Methylprednisolone as Adjunctive Therapy for Patients Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19; Metcovid): A Randomized, Double-blind, Phase IIb, Placebo-controlled Trial

Corticosteroids for hospitalized patients with severe/critical COVID-19: a retrospective study in Chongqing, China

Corticosteroids have always been recommended for severe cases of COVID-19. However, the efficacy of treatment with corticosteroids for COVID-19 during the SARS-CoV-2 omicron outbreak in China has not been reported. Clinical data from 406 patients hospitalized for severe/critical COVID-19 from December 2022 to January 2023 at six hospitals in Chongqing were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 28 days in the groups with and without corticosteroids treatment after propensity score matching (PSM). Secondary outcomes were to compare in-hospital mortality and length of survival time with corticosteroids and those without corticosteroids. This study included 406 patients with severe or critical COVID-19, divided into the corticosteroids group (231, 56.9%) and non-corticosteroids group (175, 43.1%). After PSM, the use of corticosteroids did not reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (42.5% vs. 39.1%). Univariate analysis showed that corticosteroids were not associated with improved all-cause mortality at 28 days [hazard ratio (HR), 1.019; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.639-1.623; p = 0.938]. Multivariate analysis showed similar results (HR, 1.047; 95% CI, 0.633-1.732; p = 0.858). Among non-survivors, the survival time was significantly larger in those who received corticosteroids compared with the non-corticosteroid users [median 13 (IQR 6.5-15.5) vs. 6 (4-11.25), p = 0.007]. The use of systemic corticosteroids in severe/critical COVID-19 may provide certain potential survival benefits but does not improve prognosis.

The Efficacy of Oral/Intravenous Corticosteroid Use in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review

The COVID-19 pandemic is prompting extensive investigation into potential treatments, including the use of corticosteroids to manage inflammation and mitigate severe disease outcomes. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of oral/intravenous corticosteroids in the management of COVID-19. A comprehensive search was conducted across major scientific databases such as MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane for relevant studies published from 2019-2024. The inclusion criteria included studies investigating the use of oral/intravenous corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients >18 years with a randomized placebo-controlled trial method. Non-placebo-controlled studies, studies using combined treatments with other drugs, as well as protocol articles, conference proceedings, review articles, and non-English studies were excluded. A narrative synthesis approach was adopted given the significant methodological diversity. The results showed that a total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria covering the use of three drugs, including dexamethasone (three), hydrocortisone (two), and methylprednisolone (seven). The outcome parameters used for each study were different. Among the total 12 studies, five showed insignificant results for hydrocortisone (two) and methylprednisolone (three), while others reported significant results. This systematic review suggested that oral/intravenous corticosteroids might confer clinical benefits in the management of COVID-19, particularly in reducing mortality and severe disease outcomes. However, further investigation was needed to establish standardized protocols regarding dosage, duration, and safety considerations to optimize efficacy and minimize potential adverse effects.

Associations between corticosteroid dosage and clinical outcomes in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids are commonly used to treat COVID-19 patients with hypoxemia, and clinicians have adjusted the corticosteroid intensity on the basis of clinical needs. However, neither the optimal dose nor the duration of treatment has been recommended.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether cumulative doses of corticosteroids, measured as dexamethasone-equivalent doses over the first 14 days, impact outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of COVID-19 pneumonia patients admitted between April 1st, 2020, and September 30th, 2021. The study focused on the type and dose of corticosteroid administered during the initial 14 days, clinical outcomes, and complications. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Among 271 patients, the mean cumulative dexamethasone-equivalent dose was 158 (119.9-197.25) mg in survivors and 185 (131.7-222.0) mg in nonsurvivors. Univariate analysis revealed that the cumulative dexamethasone-equivalent dose was a risk factor for in-hospital mortality. However, this association did not hold true in the multivariate analysis. After the cumulative dexamethasone-equivalent dose was categorized into quartiles, the moderate dosage (126.01-165.00 mg) in the second quartile was found to be associated with the lowest in-hospital mortality (16.2%). Higher cumulative dexamethasone-equivalent doses were associated with longer hospital and ICU stays and fewer ventilator-free days (p < 0.001). Doses exceeding 165 mg were associated with an increased risk of hospital-acquired infections (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The cumulative dexamethasone-equivalent dose during the first 14 days is not associated with in-hospital mortality in hypoxemic COVID-19 patients. However, higher cumulative doses exceeding 165 mg are associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality and secondary hospital-acquired infections.

High-Dose Corticosteroid Use in Severe to Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Nationwide Population-Based Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Systemic corticosteroids have become the standard of care for severe to critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the real-world efficacy and safety outcomes associated with a higher dose of corticosteroids remain uncertain.

METHODS

We conducted a nationwide, population-based, matched cohort study of severe to critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 between January 2020 and June 2021 in Korea using the National Health Information Database. Patients using systemic corticosteroids were included and high-dose corticosteroid use was defined as a daily mean prescribed dose of more than 6 mg of dexamethasone. We then employed a proportional hazard regression model to identify prognostic factors for 28-day all-cause mortality and conducted a Fine and Gray regression model to assess risk factors for developing COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA).

RESULTS

During the study period, 102,304 patients with COVID-19 were screened, 5,754 met the eligibility criteria, and 2,138 were successfully matched. The mean prescribed daily dose was 4.2 mg and 13.4 mg in the standard- and high-dose groups, respectively, and the mean duration of use was not different between the groups. High-dose corticosteroid use independently increased all-cause mortality at 28 days (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-1.76) and 90 days (aHR, 1.63; CI, 1.44-1.85) after admission. Subgroup analysis revealed a statistically significant elevation in the risk of mortality among patients using low-flow or high-flow nasal cannulas, with aHRs of 1.41 and 1.46, respectively. No significant impact of high-dose steroids was observed, even in patients who underwent mechanical ventilation at 28 days (aHR, 1.17; CI, 0.79-1.72). As a safety outcome, high-dose corticosteroid use showed an association with the development of CAPA (aHR, 2.97; 95% CI, 0.94-9.43).

CONCLUSION

Among severe to critically ill patients with COVID-19, high-dose corticosteroid use was associated with increased 28-day all-cause mortality and showed a trend toward the development of CAPA.

The role of methylprednisolone in severe COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis

Background

The purpose of this study is to assess the effectiveness of methylprednisolone in severe COVID-19.

Methods

PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched for literatures comparing methylprednisolone and control treatment in severe COVID-19 patients. Statistical pooling was reported as risk ratio (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). The outcomes of interest in the literature survey were mortality and adverse events.

Results

A total of 13 studies were included, including 3,138 patients with severe COVID-19, of which 1,634 patients were treated with methylprednisolone and 1,504 patients were treated with control treatment. Five of the 13 studies reported severe adverse events. Our meta-analysis indicates that methylprednisolone treatment in COVID-19 patients is associated with a significant reduction in mortality (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46-0.85, p = 0.003) compared to control treatment, without an increased risk of adverse events (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92-1.56, p = 0.17). Moreover, high-dose methylprednisolone treatment (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.40-0.82, p = 0.003) and short-course methylprednisolone treatment (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.38-0.89, p = 0.01) found to significantly reduce mortality. Additionally, it was found that younger severe COVID-19 patients (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.20-0.80, p = 0.01) had better outcomes to methylprednisolone than older patients.

Conclusion

Methylprednisolone was correlated with lower mortality compared with control treatment in severe COVID-19 patients without increasing serious adverse reactions. Furthermore, high-doses and short-term of methylprednisolone treatment were linked with better younger COVID-19 reported higher benefit from methylprednisolone than older COVID-19 patients.

Low-Dose Corticosteroids for Critically Ill Adults With Severe Pulmonary Infections: A Review

Importance

Severe pulmonary infections, including COVID-19, community-acquired pneumonia, influenza, and Pneumocystis pneumonia, are a leading cause of death among adults worldwide. Pulmonary infections in critically ill patients may cause septic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or both, which are associated with mortality rates ranging between 30% and 50%.

Observations

Corticosteroids mitigate the immune response to infection and improve outcomes for patients with several types of severe pulmonary infections. Low-dose corticosteroids, defined as less than or equal to 400 mg hydrocortisone equivalent daily, can reduce mortality of patients with severe COVID-19, community-acquired pneumonia, and Pneumocystis pneumonia. A randomized clinical trial of 6425 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen or noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation reported that dexamethasone 6 mg daily for 10 days decreased 28-day mortality (23% vs 26%). A meta-analysis that included 7 randomized clinical trials of 1689 patients treated in the intensive care unit for severe bacterial community-acquired pneumonia reported that hydrocortisone equivalent less than or equal to 400 mg daily for 8 days or fewer was associated with lower 30-day mortality compared with placebo (10% vs 16%). In a meta-analysis of 6 randomized clinical trials, low-dose corticosteroids were associated with lower mortality rates compared with placebo for patients with HIV and moderate to severe Pneumocystis pneumonia (13% vs 25%). In a predefined subgroup analysis of a trial of low-dose steroid treatment for septic shock, patients with community-acquired pneumonia randomized to 7 days of intravenous hydrocortisone 50 mg every 6 hours and fludrocortisone 50 μg daily had decreased mortality compared with the placebo group (39% vs 51%). For patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by various conditions, low-dose corticosteroids were associated with decreased in-hospital mortality (34% vs 45%) according to a meta-analysis of 8 studies that included 1091 patients. Adverse effects of low-dose corticosteroids may include hyperglycemia, gastrointestinal bleeding, neuropsychiatric disorders, muscle weakness, hypernatremia, and secondary infections.

Conclusions and Relevance

Treatment with low-dose corticosteroids is associated with decreased mortality for patients with severe COVID-19 infection, severe community-acquired bacterial pneumonia, and moderate to severe Pneumocystis pneumonia (for patients with HIV). Low-dose corticosteroids may also benefit critically ill patients with respiratory infections who have septic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or both.

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.

Efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids in the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

In the realm of acute respiratory infections, coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), poses a global public health challenge. The application of corticosteroids (CSs) in COVID-19 remains a contentious topic among researchers. Accordingly, our team performed a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to meticulously evaluate the safety and efficacy of CSs in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. To explore efficacy of CSs in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, we meticulously screened RCTs across key databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, as well as China's CNKI and Wanfang Data. We focused on assessing the 28 days mortality rates. We evaluated the data heterogeneity using the Chi-square test and I2 values, setting significance at 0.1 and 50%. Data from 21 RCTs involving 5721 participants were analyzed. The analysis did not demonstrate a significant association between CSs intervention and the 28 days mortality risk in hospitalized COVID-19 patients (relative risk [RR] = 0.93; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.84-1.03; P = 0.15). However, subgroup analysis revealed a significant reduction in 28 days mortality among patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 (RR at 0.85; 95% CI: 0.76-0.95; P = 0.004). Specifically, short-term CS administration (≤ 3 days) was associated with a substantial improvement in clinical outcomes (RR = 0.24; 95% CI: 0.09-0.63; P = 0.004), as was longer-term use (≥ 8 days) (RR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.77-0.99; P = 0.04). Additionally, in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, the administration of dexamethasone increased the number of 28 days ventilator-free days (Mean Difference = 1.92; 95% CI: 0.44-3.40; P = 0.01). Methylprednisolone also demonstrated significant benefits in improving clinical outcomes (RR = 0.24; 95% CI: 0.09-0.63; P = 0.004). Our meta-analysis demonstrated that although there is no significant difference in 28 days mortality rates among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the use of CSs may be beneficial in improving clinical outcomes in moderate or severe COVID-19 patients. There was no significant increase in the occurrence of adverse events associated with the use of CSs. Our meta-analysis provides evidence that while CSs may not be suitable for all COVID-19 patients, they could be effective and safe in severely ill COVID-19 patients. Consequently, it is recommended to administer CSs for personalized treatments in COVID-19 cases to improve the clinical outcomes while minimizing adverse events.

Corticosteroids in critically ill patients: A narrative review

Corticosteroids have been utilized in modern medicine for decades. Many indications have been investigated across various treatment settings with both benefit and harm observed. Given the instability of critically ill patients, the increased risk of corticosteroid-related complications, and the pervasive comorbidities, patients who receive corticosteroids must be carefully managed. Common critical care disease states in which corticosteroids have been studied and are routinely utilized include acute respiratory distress syndrome, adrenal insufficiency, angioedema, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, community-acquired pneumonia, coronavirus disease 2019, septic shock, and spinal cord injury. Benefits of corticosteroids include an improvement in disease state-specific outcomes, decreased hospital length of stay, decreased mechanical ventilatory support, and decreased mortality. The harm of corticosteroids is well documented through adverse effects that include, but are not limited to, hyperglycemia, tachycardia, hypertension, agitation, delirium, anxiety, immunosuppression, gastrointestinal bleeding, fluid retention, and muscle weakness. Furthermore, corticosteroids are associated with increased health care costs through adverse effects as well as drug acquisition and administration costs. Given the assortment of agents, dosing, benefits, risks, and utilization in the critical care setting, there may be difficulty with identifying the appropriate places for use of corticosteroids in therapy. There currently exists no comprehensive report detailing the use of corticosteroids in the aforementioned disease states within the critical care setting. This narrative review sets out to describe these in detail.

Protein C Pretreatment Protects Endothelial Cells from SARS-CoV-2-Induced Activation

SARS-CoV-2 can induce vascular dysfunction and thrombotic events in patients with severe COVID-19; however, the cellular and molecular mechanisms behind these effects remain largely unknown. In this study, we used a combination of experimental and in silico approaches to investigate the role of PC in vascular and thrombotic events in COVID-19. Single-cell RNA-sequencing data from patients with COVID-19 and healthy subjects were obtained from the publicly available Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) repository. In addition, HUVECs were treated with inactive protein C before exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection or a severe COVID-19 serum. An RT-qPCR array containing 84 related genes was used, and the candidate genes obtained were evaluated. Activated protein C levels were measured using an ELISA kit. We identified at the single-cell level the expression of several pro-inflammatory and pro-coagulation genes in endothelial cells from the patients with COVID-19. Furthermore, we demonstrated that exposure to SARS-CoV-2 promoted transcriptional changes in HUVECs that were partly reversed by the activated protein C pretreatment. We also observed that the serum of severe COVID-19 had a significant amount of activated protein C that could protect endothelial cells from serum-induced activation. In conclusion, activated protein C protects endothelial cells from pro-inflammatory and pro-coagulant effects during exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients With COVID-19 (September 2022)

There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials. The objective was to develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Based on the most recent search conducted on 31 May 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 32 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and postexposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, and hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines. At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were conducted that provided much-needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved, which we hope future trials can answer.

Steroids in acute respiratory distress syndrome: A panacea or still a puzzle?

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a unique entity marked by various etiologies and heterogenous pathophysiologies. There remain concerns regarding the efficacy of particular medications for each severity level apart from respiratory support. Among several pharmacotherapies which have been examined in the treatment of ARDS, corticosteroids, in particular, have demonstrated potential for improving the resolution of ARDS. Nevertheless, it is imperative to consider the potential adverse effects of hyperglycemia, susceptibility to hospital-acquired infections, and the development of intensive care unit acquired weakness when administering corticosteroids. Thus far, a multitude of trials spanning several decades have investigated the role of corticosteroids in ARDS. Further stringent trials are necessary to identify particular subgroups before implementing corticosteroids more widely in the treatment of ARDS. This review article provides a concise overview of the most recent evidence regarding the role and impact of corticosteroids in the management of ARDS.

Clinical Course and Factors Associated With Hospital Admission and Mortality among Sars-Cov 2 Patients within Nairobi Metropolitan Area

This study aims to investigate the clinical course and factors associated with hospital admission and mortality among SARS-CoV-2 patients within the Nairobi Metropolitan Area. The study utilizes a multicenter retrospective cohort design, collecting clinical characteristics and laboratory parameters of hospitalized patients from March 2020 to May 2022. Data analysis includes percentages, frequencies, chi-square tests, Kaplan-Meier analysis, pairwise comparisons, and multivariate regression models. Ethical considerations are observed throughout the research process. The study findings highlight significant associations between comorbidities, such as hypertension, and increased mortality risk due to COVID-19. Symptoms including fever, cough, dyspnea, chest pain, sore throat, and loss of smell/taste are also identified as predictors of mortality. Abnormal laboratory parameters, such as oxygen saturation, procalcitonin, glucose levels, serum creatinine, and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase, are associated with mortality. However, demographic factors and certain vital signs do not exhibit significant associations. Recommendations based on this study suggest increased monitoring and management of comorbidities, early identification and management of symptoms, regular monitoring of laboratory parameters, continued research and collaboration, and implementation of preventive measures. Overall, a multidisciplinary approach involving healthcare professionals, researchers, policymakers, and the public is crucial to improve COVID-19 outcomes and reduce mortality rates. Adaptation of strategies based on emerging evidence and resource allocation is essential for effective management of the pandemic.

Current landscape of long COVID clinical trials

Long COVID was reported as a multi-systemic condition after the infection of SARS-CoV-2, and more than 65 million people are suffering from this disease. It has been noted that around 10% of severe SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals are suffering from the enduring effects of long COVID. The symptoms of long COVID have also been noted in several mild or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals. While limited reports on clinical trials investigating new therapeutics for long COVID exist, there is an abundance of scattered information available regarding these trials. This review explores the extensive literature search, and complete clinical trial database search to map the current status of long COVID clinical trials worldwide. The study listed about 110 long COVID clinical trials. In addition to conducting extensive long COVID clinical trials, we have comprehensively presented an overview of the condition, its symptoms, notable manifestations, associated clinical trials, the unique challenges it poses, and our recommendations for addressing long COVID.

2024 Focused Update: Guidelines on Use of Corticosteroids in Sepsis, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, and Community-Acquired Pneumonia

RATIONALE

New evidence is available examining the use of corticosteroids in sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), warranting a focused update of the 2017 guideline on critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency.

OBJECTIVES

To develop evidence-based recommendations for use of corticosteroids in hospitalized adults and children with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP.

PANEL DESIGN

The 22-member panel included diverse representation from medicine, including adult and pediatric intensivists, pulmonologists, endocrinologists, nurses, pharmacists, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines. We followed Society of Critical Care Medicine conflict of interest policies in all phases of the guideline development, including task force selection and voting.

METHODS

After development of five focused Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) questions, we conducted systematic reviews to identify the best available evidence addressing each question. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and formulated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework.

RESULTS

In response to the five PICOs, the panel issued four recommendations addressing the use of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. These included a conditional recommendation to administer corticosteroids for patients with septic shock and critically ill patients with ARDS and a strong recommendation for use in hospitalized patients with severe CAP. The panel also recommended against high dose/short duration administration of corticosteroids for septic shock. In response to the final PICO regarding type of corticosteroid molecule in ARDS, the panel was unable to provide specific recommendations addressing corticosteroid molecule, dose, and duration of therapy, based on currently available evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The panel provided updated recommendations based on current evidence to inform clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders on the use of corticosteroids for sepsis, ARDS, and CAP.

Methylprednisolone use in hospitalised COVID-19 patients: a retrospective study

Introduction

Trials have demonstrated the benefits of methylprednisolone in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, data on optimal dose, duration and timing of administration are limited. This study investigates the outcome of various methylprednisolone treatment regimens among hospitalised COVID-19 patients.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on hospitalised adult COVID-19 patients admitted between June and August 2021 in general COVID-19 wards, treated with methylprednisolone. Clinical outcomes evaluated include in-hospital mortality, thirty-day mortality, clinical efficacy (C-reactive protein (CRP), total white blood cells (TWBC) and oxygen requirement) as well as the safety of methylprednisolone.

Results

Of 278 patients, 1(0.4%) received weight-based dosing of 1 mg/kg/day, 101(36.3%) received weight-based dosing of 2 mg/kg/day, 130(46.8%) received fixed dosing methylprednisolone 250 mg/day and 46(16.5%) received fixed dosing methylprednisolone 500 mg/day. There was a significant difference in in-hospital mortality rates following different methylprednisolone doses whereby in-hospital mortality occurred in 22.5% (n = 23) of patients with 1 or 2 mg/kg/day methylprednisolone, 32.3% (n = 42) with 250 mg/day and 39.1% (n = 18) with 500 mg/day (p = 0.023). On the other hand, no significant difference in thirty-day mortality, clinical efficacy and safety was observed between different dosing regimens (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

The use of methylprednisolone weight-based dosing in hospitalised COVID-19 patients should be considered due to the positive outcome associated with lower in-hospital mortality.

Adjunctive Therapies in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Despite significant advances in understanding acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), mortality rates remain high. The appropriate use of adjunctive therapies can improve outcomes, particularly for patients with moderate to severe hypoxia. In this review, the authors discuss the evidence basis behind prone positioning, recruitment maneuvers, neuromuscular blocking agents, corticosteroids, pulmonary vasodilators, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and considerations for their use in individual patients and specific clinical scenarios. Because the heterogeneity of ARDS poses challenges in finding universally effective treatments, an individualized approach and continued research efforts are crucial for optimizing the utilization of adjunctive therapies and improving patient outcomes.

Guidance for prevention and management of COVID-19 in children and adolescents: A consensus statement from the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society Pediatric COVID-19 Therapies Taskforce

BACKGROUND

Since November 2019, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has created challenges for preventing and managing COVID-19 in children and adolescents. Most research to develop new therapeutic interventions or to repurpose existing ones has been undertaken in adults, and although most cases of infection in pediatric populations are mild, there have been many cases of critical and fatal infection. Understanding the risk factors for severe illness and the evidence for safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of therapies for COVID-19 in children is necessary to optimize therapy.

METHODS

A panel of experts in pediatric infectious diseases, pediatric infectious diseases pharmacology, and pediatric intensive care medicine from 21 geographically diverse North American institutions was re-convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys and a systematic review with meta-analysis of data for risk factors, a guidance statement comprising a series of recommendations for risk stratification, treatment, and prevention of COVID-19 was developed and refined based on expert consensus.

RESULTS

There are identifiable clinical characteristics that enable risk stratification for patients at risk for severe COVID-19. These risk factors can be used to guide the treatment of hospitalized and non-hospitalized children and adolescents with COVID-19 and to guide preventative therapy where options remain available.

Glucocorticoid use in acute respiratory failure from pulmonary causes and association with early changes in the systemic host immune response

BACKGROUND

Glucocorticoids are commonly used in patients with or at-risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but optimal use remains unclear despite well-conducted clinical trials. We performed a secondary analysis in patients previously enrolled in the Acute Lung Injury and Biospecimen Repository at the University of Pittsburgh. The primary aim of our study was to investigate early changes in host response biomarkers in response to real-world use of glucocorticoids in patients with acute respiratory failure due to ARDS or at-risk due to a pulmonary insult. Participants had baseline plasma samples obtained on study enrollment and on follow-up 3 to 5 days later to measure markers of innate immunity (IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, TNFr1, ST2, fractalkine), epithelial injury (sRAGE), endothelial injury (angiopoietin-2), and host response to bacterial infections (procalcitonin, pentraxin-3). In our primary analyses, we investigated the effect of receiving glucocorticoids between baseline and follow-up samples on host response biomarkers measured at follow-up by doubly robust inverse probability weighting analysis. In exploratory analyses, we examined associations between glucocorticoid use and previously characterized host response subphenotypes (hyperinflammatory and hypoinflammatory).

RESULTS

67 of 148 participants (45%) received glucocorticoids between baseline and follow-up samples. Dose and type of glucocorticoids varied. Regimens that used hydrocortisone alone were most common (37%), and median daily dose was equivalent to 40 mg methylprednisolone (interquartile range: 21, 67). Participants who received glucocorticoids were more likely to be female, to be on immunosuppressive therapy at baseline, and to have higher baseline levels of ST-2, fractalkine, IL-10, pentraxin-3, sRAGE, and TNFr1. Glucocorticoid use was associated with decreases in IL-6 and increases in fractalkine. In exploratory analyses, glucocorticoid use was more frequent in participants in the hyperinflammatory subphenotype (58% vs 40%, p = 0.05), and was not associated with subphenotype classification at the follow-up time point (p = 0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Glucocorticoid use varied in a cohort of patients with or at-risk for ARDS and was associated with early changes in the systemic host immune response.

Corticosteroids induce an early but limited decrease in IL-6 dependent pro-inflammatory responses in critically ill COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids have become standard of care for COVID-19 but their effect on the systemic immune-inflammatory response has been little investigated.

METHODS

Multicenter prospective cohort, including critically ill COVID-19 patients between March and November 2020. C-reactive protein (CRP), lymphocyte count and fibrinogen levels were collected upon hospital admission before initiation of steroid treatment and at ICU admission, three days and seven days later, along with interleukin (IL)-6, IL-10 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) plasma levels.

RESULTS

A hundred and fifty patients were included, 47 received corticosteroids, 103 did not. Median age was 62 [53-70], and 96 (65%) patients were mechanically ventilated. Propensity score matching rendered 45 well-balanced pairs of treated and non-treated patients, particularly on pre-treatment CRP levels. Using a mixed model, CRP (P=0.019), fibrinogen (P=0.003) and lymphocyte counts (P=0.006) remained lower in treated patients over ICU stay. Conversely, there was no significant difference over the ICU stay for Il-6 (P=0.146) and IL-10 (0.301), while TNF- α levels were higher in the treated group (P=0.013). Among corticosteroid-treated patients, CRP (P=0.012), fibrinogen (P=0.041) and lymphocyte count (P=0.004) over time were associated with outcome, whereas plasma cytokine levels were not.

CONCLUSIONS

Steroid treatment was associated with an early and sustained decrease in the downstream IL-6-dependent inflammatory signature but an increase in TNF-α levels. In corticosteroid-treated patients, CRP and lymphocyte count were associated with outcome, conversely to plasma cytokine levels. Further research on using these biomarker's kinetics to individualize immunomodulatory treatments is warranted.

Dexamethasone versus methylprednisolone for multiple organ dysfunction in COVID-19 critically ill patients: a multicenter propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

Dexamethasone usually recommended for patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to reduce short-term mortality. However, it is uncertain if another corticosteroid, such as methylprednisolone, may be utilized to obtain better clinical outcome. This study assessed dexamethasone's clinical and safety outcomes compared to methylprednisolone.

METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted between March 01, 2020, and July 31, 2021. It included adult COVID-19 patients who were initiated on either dexamethasone or methylprednisolone therapy within 24 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The primary outcome was the progression of multiple organ dysfunction score (MODS) on day three of ICU admission. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:3 ratio) based on the patient's age and MODS within 24 h of ICU admission.

RESULTS

After Propensity Score (PS) matching, 264 patients were included; 198 received dexamethasone, while 66 patients received methylprednisolone within 24 h of ICU admission. In regression analysis, patients who received methylprednisolone had a higher MODS on day three of ICU admission than those who received dexamethasone (beta coefficient: 0.17 (95% CI 0.02, 0.32), P = 0.03). Moreover, hospital-acquired infection was higher in the methylprednisolone group (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.01, 4.66; p = 0.04). On the other hand, the 30-day and the in-hospital mortality were not statistically significant different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Dexamethasone showed a lower MODS on day three of ICU admission compared to methylprednisolone, with no statistically significant difference in mortality.

Interventions reducing mortality in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review of randomized evidence

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 pandemic changed the way medical research is published, possibly forever. As the need for rapidity led to the rise of preprint servers, the undeniable drop in the overall quality of scientific publications requires an in-depth review of all available evidence. The present manuscript aims to identify and summarize all treatments which have been reported to reduce mortality in randomized trials in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Independent investigators searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases to identify all randomized trials of any intervention influencing mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients up to August 18th, 2022. Articles were selected only when they fulfilled all the following: randomized trial design; dealing with any kind of interventions in adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients; and statistically significant reduction in mortality.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We identified 28 interventions (42 manuscripts) reducing mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. About 60% of the studies (26/42) were multicentric, for a total of 1140 centers involved worldwide. Several of these studies were published in high-ranked, peer-reviewed journals. Interventions with randomized evidence of mortality reduction in hospitalized COVID-19 patients belonged to 5 domains: corticosteroids, immunomodulators, antimicrobials, supportive therapies, and other drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Many interventions have the potential to reduce mortality in COVID-19 hospitalized patients. The correct treatment of future pandemics relies on large, multicentric randomized clinical trials for further evaluation of these promising strategies.

Potential Drugs in COVID-19 Management

The SARS-CoV-2 virus first emerged in China in December 2019 and quickly spread worldwide. Despite the absence of a vaccination or authorized drug specifically developed to combat this infection, certain medications recommended for other diseases have shown potential effectiveness in treating COVID-19, although without definitive confirmation. This review aims to evaluate the existing literature on the efficacy of these medications against COVID-19. The review encompasses various potential treatments, including antiviral medications, anti-malaria and anti-rheumatic drugs, vaccines, corticosteroids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antipyretic and analgesic medicines, antiparasitic drugs, and statins. The analysis also addresses the potential benefits and drawbacks of these medications, as well as their effects on hypertension and diabetes. Although these therapies hold promise against COVID-19, further research, including suitable product production or clinical testing, is needed to establish their therapeutic efficacy.

An Update on Management of Adult Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Background: This document updates previously published Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), incorporating new evidence addressing the use of corticosteroids, venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, neuromuscular blocking agents, and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). Methods: We summarized evidence addressing four "PICO questions" (patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome). A multidisciplinary panel with expertise in ARDS used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to develop clinical recommendations. Results: We suggest the use of: 1) corticosteroids for patients with ARDS (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty of evidence), 2) venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in selected patients with severe ARDS (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence), 3) neuromuscular blockers in patients with early severe ARDS (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence), and 4) higher PEEP without lung recruitment maneuvers as opposed to lower PEEP in patients with moderate to severe ARDS (conditional recommendation, low to moderate certainty), and 5) we recommend against using prolonged lung recruitment maneuvers in patients with moderate to severe ARDS (strong recommendation, moderate certainty). Conclusions: We provide updated evidence-based recommendations for the management of ARDS. Individual patient and illness characteristics should be factored into clinical decision making and implementation of these recommendations while additional evidence is generated from much-needed clinical trials.

Methylprednisolone therapy induces differential metabolic trajectories in severe COVID-19 patients

IMPORTANCE

The SARS-CoV-2 virus infection in humans induces significant inflammatory and systemic reactions and complications of which corticosteroids like methylprednisolone have been recommended as treatment. Our understanding of the metabolic and metabolomic pathway dysregulations while using intravenous corticosteroids in COVID-19 is limited. This study will help enlighten the metabolic and metabolomic pathway dysregulations underlying high daily doses of intravenous methylprednisolone in COVID-19 patients compared to those receiving placebo. The information on key metabolites and pathways identified in this study together with the crosstalk with the inflammation and biochemistry components may be used, in the future, to leverage the use of methylprednisolone in any future pandemics from the coronavirus family.

Efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids use in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and network meta‑analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, some meta-analyses on COVID-19 have suggested that glucocorticoids use can reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients, utilization rate of invasive ventilation, and improve the prognosis of patients. However, optimal regimen and dosages of glucocorticoid remain unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this network meta-analysis is to analyze the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids in treating COVID-19 at regimens.

METHODS

This meta-analysis retrieved randomized controlled trials from the earliest records to December 30, 2022, published in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI Database and Wanfang Database, which compared glucocorticoids with placebos for their efficacy and safety in the treatment of COVID-19, Effects of different treatment regimens, types and dosages (high-dose methylprednisolone, very high-dose methylprednisolone, Pulse therapy methylprednisolone, medium-dose hydrocortisone, high-dose hydrocortisone, high-dose dexamethasone, very high-dose dexamethasone and placebo) on 28-day all-caused hospitalization mortality, hospitalization duration, mechanical ventilation requirement, ICU admission and safety outcome were compared.

RESULTS

In this network meta-analysis, a total of 10,544 patients from 19 randomized controlled trials were finally included, involving a total of 9 glucocorticoid treatment regimens of different types and dosages. According to the analysis results, the 28-day all-cause mortality rate was the lowest in the treatment with pulse therapy methylprednisolone (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02, 0.42), but the use of high-dose methylprednisolone (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59, 1.22), very high-dose dexamethasone (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.67, 1.35), high-dose hydrocortisone (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.34, 1.22), medium-dose hydrocortisone (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49, 1.31) showed no benefit in prolonging the 28-day survival of patient. Compared with placebo, the treatment with very high-dose methylprednisolone (MD = -3.09;95%CI: -4.10, -2.08) had the shortest length of hospital stay, while high-dose dexamethasone (MD = -1.55;95%CI: -3.13,0.03) and very high-dose dexamethasone (MD = -1.06;95%CI: -2.78,0.67) did not benefit patients in terms of length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the available evidence, this network meta‑analysis suggests that the prognostic impact of glucocorticoids in patients with COVID-19 may depend on the regimens of glucocorticoids. It is suggested that pulse therapy methylprednisolone is associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality, very high-dose methylprednisolone had the shortest length of hospital stay in patients with COVID-19.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022350407 (22/08/2022).

Comparison of corticosteroids types, dexamethasone, and methylprednisolone in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

COVID-19 is associated with severe pneumonia lung damage, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and mortality. In this study, we aimed to compare corticosteroids' effect on the mortality risk in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Embase, were searched using a predesigned search strategy. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that had compared the corticosteroid drugs were included. The hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to summarize the effect size from the network meta-analysis (NMA).

Results

Out of 329 retrieved references, 12 RCTs with 11,455 participants met the eligibility criteria in this review. The included RCTs formed one network with six treatments. In addition, five treatments in two RCTs were not connected to the network. Methylprednisolone + usual care (UC) versus UC decreased the risk of death by 0.65 (95% CI: 0.47, 0.90). Among treatments in the network the highest P-score (0.89) was related to Methylprednisolone + UC.

Conclusion

Based on the results of this NMA it seems Methylprednisolone + UC to be the best treatment option in patients with COVID-ARDS and COVID pneumonia.

Clinical value of glucocorticoids for severe community-acquired pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Severe community-acquired pneumonia (sCAP) is characterized by severe symptoms and a poor prognosis, especially with the recent global impact of novel coronavirus in recent years. The use of glucocorticoids in sCAP is currently a subject of debate. To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids and provide guidance for their rational use in clinical practice, we conducted this study.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure using the following search terms: "pneumonia", "pneumonias", "Pulmonary Inflammation", "Pulmonary Inflammations", "Lung Inflammation", and "Lung Inflammations". The primary outcomes included mortality and the length of hospital stay. The secondary outcomes included the duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of vasoactive drug use, gastrointestinal bleeding, and multiple infections. The Cochrane Collaboration was used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. Stata/MP14 was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

These studies contained information on 1252 patients who received glucocorticoids and 1280 patients who did not. Meta-analysis showed that there was no difference in terms of mortality [risk ratio (RR) = 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.81-1.07, P  > .05], gastrointestinal bleeding (RR = 1.38, 95% CI: 0.83-2.30, P  <  .05), multiple infections (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 0.90-1.53, P  > .05) and length of hospital stay (mean difference [MD] = -0.87, 95% CI: -2.35 to 0.61, P  > .05) between the hormonal and nonhormonal groups. However, there was a significant difference in the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD = -1.54; 95% CI, -1.89 to -1.12, P  <  .05) and the duration of use of vasoactive drugs (MD = -14.09, 95% CI: -15.72 to -12.46, P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Glucocorticoids reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation duration and vasoactive drug use in sCAP patients without increasing the risk of adverse events including hyperglycemia and multiple infections. However, there was no significant difference in mortality or length of hospital stay in sCAP patients between glucocorticoid and non-glucocorticoid groups. Glucocorticoids could be recommended for patients with sCAP with respiratory failure or hemodynamic instability.

The impact of immunosuppressive therapy on secondary infections and antimicrobial use in COVID-19 inpatients: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Immunosuppressive therapies have become a cornerstone of the management of severe COVID-19. The impact of these therapies on secondary infections and antimicrobial prescribing remains unclear. We sought to assess antimicrobial use and the incidence of bacterial and fungal infections in patients with severe COVID-19, and to explore their associations with receipt of immunosuppressive therapies.

METHODS

Our retrospective cohort study included 715 hospitalised, adult patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to St George's Hospital, London, UK, during the first UK pandemic wave (1st March-10th June 2020). Co-infections (occurring within 48 h of admission) and secondary infections (≥ 48 h) were defined as a positive microbiological culture with supporting clinical, radiological or laboratory data to suggest true infection. Cox regression models with time-dependent covariates were used to explore the association between immunosuppressant use and secondary infection.

RESULTS

Microbiologically confirmed co-infection occurred in 4.2% (n = 30) and secondary infection in 9.3% (n = 66) of the cohort (n = 715) and were associated with in-hospital mortality (48% vs 35%, OR 1.8, 95%CI 1.1-2.7, p = 0.01). Respiratory (n = 41, 39%) and bloodstream infections (n = 38, 36%) predominated, with primarily Gram-negative pathogens. 606 (84.7%) patients received an antimicrobial, amounting to 742 days of therapy per 1000 patient-days (DOTs). In multivariable models, receipt of high-dose steroids (≥ 30 mg prednisolone or equivalent) or tocilizumab was significantly associated with increased antimicrobial consumption (+ 5.5 DOTs, 95%CI 3.4-7.7 days) but not secondary infection (HR 0.56, 95%CI 0.26-1.18).

CONCLUSIONS

Bacterial and fungal infections in severe COVID-19 were uncommon. Receipt of steroids or tocilizumab was independently associated with antimicrobial consumption despite its lack of association with secondary infection. These findings should galvanise efforts to promote antimicrobial stewardship in patients with COVID-19.

Outcome of COVID-19 in Egyptian living-donor kidney transplant recipients and relation to maintenance immunosuppressive drugs: a pilot study

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in kidney transplant recipients is a subject of much debate and became of interest to nephrologists amidst the pandemic. The main concerns are the influence of the chronic use of immunosuppressive drugs, the viral-related risk of acute rejection, and the long-term outcome of allograft function. This single-center prospective study included kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 infection. Patients were maintained on immunosuppressive regimens. The severity of disease was defined as oxygen saturation < 94%, the need for hospitalization and/or hemodialysis, the occurrence of acute kidney injury (AKI), and mortality. Seventeen patients (54.8%) required hospital admission, four patients needed hemodialysis (12.9%), twelve patients (38.7%) had AKI, and three patients died (9.7%). Oxygen saturation < 94% showed a positive correlation with the presence of diabetes (p value 0.031) and a negative correlation with the maintenance steroid dose (p value 0.046). A negative correlation existed between the need for hemodialysis and average Cyclosporin level (p value 0.019) and between the need for hospitalization and average Tacrolimus level (p value 0.046). Severity of disease was associated with the presence of lymphopenia (p value 0.042), the cumulative steroid dose (p value 0.001), increased serum levels of LDH (p value 0.010), Ferritin (p value 0.020), AST (p value 0.047), and ALT (p value 0.006) and D-dimer levels more than 0.5 mg/L (p value 0.038). This study highlighted that the immunocompromised state of renal transplant recipients may not be regarded as a disadvantage in the setting of COVID-19 infection. Studies on a larger scale are needed to validate these results.

COVID-19 Treatments: Then and Now

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has evolved over the past 3+ years, and strategies to prevent illness and treat infection have changed over time. As COVID-19 transitions from a pandemic to an endemic infection, widespread nonpharmaceutical interventions such as mask mandates and governmental policies requiring social distancing have given way to more selective strategies for risk mitigation. Monoclonal antibody therapies used for disease prevention and treatment lost utility owing to the emergence of resistant viral variants. Oral antiviral medications have become the mainstay of treatment in nonhospitalized individuals, whereas systemic corticosteroids remain the cornerstone of therapy in those requiring supplemental oxygen. Emerging literature also supports the use of additional immune-modulating therapies in select admitted patients. Importantly, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted both unprecedented research and development of medical interventions while also drawing attention to significant pitfalls in the global response. This review provides a comprehensive update in prevention and management of COVID-19.

Using risk factors and markers to predict bacterial respiratory co-/superinfections in COVID-19 patients: is the antibiotic steward's toolbox full or empty?

BACKGROUND

Adequate diagnosis of bacterial respiratory tract co-/superinfection (bRTI) in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients is challenging, as there is insufficient knowledge about the role of risk factors and (para)clinical parameters in the identification of bacterial co-/superinfection in the COVID-19 setting. Empirical antibiotic therapy is mainly based on COVID-19 severity and expert opinion, rather than on scientific evidence generated since the start of the pandemic.

PURPOSE

We report the best available evidence regarding the predictive value of risk factors and (para)clinical markers in the diagnosis of bRTI in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary team identified different potential risk factors and (para)clinical predictors of bRTI in COVID-19 and formulated one or two research questions per topic. After a thorough literature search, research gaps were identified, and suggestions concerning further research were formulated. The quality of this narrative review was ensured by following the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles.

RESULTS

Taking into account the scarcity of scientific evidence for markers and risk factors of bRTI in COVID-19 patients, to date, COVID-19 severity is the only parameter which can be associated with higher risk of developing bRTI.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on the usefulness of risk factors and (para)clinical factors as predictors of bRTI in COVID-19 patients is scarce. Robust studies are needed to optimise antibiotic prescribing and stewardship activities in the context of COVID-19.

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.

Which severe COVID-19 patients could benefit from high dose dexamethasone? A Bayesian post-hoc reanalysis of the COVIDICUS randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The respective benefits of high and low doses of dexamethasone (DXM) in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov2) and acute respiratory failure (ARF) are controversial, with two large triple-blind RCTs reaching very important difference in the effect-size. In the COVIDICUS trial, no evidence of additional benefit of high-dose dexamethasone (DXM20) was found. We aimed to explore whether some specific patient phenotypes could benefit from DXM20 compared to the standard of care 6 mg dose of DXM (DXMSoC).

METHODS

We performed a post hoc exploratory Bayesian analysis of 473 patients who received either DXMSoc or DXM20 in the COVIDICUS trial. The outcome was the 60 day mortality rate of DXM20 over DXMSoC, with treatment effect measured on the hazard ratio (HR) estimated from Cox model. Bayesian analyses allowed to compute the posterior probability of a more than trivial benefit (HR < 0.95), and that of a potential harm (HR > 1.05). Bayesian measures of interaction then quantified the probability of interaction (Pr Interact) that the HR of death differed across the subsets by 20%. Primary analyses used noninformative priors, centred on HR = 1.00. Sensitivity analyses used sceptical and enthusiastic priors, based on null (HR = 1.00) or benefit (HR = 0.95) effects.

RESULTS

Overall, the posterior probability of a more than trivial benefit and potential harm was 29.0 and 51.1%, respectively. There was some evidence of treatment by subset interaction (i) according to age (Pr Interact, 84%), with a 86.5% probability of benefit in patients aged below 70 compared to 22% in those aged above 70; (ii) according to the time since symptoms onset (Pr Interact, 99%), with a 99.9% probability of a more than trivial benefit when lower than 7 days compared to a < 0.1% probability when delayed by 7 days or more; and (iii) according to use of remdesivir (Pr Interact, 91%), with a 90.1% probability of benefit in patients receiving remdesivir compared to 19.1% in those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

In this exploratory post hoc Bayesian analysis, compared with standard-of-care DXM, high-dose DXM may benefit patients aged less than 70 years with severe ARF that occurred less than 7 days after symptoms onset. The use of remdesivir may also favour the benefit of DXM20. Further analysis is needed to confirm these findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04344730, date of registration April 14, 2020 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04344730?term=NCT04344730&draw=2&rank=1 ); EudraCT: 2020-001457-43 ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2020-001457-43 ).

A Comparison of the Effects of Dexamethasone and Methylprednisolone, Used on Level-3 Intensive Care COVID-19 Patients, on Mortality: A Multi-Center Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is often a mild disease, usually manifesting with respiratory complaints, and is sometimes mortal due to multiple organ failure. Hyperinflammation is a known COVID-19 component and is associated with organ dysfunction, disease severity and mortality. Controlling hyperinflammatory response is crucial in determining treatment direction. An important agent in providing this control is corticosteroids. This study aimed to determine whether dexamethasone and methylprednisolone, doses, administration time and duration in COVID-19 treatment are associated with improved treatment outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter study was conducted with participation of 6 healthcare centers which collected data by retrospectively examining files of 1,340 patients admitted to intensive care unit due to COVID-19 between March 2020 and September 2021, diagnosed with polymerase chain reaction (+) and/or clinically and radiologically.

RESULTS

Mortality in the pulse methylprednisolone group was statistically significantly higher than that in the other 3 groups. Mortality was higher in older patients with comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney failure, coronary artery disease, and dementia. Pulse and mini-pulse steroid doses were less effective than standard methylprednisolone and dexamethasone doses, pulse steroid doses being associated with high mortality. Standard-dose methylprednisolone and dexamethasone led to similar effects, but standard dose methylprednisolone was more effective in severe patients who required mechanical ventilation (MV). Infection development was related to steroid treatment duration, not cumulative steroid dose.

CONCLUSION

Corticosteroids are shown to be beneficial in critical COVID-19, but the role of early corticosteroids in mild COVID-19 patients remains unclear. The anti-inflammatory effects of corticosteroids may have a positive effect by reducing mortality in severe COVID-19 patients. Although dexamethasone was first used for this purpose, methylprednisolone was found to be as effective at standard doses. Methylprednisolone administered at standard doses was associated with greater PaO₂/FiO₂ ratios than dexamethasone, especially in the severe group requiring MV. High dose pulse steroid doses are closely associated with mortality and standard methylprednisolone dose is recommended.

COVID-19 therapeutics: Clinical application of repurposed drugs and futuristic strategies for target-based drug discovery

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes the complicated disease COVID-19. Clinicians are continuously facing huge problems in the treatment of patients, as COVID-19-specific drugs are not available, hence the principle of drug repurposing serves as a one-and-only hope. Globally, the repurposing of many drugs is underway; few of them are already approved by the regulatory bodies for their clinical use and most of them are in different phases of clinical trials. Here in this review, our main aim is to discuss in detail the up-to-date information on the target-based pharmacological classification of repurposed drugs, the potential mechanism of actions, and the current clinical trial status of various drugs which are under repurposing since early 2020. At last, we briefly proposed the probable pharmacological and therapeutic drug targets that may be preferred as a futuristic drug discovery approach in the development of effective medicines.

Theory and Practice of Glucocorticoids in COVID-19: Getting to the Heart of the Matter-A Critical Review and Viewpoints

Prolonged, low-dose glucocorticoids (GCs) have shown the highest efficacy among pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for COVID-19. Despite the World Health Organization's recommendation against their use at the beginning of the pandemic, GCs at a dose equivalent to dexamethasone 6 mg/day for 10 days are now indicated in all COVID-19 cases who require respiratory support. However, the efficacy of the intervention depends on the timing of initiation, the dose, and other individual factors. Indeed, patients treated with similar GC protocols often experience different outcomes, which do not always correlate with the presence of comorbidities or with the severity of respiratory involvement at baseline. This prompted us to critically review the literature on the rationale, pharmacological principles, and clinical evidence that should guide GC treatment. Based on these data, the best treatment protocol probably involves an initial bolus dose to saturate the glucocorticoid receptors, followed by a continuous infusion to maintain constant plasma levels, and eventually a slow tapering to interruption. Methylprednisolone has shown the highest efficacy among different GC molecules, most likely thanks to its higher ability to penetrate the lung. Decreased tissue sensitivity to glucocorticoids is thought to be the main mechanism accounting for the lower response to the treatment in some individuals. We do not have a readily available test to identify GC resistance; therefore, to address inter-individual variability, future research should aim at investigating clinical, physiological, and laboratory markers to guide a personalized GC treatment approach.

Drug repositioning in the COVID-19 pandemic: fundamentals, synthetic routes, and overview of clinical studies

INTRODUCTION

Drug repositioning is a strategy to identify a new therapeutic indication for molecules that have been approved for other conditions, aiming to speed up the traditional drug development process and reduce its costs. The high prevalence and incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) underline the importance of searching for a safe and effective treatment for the disease, and drug repositioning is the most rational strategy to achieve this goal in a short period of time. Another advantage of repositioning is the fact that these compounds already have established synthetic routes, which facilitates their production at the industrial level. However, the hope for treatment cannot allow the indiscriminate use of medicines without a scientific basis.

RESULTS

The main small molecules in clinical trials being studied to be potentially repositioned to treat COVID-19 are chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, favipiravir, colchicine, remdesivir, dexamethasone, nitazoxanide, azithromycin, camostat, methylprednisolone, and baricitinib. In the context of clinical tests, in general, they were carried out under the supervision of large consortiums with a methodology based on and recognized in the scientific community, factors that ensure the reliability of the data collected. From the synthetic perspective, compounds with less structural complexity have more simplified synthetic routes. Stereochemical complexity still represents the major challenge in the preparation of dexamethasone, ivermectin, and azithromycin, for instance.

CONCLUSION

Remdesivir and baricitinib were approved for the treatment of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. Dexamethasone and methylprednisolone should be used with caution. Hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, ivermectin, and azithromycin are ineffective for the treatment of the disease, and the other compounds presented uncertain results. Preclinical and clinical studies should not be analyzed alone, and their methodology's accuracy should also be considered. Regulatory agencies are responsible for analyzing the efficacy and safety of a treatment and must be respected as the competent authorities for this decision, avoiding the indiscriminate use of medicines.

COVID-19 fulminant myocarditis recovered with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and Impella CP

A 38-year-old man without a history of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination presented with dyspnea and fever. Polymerase chain reaction nasopharyngeal swab for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was positive. Electrocardiogram showed diffuse ST-segment elevation, and chest radiography showed mild pulmonary congestion. The left ventricular (LV) function was markedly impaired. Vital signs were unstable, and serum lactate level was elevated. The patient was diagnosed with cardiogenic shock due to COVID-19 fulminant myocarditis and received veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and Impella CP (Abiomed, Inc., Danvers, MA, USA). Remdesivir and intravenous immunoglobulin were also administered. Corticosteroids were not administered because of the absence of pneumonia. On admission, endomyocardial biopsy showed a small direct inflammatory infiltrate of the myocardium. During mechanical support, the cardiac function improved, the patient was weaned off VA-ECMO on day 6, and Impella CP on day 7. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging implied recent myocardial damage. The patient was discharged on day 30, and the LV function fully recovered. Since the treatment and prognosis of COVID-19 fulminant myocarditis remain unclear, we report the course of COVID-19 fulminant myocarditis with favorable outcomes. Mechanical circulatory support might be an important factor in determining the prognosis of COVID-19 fulminant myocarditis.

Learning objective

Coronavirus disease 2019 fulminant myocarditis sometimes requires mechanical circulatory support. The prognosis and treatment have not yet been adequately established. The prognosis is favorable if adequate hemodynamic support is provided.

Meta-Analysis of Glucocorticoids for Covid-19 Patients Not Receiving Oxygen

BACKGROUND: Glucocorticoids reduce mortality in hospitalized patients with severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), although a possible harm was documented in patients with Covid-19 not requiring oxygen. METHODS: We searched Embase, BioMed Central, medRxiv, bioRxiv, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for any randomized trial or matched study ever performed on adult patients with Covid-19 not receiving oxygen therapy treated with intravenous or oral glucocorticoids versus any comparator (standard therapy or placebo); there were no restrictions on dose or time of administration. The primary end point was all-cause mortality at the longest available follow-up. RESULTS: Five randomized trials and one propensity-matched study involving 6634 hospitalized patients not on oxygen were finally included (3704 received glucocorticoids and 2930 received standard treatment). The overall mortality of patients treated with glucocorticoids was significantly higher than the mortality of patients in the control group (509 of 3704 [14%] in the glucocorticoid group vs. 294 of 2930 [10%] in the control group; odds ratio, 1.56 [95% confidence interval, 1.27 to 1.92], with three articles reporting mortality events and contributing to the combined odds ratio; P<0.001; number needed to harm=27). CONCLUSIONS: Glucocorticoid use likely increases mortality in hospitalized patients with Covid-19 not receiving oxygen, with a number needed to harm of 27. (PROSPERO number CRD42022342996.)

Severe COVID-19: Drugs and Clinical Trials

By January of 2023, the COVID-19 pandemic had led to a reported total of 6,700,883 deaths and 662,631,114 cases worldwide. To date, there have been no effective therapies or standardized treatment schemes for this disease; therefore, the search for effective prophylactic and therapeutic strategies is a primary goal that must be addressed. This review aims to provide an analysis of the most efficient and promising therapies and drugs for the prevention and treatment of severe COVID-19, comparing their degree of success, scope, and limitations, with the aim of providing support to health professionals in choosing the best pharmacological approach. An investigation of the most promising and effective treatments against COVID-19 that are currently available was carried out by employing search terms including "Convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19" or "Viral polymerase inhibitors" and "COVID-19" in the Clinicaltrials.gov and PubMed databases. From the current perspective and with the information available from the various clinical trials assessing the efficacy of different therapeutic options, we conclude that it is necessary to standardize certain variables-such as the viral clearance time, biomarkers associated with severity, hospital stay, requirement of invasive mechanical ventilation, and mortality rate-in order to facilitate verification of the efficacy of such treatments and to better assess the repeatability of the most effective and promising results.

Host-Based Treatments for Severe COVID-19

COVID-19 has been a global health problem since 2020. There are different spectrums of manifestation of this disease, ranging from asymptomatic to extremely severe forms requiring admission to intensive care units and life-support therapies, mainly due to severe pneumonia. The progressive understanding of this disease has allowed researchers and clinicians to implement different therapeutic alternatives, depending on both the severity of clinical involvement and the causative molecular mechanism that has been progressively explored. In this review, we analysed the main therapeutic options available to date based on modulating the host inflammatory response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with severe and critical illness. Although current guidelines are moving toward a personalised treatment approach titrated on the timing of presentation, disease severity, and laboratory parameters, future research is needed to identify additional biomarkers that can anticipate the disease course and guide targeted interventions on an individual basis.

Gender-specific effect of outdoor temperature and seasonal variation on blood pressure components: a cross-sectional study on Iranian adults from 2015 to 2018

Blood pressure (BP) is influenced by both individual and environmental factors such as ambient temperature. However, the gender-stratified and component-specific impact of temperature on BP is not well understood. Herein, we examined the temperature and seasonal effects on four main BP components, namely systolic BP (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and pulse pressure (PP), in both genders. A total of 8990 (3954 men) Tehranian adults during 2015-2018 were included. Linear regression models for analyzing data in three models including unadjusted, age-adjusted, and further adjusted for known sociodemographic and cardiovascular confounders were conducted. Among women, each 10 °C increment was associated with a significant decrease of - 0.48 mmHg (95% confidence interval (CI): - 0.86, - 0.19) and - 0.65 mmHg (- 0.76, - 0.41) in SBP and MAP, respectively. In men, the corresponding value for SBP was - 0.46 (- 0.82, - 0.16) mmHg (P = 0.058). Gender-specific analysis in each season showed that among women, PP increased in autumn and winter with each 10 °C decrease (P < 0.05). The mean increase in SBP (3.4 and 2.06 mmHg in women and men, respectively), DBP (1.66 and 1.19 mmHg), and MAP (2.71 and 1.12 mmHg) was observed during winter compared to summer (all P < 0.05). PP showed seasonality only in women (1.46 mmHg, P-value = 0.003). In both genders, SBP in age > 60 years was more susceptible to variation compared to younger ages. Furthermore, obese women had more SBP changes compared to their non-obese counterparts (all P for interaction < 0.05). In conclusion, there was a sex difference in BP response to the outdoor temperature, with higher vulnerability among women. The reverse relation between temperature and BP occurred particularly among elderly and obese individuals. Careful monitoring of BP in cold seasons, specifically in the mentioned subgroups, could potentially attenuate cardiovascular risks.

Higher- versus Lower-Dose Corticosteroids for Severe to Critical COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-analysis

Rationale: Corticosteroids are standard of care for patients with severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, the optimal dose is uncertain. Objectives: To compare higher doses of corticosteroids with lower doses in patients with COVID-19. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MedRxiv, and Web of Science from inception to August 1, 2022, for trials that randomized patients with severe-to-critical COVID-19 to corticosteroids, standard care, or placebo. Reviewers, working in duplicate, screened references, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using a modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. We performed a dose-response meta-analysis and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess the certainty of evidence. We present our results both in relative risk and absolute risk difference per 1,000, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: We included 20 trials, with 10,155 patients. We show that, compared with lower-dose corticosteroids, higher-dose corticosteroids probably reduce mortality (absolute risk difference, 14 fewer deaths per 1,000 [95% CI, 26 fewer to 2 fewer]; moderate certainty) and may reduce the need for mechanical ventilation (absolute risk difference, 11.6 fewer per 1,000 [95% CI, 23.2 fewer to 6.9 more]; low certainty). The effect of corticosteroids on nosocomial infections is uncertain (16.7 fewer infections per 1,000 [95% CI, 5.4 fewer to 25.0 fewer]; very low certainty). Conclusions: Relatively higher doses of corticosteroids may be beneficial in patients with severe-to-critical COVID-19 and may not increase the risk of nosocomial infections.

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.

Immune-Based Therapy for Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 and Risk of Secondary Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Immune-based therapies are standard-of-care treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients requiring hospitalization. However, safety concerns related to the potential risk of secondary infections may limit their use.

Methods

We searched OVID Medline, Ovid EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, and PROSPERO in October 2020 and updated the search in November 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Pairs of reviewers screened abstracts and full studies and extracted data in an independent manner. We used RevMan to conduct a meta-analysis using random-effects models to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI for the incidence of infection. Statistical heterogeneity was determined using the I 2 statistic. We assessed risk of bias for all studies and rated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. We conducted a meta-regression using the R package to meta-explore whether age, sex, and invasive mechanical ventilation modified risk of infection with immune-based therapies. The protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021229406).

Results

This was a meta-analysis of 37 RCTs including 32 621 participants (mean age, 60 years; 64% male). The use of immune-based therapy for COVID-19 conferred mild protection for the occurrence of secondary infections (711/15 721, 4.5%, vs 616/16 900, 3.6%; RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.95; P = .008; I 2 = 28%). A subgroup analysis did not identify any subgroup effect by type of immune-based therapies (P = .85). A meta-regression revealed no impact of age, sex, or mechanical ventilation on the effect of immune-based therapies on risk of infection.

Conclusions

We identified moderate-certainty evidence that the use of immune-based therapies in COVID-19 requiring hospitalization does not increase the risk of secondary infections.

Effect of Methylprednisolone on Mortality and Clinical Courses in Patients with Severe COVID-19: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Background

Whether methylprednisolone therapy can reduce the mortality rate of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains controversial, and its effects on the length of hospital stay and virus shedding time are also unknown. This retrospective study investigates the previous issues to provide more evidence for methylprednisolone treatment in severe COVID-19.

Methods

This retrospective study included 563 of 4827 patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to Wuhan Huoshenshan Hospital or Wuhan Guanggu Hospital between February 3, 2020 and March 30, 2020 who met the screening criteria. The participants' epidemiological and demographic data, comorbidities, laboratory test results, treatments, outcomes, and vital clinical time points were extracted from electronic medical records. The primary outcome was in-hospital death, and the secondary outcomes were 2 clinical courses: length from admission to viral clearance and discharge. Univariate and multivariate logistic or linear regression analyses were used to assess the role of methylprednisolone in different outcomes. Propensity score matching was performed to control for confounding factors.

Results

Of the 563 patients who met the screening criteria and were included in the subsequent analysis, 138 were included in the methylprednisolone group and 425 in the nonmethylprednisolone group. The in-hospital death rate between the methylprednisolone and nonmethylprednisolone groups showed a significant difference (23.91% vs. 1.65%, P < 0.001), which was maintained after propensity score matching (13.98% vs. 5.38%, P = 0.048). However, univariate logistic analysis in the matched groups showed that methylprednisolone treatment (odds ratio [OR], 5.242; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.802 to 34.246; P = 0.084) was not a risk factor for in-hospital death in severe patients. Further multivariate logistic regression analysis found comorbidities (OR, 3.327; 95% CI, 1.702 to 6.501; P < 0.001), lower lymphocyte count (OR, 0.076; 95% CI, 0.012 to 0.461; P = 0.005), higher lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels (OR, 1.008; 95% CI, 1.003 to 1.013; P = 0.002), and anticoagulation therapy (OR, 11.187; 95% CI, 2.459 to 50.900; P = 0.002) were associated with in-hospital mortality. Multivariate linear regression analysis in the matched groups showed that methylprednisolone treatment was not a risk factor for a prolonged duration from admission to viral clearance (β Value 0.081; 95% CI, -1.012 to 3.657; P = 0.265) or discharge (β Value 0.114; 95% CI, -0.723 to 6.408; P = 0.117). d-dimer (β Value, 0.144; 95% CI, 0.012 to 0.817; P = 0.044), LDH (β Value 0.260; 95% CI, 0.010 to 0.034; P < 0.001), and antiviral therapy (β Value 0.220; 95% CI, 1.373 to 6.263; P = 0.002) were associated with a longer length from admission to viral clearance. The lymphocyte count (β Value -0.206; 95% CI, -6.248 to -1.197; P = 0.004), LDH (β Value 0.231; 95% CI, 0.012 to 0.048; P = 0.001), antiviral therapy (β Value 0.143; 95% CI, 0.058 to 7.497; P = 0.047), and antibacterial therapy (β Value 0.152; 95% CI, 0.133 to 8.154; P = 0.043) were associated with a longer hospitalization duration from admission to discharge. Further stratified analysis revealed that the low daily dose group (≤60 mg/d) and the low total dose group (≤200 mg) had shorter duration from admission to viral clearance (Z=-2.362, P = 0.018; Z=-2.010, P = 0.044) and a shorter hospital stay (Z=-2.735, P = 0.006; Z=-3.858, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

In patients with severe COVID-19, methylprednisolone is safe and does not prolong the duration from admission to viral clearance or discharge. Low-dose, short-term methylprednisolone treatment may be more beneficial in shortening the disease course.

Clinical trials on the pharmacological treatment of long COVID: A systematic review

The postacute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (PASC), also known as post-acute coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) or the long COVID syndrome (long COVID) is an emerging public health concern. A substantial proportion of individuals may remain symptomatic months after initial recovery. An updated review of published and ongoing trials focusing on managing long COVID will help identify gaps and address the unmet needs of patients suffering from this potentially debilitating syndrome. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on the international databases and clinical trial registries from inception to 31 July 2022. This review included 6 published trials and 54 trial registration records. There is significant heterogeneity in the characterization of long COVID and ascertainment of primary outcomes. Most of the trials are focused on individual symptoms of long COVID or isolated organ dysfunction, classified according to cardiovascular, respiratory and functional capacity, neurological and psychological, fatigue, and olfactory dysfunction. Most of the interventions are related to the mechanisms causing the individual symptoms. Although the six published trials showed significant improvement in the symptoms or organ dysfunction studied, these initial studies lack internal and external validity limiting the generalizability. This review provides an update of the pharmacological agents that could be used to treat long COVID. Further standardization of the diagnostic criteria, inclusion of participants with concomitant chronic cardiometabolic diseases and standardization of outcomes will be essential in future clinical trials.