylprednisolone versus dexamethasone in critically ill patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: a retrospective study

Background

Corticosteroids (CSs), specifically dexamethasone (DEX), are the treatment of choice for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19 pneumonia (CARDS). However, data from both ARDS and relatively small CARDS clinical trials have suggested improved outcomes with methylprednisolone (MP) versus DEX. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of MP and DEX in critically ill CARDS patients.

Methods

The study cohort included CARDS patients admitted to a tertiary referral intensive care unit (ICU) between April and September 2020 who received at least 5 days of CSs for CARDS.

Results

The cohort was notable for a high severity of illness (overall, 88.5% of patients required mechanical ventilation and 16% required vasopressors on admission). The DEX group (n = 62) was significantly older with a higher illness severity [Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) 6 (4.75-8) versus 4.5 (3-7), p = 0.008], while the MP group (n = 51) received significantly more loading doses [19 (37.3%) versus 4 (6.5%), p < 0.0001]. MP was associated with a shorter time to intubation and more rapid progression to mortality [days to death: 18 (15-23) versus 27 (15-34), p = 0.026]. After correction for baseline imbalances in age and SOFA score, DEX was associated with improved mortality at 90 days compared with MP [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.23-0.80, p = 0.008]. However, there were no differences between rates of secondary infections during hospitalization or insulin requirements at 7 and 14 days.

Conclusion

In this cohort of critically ill CARDS, choice of CS was associated with mortality but not adverse event profile, and thus warrants further investigation.

Comparison of the efficacy of equivalent doses of dexamethasone, methylprednisolone, and hydrocortisone for treatment of COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective three-arm randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

This prospective controlled clinical trial aimed to compare the efficacy of methylprednisolone, dexamethasone, and hydrocortisone at equivalent doses in patients with severe COVID-19.

METHODS

In total, 106 patients with mild to moderate COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) were randomized to receive either dexamethasone (6 mg once a day), methylprednisolone (16 mg twice a day), or hydrocortisone (50 mg thrice a day) for up to 10 days. All participants received a standard of care for COVID-19. The primary and secondary efficacy outcomes included all-cause 28-day mortality, clinical status on day 28 assessed using the World Health Organization (WHO) eight-category ordinal clinical scale, number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit (ICU) care, number of ventilator-free days, length of hospital and ICU stay, change in PaO₂:FiO₂ ratios during the first 5 days after treatment, and incidence of serious adverse events. P-values below 0.008 based on Bonferroni's multiple-testing correction method were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

According to the obtained results, there was a trend toward more favorable clinical outcomes in terms of needing mechanical ventilation and ICU care, number of ventilator-free days, change in PaO₂:FiO₂ ratios during the first 5 days after treatment, clinical status score at day 28, length of ICU and hospital stay, and overall 28-day mortality in patients receiving dexamethasone compared to those receiving methylprednisolone or hydrocortisone; however, likely due to the study's small sample size, the difference between groups reached a significant level only in the case of clinical status score on day 28 (p-value = 0.003). There was no significant difference in the incidence of serious adverse events between the study groups.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results, severe cases of COVID-19 treated with dexamethasone might have a better clinical status at 28-day follow-up compared to methylprednisolone and hydrocortisone at an equivalent dose. Larger multicenter trials are required to confirm our findings.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Low-Dose Versus High-Dose Dexamethasone in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Meta-Analysis

The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of low-dose and high-dose dexamethasone in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. The current meta-analysis was conducted in compliance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was carried out using PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Embase. Outcomes assessed in the current meta-analysis included 28-day mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, length of ICU admission (days), and length of hospital stay (days). For safety, we compared hypoglycemia and the incidence of infection between the high-dose dexamethasone group and the low-dose dexamethasone group. A total of four studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of ICU admission (risk ratio (RR): 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.41-1.28, p-value: 0.27), length of stay in ICU in days (mean difference (MD): -0.05, 95%CI: -3.96-3.87, p-value: 0.98, I-square: 94%), length of hospital stay in days (MD: -0.94, 95%CI: -1.94-0.06, p-value: 0.07), need of mechanical ventilation (RR: 0.72, 95%CI: 0.36-1.48, p-value: 0.38), and 28-day mortality (RR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.50-1.64, p-value: 0.74). The current study showed that higher doses of dexamethasone failed to enhance efficacy compared to low-dose dexamethasone. Thus, based on the findings of this meta-analysis, low-dose dexamethasone can be recommended for these patients.

Corticosteroids use for COVID-19: an overview of systematic reviews

PURPOSE

A reappraisal of the validity of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses related to corticosteroids use for the treatment of COVID-19.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An overview of SRs (umbrella review). The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed using tha AMSTAR-2 checklist; quality of the evidence was appraised following the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

35 SRs were included in this overview. Data were from 307 overlapping reports, based on 121 individual primary studies (25 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 96 non-RCTs. In critically ill patients the use of steroids significantly reduced mortality compared to standard of care in 80% of the SRs, more often with moderate/high level of certainty; however, in patients not requiring oxygen supplementation the use of steroids increased the overall mortality in 2/3 of the comparisons. Clinical progression of diseases (need for mechanical ventilation, or for intensive care admission) was more commonly observed among controls compared to steroids recipients (in 9 out of 14 comparisons; certainty of evidence from very-low to moderate). The occurrence of adverse events was similar among steroids recipients and controls. Other outcomes (i.e., viral clearance, length of hospital stay) or issue related to optimal dose and type of steroids were addressed in a minority of SRs, with a high level of uncertainty, so that no definitive conclusions can be drawn.

CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate certainty of evidence that corticosteroids reduce mortality and progression of disease in critically ill COVID-19 patients compared to standard of care, without increasing the occurrence of adverse events.

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.

High-Dose versus Low-Dose Corticosteroids in COVID-19 Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The clinical efficacy of corticosteroids remains unclear. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the use of high-dose versus low- dose corticosteroids on the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Electronic search for randomized controlled trials and observational studies (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL).

PARTICIPANTS

Hospitalized adults ≥ 18 years old who were SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive.

INTERVENTIONS

High-dose and low-dose corticosteroids.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of twelve studies (n=2759 patients) were included in this review. The pooled analysis demonstrated no significant difference in mortality rate between the high-dose and low-dose corticosteroids groups (n=2632; OR: 1.07 [95%CI 0.67, 1.72], p=0.77, I2=76%, trial sequential analysis=inconclusive). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate (n=1544; OR: 0.77[95%CI 0.43, 1.37], p=0.37, I2= 72%), duration of hospital stay (n=1615; MD: 0.53[95%CI -1.36, 2.41], p=0.58, I2=87%), respiratory support (n=1694; OR: 1.51[95%CI 0.77, 2.96], p=0.23, I2=84%), duration of mechanical ventilation (n=419; MD: -1.44[95%CI -4.27, 1.40], p=0.32, I2=93%), incidence of hyperglycemia (n=516, OR: 0.91[95%CI 0.58, 1.43], p=0.68, I2=0%) and infection rate (n=1485, OR: 0.86[95%CI 0.64, 1.16], p=0.33, I2=29%).

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis demonstrated high-dose corticosteroids did not reduce mortality rate. However, high-dose corticosteroids did not pose higher risk of hyperglycemia and infection rate for COVID-19 patients. Due to the inconclusive trial sequential analysis, substantial heterogeneity and low level of evidence, future large-scale randomized clinical trials are warranted to improve the certainty of evidence for the use of high-dose compared to low-dose corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients.

Comparison of the effect of intravenous dexamethasone and methylprednisolone on the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aimed to compare the effects of intravenous dexamethasone and methylprednisolone on the treatment of inpatients with COVID-19.

METHODS

In this randomized clinical trial, 143 patients under 80 years of age with moderate to severe COVID-19 were enrolled and randomly assigned to two groups: dexamethasone (8 mg/day) and methylprednisolone (60 mg/day in two divided doses). The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay. The secondary outcomes included: duration of oxygen therapy, absolute leukocyte and lymphocyte count, hypokalemia, hyperglycemia, intensive care unit admission, and mortality in the two groups for 28 days. Data were analyzed by SPSS version 26 using t-test, chi-square, and analysis of variance.

RESULTS

The duration of hospitalization was significantly (P <0.001) shorter in the dexamethasone group than in the methylprednisolone group (8 [95% confidence interval [CI]:6-10] and 11 [95% CI: 7-14], respectively). In addition, the duration of oxygen therapy in the dexamethasone group (7 [95% CI: 5-9]) was significantly (P <0.001) shorter than in the methylprednisolone group (10 [95% CI: 5.5-14]). The mortality rate was 17.1% (95% CI: 8.1-26.1) in the dexamethasone group and 12.3% (95% CI: 4.6-20.0) in the methylprednisolone group, which was not statistically significant (P = 0.46).

CONCLUSION

Results showed better effectiveness of 8 mg/day dexamethasone compared with 60 mg/day methylprednisolone based on the shorter hospital stay, which can be considered in the therapeutic protocol of COVID-19.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

IRCT20210223050466N1.

Treatment with 3-day methylprednisolone pulses in severe cases of COVID-19 compared with the standard regimen protocol of dexamethasone

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, research has been focused on establishing effective treatments, especially for patients with severe pneumonia and hyperinflammation. The role and dose of corticosteroids remain obscure. We evaluated 58 patients with severe COVID-19 during two periods. 24 patients who received methylprednisolone pulses (250 mg/day intravenously for 3 days) were compared with 34 patients treated according to the standard dexamethasone protocol of 6 mg/day. Among non-intubated patients, the duration of hospitalization was shorter for those who received methylprednisolone pulses (9.5 vs 13.5, p<0.001). In a subgroup analysis of patients who required intubation, those treated with the dexamethasone protocol demonstrated a relative risk=1.89 (p=0.09) for dying, in contrast to the other group which showed a tendency towards extubation and discharge from the hospital. A 'delayed' need for intubation was also observed (6 vs 2 days, p=0.06). Treatment with methylprednisolone pulses significantly reduced hospitalization time. Although there was no statistically significant influence on the necessity for intubation, methylprednisolone pulses revealed a tendency to delay intubation and hospital discharges. This treatment could benefit patients in the hyperinflammatory phase of the disease.

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.

Potential plants for inflammatory dysfunction in the SARS-CoV-2 infection

The inflammatory process is a biological response of the organism to remove injurious stimuli and initiate homeostasis. It has been recognized as a key player in the most severe forms of SARS-CoV-2, characterized by significantly increased pro-inflammatory cytokine levels, the so-called "cytokine storm" that appears to play a pivotal role in this disease. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to select clinical trials with anti-inflammatory plants and relate the activity of these plants to inflammatory markers of SARS-CoV-2 infection. PRISMA guidelines are followed, and studies of interest are indexed in PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. As a result, 32 clinical trials encompassing 22 plants were selected. The main anti-inflammatory mechanisms described in the studies are the inhibition of inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-6, TNF-a, IFN-γ, and IL-1; decreased CRP and oxidative marker levels; increased endogenous antioxidant levels; modulation of cardiovascular risk markers. The data found are not directly related to SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, they provide possibilities for new studies as plants have a wide array of phytochemicals, and detecting which ones are responsible for anti-inflammatory effects can provide invaluable contribution to studies aiming to evaluate efficacy in scenarios of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

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.

Immune response and potential therapeutic strategies for the SARS-CoV-2 associated with the COVID-19 pandemic

Following onset of the first recorded case of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in December 2019, more than 269 million cases and over 5.3 million deaths have been confirmed worldwide. COVID-19 is a highly infectious pneumonia, caused by a novel virus called severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Currently, it poses a severe threat to human health across the globe, a trend that is likely to persist in the foreseeable future. This paper reviews SARS-CoV-2 immunity, the latest development of anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs as well as exploring in detail, immune escape induced by SARS-CoV-2. We expect that the findings will provide a basis for COVID-19 prevention and treatment.

PEGylated green halloysite/spinel ferrite nanocomposites for pH sensitive delivery of dexamethasone: A potential pulmonary drug delivery treatment option for COVID-19

Dexamethasone (Dex) is used in drug regimen for treatment of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) fusion and entry into the cell occurs at pH 5.5. In our present study, we have identified a green, cheap clay based halloysite (Hal) nanoformulation with release capability of Dex at such interactive pH condition. 30%ZnFe₂O₄/Hal and 30%NiFe₂O₄/Hal were prepared by one-pot synthesis technique. Dex (5% wt/wt) was functionalized over both nanocomposites. Finally, polyethylene glycol (PEG) was coated over ZnFe₂O₄/Hal/Dex and NiFe₂O₄/Hal/Dex nanocomposite using lyophilization technique (0.08 μl/mg of nanocarrier). The release ability of Dex was studied under pulmonary infection and normal pH conditions (pH = 5.6 and 7.4). The characterization study using X-ray diffraction (XRD) and UV-visible diffuse reflectance (DRS) spectra confirmed the presence of spinel ferrites over Hal. Nitrogen adsorption isotherm showed the surface area of ZnFe₂O₄/Hal (75 m²/g), pore volume (0.27 cm³/g) with average pore size (14.5 nm). Scanning electron microscope/Energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) and Transmission electron microscopy analysis revealed a textural change in halloysite tubular type indicating drug adsorption and PEG adhesion. DRS spectra indicated an intergrowth of zinc ferrite nanoparticles on the halloysite nanotubes. Interestingly, ZnFe₂O₄/Hal/Dex/PEG exhibited a high Dex release ability (17.5%, 168 h) at pH = 5.6 relevant to SARS-CoV-2 fusion entry into the cell pH condition of 5.5. Comparatively, the nanocomposite showed a less Dex release (<5%) release for 168 h at neutral pH = 7.4. The drug release kinetics were studied and the obtained data were fitted for the release constant and release exponent, using the Korsmeyer-Peppas model. To test the compatibility of our nanocomposites, we performed the cell viability assay (MTT) using HEK293 cells. Our results showed that at 0.3 mg/ml, Dex-loaded nanocomposite had a statistically significant improvement in cell viability compared to Dex alone. These results suggest that our nanocomposite has prevented the toxic effect of Dex and has huge potential to act as pulmonary drug delivery system for targeted lung infection therapeutics.

Immune dysfunction in COVID-19 and judicious use of antirheumatic drugs for the treatment of hyperinflammation

In the Wuhan province of China, almost two years ago, in December 2019, the novel Coronavirus 2019 has caused a severe involvement of the lower respiratory tract leading to an acute life-threatening respiratory syndrome, coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Subsequently, coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rapidly spread to the entire world causing a pandemic and affected every single person on earth either directly or indirectly with destroying all facets of social life and economy. Since the announcement of COVID-19 as a global pandemic, we have witnessed tremendous scientific work on all aspects of COVID-19 across the globe, which has never been witnessed before. The most remarkable achievement would be the introduction of vaccines, which provide protection from the severe infection and is the only premise for the control of disease. However, despite the tremendous work, the number of treatments either antiviral or immunomodulatory for infected patients are considerably limited, yet disease is causing substantial morbidity and mortality. COVID-19 follows heterogenous disease course among infected individuals, and dysregulated immune system is primarily responsible for the worse outcomes. Immune deficiency, being on corticosteroids for inflammatory diseases, delayed interferon response and advanced age adversely influence prognosis with impairing viral clearance. On the other hand, exuberant immune response with features of cytokine storm is the leading cause of death, which can be alleviated by use of either general immunosuppression with corticosteroids or selective neutralization of potent pro-inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-1 and IL-6. Herein, we summarized the potential effective immunomodulatory treatments emphasizing in which patient population it is the most suitable, which dose should be administered, and which is the most appropriate timepoint to administer the drug during the course of the disease.

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.

A Narrative Review of Existing Options for COVID-19-Specific Treatments

The new coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a global pandemic in early 2020. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has affected morbidity and mortality tremendously. Even though multiple drugs are being used throughout the world since the advent of COVID-19, only limited treatment options are available for COVID-19. Therefore, drugs targeting various pathologic aspects of the disease are being explored. Multiple studies have been published to demonstrate their clinical efficacy until now. Based on the current evidence to date, we summarized the mechanism, roles, and side effects of all existing treatment options to target this potentially fatal virus.

Dexamethasone or methylprednisolone therapy in covid-19 pneumonia: A retrospective and comparative study of 513 cases

BACKGROUNDS

Corona virus disease 19 (Covid-19) affects especially the respiratory tract, and induces lung injury which may progress to the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Various treatment options were tried all over the world, corticosteroids had showed beneficial effects.The Objective of this study, is to compare the safety and efficiency of two corticosteroids: dexamethasone and prednisolone in the treatment of Covid-19 infection.

METHODS

This retrospective and comparative study included 513 patients diagnosed with Covid-19 infection and were admitted to intensive care unit of our university hospital center of MOHAMMED VI Oujda from March 1, 2020, to December 31st, 2020.

RESULTS

In this study, 513 cases were included, 230 patients were received methylprednisolone, and 283 were treated with dexamethasone. The median age in methylprednisolone group was 64 years, and 63 years in the second group treated with dexamethasone. Patients treated with dexamethasone had more critically lesions compared to patients treated with methylprednisolone (67.6%), these patients had a good evolution with a significant reduction of oxygen supplementation, lower use of invasive ventilation and a significant improvement in biological parameters. The difference in outcome between the two groups in terms of mortality was significantly reduced in the second group.

CONCLUSION

Both steroids are efficient in the management of mild, moderate and severe Covid-19 pneumonia with a clear superiority of dexamethasone especially in severe forms.

Remdesivir and Cyclosporine Synergistically Inhibit the Human Coronaviruses OC43 and SARS-CoV-2

Remdesivir, a prodrug targeting RNA-dependent-RNA-polymerase, and cyclosporine, a calcineurin inhibitor, individually exerted inhibitory activity against human coronavirus OC43 (HCoV-OC43) in HCT-8 and MRC-5 cells at EC₅₀ values of 96 ± 34 ∼ 85 ± 23 nM and 2,920 ± 364 ∼ 4,419 ± 490 nM, respectively. When combined, these two drugs synergistically inhibited HCoV-OC43 in both HCT-8 and MRC-5 cells assayed by immunofluorescence assay (IFA). Remdesivir and cyclosporine also separately reduced IL-6 production induced by HCoV-OC43 in human lung fibroblasts MRC-5 cells with EC₅₀ values of 224 ± 53 nM and 1,292 ± 352 nM, respectively; and synergistically reduced it when combined. Similar trends were observed for SARS-CoV-2, which were 1) separately inhibited by remdesivir and cyclosporine with respective EC₅₀ values of 3,962 ± 303 nM and 7,213 ± 143 nM by IFA, and 291 ± 91 nM and 6,767 ± 1,827 nM by a plaque-formation assay; and 2) synergistically inhibited by their combination, again by IFA and plaque-formation assay. Collectively, these results suggest that the combination of remdesivir and cyclosporine merits further study as a possible treatment for COVID-19 complexed with a cytokine storm.

Impact of intermediate to high doses of methylprednisolone on mortality rate in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia-induced severe systemic inflammation

INTRODUCTION

In addition to respiratory support needs, patients' characteristics to guide indication or timing of corticosteroid treatment in COVID-19 patients are not completely established. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of methylprednisolone on mortality rate in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia-induced severe systemic inflammation (PI-SSI).

METHODS

Between 9 March and 5 May 2020 (final follow-up on 2 July 2020), a retrospective cohort study was conducted in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 PI-SSI (≥2 inflammatory biomarkers [IBs]: temperature ≥38℃, lymphocyte ≤800 cell/µL, C-reactive protein ≥100 mg/L, lactate dehydrogenase ≥300 units/L, ferritin ≥1000 mcg/L, D-dimer ≥500 ng/mL). Patients received 0.5-1.0 mg/kg of methylprednisolone for 5-10 days or standard of care. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included ≥2 points improvement on a 7-item WHO-scale (Day 14), transfer to intensive care unit (ICU) (Day 28) and adverse effects. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard regression were implemented to analyse the time to event outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 142 patients (corticosteroid group n = 72, control group n = 70) were included. A significant reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality was shown with methylprednisolone in patients with respiratory support (HR: 0.15; 95% CI 0.03-0.71), with ≥3 (HR: 0.17; 95% CI 0.05-0.61) or ≥4 altered IB (HR: 0.15; 95% CI 0.04-0.54) and in patients with both respiratory support and ≥3 (HR: 0.11; 95% CI 0.02-0.53] or ≥4 altered IB (HR: 0.14; 95% CI 0.04-0.51). No significant differences were found in secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Intermediate to high doses of methylprednisolone, initiated between 5 and 12 days after symptom onset, was associated with a significant reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and ≥3 o ≥ 4 altered IB, independently of the need of respiratory support.

Science's Response to CoVID-19

CoVID-19 is a multi-symptomatic disease which has made a global impact due to its ability to spread rapidly, and its relatively high mortality rate. Beyond the heroic efforts to develop vaccines, which we do not discuss herein, the response of scientists and clinicians to this complex problem has reflected the need to detect CoVID-19 rapidly, to diagnose patients likely to show adverse symptoms, and to treat severe and critical CoVID-19. Here we aim to encapsulate these varied and sometimes conflicting approaches and the resulting data in terms of chemistry and biology. In the process we highlight emerging concepts, and potential future applications that may arise out of this immense effort.

Dexamethasone and tocilizumab treatment considerably reduces the value of C-reactive protein and procalcitonin to detect secondary bacterial infections in COVID-19 patients

Background

Procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP) were previously shown to have value for the detection of secondary infections in critically ill COVID-19 patients. However, since the introduction of immunomodulatory therapy, the value of these biomarkers is unclear. We investigated PCT and CRP kinetics in critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with dexamethasone with or without tocilizumab, and assessed the value of these biomarkers to detect secondary bacterial infections.

Methods

In this prospective study, 190 critically ill COVID-19 patients were divided into three treatment groups: no dexamethasone, no tocilizumab (D−T−), dexamethasone, no tocilizumab (D+T−), and dexamethasone and tocilizumab (D+T+). Serial data of PCT and CRP were aligned on the last day of dexamethasone treatment, and kinetics of these biomarkers were analyzed between 6 days prior to cessation of dexamethasone and 10 days afterwards. Furthermore, the D+T− and D+T+ groups were subdivided into secondary infection and no-secondary infection groups to analyze differences in PCT and CRP kinetics and calculate detection accuracy of these biomarkers for the occurrence of a secondary infection.

Results

Following cessation of dexamethasone, there was a rebound in PCT and CRP levels, most pronounced in the D+T− group. Upon occurrence of a secondary infection, no significant increase in PCT and CRP levels was observed in the D+T− group (p = 0.052 and p = 0.08, respectively). Although PCT levels increased significantly in patients of the D+T+ group who developed a secondary infection (p = 0.0003), this rise was only apparent from day 2 post-infection onwards. CRP levels remained suppressed in the D+T+ group. Receiver operating curve analysis of PCT and CRP levels yielded area under the curves of 0.52 and 0.55, respectively, which are both markedly lower than those found in the group of COVID-19 patients not treated with immunomodulatory drugs (0.80 and 0.76, respectively, with p values for differences between groups of 0.001 and 0.02, respectively).

Conclusions

Cessation of dexamethasone in critically ill COVID-19 patients results in a rebound increase in PCT and CRP levels unrelated to the occurrence of secondary bacterial infections. Furthermore, immunomodulatory treatment with dexamethasone and tocilizumab considerably reduces the value of PCT and CRP for detection of secondary infections in COVID-19 patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03717-z.

Inflammatory effect on the gastrointestinal system associated with COVID-19

The severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) that causes coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has provoked a global pandemic, mainly affecting the respiratory tract; however, a percentage of infected individuals can develop gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. Some studies describe the development of GI symptoms and how they affect the progression of COVID-19. In this review, we summarize the main mechanisms associated with gut damage during infection by SARS-CoV-2 as well as other organs such as the liver and pancreas. Not only are host factors associated with severe COVID-19 but intestinal microbiota dysbiosis is also observed in patients with severe disease.

Exploring the room for repurposed hydroxychloroquine to impede COVID-19: toxicities and multipronged combination approaches with pharmaceutical insights

Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 has fatally affected the whole world with millions of deaths. Amidst the dilemma of a breakthrough in vaccine development, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was looked upon as a prospective repurposed candidate. It has confronted numerous controversies in the past few months as a chemoprophylactic and treatment option for COVID-19. Recently, it has been withdrawn by the World Health Organization for its use in an ongoing pandemic. However, its benefit/risk ratio regarding its use in COVID-19 disease remains poorly justified. An extensive literature search was done using Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar, www.cdc.gov, www.fda.gov, and who.int.Areas covered: Toxicity vexations of HCQ; pharmaceutical perspectives on new advances in drug delivery approaches; computational modeling (PBPK and PD modeling) overtures; multipronged combination approaches for enhanced synergism with antiviral and anti-inflammatory agents; immuno-boosting effects.Expert commentary: Harnessing the multipronged pharmaceutical perspectives will optimistically help the researchers, scientists, biotech, and pharmaceutical companies to bring new horizons in the safe and efficacious utilization of HCQ alone or in combination with remdesivir and immunomodulatory molecules like bovine lactoferrin in a fight against COVID-19. Combinational therapies with free forms or nanomedicine based targeted approaches can act synergistically to boost host immunity and stop SARS-CoV-2 replication and invasion to impede the infection.

Safety and Efficacy of Ivermectin and Doxycycline Monotherapy and in Combination in the Treatment of COVID-19: A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Ivermectin (IVM) and doxycycline (DOXY) have demonstrated in-vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, and have a reasonable safety profile. The objective of this systematic review was to explore the evidence in the literature on the safety and efficacy of their use as monotherapy and combination therapy in COVID-19 management.

METHODS

After prospectively registering the study protocol with the Open Science Framework, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, clinicaltrials.gov, various pre-print servers and reference lists for relevant records published until 16 February, 2021 using appropriate search strategies. Baseline features and data pertaining to efficacy and safety outcomes were extracted separately for IVM monotherapy, DOXY monotherapy, and IVM + DOXY combination therapy. Methodological quality was assessed based on the study design.

RESULTS

Out of 200 articles screened, 19 studies (six retrospective cohort studies, seven randomised controlled trials, five non-randomised trials, one case series) with 8754 unique patients with multiple stages of COVID-19 were included; four were pre-prints and one was an unpublished clinicaltrials.gov document. The comparator was standard care and 'hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin' in seven and three studies respectively, and two studies were placebo controlled; six studies did not have a comparator. IVM monotherapy, DOXY monotherapy and IVM + DOXY were explored in eight, five and five studies, respectively; one study compared IVM monotherapy and IVM + DOXY with placebo. While all studies described efficacy, the safety profile was described in only six studies. Efficacy outcomes were mixed with some studies concluding in favour of the intervention and some studies displaying no significant benefit; barring one study that described 9/183 patients with erosive esophagitis and non-ulcer dyspepsia with IVM + DOXY (without causality assessment details), there were no new safety signals of concern with any of the three interventions considered. The quality of studies varied widely, with five studies having a 'good' methodological quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is not sufficiently strong to either promote or refute the efficacy of IVM, DOXY, or their combination in COVID-19 management.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION DETAILS

Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/n7r2j .

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.

Old Problem, New Concerns: Hypercortisolemia in the Time of COVID-19

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic forced a change in the way we provide medical treatment. Endocrinology in the era of COVID-19 had to transform and reduce its vast potential to the absolute necessities. Medical professionals needed to update their clinical practice to provide their patients as much support and as little harm as possible in these increasingly difficult times. International expert statements were published to offer guidance regarding proper care. It was suggested to simplify the diagnostic scheme of hypercortisolemia and to modify the approach to treatment. Hypercortisolemic patients with COVID-19 and iatrogenic hypercortisolemia due to glucocorticoid use are important clinical scenarios - we aimed to provide a cohesive summary of issues to consider.

Clinical characteristics and predictors of the duration of hospital stay in COVID-19 patients in Jordan

Background: On March 11th, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a global pandemic. Healthcare systems in low- and middle-income countries may face serious limitations during a pandemic, for which understanding the predictors of prolonged hospital stay are crucial in decreasing the mortality rate. The aim of this study was to investigate the predictors of increased length of hospitalization among COVID-19 patients. Methods: In this prospective study, we investigated the effect of presenting symptoms and laboratory investigations on the duration of hospitalization of 131 COVID-19 patients at a tertiary hospital in Jordan from March 17th to April 9th, 2020. Results: Patients median age was 24 years [interquartile range (IQR): 8-39], of which 67 (51.15%) were males and 64 (48.85%) were females. Smokers had shorter in-hospital stay (OR: -3.52; 95% CI: -6.73 to -0.32; P=0.03). Taste loss (OR: 5.1; 95% CI: 1.95 to 8.25; P<0.01) and chills or rigors (OR: 4.08; 95% CI: 0.73 to 7.43; P=0.02) were the symptoms significantly associated with increased in-hospital stay, while those who had malaise (OR: -4.98; 95% CI: -8.42 to -1.59; P<0.01) and high white blood cell (WBC) count (OR: -0.74; 95% CI: -1.31 to -0.17; P=0.01) had faster recovery. Conclusions: Our study found that the most common presenting symptoms of COVID-19 are cough, malaise, and headache. Smoking, presenting with malaise or elevated WBCs were associated with shorter hospital stay, while loss of taste and chills or rigors at presentation were associated with a longer in-hospital stay.