Comparison of Associations Between Glucocorticoids Treatment and Mortality in COVID-19 Patients and SARS Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Challenges of mesenchymal stem cells in the clinical treatment of COVID-19

The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has brought an enormous public health burden to the global society. The duration of the epidemic, the number of infected people, and the widespread of the epidemic are extremely rare in modern society. In the initial stage of infection, people generally show fever, cough, and dyspnea, which can lead to pneumonia, acute respiratory syndrome, kidney failure, and even death in severe cases. The strong infectivity and pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 make it more urgent to find an effective treatment. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are a kind of pluripotent stem cells with the potential for self-renewal and multi-directional differentiation. They are widely used in clinical experiments because of their low immunogenicity and immunomodulatory function. Mesenchymal stem cell-derived exosomes (MSC-Exo) can play a physiological role similar to that of stem cells. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, a series of clinical trials based on MSC therapy have been carried out. The results show that MSCs are safe and can significantly improve patients' respiratory function and prognosis of COVID-19. Here, the effects of MSCs and MSC-Exo in the treatment of COVID-19 are reviewed, and the clinical challenges that may be faced in the future are clarified.

Different definitions of feeding intolerance and their associations with outcomes of critically ill adults receiving enteral nutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A unified clinical definition of feeding intolerance (FI) is urged for better management of enteral nutrition (EN) in critically ill patients. We aimed to identify optimum clinical FI definitions based on reported evidence.

METHODS

We searched clinical studies comparing FI with non-FI with a clear definition, summarized the evidence by random-effect meta-analyses, and rated the certainty of evidence by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation frameworks.

RESULTS

Five thousand five hundred twenty-five records were identified, of which 26 eligible studies enrolled 25,189 adult patients. Most patient-centered outcomes were associated with FI overall. Low to very low certainty evidence established FI defined as large gastric residual volume (GRV) ≥ 250 ± 50 mL combined with any other gastrointestinal symptoms (GIS) had a significant association with high mortalities in particular all-cause hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.40-2.57), the incidence of pneumonia (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.13-2.09) and prolonged length of hospital stay (mean difference 4.20, 95% CI 2.08-6.32), with a moderate hospital prevalence (41.49%, 95% CI 31.61-51.38%). 3-day enteral feeding (EF) delivered percentage < 80% had a moderate hospital prevalence (38.23%, 95% CI 24.88-51.58) but a marginally significant association with all-cause hospital mortality (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.03-3.50).

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill adult patients receiving EN, the large-GRV-centered GIS to define FI seemed to be superior to 3-day EF-insufficiency in terms of both close associations with all-cause hospital mortality and acceptable hospital prevalence (Registered PROSPERO: CRD42022326273).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol for this review and meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42022326273. Registered 10 May 2022.

Effectiveness of different treatment regimens on patients with COVID-19, hospitalized in Sanandaj hospitals: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Different drugs have different effects on the prognosis of patients with COVID-19. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of different drug regimens on patients with COVID-19, hospitalized in Sanandaj city.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, 660 patients with COVID-19, hospitalized in the Tohid, Kowsar and Besat hospitals located Sanandaj (Kurdistan Province, Iran) were studied from February 2020 to February 2021 with clinical symptoms and positive test results.

RESULTS

The results of multivariate regression analysis showed the days of hospitalization for patients who had received the drug regimen 2 (Interferons (ReciGen/Ziphron) or Interferon Vectra (lopinavir/ritonavir)) was 1.92 times higher than those who had received the drug regimen 1 (hydroxychloroquine group or a combination of chloroquine and azithromycin) while a significant association was observed (OR = 1.92, 95% CI: 1.16-3.16, P = 0.011). Also, the hospitalization in ICU was longer in patients treated by the drug regimen 2 (Interferons (ReciGen/Ziphron) or Interferon Vectra (lopinavir/ritonavir)) (OR = 4.63, 95% CI: 1.80-11.82, P = 0.001), however, drug regimens did not show a significant effect on mortality and use of ventilator in patients (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The study results showed the drug regimens 2 and 5 increased the days of hospitalization and hospitalization in ICU, respectively, while the other drug regimens had no significant effect on mortality and use a ventilator in the studied patients and none of the drug regimens had an effect on reducing mortality compared to other ones.

Effect of intravenous pulses of methylprednisolone 250 mg versus dexamethasone 6 mg in hospitalised adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: An open-label randomised trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of high versus medium doses of glucocorticoids for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 has shown mixed outcomes in controlled trials and observational studies. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of methylprednisolone 250 mg bolus versus dexamethasone 6 mg in patients with severe COVID-19.

METHODS

A randomised, open-label, controlled trial was conducted between February and August 2021 at four hospitals in Spain. The trial was suspended after the first interim analysis since the investigators considered that continuing the trial would be futile. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive dexamethasone 6 mg once daily for up to 10 days or methylprednisolone 250 mg once daily for 3 days.

RESULTS

Of the 128 randomised patients, 125 were analysed (mean age 60 ± 17 years; 82 males [66%]). Mortality at 28 days was 4.8% in the 250 mg methylprednisolone group versus 4.8% in the 6 mg dexamethasone group (absolute risk difference, 0.1% [95% CI, -8.8 to 9.1%]; p = 0.98). None of the secondary outcomes (admission to the intensive care unit, non-invasive respiratory or high-flow oxygen support, additional immunosuppressive drugs, or length of stay), or prespecified sensitivity analyses were statistically significant. Hyperglycaemia was more frequent in the methylprednisolone group at 27.0 versus 8.1% (absolute risk difference, -18.9% [95% CI, -31.8 to - 5.6%]; p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Among severe but not critical patients with COVID-19, 250 mg/d for 3 days of methylprednisolone compared with 6 mg/d for 10 days of dexamethasone did not result in a decrease in mortality or intubation.

Profiles of Independent-Comorbidity Groups in Senior COVID-19 Patients Reveal Low Fatality Associated with Standard Care and Low-Dose Hydroxychloroquine over Antivirals

Introduction

The lack of feasible therapies and comorbidities aggravate the COVID-19 case-fatality rate (CFR). However, reports examining CFR associations with diabetes, concomitant cardiovascular diseases, chronic kidney disease, and chronic liver disease (CLD) are limited. More studies assessing hydroxychloroquine (Hcq) and antivirals are needed.

Purpose

To examine associations of COVID-19 CFR in comorbid patient groups each with single comorbidities and after treatment with Hcq, favipiravir, and dexamethasone (Dex), either alone or in combination versus standard care.

Methods

Using statistical analysis, we descriptively determined these associations among 750 COVID-19 patient groups during the last quarter of 2021.

Results

A diabetes comorbidity (40%, n=299) showed twice the fatality (CFR 14%) of the others (CFR 7%; P=0.001). Hypertension (Htn) was the second-commonest comorbidity (29.5%, n=221), with similar CFR to diabetes (15% and 7% for Htn and non-Htn, respectively), but with higher significance (P=0.0006167). Although only 4% (n=30) heart failure (HF) was reported, the CFR (40%) was much higher than in those without it (8%). A similar rate (4%) for chronic kidney disease was reported, with CFRs of 33% and 9% among those with and without it, respectively (P=0.00048). Ischemic heart disease was 11% (n=74), followed by chronic liver disease (0.4%) and history of smoking (1%); however, these were not significant due to the sample sizes. Treatment indicated standard care and Hcq alone or in combination were superior (CFR of 4% and 0.5%, respectively) compared to favipiravir (25%) or Dex (38.5%) independently or in combination (35.4%). Furthermore, Hcq performed well (CFR 9%) when combined with Dex (9%; P=4.28-²⁶).

Conclusion

The dominance of diabetes and other comorbidities with significant association with CFR implied existence of a common virulence mechanism. The superiority of low-dose Hcq and standard care over antivirals warrants further studies.

Effect of corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

We sought to perform a network meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of the systemic administration of corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19.

METHODS

A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to combine the direct and indirect evidence. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve was obtained to estimate the ranking probability of the treatment agents for each outcome. The efficacy outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. The safety outcome was serious adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 16 trials with 2992 patients comparing four treatments (dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, methylprednisolone, and placebo) were identified. Direct analysis showed that corticosteroids were associated with a reduced risk of 28-day mortality compared with usual care (risk ratio [RR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CrI] 0.70-0.99). Network analysis showed that the pooled RR was 0.63 (95% CrI 0.39-0.93) for all-cause mortality at 28 days comparing methylprednisolone with usual care or placebo (surface under the cumulative ranking curve: 91%). Our analysis demonstrated that patients who received a low dose of corticosteroids (RR 0.80; 95% CrI 0.70-0.91) and a long course of treatment (RR 0.81; 95% CrI 0.71-0.91) had higher survival rates than patients in the placebo group.

CONCLUSION

Administration of corticosteroids was associated with a reduced all-cause mortality at 28 days compared with placebo or usual care. Our analysis also confirmed the mortality benefit associated with low-dose and long-term treatment with corticosteroids.

Old drugs, new tricks: leveraging known compounds to disrupt coronavirus-induced cytokine storm

A major complication in COVID-19 infection consists in the onset of acute respiratory distress fueled by a dysregulation of the host immune network that leads to a run-away cytokine storm. Here, we present an in silico approach that captures the host immune system’s complex regulatory dynamics, allowing us to identify and rank candidate drugs and drug pairs that engage with minimal subsets of immune mediators such that their downstream interactions effectively disrupt the signaling cascades driving cytokine storm. Drug–target regulatory interactions are extracted from peer-reviewed literature using automated text-mining for over 5000 compounds associated with COVID-induced cytokine storm and elements of the underlying biology. The targets and mode of action of each compound, as well as combinations of compounds, were scored against their functional alignment with sets of competing model-predicted optimal intervention strategies, as well as the availability of like-acting compounds and known off-target effects. Top-ranking individual compounds identified included a number of known immune suppressors such as calcineurin and mTOR inhibitors as well as compounds less frequently associated for their immune-modulatory effects, including antimicrobials, statins, and cholinergic agonists. Pairwise combinations of drugs targeting distinct biological pathways tended to perform significantly better than single drugs with dexamethasone emerging as a frequent high-ranking companion. While these predicted drug combinations aim to disrupt COVID-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome, the approach itself can be applied more broadly to other diseases and may provide a standard tool for drug discovery initiatives in evaluating alternative targets and repurposing approved drugs.

The Importance of Behavioral and Native Factors on COVID-19 Infection and Severity: Insights from a Preliminary Cross-Sectional Study

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on a global scale. Understanding the innate and lifestyle-related factors influencing the rate and severity of COVID-19 is important for making evidence-based recommendations. This cross-sectional study aims at establishing a potential relationship between human characteristics and vulnerability/resistance to SARS-CoV-2. We hypothesize that the impact of the virus is not the same due to cultural and ethnic differences. A cross-sectional study was performed using an online questionnaire. The methodology included the development of a multi-language survey, expert evaluation, and data analysis. Data were collected using a 13-item pre-tested questionnaire based on a literature review between 9 December 2020 and 21 July 2021. Data were statistically analyzed using logistic regression. For a total of 1125 respondents, 332 (29.5%) were COVID-19 positive; among them, 130 (11.5%) required home-based treatment, and 14 (1.2%) intensive care. The significant and most influential factors on infection included age, physical activity, and health status (p < 0.05), i.e., better physical activity and better health status significantly reduced the possibility of infection, while older age significantly increased it. The severity of infection was negatively associated with the acceptance (adherence and respect) of preventive measures and positively associated with tobacco (p < 0.05), i.e., smoking regularly significantly increases the severity of COVID-19 infection. This suggests the importance of behavioral factors compared to innate ones. Apparently, individual behavior is mainly responsible for the spread of the virus. Therefore, adopting a healthy lifestyle and scrupulously observing preventive measures, including vaccination, would greatly limit the probability of infection and prevent the development of severe COVID-19.

Immune system changes in those with hypertension when infected with SARS-CoV-2

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has become an evolving global health crisis. With an increasing incidence of primary hypertension, there is greater awareness of the relationship between primary hypertension and the immune system [including CD4+, CD8+ T cells, interleukin-17 (IL-17)/T regulatory cells (Treg) balance, macrophages, natural killer (NK) cells, neutrophils, B cells, and cytokines]. Hypertension is associated with an increased risk of various infections, post-infection complications, and increased mortality from severe infections. Despite ongoing reports on the epidemiological and clinical features of COVID-19, no articles have systematically addressed the role of primary hypertension in COVID-19 or how COVID-19 affects hypertension or specific treatment in these high-risk groups. Here, we synthesize recent advances in understanding the relationship between primary hypertension and COVID-19 and its underlying mechanisms and provide specific treatment guidelines for these high-risk groups.

Low-dose methylprednisolone treatment in critically ill patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia

Purpose

Severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) requiring intensive care unit admission is associated with significant acute and long-term morbidity and mortality. We hypothesized that downregulation of systemic and pulmonary inflammation with prolonged low-dose methylprednisolone treatment would accelerate pneumonia resolution and improve clinical outcomes.

Methods

This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial recruited adult patients within 72–96 h of hospital presentation. Patients were randomized in 1:1 ratio; an intravenous 40 mg loading bolus was followed by 40 mg/day through day 7 and progressive tapering during the 20-day treatment course. Randomization was stratified by site and need for mechanical ventilation (MV) at the time of randomization. Outcomes included a primary endpoint of 60-day all-cause mortality and secondary endpoints of morbidity and mortality up to 1 year of follow-up.

Results

Between January 2012 and April 2016, 586 patients from 42 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers were randomized, short of the 1420 target sample size because of low recruitment. 584 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in 60-day mortality between the methylprednisolone and placebo arms (16% vs. 18%; adjusted odds ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.57–1.40). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes or complications.

Conclusions

In patients with severe CAP, prolonged low-dose methylprednisolone treatment did not significantly reduce 60-day mortality. Treatment was not associated with increased complications.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-022-06684-3.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Date of Admission during COVID-19 Pandemic Impacted Patient Outcomes in Addition to the Higher Efficacy of Tocilizumab Plus High-Dose Corticosteroid Therapy Compared to Tocilizumab Alone

BACKGROUND

The evidence for the efficacy of glucocorticoids combined with tocilizumab (TCZ) in COVID-19 comes from observational studies or subgroup analysis. Our aim was to compare outcomes between hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received high-dose corticosteroid pulse therapy and TCZ and those who received TCZ.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center study was performed on consecutive hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 between 1 March and 23 April 2020. Patients treated with either TCZ (400-600 mg, one to two doses) and methylprednisolone pulses (MPD-TCZ group) or TCZ alone were analyzed for the occurrence of a combined endpoint of death and need for invasive mechanical ventilation during admission. The independence of both treatment groups was tested using machine learning classifiers, and relevant variables that were potentially different between the groups were measured through a mean decrease accuracy algorithm.

RESULTS

An earlier date of admission was significantly associated with worse outcomes regardless of treatment type. Twenty patients died (27.0%) in the TCZ group, and 33 (44.6%) died or required intubation (n = 74), whereas in the MPD-TCZ group, 15 (11.0%) patients died and 29 (21.3%) patients reached the combined endpoint (n = 136; p = 0.006 and p < 0.001, respectively). Machine learning methodology using a random forest classifier confirmed significant differences between the treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

MPD and TCZ improved outcomes (death and invasive mechanical ventilation) among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but confounding variables such as the date of admission during the COVID-19 pandemic should be considered in observational studies.

Dexamethasone in hospitalised coronavirus-19 patients not on intensive respiratory support

Background

Dexamethasone decreases mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients on intensive respiratory support (IRS) but is of uncertain benefit if less severely ill. We determined whether early (within 48 h) dexamethasone was associated with mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 not on IRS.

Methods

We included patients admitted to US Veterans Affairs hospitals between 7 June 2020 and 31 May 2021 within 14 days after a positive test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Exclusions included recent prior corticosteroids and IRS within 48 h. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to balance exposed and unexposed groups, and Cox proportional hazards models to determine 90-day all-cause mortality.

Results

Of 19 973 total patients (95% men, median age 71 years, 27% black), 15 404 (77%) were without IRS within 48 h. Of these, 3514 out of 9450 (34%) patients on no oxygen received dexamethasone and 1042 (11%) died; 4472 out of 5954 (75%) patients on low-flow nasal cannula (NC) only received dexamethasone and 857 (14%) died. In IPTW stratified models, patients on no oxygen who received dexamethasone experienced 76% increased risk for 90-day mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 1.76, 95% CI 1.47–2.12); there was no association with mortality among patients on NC only (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.86–1.36).

Conclusions

In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, early initiation of dexamethasone was common and was associated with no mortality benefit among those on no oxygen or NC only in the first 48 h; instead, we found evidence of potential harm. These real-world findings do not support the use of early dexamethasone in hospitalised COVID-19 patients without IRS.

Although commonly used, dexamethasone within 48 h of admission was associated with increased 90-day mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 not on oxygen and with no mortality benefit in patients on low-flow nasal cannulahttps://bit.ly/3l2aqjb

Association between glucocorticoids treatment and viral clearance delay in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence of glucocorticoids on viral clearance delay of COVID-19 patients is not clear.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched for studies on Medline, Embase, EBSCO, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 2019 to April 20, 2021. We mainly pooled the risk ratios (RRs) and mean difference (MD) for viral clearance delay and did subgroup analyses by the severity of illness and doses of glucocorticoids.

RESULTS

38 studies with a total of 9572 patients were identified. Glucocorticoids treatment was associated with delayed viral clearance in COVID-19 patients (adjusted RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.80, I2 = 52%), based on moderate-quality evidence. In subgroup analyses, risk of viral clearance delay was significant both for COVID-19 patients being mild or moderate ill (adjusted RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.57, I2 = 48%), and for patients of being severe or critical ill (adjusted RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.07, I2 = 0%); however, this risk significantly increased for patients taking high doses (unadjusted RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.18; MD 7.19, 95% CI 2.78 to 11.61) or medium doses (adjusted RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.62, I2 = 45%; MD 3.98, 95% CI 3.07 to 4.88, I2 = 4%), rather those taking low doses (adjusted RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.02, I2 = 59%; MD 1.46, 95% CI -0.79 to 3.70, I2 = 82%).

CONCLUSIONS

Glucocorticoids treatment delayed viral clearance in COVID-19 patients of taking high doses or medium doses, rather in those of taking low doses of glucocorticoids.

Intravenous immunoglobulin-based adjuvant therapy for severe COVID-19: a single-center retrospective cohort study

Objective

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a major challenge facing the world. Certain guidelines issued by National Health Commission of the People's Repubilic of China recommend intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) for adjuvant treatment of COVID-19. However, there is a lack of clinical evidence to support the use of IVIG.

Methods

This single-center retrospective cohort study included all adult patients with laboratory-confirmed severe COVID-19 in the Respiratory and Critical Care Unit of Dabie Mountain Regional Medical Center, China. Patient information, including demographic data, laboratory indicators, the use of glucocorticoids and IVIG, hospital mortality, the application of mechanical ventilation, and the length of hospital stay was collected. The primary outcome was the composite end point, including death and the use of mechanical ventilation. The secondary outcome was the length of hospital stay.

Results

Of the 285 patients with confirmed COVID-19, 113 severely ill patients were included in this study. Compared to the non-IVIG group, more patients in the IVIG group reached the composite end point [12 (25.5%) vs 5 (7.6%), P = 0.008] and had longer hospital stay periods [23.0 (19.0–31.0) vs 16.0 (13.8–22.0), P < 0.001]. After adjusting for confounding factors, differences in primary outcomes between the two groups were not statistically significant (P = 0.167), however, patients in the IVIG group had longer hospital stay periods (P = 0.041).

Conclusion

Adjuvant therapy with IVIG did not improve in-hospital mortality rates or the need for mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 patients. Our study does not support the use of immunoglobulin in patients with severe COVID-19 patients.