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

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.

Investigational medications in 9,638 hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19: lessons from the "fail-and-learn" strategy during the first two waves of the pandemic in 2020

BACKGROUND

The early surge of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic introduced a significant clinical challenge due to the high case-fatality rate in absence of evidence-based recommendations. The empirical treatment modalities were relegated to historical expertise from the traditional management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in conjunction with off-label pharmaceutical agents endorsed under the "emergency use authorization" (EUA) paradigm by regulatory agencies. This study was designed to evaluate the insights from the "fail-and-learn" strategy in 2020 before the availability of COVID-19 vaccines and access to reliable insights from high-quality randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

A retrospective, multicenter, propensity-matched, case-control study was performed on a data registry comprising 186 hospitals from a national health care system in the United States, designed to investigate the efficacy of empirical treatment modalities during the early surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Reflective of the time-windows of the initial two surges of the pandemic in 2020, patients were stratified into "Early 2020" (March 1-June 30) versus "Late 2020" (July 1-December 31) study cohorts. Logistic regression was applied to determine the efficacy of prevalent medications (remdesivir, azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids, tocilizumab) and supplemental oxygen delivery modalities (invasive vs. non-invasive ventilation) on patient outcomes. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Group comparisons were adjusted for covariates related to age, gender, ethnicity, body weight, comorbidities, and treatment modalities pertinent to organ failure replacement.

RESULTS

From a total of 87,788 patients in the multicenter data registry screened in this study, 9,638 patients were included who received 19,763 COVID-19 medications during the first two waves of the 2020 pandemic. The results showed a minimal, yet statistically significant, association with hydroxychloroquine in "Early 2020" and remdesivir in "Late 2020" with reduced odds of mortality (odds ratios 0.72 and 0.76, respectively; P = 0.01). Azithromycin was the only medication associated with decreased odds of mortality during both study time-windows (odds ratios 0.79 and 0.68, respectively; P < 0.01). In contrast, the necessity for oxygen supply showed significantly increased odds of mortality beyond the effect of all investigated medications. Of all the covariates associated with increased mortality, invasive mechanical ventilation had the highest odds ratios of 8.34 in the first surge and 9.46 in in the second surge of the pandemic (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

This retrospective multicenter observational cohort study on 9,638 hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 during revealed that the necessity for invasive ventilation had the highest odds of mortality, beyond the variable effects observed by administration of the prevalent EUA-approved investigational drugs during the first two surges of the early 2020 pandemic in the United States.

Effect of corticosteroid therapy on mortality in COVID-19 patients-A systematic review and meta-analysis

The effect of corticosteroid therapy is still controversial on prevention of mortality in coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19). The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of corticosteroids on mortality. This systematic review was performed as per preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses guidelines. A systematic search was performed at different databases namely Medline/PubMed, Cochrane and Google scholar on 10 February 2022. A pooled estimate for effect of corticosteroid therapy on mortality was calculated as outcome of study. Risk bias analysis and Newcastle Ottawa Scale were used to assess the quality of randomized control trial (RCT) and cohort studies, respectively. Cochran's Q test and the I² statistic were conducted for heterogeneity and accordingly study model was applied. A total 43 studies were included, having sample size of 96,852 patients. Amongst them, 19,426 and 77,426 patients received corticosteroid therapy (intervention group) or standard treatment without corticosteroid (control group), respectively. Mortality observed in the intervention and control group was 14.2% (2749) and 7.1% (5459), respectively. The pooled estimate 2.173 (95% CI: 2.0690–2.2820) showed significantly increased mortality in intervention as compared to control. The pooled estimate of methyprednisolone 1.206 (95% CI: 1.0770–1.3500) showed significantly increased mortality while the pooled estimate of dexamethasone 1.040 (95% CI: 0.9459–1.1440) showed insignificantly increased mortality as compared to control. In conclusion, corticosteroid therapy produced a negative prognosis as depicted by increased mortality among COVID‐19 patients. The possible reasons might be delay in virus clearance and secondary infections due to corticosteroids initiated at high dose in the early stage of infection.

T-2 toxin and its cardiotoxicity: New insights on the molecular mechanisms and therapeutic implications

T-2 toxin is one of the most toxic and common trichothecene mycotoxins, and can cause various cardiovascular diseases. In this review, we summarized the current knowledge-base and challenges as it relates to T-2 toxin related cardiotoxicity. The molecular mechanisms and potential treatment approaches were also discussed. Pathologically, T-2 toxin-induced cardiac toxicity is characterized by cell injury and death in cardiomyocyte, increased capillary permeability, necrosis of cardiomyocyte, hemorrhage, and the infiltration of inflammatory cells in the heart. T-2 toxin exposure can cause cardiac fibrosis and finally lead to cardiac dysfunction. Mechanistically, T-2 toxin exposure-induced cardiac damage involves the production of ROS, mitochondrial dysfunction, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma (PPAR-γ) signaling pathway, endoplasmic reticulum (ER stress), transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGF-β1)/smad family member 2/3 (Smad2/3) signaling pathway, and autophagy and inflammatory responses. Antioxidant supplementation (e.g., catalase, vitamin C, and selenium), induction of autophagy (e.g., rapamycin), blockade of inflammatory signaling (e.g., methylprednisolone) or treatment with PPAR-γ agonists (e.g., pioglitazone) may provide protective effects against these detrimental cardiac effects caused by T-2 toxin. We believe that our review provides new insights in understanding T-2 toxin exposure-induced cardiotoxicity and fuels effective prevention and treatment strategies against this important food-borne toxin-induced health problems.

Comparing efficacy and safety of different doses of dexamethasone in the treatment of COVID-19: a three-arm randomized clinical trial

Background and objectives

Corticosteroids are commonly used in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The goals of the present study were to compare the efficacy and safety of different doses of dexamethasone in the treatment of patients with a diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19.

Methods

Hospitalized patients with a diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19 were assigned to intravenous low-dose (8 mg once daily), intermediate-dose (8 mg twice daily) or high-dose (8 mg thrice daily) dexamethasone for up to 10 days or until hospital discharge. Clinical response, 60-day survival and adverse effects were the main outcomes of the study.

Results

In the competing risk survival analysis, patients in the low-dose group had a higher clinical response than the high-dose group when considering death as a competing risk (HR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.23–3.33, p = 0.03). Also, the survival was significantly longer in the low-dose group than the high-dose group (HR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.15–0.83, p = 0.02). Leukocytosis and hyperglycemia were the most common side effects of dexamethasone. Although the incidence was not significantly different between the groups, some adverse effects were numerically higher in the intermediate-dose and high-dose groups than in the low-dose group.

Conclusions

Higher doses of dexamethasone not only failed to improve efficacy but also resulted in an increase in the number of adverse events and worsen survival in hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 compared to the low-dose dexamethasone. (IRCT20100228003449N31).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43440-021-00341-0.