Efficacy and safety of systematic corticosteroids among severe COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The efficacy of antivirals, corticosteroids, and monoclonal antibodies as acute COVID-19 treatments in reducing the incidence of long COVID: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether treatment during acute COVID-19 results in protective efficacy against long COVID incidence remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relationship between acute COVID-19 treatments of antivirals, corticosteroids, and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and long COVID incidence, and their effects in different populations and individual symptoms.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Searches were conducted up to January 29, 2024 in PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, and Embase.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Articles that reported long COVID incidence post-acute COVID with a follow-up of at least 30 days with no language restrictions.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis history.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients treated with antivirals, corticosteroids or mAbs.

ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS

Quality assessment was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions-I and Cochrane risk of bias tool.

METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS

Basic characteristics were documented for each study. Random forest model and meta-regression were used to evaluate the correlation between treatments and long COVID.

RESULTS

Our search identified 2363 records, 32 of which were included in the qualitative synthesis and 25 included into the meta-analysis. Effect size from 14 papers investigating acute COVID-19 antiviral treatment concluded its protective efficacy against long COVID (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.48-0.79; p 0.0002); however, corticosteroid (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.80-3.09; p 0.1913), and mAbs treatments (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.56-1.56; p 0.8012) did not generate such effect. Subsequent subgroup analysis revealed that antivirals provided stronger protection in the aged, male, unvaccinated and nondiabetic populations. Furthermore, antivirals effectively reduced 8 out of the 22 analysed long COVID symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis determined that antivirals reduced long COVID incidence across populations and should thus be recommended for acute COVID-19 treatment. There was no relationship between mAbs treatment and long COVID, but studies should be conducted to clarify acute COVID-19 corticosteroids' potential harmful effects on the post-acute phase of COVID-19.

Comprehensive analysis of gastrointestinal side effects in COVID-19 patients undergoing combined pharmacological treatment with azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

During the COVID-19 pandemic, several drugs were repositioned and combined to quickly find a way to mitigate the effects of the infection. However, the adverse effects of these combinations on the gastrointestinal tract are unknown. We aimed investigate whether Hydroxychloroquine (HD), Azithromycin (AZ), and Ivermectin (IV) used in combination for the treatment of COVID-19, can lead to the development of gastrointestinal disorders. This is a systematic review and network meta-analysis conducted using Stata and Revman software, respectively. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023372802). A search of clinical trials in Cochrane Library databases, Embase, Web of Science, Lilacs, PubMed, Scopus and Clinicaltrials.gov conducted on November 26, 2023. The eligibility of the studies was assessed based on PICO criteria, including trials that compared different treatments and control group. The analysis of the quality of the evidence was carried out according to the GRADE. Six trials involving 1,686 COVID-19 patients were included. No trials on the association of HD or AZ with IV met the inclusion criteria, only studies on the association between HD and AZ were included. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain and increased transaminases were related. The symptoms of vomiting and nausea were evaluated through a network meta-analysis, while the symptom of abdominal pain was evaluated through a meta-analysis. No significant associations with these symptoms were observed for HD, AZ, or their combination, compared to control. Low heterogeneity and absence of inconsistency in indirect and direct comparisons were noted. Limitations included small sample sizes, varied drug dosages, and potential publication bias during the pandemic peak. This review unveils that there are no associations between gastrointestinal adverse effects and the combined treatment of HD with AZ in the management of COVID-19, as compared to either the use of a control group or the administration of the drugs individually, on the other hand, highlighting the very low or low certainty of evidence for the evaluated outcomes. To accurately conclude the absence of side effects, further high-quality randomized studies are needed.

Symptoms and Impaired Quality of Life After COVID-19 Hospitalization: Effect of Therapeutic Heparin in Non-ICU Patients in the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines 4 Acute Trial: Effect on 3-Month Symptoms and Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic-dose heparin decreased days requiring organ support in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, but its impact on persistent symptoms or quality of life (QOL) is unclear.

RESEARCH QUESTION

In the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines 4 ACUTE (ACTIV-4a) trial, was randomization of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 illness to therapeutic-dose vs prophylactic heparin associated with fewer symptoms and better QOL at 90 days?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was an open-label randomized controlled trial at 34 hospitals in the United States and Spain. A total of 727 noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from September 2020 to June 2021 were randomized to therapeutic-dose vs prophylactic heparin. Only patients with 90-day data on symptoms and QOL were analyzed. We ascertained symptoms and QOL by the EQ-5D-5L at 90-day follow-up in a preplanned analysis for the ACTIV-4a trial. Individual domains assessed by the EQ-5D-5L included mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Among 571 patients, 288 (50.4%) reported at least one symptom. Among 410 patients, 148 (36.1%) reported moderate to severe impairment in one or more domains of the EQ-5D-5L. The presence of 90-day symptoms was associated with moderate-severe impairment in the EQ-5D-5L domains of mobility (adjusted OR [aOR], 2.37; 95% CI, 1.22-4.59), usual activities (aOR, 3.66; 95% CI, 1.75-7.65), pain (aOR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.43-4.12), and anxiety (aOR, 4.32; 95% CI, 2.06-9.02), compared with patients reporting no symptoms There were no differences in symptoms or in the overall EQ-5D-5L index score between treatment groups. Therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with less moderate-severe impairment in all physical functioning domains (mobility, self-care, usual activities) but was independently significant only in the self-care domain (aOR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11-0.96).

INTERPRETATION

In a randomized controlled trial of hospitalized noncritically ill patients with COVID-19, therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with less severe impairment in the self-care domain of EQ-5D-5L. However, this type of impairment was uncommon, affecting 23 individuals.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04505774; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

Acute Respiratory Failure in Severe Acute Brain Injury

Acute respiratory failure is commonly encountered in severe acute brain injury due to a multitude of factors related to the sequelae of the primary injury. The interaction between pulmonary and neurologic systems in this population is complex, often with competing priorities. Many treatment modalities for acute respiratory failure can result in deleterious effects on cerebral physiology, and secondary brain injury due to elevations in intracranial pressure or impaired cerebral perfusion. High-quality literature is lacking to guide clinical decision-making in this population, and deliberate considerations of individual patient factors must be considered to optimize each patient's care.

Is COVID-19 an independent risk factor for the development of avascular necrosis of the hip? A retrospective study to evaluate the factors associated with avascular necrosis of the hip in patients who had COVID-19 infection

PURPOSE

The cumulative effect of hyper-coagulative COVID-19 disease and using steroids leads to increased avascular necrosis (AVN) hip incidence. This study aims to correlate the various factors of COVID-19 infection with the occurrence of AVN hip.

METHODS

It is a retrospective cross-sectional study of non-traumatic AVN hip patients with a history of COVID-19 infection. A total number of 50 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. The following details were obtained: (a) patient's demographics, (b) COVID-19: interval of infection and groin pain, duration of symptoms, severity, steroid intake, (c) AVN hip: involved side, Ficat-Arlet staging.

RESULTS

The mean age was 36.3 years (range: 20-60), and body mass index (BMI) was 25.13 kg/m2 (range: 18.50-31.50). There were 45 males and five females. Sixty percent (30) of patients managed at home, 24% (12) required admission into the ward, 2% (1) were in ICU only, and 14% (7) admitted to both ICU and ward. The mean interval of COVID-19 infection and onset of hip pain was 359.02 days (range: 10-822 days). Thirty-eight percent (19) patients required steroids (injection and oral), 46% (23) took steroids (oral only), whereas 16% (8) recovered without steroids. The stage of AVN correlated with the severity of COVID-19 infection (p-value -0.038) and significant improvement in VAS and HHS after treatment in each stage. The mean follow-up was 9.79 months (6-19 months).

CONCLUSION

A low-dose steroid intake with moderate to severe COVID-19 infection produces an additive effect on the development of AVN hip. Most affected individuals were adult males, and stage II AVN was the most common, managed with bisphosphonates and core decompression for short intervals.

Relationship between steroid use and superinfections in SARS-CoV-2 patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction: The use of steroids has been proposed as a pharmacological approach to treat the SARS-CoV-2 infection to improve outcomes. However, there are doubts about safety against the development of superinfections and their worse outcomes. Objective: To establish the relative frequency of superinfection associated with using steroids in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Materials and methods: We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis using PRISMA standards in 5 databases (PubMed/Scopus/Cochrane/EMBASE/Google Scholar). The search was carried out between February 2020 and May 2023. The search terms were 'steroids' or 'superinfection' 'and' followed by 'SARS-CoV-2' or 'COVID-19'. Results: We found 77 studies, but only 10 with 3539 patients were included in the systematic review. All patients developed severe disease. The documented OR for superinfection through the meta-analysis was 1.437 (95% IC 0.869-2.378) with a p-value of 0.158 without showing a risk attributed to steroids and the development of superinfections. In the Funnel-plot analysis, no publication biases were found. Conclusion: No relationship was found between using steroids and superinfection in patients with SARS-CoV-2.

Acute Necrotizing Encephalopathy in Adult Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Case Reports and Case Series

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Acute necrotizing encephalopathy (ANE) is a rare neurological disorder that is often associated with viral infections. Since the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a few COVID-19-associated ANE cases have been reported. Since very little is known about ANE, the present study aimed to determine the clinical, biochemical, and radiological characteristics of affected patients.

METHODS

A search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases for articles published up to August 30, 2022 using relevant keywords. Case reports and series in the English language that reported ANE in adult patients with COVID-19 confirmed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction were included in this study. Data on the demographic, clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics of patients were extracted and analyzed using the SPSS software (version 26).

RESULTS

The study included 30 patients (18 males) with COVID-19 and ANE who were aged 49.87±18.68 years (mean±standard deviation). Fever was the most-prevalent symptom at presentation (66.7%). Elevated C-reactive protein was observed in the laboratory assessments of 13 patients. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging were the most-common radiological modalities used for brain assessments. The most commonly prescribed medications were methylprednisolone (30%) and remdesivir (26.7%). Sixteen patients died prior to discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnosis of COVID-19-associated ANE requires a thorough knowledge of the disease. Since the clinical presentations of ANE are neither sensitive nor specific, further laboratory and brain radiological evaluations will be needed to confirm the diagnosis. The suspicion of ANE should be raised among patients with COVID-19 who present with progressive neurological symptoms.

Post-COVID-19 pulmonary fibrosis: An ongoing concern

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 rapidly spread across the globe causing over 6 million deaths and major compromization of health facilities. The vast majority of survivors post-COVID-19 are left with variable degrees of health sequelae including pulmonary, neurological, psychological, and cardiovascular complications. Post-COVID-19 pulmonary fibrosis is one of the major concerns arising after the recovery from this pandemic. Risk factors for post-COVID-19 pulmonary fibrosis include age, male sex, and the severity of COVID-19 disease. High-resolution computed tomography provides diagnostic utility to diagnose pulmonary fibrosis as it provides more details regarding the pattern and the extent of pulmonary fibrosis. Emerging data showing similarities between post-COVID-19 pulmonary fibrosis and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, finding that needs further exploration. The management of post-COVID-19 pulmonary fibrosis depends on many factors but largely relies on excluding other causes of pulmonary fibrosis, the extent of fibrosis, and physiological impairment. Treatment includes immunosuppressants versus antifibrotics or both.

Obesity in Severe COVID-19 Patients Has a Distinct Innate Immune Phenotype

Obesity alters the capacity of effective immune responses in infections. To further address this phenomenon in the context of COVID-19, this study investigated how the immunophenotype of leukocytes was altered in individuals with obesity in severe COVID-19. This cross-sectional study enrolled 27 ICU COVID-19 patients (67% women, 56.33 ± 19.55 years) that were assigned to obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, n = 9) or non-obese (BMI < 30kg/m2, n = 18) groups. Monocytes, NK, and both Low-Density (LD) and High-Density (HD) neutrophils were isolated from peripheral blood samples, and surface receptors' frequency and expression patterns were analyzed by flow cytometry. Clinical status and biochemical data were additionally evaluated. The frequency of monocytes was negatively correlated with BMI, while NK cells and HD neutrophils were positively associated (p < 0.05). Patients with obesity showed a significant reduction of monocytes, and these cells expressed high levels of PD-L1 (p < 0.05). A higher frequency of NK cells and increased expression of TREM-1+ on HD neutrophils were detected in obese patients (p < 0.05). The expression of receptors related to antigen-presentation, phagocytosis, chemotaxis, inflammation and suppression were strongly correlated with clinical markers only in obese patients (p < 0.05). Collectively, these outcomes revealed that obesity differentially affected, and largely depressed, innate immune response in severe COVID-19.

Drugs in primary care that may alter COVID-19 risk and severity

ABSTRACT

This article describes drugs used in primary care that could alter patients' risk for and severity of COVID-19. The risks and benefits of each drug class were differentiated according to the strength of evidence from 58 selected randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Most of the studies reported on drugs affecting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Other classes included opioids, acid suppressants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, vitamins, biguanides, and statins. Current evidence has not fully differentiated drugs that may increase risk versus benefits in COVID-19 infection. Further studies are needed in this area.

Potential treatments of COVID-19: Drug repurposing and therapeutic interventions

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The infection is caused when Spike-protein (S-protein) present on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 interacts with human cell surface receptor, Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). This binding facilitates SARS-CoV-2 genome entry into the human cells, which in turn causes infection. Since the beginning of the pandemic, many different therapies have been developed to combat COVID-19, including treatment and prevention. This review is focused on the currently adapted and certain other potential therapies for COVID-19 treatment, which include drug repurposing, vaccines and drug-free therapies. The efficacy of various treatment options is constantly being tested through clinical trials and in vivo studies before they are made medically available to the public.

Therapeutic considerations for prevention and treatment of thrombotic events in COVID-19

Thrombosis is a known complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly within a severely symptomatic subset of patients with COVID-19 disease, in whom an aggressive host immune response leads to cytokine storm syndrome (CSS). The incidence of thrombotic events coinciding with CSS may contribute to the severe morbidity and mortality observed in association with COVID-19. This review provides an overview of pharmacologic approaches based upon an emerging understanding of the mechanisms responsible for thrombosis across a spectrum of COVID-19 disease involving an interplay between immunologic and pro-thrombotic events, including endothelial injury, platelet activation, altered coagulation pathways, and impaired fibrinolysis.

Clinical outcomes of COVID-19 caused by the Alpha variant compared with one by wild type in Kobe, Japan. A multi-center nested case-control study

OBJECTIVES

The emergence of the Alpha variant of novel coronavirus 2019 (SARS-CoV-2) is a concerning issue but their clinical implications have not been investigated fully.

METHODS

We conducted a nested case-control study to compare severity and mortality caused by the Alpha variant (B.1.1.7) with the one caused by the wild type as a control from December 2020 to March 2021, using whole-genome sequencing. 28-day mortality and other clinically important outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Infections caused by the Alpha variant were associated with an increase in the use of oxygen (43.4% vs 26.3%. p = 0.017), high flow nasal cannula (21.2% vs 4.0%, p = 0.0007), mechanical ventilation (16.2% vs 6.1%, p = 0.049), ICU care (30.3% vs 14.1%, p = 0.01) and the length of hospital stay (17 vs 10 days, p = 0.031). More patients with the Alpha variant received medications such as dexamethasone. However, the duration of each modality did not differ between the 2 groups. Likewise, there was no difference in 28-day mortality between the 2 groups (12% vs 8%, p = 0.48), even after multiple sensitivity analyses, including propensity score analysis.

CONCLUSION

The Alpha variant was associated with a severe form of COVID-19, compared with the non-Alpha wild type, but might not be associated with higher mortality.

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.

Fewer COVID-19 Neurological Complications with Dexamethasone and Remdesivir

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the impact of treatment with dexamethasone, remdesivir or both on neurological complications in acute coronavirus diease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

We used observational data from the International Severe Acute and emerging Respiratory Infection Consortium World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Characterization Protocol, United Kingdom. Hospital inpatients aged ≥18 years with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection admitted between January 31, 2020, and June 29, 2021, were included. Treatment allocation was non-blinded and performed by reporting clinicians. A propensity scoring methodology was used to minimize confounding. Treatment with remdesivir, dexamethasone, or both was assessed against the standard of care. The primary outcome was a neurological complication occurring at the point of death, discharge, or resolution of the COVID-19 clinical episode.

RESULTS

Out of 89,297 hospital inpatients, 64,088 had severe COVID-19 and 25,209 had non-hypoxic COVID-19. Neurological complications developed in 4.8% and 4.5%, respectively. In both groups, neurological complications were associated with increased mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, worse self-care on discharge, and time to recovery. In patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with dexamethasone (n = 21,129), remdesivir (n = 1,428), and both combined (n = 10,846) were associated with a lower frequency of neurological complications: OR = 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.69-0.83), OR = 0.69 (95% CI = 0.51-0.90), and OR = 0.54 (95% CI = 0.47-0.61), respectively. In patients with non-hypoxic COVID-19, dexamethasone (n = 2,580) was associated with less neurological complications (OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.62-0.97), whereas the dexamethasone/remdesivir combination (n = 460) showed a similar trend (OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.31-1.15).

INTERPRETATION

Treatment with dexamethasone, remdesivir, or both in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was associated with a lower frequency of neurological complications in an additive manner, such that the greatest benefit was observed in patients who received both drugs together. ANN NEUROL 2023;93:88-102.

Effectiveness of corticosteroids to treat coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Currently, corticosteroids are widely used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms. However, the therapeutic role of corticosteroids remains highly controversial. To that end, we aimed to assess the efficacy of corticosteroids in treating COVID-19 patients.

METHOD

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to select suitable studies. Our primary study endpoint was all-cause mortality. The secondary study endpoint was the length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 7907 patients were assessed. The pooled result indicated that corticosteroids treatment could significantly reduce all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 (RR = 0.88, 95% CI [0.82, 0.95], P = 0.002). When subgroup analyses were performed, we found that corticosteroids were associated with decreased all-cause mortality in severe COVID-19 patients (RR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.68, 0.88], P < 0.0001), however no obvious difference was observed in all-cause mortality of non-severe COVID-19 patients between the corticosteroid and control group (RR = 0.96, 95% CI [0.86, 1.06], P = 0.41), meanwhile, a low dose (RR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.82, 0.97], P = 0.007) of dexamethasone (RR = 0.9, 95% CI [0.83, 0.98], P = 0.01) with a long treatment course (RR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.82, 0.98], P = 0.02) was beneficial for all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients. Additionally, we found that corticosteroids might be associated with a longer length of hospital stay in non-severe COVID-19 patients (MD = 3.83, 95% CI [1.11, 6.56], P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that corticosteroid therapy was related to a reduction in all-cause mortality in severe COVID-19 patients. However, in patients with non-severe COVID-19, the use of corticosteroids did not decrease all-cause mortality and may prolong the duration of hospital stay. In addition, we revealed that a low dose of dexamethasone with a long treatment course could reduce all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients.

Effectiveness of corticosteroids to treat coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Currently, corticosteroids are widely used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms. However, the therapeutic role of corticosteroids remains highly controversial. To that end, we aimed to assess the efficacy of corticosteroids in treating COVID-19 patients.

METHOD

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to select suitable studies. Our primary study endpoint was all-cause mortality. The secondary study endpoint was the length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 7907 patients were assessed. The pooled result indicated that corticosteroids treatment could significantly reduce all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 (RR=0.88, 95% CI [0.82, 0.95], P=0.002). When subgroup analyses were performed, we found that corticosteroids were associated with decreased all-cause mortality in severe COVID-19 patients (RR=0.77, 95% CI [0.68, 0.88], P<0.0001), however no obvious difference was observed in all-cause mortality of non-severe COVID-19 patients between the corticosteroid and control group (RR=0.96, 95% CI [0.86, 1.06], P=0.41), meanwhile, a low dose (RR=0.89, 95% CI [0.82, 0.97], P=0.007) of dexamethasone (RR=0.9, 95% CI [0.83, 0.98], P=0.01) with a long treatment course (RR=0.89, 95% CI [0.82, 0.98], P=0.02) was beneficial for all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients. Additionally, we found that corticosteroids might be associated with a longer length of hospital stay in non-severe COVID-19 patients (MD=3.83, 95% CI [1.11, 6.56], P=0.006).

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that corticosteroid therapy was related to a reduction in all-cause mortality in severe COVID-19 patients. However, in patients with non-severe COVID-19, the use of corticosteroids did not decrease all-cause mortality and may prolong the duration of hospital stay. In addition, we revealed that a low dose of dexamethasone with a long treatment course could reduce all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients.

Critical Illness-Related Corticosteroid Insufficiency (CIRCI) Among Patients with COVID-19 at a Tertiary Hospital: Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Among critically ill patients, there is usually impairment of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, leading to a condition known as critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency (CIRCI). This investigation aims to determine the incidence of and characterize CIRCI among patients with COVID-19 as well as to analyze the outcomes of these critically ill patients.

METHODOLOGY

This is a single-center, retrospective cohort study that investigated the occurrence of CIRCI among critically ill patients infected with COVID-19.

RESULTS

In this cohort, there were 145 COVID-19-positive patients with refractory shock, which reflects that 22.94% of the COVID-19 admissions have probable CIRCI.Patients who were given corticosteroids were found to have statistically significant longer median days on a ventilator (p=0.001). However, those on the corticosteroid arm were at higher risk of morbidity and mortality and a greater proportion had organ dysfunction. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that SOFA score was a significant predictor of mortality in CIRCI (p=0.013).

CONCLUSION

CIRCI has a unique presentation among patients with COVID-19 because of the presence of a high level of inflammation in this life-threatening infection. It is possibly a harbinger of a markedly increased risk of mortality in 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.

Evaluating Risk: Benefit Ratio of Fat-Soluble Vitamin Supplementation to SARS-CoV-2-Infected Autoimmune and Cancer Patients: Do Vitamin-Drug Interactions Exist?

COVID-19 is a recent pandemic that mandated the scientific society to provide effective evidence-based therapeutic approaches for the prevention and treatment for such a global threat, especially to those patients who hold a higher risk of infection and complications, such as patients with autoimmune diseases and cancer. Recent research has examined the role of various fat-soluble vitamins (vitamins A, D, E, and K) in reducing the severity of COVID-19 infection. Studies showed that deficiency in fat-soluble vitamins abrogates the immune system, thus rendering individuals more susceptible to COVID-19 infection. Moreover, another line of evidence showed that supplementation of fat-soluble vitamins during the course of infection enhances the viral clearance episode by promoting an adequate immune response. However, more thorough research is needed to define the adequate use of vitamin supplements in cancer and autoimmune patients infected with COVID-19. Moreover, it is crucial to highlight the vitamin-drug interactions of the COVID-19 therapeutic modalities and fat-soluble vitamins. With an emphasis on cancer and autoimmune patients, the current review aims to clarify the role of fat-soluble vitamins in SARS-CoV-2 infection and to estimate the risk-to-benefit ratio of a fat-soluble supplement administered to patients taking FDA-approved COVID-19 medications such as antivirals, anti-inflammatory, receptor blockers, and monoclonal antibodies.

Do patients with and survivors of COVID-19 benefit from telerehabilitation? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) significantly impacts physical, psychological, and social functioning and reduces quality of life, which may persist for at least 6 months. Given the fact that COVID-19 is a highly infectious disease and therefore healthcare facilities may be sources of contagion, new methods avoiding face-to-face contact between healthcare workers and patients are urgently needed. Telerehabilitation is the provision of rehabilitation services to patients at a distance via information and communication technologies. However, high-quality evidence of the efficacy of telerehabilitation for COVID-19 is still lacking. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy of telerehabilitation for patients with and survivors of COVID-19.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline (via PubMed), PEDro, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from January 1st, 2020 to April 30th, 2022 for randomized controlled trials published in English, which aimed to evaluate the efficacy of telerehabilitation vs. face-to-face rehabilitation, usual care, or no treatment for COVID-19. Methodological quality and overall evidence quality of the included studies were assessed. The statistical reliability of the data was quantified using the trial sequential analysis.

Results

Seven randomized controlled trials with eight comparisons were included and all of them were used for meta-analysis. The meta-analyses of absolute values showed the superiority of telerehabilitation over no treatment or usual care for dyspnea (Borg scale: mean difference = -1.88, -2.37 to -1.39; Multidimensional dyspnea-12: mean difference = -3.70, -5.93 to -1.48), limb muscle strength (mean difference = 3.29; 2.12 to 4.47), ambulation capacity (standardized mean difference = 0.88; 0.62 to 1.14), and depression (mean difference = -5.68; -8.62 to -2.74). Significant improvement in these variables persisted in the meta-analyses of change scores. No significant difference was found in anxiety and quality of life. No severe adverse events were reported in any of the included studies.

Conclusions

Moderate- to very low-quality evidence demonstrates that telerehabilitation may be an effective and safe solution for patients with and survivors of COVID-19 in dyspnea, lower limb muscle strength, ambulation capacity, and depression. Further well-designed studies are required to evaluate the long-term effects, cost-effectiveness, and satisfaction in larger samples.

Failed clinical trials on COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome in hospitalized patients: common oversights and streamlining the development of clinically effective therapeutics

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put a strain on global healthcare systems. Despite admirable efforts to develop rapidly new pharmacotherapies, supportive treatments remain the standard of care. Multiple clinical trials have failed due to design issues, biased patient enrollment, small sample sizes, inadequate control groups, and lack of long-term outcomes monitoring.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review depicts the current situation around failed and success COVID-19 clinical trials and recommendations in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, oversights and streamlining of clinically effective therapeutics. PubMed, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, and WHO and NIH guidelines were searched for relevant literature up to 5 August 2022.

EXPERT OPINION

The WHO, NIH, and IDSA have issued recommendations to better clarify which drugs should be used during the different phases of the disease. Given the biases and high heterogeneity of published studies, interpretation of the current literature is difficult. Future clinical trials should be designed to standardize clinical approaches, with appropriate organization, patient selection, addition of control groups, and careful identification of disease phase to reduce heterogeneity and bias and should rely on the integration of scientific societies to promote a consensus on interpretation of the data and recommendations for optimal COVID-19 therapies.

Is It Time to Revisit Remdesivir Use for Severe COVID-19?

How to cite this article: Taggarsi DA. Is It Time to Revisit Remdesivir Use for Severe COVID-19? Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(9):983-984.

The adverse effects of high-dose corticosteroid on infectious and non-infectious sequelae in renal transplant recipients with coronavirus disease-19 in India

INTRODUCTION

The corticosteroid dosing modulation in renal transplant recipients (RTRs) with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is not well defined. We aimed to analyze the outcomes and infectious and non-infectious sequelae in RTR with COVID-19 with reference to corticosteroid dosing and the first and second pandemic waves of COVID-19.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included RTRs admitted during two pandemic waves between March 25, 2020, and July 31, 2021. Patients were categorized into mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19. The outcomes and predictors of survival at 4 weeks were analyzed. The survivors were also followed for 6 months and were studied for mortality, readmission rates, and infectious and non-infectious sequelae with reference to high-dose and standard-dose corticosteroids.

RESULTS

A total of 251 RTRs, 104 during the first wave and 147 during the second wave, were treated. Overall mortality was 15.1% (11.5% in the first wave vs. 17.5% in the second wave, p = .23). The use of high-dose steroids was also significantly high in non-survivors (85.8% vs. 11.3%, p = .001). On multivariate analysis, the severity of COVID-19, graft dysfunction, and high dose of corticosteroid therapy were associated with increased odds of mortality. Among survivors, 6-month mortality (17.3% vs. 0.5%, p = .001), readmission rate (91.3% vs. 23.7%, p = .001), fungal infection (30.4% vs. 2.2%, p < .001), and post-COVID lung sequelae (21.7% vs. 4.4%, p = .008) were significantly higher in the high-dose corticosteroid group than in the standard-dose group.

CONCLUSION

High-dose corticosteroid dosing in RTRs with COVID-19 was associated with increased infections, particularly fungal infections, and non-infectious sequelae with higher mortality on subsequent follow-up.

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.

The AI-Assisted Identification and Clinical Efficacy of Baricitinib in the Treatment of COVID-19

During the current pandemic, the vast majority of COVID-19 patients experienced mild symptoms, but some had a potentially fatal aberrant hyperinflammatory immune reaction characterized by high levels of IL-6 and other cytokines. Modulation of this immune reaction has proven to be the only method of reducing mortality in severe and critical COVID-19. The anti-inflammatory drug baricitinib (Olumiant) has recently been strongly recommended by the WHO for use in COVID-19 patients because it reduces the risk of progressive disease and death. It is a Janus Kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor approved for rheumatoid arthritis which was suggested in early 2020 as a treatment for COVID-19. In this review the AI-assisted identification of baricitinib, its antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, and efficacy in clinical trials are discussed and compared with those of other immune modulators including glucocorticoids, IL-6 and IL-1 receptor blockers and other JAK inhibitors. Baricitinib inhibits both virus infection and cytokine signalling and is not only important for COVID-19 management but is “non-immunological”, and so should remain effective if new SARS-CoV-2 variants escape immune control. The repurposing of baricitinib is an example of how advanced artificial intelligence (AI) can quickly identify new drug candidates that have clinical benefit in previously unsuspected therapeutic areas.

Therapeutic role of immunomodulators during the COVID-19 pandemic- a narrative review

The emergency state caused by COVID-19 saw the use of immunomodulators despite the absence of robust research. To date, the results of relatively few randomized controlled trials have been published, and methodological approaches are riddled with bias and heterogeneity. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, convalescent plasma and the JAK inhibitor baricitinib have gained Emergency Use Authorizations and tentative recommendations for their use in clinical practice alone or in combination with other therapies. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are predominating the management of non-hospitalized patients, while the inpatient setting is seeing the use of convalescent plasma, baricitinib, tofacitinib, tocilizumab, sarilumab, and corticosteroids, as applicable. Available clinical data also suggest the potential clinical benefit of the early administration of blood-derived products (e.g. convalescent plasma, non-SARS-CoV-2-specific immunoglobins) and the blockade of factors implicated in the hyperinflammatory state of severe COVID-19 (Interleukin 1 and 6; Janus Kinase). Immune therapies seem to have a protective effect and using immunomodulators alone or in combination with viral replication inhibitors and other treatment modalities might prevent progression into severe COVID-19 disease, cytokine storm and death. Future trials should address existing gaps and reshape the landscape of COVID-19 management.

Possible harm from glucocorticoid drugs misuse in the early phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a narrative review of the evidence

Since the publication of the RECOVERY trial, the use of glucocorticoid drugs (GC) has spread for the treatment of severe COVID-19 worldwide. However, the benefit of dexamethasone was largest in patients who received mechanical ventilation or supplemental oxygen therapy, while no benefit was found among patients without hypoxemia. In addition, a positive outcome was found in patients who received dexamethasone after several days of symptoms, while possible harm could exist if administered early. The right time interval for GC administration is still a matter of debate. Previous studies showed that an early GC use during the first phase of the disease, when viral replication peaks, may negatively affect the innate immune response through several mechanisms, such as the inhibition of pro-inflammatory and antiviral cytokine production and signaling pathway, including type I interferon, that is fundamental to counteract the virus and that was found to be impaired in several patients with life-threatening COVID-19. The GC misuse can lead to a more severe disease even in patients who do not have the established risk factors, such as obesity and cardiovascular diseases. In our focused review, we describe the role of immune response in viral infections, especially SARS-CoV-2, and discuss the potential harms of GC misuse in COVID-19.

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.

Systemic administration of glucocorticoids, cardiovascular complications and mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19, SARS, MERS or influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Administration of glucocorticoids might reduce mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 but have adverse cardiometabolic effects.

OBJECTIVES

to investigate the effect of systemic administration of glucocorticoids on cardiovascular complications and all-cause mortality in patients hospitalised with respiratory viral infections, including COVID-19, SARS, MERS and influenza.

METHODS

We identified randomised trials published prior to July 28th, 2021. The Mantel-Haenszel random effects method and the Hartung and Knapp adjustment were used to obtain pooled estimates of treatment effect with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

No randomised trials of glucocorticoids for SARS, MERS or influenza reported relevant outcomes. We included eleven COVID-19 randomised trials (8109 patients). Overall, compared to placebo or standard care, glucocorticoids were not associated with a reduction of in-hospital mortality (p = 0.09). In a pre-specified sub-analysis, in-hospital mortality was reduced by 19% when follow-up was restricted to 14 days from randomisation (5/11 trials, 1329 patients, p = 0.02). With longer follow-up (9/11 trials, 7874 patients), administration of glucocorticoids was associated with a trend to benefit for those requiring mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.57-1.27) but possible harm for those not receiving oxygen at randomisation (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.00 - 1.61), an effect that was significantly different amongst subgroups (p = 0.0359). Glucocorticoids reduced the risk of worsening renal function by 37% (4/11 trials); reported rate of other cardiovascular complications was low.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of systemic glucocorticoids to patients hospitalised with COVID-19 does not lower mortality overall but may reduce it in those requiring respiratory support and increase it in those who do not.

Cytokine Storm in COVID-19: Immunopathogenesis and Therapy

A cytokine storm is a hyperinflammatory state secondary to the excessive production of cytokines by a deregulated immune system. It manifests clinically as an influenza-like syndrome, which can be complicated by multi-organ failure and coagulopathy, leading, in the most severe cases, even to death. The term cytokine storm was first used in 1993 to describe the graft-versus-host disease following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. It was then reused to define the adverse syndromes secondary to the administration of immunostimulating agents, such as anti-CD28 antibodies or bioengineered immune cells, i.e., CAR T-cell therapy. Currently, the concept of cytokine storm has been better elucidated and extended to the pathogenesis of many other conditions, such as sepsis, autoinflammatory disease, primary and secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, and multicentric Castleman disease. Moreover, cytokine storm has recently emerged as a key aspect in the novel Coronavirus disease 2019, as affected patients show high levels of several key pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-1, IL-2, IL-6, TNF-α, IFN-γ, IP-10, GM-CSF, MCP-1, and IL-10, some of which also correlate with disease severity. Therefore, since the onset of the pandemic, numerous agents have been tested in the effort to mitigate the cytokine storm in COVID-19 patients, some of which are effective in reducing mortality, especially in critically ill patients, and are now becoming standards of care, such as glucocorticoids or some cytokine inhibitors. However, the challenge is still far from being met, and other therapeutic strategies are being tested in the hope that we can eventually overcome the disease.

Potential therapeutic options for COVID-19: an update on current evidence

SARS-CoV-2, a novel coronavirus, is the agent responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic and is a major public health concern nowadays. The rapid and global spread of this coronavirus leads to an increase in hospitalizations and thousands of deaths in many countries. To date, great efforts have been made worldwide for the efficient management of this crisis, but there is still no effective and specific treatment for COVID-19. The primary therapies to treat the disease are antivirals, anti-inflammatories and respiratory therapy. In addition, antibody therapies currently have been a many active and essential part of SARS-CoV-2 infection treatment. Ongoing trials are proposed different therapeutic options including various drugs, convalescent plasma therapy, monoclonal antibodies, immunoglobulin therapy, and cell therapy. The present study summarized current evidence of these therapeutic approaches to assess their efficacy and safety for COVID-19 treatment. We tried to provide comprehensive information about the available potential therapeutic approaches against COVID-19 to support researchers and physicians in any current and future progress in treating COVID-19 patients.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and COVID-19: A Literature Review

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is an overwhelming inflammatory disorder of the lung due to direct and indirect insults to the lungs. ARDS is characterized by increased vascular permeability, protein-rich edema, diffuse alveolar infiltrate, and loss of aerated lung tissue, leading to decreased lung compliance, tachypnea, and severe hypoxemia. COVID-19 is generally associated with ARDS, and it has gained prime importance since it started. The mortality rate is alarmingly high in COVID-19-related ARDS patients regardless of advances in mechanical ventilation. Several pharmacological agents, including corticosteroids, nitric oxide, neuromuscular blocker, anti-TNF, statins, and exogenous surfactant, have been studied and some are under investigation, like ketoconazole, lisofylline, N-acetylcysteine, prostaglandins, prostacyclin, and fish oil. The purpose of this review is to appraise the understanding of the pathophysiology of ARDS, biomarkers, and clinical trials of pharmacological therapies of ARDS and COVID-19-related ARDS.

Effects of different corticosteroid therapy on severe COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

To assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients compared with standard care or placebo.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to identify relevant studies. The mortality, adverse events, and other data from studies were pooled for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Ten randomized clinical trials were eligible for inclusion. Corticosteroid treatment in COVID-19 patients did not significantly reduce the risk of death (RR: 0.93; CI: 0.82, 1.05) and the need for mechanical ventilation (RR: 0.82; CI: 0.62, 1.08). No mortality reduction was also observed in the subgroup of patients requiring mechanical ventilation (RR: 0.90; CI: 0.79-1.03). The use of corticosteroids increased mortality in the subgroup of patients not requiring oxygen support (RR: 1.24; CI: 1.00-1.55). The survival benefit was observed in a low dosage of corticosteroids (RR: 0.90; CI: 0.84-0.97) and dexamethasone (RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.79-1.04). There was no difference in the rates of adverse events (RR: 1.13; CI: 0.58, 2.20) and secondary infections (RR: 0.87; CI: 0.66, 1.15).

CONCLUSION

Corticosteroid treatment did not convincingly improve survival in severe COVID-19 patients. Low-dose dexamethasone could be considered as a drug for the treatment of COVID-19 patients. More high-quality trials are needed to further verify this conclusion.Expert Opinion: The effect of corticosteroids on patient survival highly depended on the selection of the right dosage and type and in a specific subgroup of patients. This meta-analysis, which included more RCTs, evaluated the safety and efficacy in severe COVID-19 patients and analyzed the effects of different types of corticosteroid treatments. Corticosteroid treatment did not convincingly improve survival in severe COVID-19 patients. But the low dose dexamethasone appear to have a role in the management of severe COVID-19 patients.

Comparative Effectiveness of Dexamethasone in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in the United States

INTRODUCTION

To compare the mortality of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 between those that required supplemental oxygen and received dexamethasone with a comparable set of patients who did not receive dexamethasone.

METHODS

We utilized the Premier Health Database to identify hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 from July 1, 2020-January 31, 2021. Index date was when patients first initiated oxygen therapy. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality for patients receiving dexamethasone versus those not receiving dexamethasone 1-day pre- to 1-day post-index period. Secondary endpoints included 28-day mortality, time to in-hospital mortality, progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, time to discharge, and proportion discharged alive by day 28. Twenty-three models using weighting, matching, stratification, and regression were deployed through the concept of frequentist model average (FMA) to estimate the effect of dexamethasone on all-cause mortality up to the 28-day hospitalization period.

RESULTS

A total of 1,208,881 patients with COVID-19 were screened; as an inpatient 255,216 used oxygen, and 251,536 were included in the analysis. In the dexamethasone group, odds of in-hospital mortality were higher than those of the comparator (FMA: odds ratio [OR] 1.15, 95% CI 1.08, 1.22). Using a best fit model, OR for in-hospital mortality was non-significant for the dexamethasone group compared with the comparator (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92, 1.14). Dexamethasone treatment was associated with poorer outcomes versus the comparator group across the majority of secondary endpoints, except for number of days in hospital, which was lower in the dexamethasone group versus the comparator group (mean difference - 2.14, 95% CI - 2.43, - 1.47).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen and received dexamethasone did not have a survival benefit versus similar patients not receiving dexamethasone. The dexamethasone group was not associated with favorable responses for outcomes such as progression to death or mechanical ventilation and time to in-hospital death.

Epidemiological Characteristics of Hospitalized Patients with Moderate versus Severe COVID-19 Infection: A Retrospective Cohort Single Centre Study

COVID-19 has a devastating impact worldwide. Recognizing factors that cause its progression is important for the utilization of appropriate resources and improving clinical outcomes. In this study, we aimed to identify the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients who were hospitalized with moderate versus severe COVID-19 illness. A single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted between 3 March and 9 September 2020. Following the CDC guidelines, a two-category variable for COVID-19 severity (moderate versus severe) based on length of stay, need for intensive care or mechanical ventilation and mortality was developed. Data including demographic, clinical characteristics, laboratory parameters, therapeutic interventions and clinical outcomes were assessed using descriptive and inferential analysis. A total of 1002 patients were included, the majority were male (n = 646, 64.5%), Omani citizen (n = 770, 76.8%) and with an average age of 54.2 years. At the bivariate level, patients classified as severe were older (Mean = 55.2, SD = 16) than the moderate patients (Mean = 51.5, SD = 15.8). Diabetes mellitus was the only significant comorbidity potential factor that was more prevalent in severe patients than moderate (n = 321, 46.6%; versus n = 178, 42.4%; p < 0.001). Under the laboratory factors; total white cell count (WBC), C-reactive protein (CRP), Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), D-dimer and corrected calcium were significant. All selected clinical characteristics and therapeutics were significant. At the multivariate level, under demographic factors, only nationality was significant and no significant comorbidity was identified. Three clinical factors were identified, including; sepsis, Acute respiratory disease syndrome (ARDS) and requirement of non-invasive ventilation (NIV). CRP and steroids were also identified under laboratory and therapeutic factors, respectively. Overall, our study identified only five factors from a total of eighteen proposed due to their significant values (p < 0.05) from the bivariate analysis. There are noticeable differences in levels of COVID-19 severity among nationalities. All the selected clinical and therapeutic factors were significant, implying that they should be a key priority when assessing severity in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. An elevated level of CRP may be a valuable early marker in predicting the progression in non-severe patients with COVID-19. Early recognition and intervention of these factors could ease the management of hospitalized COVID-19 patients and reduce case fatalities as well medical expenditure.

COVID-19, the Pandemic of the Century and Its Impact on Cardiovascular Diseases

COVID-19 caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection likely ranks among the deadliest diseases in human history. As with other coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 infection damages not only the lungs but also the heart and many other organs that express angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), a receptor for SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 has upended lives worldwide. Dietary behaviors have been altered such that they favor metabolic and cardiovascular complications, while patients have avoided hospital visits because of limited resources and the fear of infection, thereby increasing out-hospital mortality due to delayed diagnosis and treatment. Clinical observations show that sex, age, and race all influence the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, as do hypertension, obesity, and pre-existing cardiovascular conditions. Many hospitalized COVID-19 patients suffer cardiac injury, acute coronary syndromes, or cardiac arrhythmia. SARS-CoV-2 infection may lead to cardiomyocyte apoptosis and necrosis, endothelial cell damage and dysfunction, oxidative stress and reactive oxygen species production, vasoconstriction, fibrotic and thrombotic protein expression, vascular permeability and microvascular dysfunction, heart inflammatory cell accumulation and activation, and a cytokine storm. Current data indicate that COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular diseases should not discontinue many existing cardiovascular therapies such as ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, steroids, aspirin, statins, and PCSK9 inhibitors. This review aims to furnish a framework relating to COVID-19 and cardiovascular pathophysiology.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome in COVID-19: possible mechanisms and therapeutic management

COVID-19 pandemic is a serious concern in the new era. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and lung failure are the main lung diseases in COVID-19 patients. Even though COVID-19 vaccinations are available now, there is still an urgent need to find potential treatments to ease the effects of COVID-19 on already sick patients. Multiple experimental drugs have been approved by the FDA with unknown efficacy and possible adverse effects. Probably the increasing number of studies worldwide examining the potential COVID-19 related therapies will help to identification of effective ARDS treatment. In this review article, we first provide a summary on immunopathology of ARDS next we will give an overview of management of patients with COVID-19 requiring intensive care unit (ICU), while focusing on the current treatment strategies being evaluated in the clinical trials in COVID-19-induced ARDS patients.

Retrospective evaluation of an observational cohort by the Central and Eastern Europe Network Group shows a high frequency of potential drug-drug interactions among HIV-positive patients receiving treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this international multicentre study was to review potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) for real-life coadministration of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-specific medications.

METHODS

The Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe Network Group initiated a retrospective, observational cohort study of HIV-positive patients diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Data were collected through a standardized questionnaire and DDIs were identified using the University of Liverpool's interaction checker.

RESULTS

In total, 524 (94.1% of 557) patients received cART at COVID-19 onset: 117 (22.3%) were female, and the median age was 42 (interquartile range 36-50) years. Only 115 (21.9%) patients were hospitalized, of whom 34 required oxygen therapy. The most frequent nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone was tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) with lamivudine or emtricitabine (XTC) (79.3%) along with an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) (68.5%), nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) (17.7%), protease inhibitor (PI) (13.7%) or other (2.5%). In total, 148 (28.2%) patients received COVID-19-specific treatments: corticosteroids (15.7%), favipiravir (7.1%), remdesivir (3.1%), hydroxychloroquine (2.7%), tocilizumab (0.6%) and anakinra (0.2%). In total, 62 DDI episodes were identified in 58 patients (11.8% of the total cohort and 41.9% of the COVID-19-specific treatment group). The use of boosted PIs and elvitegravir accounted for 43 DDIs (29%), whereas NNRTIs were responsible for 14 DDIs (9.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis from the Central and Eastern European region on HIV-positive persons receiving COVID-19-specific treatment, it was found that potential DDIs were common. Although low-dose steroids are mainly used for COVID-19 treatment, comedication with boosted antiretrovirals seems to have the most frequent potential for DDIs. In addition, attention should be paid to NNRTI coadministration.

Guidelines on the treatment with integrated traditional Chinese medicine and western medicine for severe coronavirus disease 2019

Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized by numerous complications, complex disease, and high mortality, making its treatment a top priority in the treatment of COVID-19. Integrated traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and western medicine played an important role in the prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of COVID-19 during the epidemic. However, currently there are no evidence-based guidelines for the integrated treatment of severe COVID-19 with TCM and western medicine. Therefore, it is important to develop an evidence-based guideline on the treatment of severe COVID-19 with integrated TCM and western medicine, in order to provide clinical guidance and decision basis for healthcare professionals, public health personnel, and scientific researchers involved in the diagnosis, treatment, and care of COVID-19 patients. We developed and completed the guideline by referring to the standardization process of the "WHO handbook for guideline development", the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system, and the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT).

Role of systemic corticosteroids in preventing hypoxia among patients with mild COVID-19: An observational study

Use of systemic corticosteroids is well-established in COVID-19 patients with hypoxia; however, there is scant data on its role in patients with mild disease and prolonged symptoms as a measure to prevent disease progression. The aim of this study is to evaluate the role of systemic corticosteroids in preventing hypoxia (SpO₂ ≤ 93% on room-air) among mild COVID-19 patients. An observational study was conducted among symptomatic COVID-19 patients taking oral corticosteroids and attending institute teleconsultation facility between 10th-30th June 2021. Patients who were already on corticosteroids for other indication or required oxygen supplementation before or within 24-hours of initiation of corticosteroids were excluded. A total of 140 consecutive symptomatic COVID-19 patients were included. Higher baseline C-reactive protein (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02-1.06, p < 0.001) and early systemic corticosteroid (within 7 days) initiation (OR: 6.5, 95% CI: 2.1-20.1, p = 0.001) were independent risk factors for developing hypoxia (SpO₂ ≤ 93%). Progression to hypoxia was significantly higher in patients who received corticosteroids before day 7 of illness (36.7%, 95% CI, 23.4-51.7%) compared to ≥ 7 of illness (14.3%, 95% CI, 7.8-23.2%) for persistent fever. Systemic corticosteroids within 7 days from symptom-onset were harmful and increased the risk of progression to hypoxia, whereas it may decrease the risk of progression when administered on or beyond 7 days in patients with mild COVID-19 and persistent symptoms. A well-designed randomised controlled trial is required to validate the findings.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with COVID-19: 1-year experience

Background

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) showed reasonable outcomes. However, recent studies indicated a negative trend and analysis is needed.

Methods

Baseline characteristics, laboratory parameters, and outcomes of ECMO-supported patients with COVID-19 were analyzed in a retrospective single-center study. We included hospital admissions until February 28, 2021; patients were followed until discharge/death. Eventually, we compared data between patients hospitalized before and after September 1, 2020.

Results

Median age of patients treated with ECMO (n=39) was 56 years; most patients were males (n=28, 72%). Median mechanical ventilation time (prior to ECMO) was 6 days, while the median ECMO duration was 19 days. Overall survival rate was 41%. In the sub-analysis, survival until discharge in the first and second epidemic waves was 53% (n=19) and 30% (n=20), respectively (P=0.2). At baseline, compared with patients of the first wave, those of the second wave had higher median body mass index (28.2 vs. 31.1 kg/m², respectively, P=0.02), bicarbonate (27 vs. 31.8 mmol/L, respectively, P=0.033), plasma free hemoglobin (36 vs. 58 mg/L, respectively, P=0.013), alanine aminotransferase (33 vs. 52 U/L, respectively, P=0.018), and pH (7.29 vs. 7.42, respectively, P=0.005), lower rate of pulmonary hypertension (32% vs. 0%, respectively, P=0.008), lower positive end-expiratory pressure (14 vs. 12 cmH₂O, respectively, P=0.04), longer median ECMO duration (16 vs. 24.5 days, respectively, P=0.074), and more frequent major bleeding events (42% vs. 80%, respectively, P=0.022).

Conclusions

ECMO-supported patients with COVID-19 had an overall survival rate of 41%. Similar to international registries, we observed less favorable outcomes during the second wave. Further research is needed to confirm this signal and find predictors for mortality.

Effectiveness of corticosteroids to treat severe COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of corticosteroid therapy for patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

We comprehensively searched articles published in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, China Biology Medicine (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and VIP databases from January 1, 2019, to March 20, 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 6771 patients from eight prospective studies were included in our meta-analysis. The results showed that corticosteroid therapy was associated with lower mortality in severe COVID-19 (OR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.54-0.92, P = 0.009; I² = 54.5%). Since the proportion of the RECOVERY (Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy) trial included in the meta-analysis was as high as 71.88%, we removed it and recalculated the pooled OR. The results of the remaining seven studies still suggested such a survival benefit (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.44-0.96, P = 0.030; I² = 59.8%). Furthermore, subgroup analysis suggested that the pooled OR of three studies using corticosteroids in the early stages of treatment was much lower (OR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.25-0.57, P < 0.001; I² = 47.8%). However, after excluding the RECOVERY trial, the pooled OR of the remaining four studies with unspecific administration timing of corticosteroid therapy no longer supported this result (OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.69-1.17, P = 0.415; I² = 0.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, evidence based on seven randomized controlled trials and one prospective cohort study indicates that corticosteroid therapy was associated with a reduction in the mortality of severe COVID-19, especially when administered at an earlier time.

Immunotherapy Summary for Cytokine Storm in COVID-19

COVID-19 pneumonia caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has ravaged the world, resulting in an alarming number of infections and deaths, and the number continues to increase. The pathogenesis caused by the novel coronavirus was found to be a disruption of the pro-inflammatory/anti-inflammatory response. Due to the lack of effective treatments, different strategies and treatment methods are still being researched, with the use of vaccines to make the body immune becoming the most effective means of prevention. Antiviral drugs and respiratory support are often used clinically as needed, but are not yet sufficient to alleviate the cytokine storm (CS) and systemic inflammatory response syndrome. How to neutralize the cytokine storm and inhibit excessive immune cell activation becomes the key to treating neocoronavirus pneumonia. Immunotherapy through the application of hormones and monoclonal antibodies can alleviate the immune imbalance, but the clinical effectiveness and side effects remain controversial. This article reviews the pathogenesis of neocoronavirus pneumonia and discusses the immunomodulatory therapies currently applied to COVID-19. We aim to give some conceptual thought to the prevention and immunotherapy of neocoronavirus pneumonia.

Randomized trial drug controlled compendious transcriptome analysis supporting broad and phase specific therapeutic potential of multiple candidates in COVID-19

Effective therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are urgently needed. Maladaptive hyperinflammation and excessive cytokine release underlie the disease severity, with antiinflammatory and cytokine inhibiting agents expected to exert therapeutic effects. A major present challenge is identification of appropriate phase of the illness for a given intervention to yield optimum outcomes. Considering its established disease biomarker and drug discovery potential, a compendious analysis of existing transcriptomic data is presented here toward addressing this gap. The analysis is based on COVID-19 data related to intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU admissions, discharged and deceased patients, ventilation and non-ventilation phases, and high oxygen supplementation. It integrates transcriptomic data related to the effects of, in various cellular treatment models, the COVID-19 randomized clinical trial (RCT) successful drug dexamethasone, and the failed drug, with a potential to harm, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine. Similarly, effects of various COVID-19 candidate drugs/anticytokines as well as proinflammatory cytokines implicated in the illness are also examined. The underlying assumption was that compared to COVID-19, an effective drug/anticytokine and a disease aggravating agent would affect gene regulation in opposite and same direction, in that order. Remarkably, the assumption was supported with respect to both the RCT drugs. With this control validation, etanercept, followed by tofacitinib and adalimumab, showed transcriptomic effects predictive of benefits in both ventilation and non-ventilation ICU stages as well as in non-ICU phase. On the other hand, canakinumab showed potential for effectiveness in high oxygen supplementation phase. These findings may inform experimental and clinical studies toward drug repurposing in COVID-19.

Effectiveness of corticosteroids to treat severe COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies

Objectives

To assess the effects of corticosteroid therapy for patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods

We comprehensively searched articles published in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, China Biology Medicine (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and VIP databases from January 1, 2019, to March 20, 2021.

Results

A total of 6771 patients from eight prospective studies were included in our meta-analysis. The results showed that corticosteroid therapy was associated with lower mortality in severe COVID-19 (OR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.54–0.92, P = 0.009; I² = 54.5%). Since the proportion of the RECOVERY (Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy) trial included in the meta-analysis was as high as 71.88%, we removed it and recalculated the pooled OR. The results of the remaining seven studies still suggested such a survival benefit (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.44–0.96, P = 0.030; I² = 59.8%). Furthermore, subgroup analysis suggested that the pooled OR of three studies using corticosteroids in the early stages of treatment was much lower (OR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.25–0.57, P < 0.001; I² = 47.8%). However, after excluding the RECOVERY trial, the pooled OR of the remaining four studies with unspecific administration timing of corticosteroid therapy no longer supported this result (OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.69–1.17, P = 0.415; I² = 0.0%).

Conclusions

In this meta-analysis, evidence based on seven randomized controlled trials and one prospective cohort study indicates that corticosteroid therapy was associated with a reduction in the mortality of severe COVID-19, especially when administered at an earlier time.

Treatment of moderate to severe respiratory COVID-19: a cost-utility analysis

Despite COVID-19’s significant morbidity and mortality, considering cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic treatment strategies for hospitalized patients remains critical to support healthcare resource decisions within budgetary constraints. As such, we calculated the cost-effectiveness of using remdesivir and dexamethasone for moderate to severe COVID-19 respiratory infections using the United States health care system as a representative model. A decision analytic model modelled a base case scenario of a 60-year-old patient admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Patients requiring oxygen were considered moderate severity, and patients with severe COVID-19 required intubation with intensive care. Strategies modelled included giving remdesivir to all patients, remdesivir in only moderate and only severe infections, dexamethasone to all patients, dexamethasone in severe infections, remdesivir in moderate/dexamethasone in severe infections, and best supportive care. Data for the model came from the published literature. The time horizon was 1 year; no discounting was performed due to the short duration. The perspective was of the payer in the United States health care system. Supportive care for moderate/severe COVID-19 cost $11,112.98 with 0.7155 quality adjusted life-year (QALY) obtained. Using dexamethasone for all patients was the most-cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $980.84/QALY; all remdesivir strategies were more costly and less effective. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed dexamethasone for all patients was most cost-effective in 98.3% of scenarios. Dexamethasone for moderate-severe COVID-19 infections was the most cost-effective strategy and would have minimal budget impact. Based on current data, remdesivir is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for COVID-19.

Sex-tailored pharmacology and COVID-19: Next steps towards appropriateness and health equity

Making gender bias visible allows to fill the gaps in knowledge and understand health records and risks of women and men. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has shown a clear gender difference in health outcomes. The more severe symptoms and higher mortality in men as compared to women are likely due to sex and age differences in immune responses. Age-associated decline in sex steroid hormone levels may mediate proinflammatory reactions in older adults, thereby increasing their risk of adverse outcomes, whereas sex hormones and/or sex hormone receptor modulators may attenuate the inflammatory response and provide benefit to COVID-19 patients. While multiple pharmacological options including anticoagulants, glucocorticoids, antivirals, anti-inflammatory agents and traditional Chinese medicine preparations have been tested to treat COVID-19 patients with varied levels of evidence in terms of efficacy and safety, information on sex-targeted treatment strategies is currently limited. Women may have more benefit from COVID-19 vaccines than men, despite the occurrence of more frequent adverse effects, and long-term safety data with newly developed vectors are eagerly awaited. The prevalent inclusion of men in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with subsequent extrapolation of results to women needs to be addressed, as reinforcing sex-neutral claims into COVID-19 research may insidiously lead to increased inequities in health care. The huge worldwide effort with over 3000 ongoing RCTs of pharmacological agents should focus on improving knowledge on sex, gender and age as pillars of individual variation in drug responses and enforce appropriateness.