Efficacy and safety of corticosteroid regimens for the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis

Efficacy and Safety of Hydrocortisone, Ascorbic Acid, and Thiamine Combination Therapy for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine (HAT) combination therapy in patients with sepsis and septic shock.

METHODS

We conducted a database search in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CNKI for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HAT against placebo/standard of care or against hydrocortisone in sepsis/septic shock patients. Outcomes included mortality, ICU/hospital length of stay (LOS), vasopressor durations, mechanical ventilation durations, change in SOFA at 72 h, and adverse events. RCT results were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

RESULTS

Fifteen RCTs (N = 2,594) were included. At 72 h, HAT reduced SOFA scores from baseline (mean difference [MD] -1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.58 to -0.74, I2 = 0%) compared to placebo/SoC, based on moderate quality of evidence. HAT also reduced the duration of vasopressor use (MD -18.80 h, 95% CI: -23.67 to -13.93, I2 = 64%) compared to placebo/SoC, based on moderate quality of evidence. HAT increased hospital LOS (MD 2.05 days, 95% CI: 0.15-3.95, I2 = 57%) compared to placebo/SoC, based on very low quality of evidence. HAT did not increase incidence of adverse events compared to placebo/SoC.

CONCLUSIONS

HAT appears beneficial in reducing vasopressor use and improving organ function in sepsis/septic shock patients. However, its advantages over hydrocortisone alone remain unclear. Future research should use hydrocortisone comparators and distinguish between sepsis-specific and comorbidity- or care-withdrawal-related mortality.

Persistent symptoms and risk factors predicting prolonged time to symptom-free after SARS‑CoV‑2 infection: an analysis of the baseline examination of the German COVIDOM/NAPKON-POP cohort

PURPOSE

We aimed to assess symptoms in patients after SARS-CoV-2 infection and to identify factors predicting prolonged time to symptom-free.

METHODS

COVIDOM/NAPKON-POP is a population-based prospective cohort of adults whose first on-site visits were scheduled ≥ 6 months after a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Retrospective data including self-reported symptoms and time to symptom-free were collected during the survey before a site visit. In the survival analyses, being symptom-free served as the event and time to be symptom-free as the time variable. Data were visualized with Kaplan-Meier curves, differences were tested with log-rank tests. A stratified Cox proportional hazard model was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of predictors, with aHR < 1 indicating a longer time to symptom-free.

RESULTS

Of 1175 symptomatic participants included in the present analysis, 636 (54.1%) reported persistent symptoms after 280 days (SD 68) post infection. 25% of participants were free from symptoms after 18 days [quartiles: 14, 21]. Factors associated with prolonged time to symptom-free were age 49-59 years compared to < 49 years (aHR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56-0.87), female sex (aHR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-0.93), lower educational level (aHR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.93), living with a partner (aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-0.99), low resilience (aHR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47-0.90), steroid treatment (aHR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05-0.90) and no medication (aHR 0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.89) during acute infection.

CONCLUSION

In the studied population, COVID-19 symptoms had resolved in one-quarter of participants within 18 days, and in 34.5% within 28 days. Over half of the participants reported COVID-19-related symptoms 9 months after infection. Symptom persistence was predominantly determined by participant's characteristics that are difficult to modify.

Clinical and electrocardiographic correlates of myocardial dysfunction after COVID-19 in nonhospitalised patients in long-term follow-up. Data from the polish long-covid cardiovascular study

Clinical evidence indicates that COVID-19 is a multiorgan disease that significantly impacts the cardiovascular system. However, little is known about the predictors of myocardial dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, this research aimed to evaluate the clinical and electrocardiographic correlates of myocardial dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection in nonhospitalised patients without previously diagnosed cardiovascular disease. This observational study included 448 patients selected from the database of 4142 patients in the Polish Long-Covid Cardiovascular study. All patients underwent a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG); 24-h Holter ECG monitoring, 24/7 ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, echocardiography, and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. According to the results of diagnostic tests, patients were divided into two groups depending on the occurrence of myocardial dysfunction after COVID-19. Group 1-without myocardial dysfunction after COVID-19-consisted of 419 patients, with a mean age of 48.82 (SD ± 11.91), and Group 2 (29 patients)-with myocardial dysfunction after COVID-19, with a mean age of 51.45 (SD ± 12.92). When comparing the analysed groups, there were significantly more men in Group 2 (p = 0.006). QRS (corresponds to the time of ventricular contraction in an electrocardiographic examination) fragmentation (p = 0.031), arrhythmias (atrial fibrillation, supraventricular extrasystole, ventricular extrasystole) (p = 0.008), and male gender (p = 0.007) were independently associated with myocardial dysfunction after COVID-19. The study showed that myocardial damage after COVID-19 affects men more often and is independent of typical clinical factors and the severity of the disease course. The QRS fragmentation and arrhythmias observed in the ECG indicate the possibility of myocardial dysfunction in patients after COVID-19, which may be a valuable marker for physicians.

Effect of glucocorticoids on the development of COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis: A meta-analysis of 21 studies and 5174 patients

COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) remains a high mortality mycotic infection throughout the pandemic, and glucocorticoids (GC) may be its root cause. Our aim was to evaluate the effect of systemic GC treatment on the development of CAPA. We systematically searched the PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus and Embase databases to collect eligible studies published until 31 December 2022. The pooled outcome of CAPA development was calculated as the log odds ratio (LOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random effect model. A total of 21 studies with 5174 patients were included. Of these, 20 studies with 4675 patients consisting of 2565 treated with GC but without other immunomodulators (GC group) and 2110 treated without GC or other immunomodulators (controls) were analysed. The pooled LOR of CAPA development was higher for the GC group than for the controls (0.54; 95% CI: 0.22, 0.86; p < .01). In the subgroups, the pooled LOR was higher for high-dose GC (0.90; 95% CI: 0.17, 1.62: p = .01) and dexamethasone (0.71; 95% CI: 0.35, 1.07; p < .01) but had no significant difference for low-dose GC (0.41; 95% CI: -0.07, 0.89; p = .09), and non-dexamethasone GC (0.21; 95% CI: -0.36, 0.79; p = .47), treated patients versus controls. GC treatment increases the risk of CAPA development, and this risk is particularly associated with the use of high-dose GC or dexamethasone treatment.

Corticosteroids in COVID-19: pros and cons

The wide and rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has placed an unanticipated burden on the global healthcare sector. This necessitated a swift response from the international community to reach a solution. Efforts were made in parallel to develop preventative and therapeutic modalities. Since then, drug repurposing has blossomed as a potentially rapid resolution and has included various agents with anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties. Corticosteroids, being potent anti-inflammatory agents, have been placed under extensive investigation. Various trials have recorded the beneficial outcome of corticosteroids in decreasing the mortality and morbidity of COVID-19. With the high pace of escalating events, the quality and study design of clinical trials are varied. Therefore, this study aims to explore the role of corticosteroids in COVID-19 disease. It inspects the molecular, pharmacologic, and clinical proof behind this theory.

A Comprehensive Review on the Efficacy of Several Pharmacologic Agents for the Treatment of COVID-19

SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), and the cause of the pandemic is extremely contagious among people and has spread around the world. Antivirals, immunomodulators, and other medications, such as antibiotics, stem cells, and plasma therapy, have all been utilized in the treatment of COVID-19. To better understand the clinical efficacy of these agents and to aid in the selection of effective COVID-19 therapies in various countries, this study reviewed the effectiveness of the various pharmacologic agents that have been used for COVID-19 therapy globally by summarizing the clinical outcomes that have been obtained from the clinical trials published on each drug related to COVID-19 infection. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized the use of remdesivir, paxlovid, molnupiravir, baricitinib, tixagevimab-cilgavimab, and bebtelovimab for the management of COVID-19. On the other hand, most research advises against using chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients because they are not beneficial. Although the FDA has given emergency use authorization for some monoclonal antibodies, including bamlanivimab, etesevimab, casirivimab, and imdevimab for managing COVID-19, they are not currently approved for use because the Omicron variant has significantly reduced their in vitro susceptibility. In this study, we also included a wide range of alternative therapy strategies that effectively treat COVID-19 patients, although further randomized studies are necessary to support and assess their applicability.