The effect of glucocorticoids on mortality in severe COVID-19 patients: Evidence from 13 studies involving 6612 cases

The effect of COVID-19 on Multiple Sclerosis relapse: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a chronic autoimmune disease, affecting over 2.5 million people worldwide. There has been growing concern about the impact of COVID-19 on the clinical course of MS. However, these findings remain controversial, and there is a lack of high-quality evidence to establish the relationship between COVID-19 and MS.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was done to identify relevant studies reporting relapse rate in patients with MS (pwMS), those comparing the relapse rate of COVID-19 pwMS and MS controls, and studies investigating the effect of COVID-19 on relapse rate of pwMS. The results were presented as proportion of COVID-19 pwMS experiencing relapse and odds ratio determining the impact of COVID-19 on relapse rate.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the analyses. The proportion of COVID-19 positive pwMS with relapse was 7.71 per 100 cases (95 % confidence interval, CI: 4.41-13.89, I2=96 %). Quantitative evaluation of studies with pwMS without COVID-19 did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in relapse rate of patients with COVID-19 (OR: 0.75, 95 %CI: 0.44-1.29, I2= 54 %). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not alter the lack of significance of association between COVID-19 and MS relapse. Sensitivity analysis excluding the outlying study was largely in favor of no difference between the groups (OR:1.00, 95 %CI: 0.72-1.38, I2=34 %) CONCLUSION: The results of this review does not suggest that COVID-19 influences the relapse rate in pwMS. While the findings alleviate the concerns regarding the co-occurrence of the diseases, further studies are needed to investigate the effects of confounding factors.

Methylprednisolone or dexamethasone? How should we choose to respond to COVID-19?: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Methylprednisolone (MP) and dexamethasone (DXM) are commonly prescribed hormone drugs for treating coronavirus pandemic disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, but conflicting results from previous studies and meta-analyses on their efficacy and safety necessitate further investigation. Therefore, in this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to enhance the level of evidence and compare the efficacy and safety of MP and DXM in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to retrieve randomized clinical trials. Our primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality, with secondary outcomes including admission to the intensive care unit, length of hospital stay, mechanical ventilation, and adverse events.

RESULTS

This study analyzed six randomized controlled trials involving 1403 patients (MP group: 704; DXM group: 699). The results of the analysis showed no significant differences in mortality rates, admission to intensive care units, hospitalization time, mechanical ventilation, or adverse events between the MP and DXM groups (P > .05). However, a significant difference was observed in the incidence of hyperglycemia between these 2 groups (RR = 1.78, 95% CI [1.09, 2.89], P = .02, I2 = 78%).

CONCLUSION

The results of this meta-analysis showed that there was no difference in mortality, ICU admission rate, hospital stay, mechanical ventilation, or adverse events between MP and DXM in the treatment of COVID-19. The incidence of hyperglycemia with methylprednisolone was higher than that with dexamethasone.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

An Overview of the Impact of Bacterial Infections and the Associated Mortality Predictors in Patients with COVID-19 Admitted to a Tertiary Center from Eastern Europe

1.

BACKGROUND

Literature data on bacterial infections and their impact on the mortality rates of COVID-19 patients from Romania are scarce, while worldwide reports are contrasting. 2.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a unicentric retrospective observational study that included 280 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, on whom we performed various microbiological determinations. Based on the administration or not of the antibiotic treatment, we divided the patients into two groups. First, we sought to investigate the rates and predictors of bacterial infections, the causative microbial strains, and the prescribed antibiotic treatment. Secondly, the study aimed to identify the risk factors associated with in-hospital death and evaluate the biomarkers' performance for predicting short-term mortality. 3.

RESULTS

Bacterial co-infections or secondary infections were confirmed in 23 (8.2%) patients. Acinetobacter baumannii was the pathogen responsible for most of the confirmed bacterial infections. Almost three quarters of the patients (72.8%) received empiric antibiotic therapy. Multivariate logistic regression has shown leukocytosis and intensive care unit admission as risk factors for bacterial infections and C-reactive protein, together with the length of hospital stay, as mortality predictors. The ROC curves revealed an acceptable performance for the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (AUC: 0.781), and C-reactive protein (AUC: 0.797), but a poor performance for fibrinogen (AUC: 0.664) in predicting fatal events. 4.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlighted the somewhat paradoxical association of a low rate of confirmed infections with a high rate of empiric antibiotic therapy. A thorough assessment of the risk factors for bacterial infections, in addition to the acknowledgment of various mortality predictors, is crucial for identifying high-risk patients, thus allowing a timely therapeutic intervention, with a direct impact on improving patients' prognosis.

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Two Years into the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a highly transmissible and virulent human-infecting coronavirus that emerged in late December 2019 in Wuhan, China, causing a respiratory disease called coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which has massively impacted global public health and caused widespread disruption to daily life. The crisis caused by COVID-19 has mobilized scientists and public health authorities across the world to rapidly improve our knowledge about this devastating disease, shedding light on its management and control, and spawned the development of new countermeasures. Here we provide an overview of the state of the art of knowledge gained in the last 2 years about the virus and COVID-19, including its origin and natural reservoir hosts, viral etiology, epidemiology, modes of transmission, clinical manifestations, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, prevention, emerging variants, and vaccines, highlighting important differences from previously known highly pathogenic coronaviruses. We also discuss selected key discoveries from each topic and underline the gaps of knowledge for future investigations.

Sex Differences in Use of Low Tidal Volume Ventilation in COVID-19-Insights From the PRoVENT-COVID Study

The purpose of this study was to compare and understand differences in the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) between females and males with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This is a post-hoc analysis of an observational study in invasively ventilated patients with ARDS related to COVID-19 in 22 ICUs in the Netherlands. The primary endpoint was the use of LTVV, defined as having received a median tidal volume (V_T) ≤6 ml/kg predicted body weight (PBW) during controlled ventilation. A mediation analysis was used to investigate the impact of anthropometric factors, next to the impact of sex per se. The analysis included 934 patients, 251 females and 683 males. All the patients had ARDS, and there were no differences in ARDS severity between the sexes. On the first day of ventilation, females received ventilation with a higher median V_T compared with males [6.8 (interquartile range (IQR) 6.0–7.6 vs. 6.3 (IQR 5.8–6.9) ml/kg PBW; p < 0.001]. Consequently, females received LTVV less often than males (23 vs. 34%; p = 0.003). The difference in the use of LTVV became smaller but persisted over the next days (27 vs. 36%; p = 0.046 at day 2 and 28 vs. 38%; p = 0.030 at day 3). The difference in the use LTVV was significantly mediated by sex per se [average direct effect of the female sex, 7.5% (95% CI, 1.7–13.3%); p = 0.011] and by differences in the body height [average causal mediation effect, −17.5% (−21.5 to −13.5%); p < 0.001], but not by the differences in actual body weight [average causal mediation effect, 0.2% (−0.8 to 1.2%); p = 0.715]. In conclusion, in this cohort of patients with ARDS related to COVID-19, females received LTVV less often than males in the first days of invasive ventilation. The difference in the use of LTVV was mainly driven by an anthropometric factor, namely, body height. Use of LTVV may improve by paying attention to correct titration of V_T, which should be based on PBW, which is a function of body height.