Comparison of Low-Versus High-Dose Steroids in the Clinical Outcome of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

Effects of Anti-COVID-19 Vaccination and Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis with Tixagevimab-Cilgavimab in Kidney and Liver Transplant Recipients

Background and Objectives: Underpowered immune response to vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 was observed in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. A novel combination of monoclonal antibodies tixagevimab-cilgavimab (TGM/CGM) received authorization as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in those with reduced response to vaccine. We aimed to evaluate the response rate to COVID-19 vaccination in kidney transplant (KT), compared to liver transplant (LT) recipients, and the efficacy and safety of PrEP with TGM/CGM. Material and Methods: Between March and November 2022, adult KT and LT recipients who had completed the vaccination schedule (3 doses) were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies titer. SOT recipients with anti-SARS-CoV-2 titer ≥ 100 IU/mL were considered protected against infection, while those with titer < 100 UI/mL were defined non-protected. Patients with inadequate response were invited to PrEP. Results: In total, 306 patients were enrolled [KT:197 (64.4%), LT:109 (35.6%)]. After the complete scheme of vaccination, 246 (80.3%) patients developed a protective titer, while 60 (19.6%) did not have a protective titer. KT recipients had a lower rate of protective anti-COVID-19 titer compared to LT patients [149 (75.6%) vs. 97 (89.0%), p = 0.004]. Recipients with non-protective anti-COVID-19 titer received mainly tacrolimus-based regimen associated with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (70%) e steroids (46.7%) as maintenance immunosuppression, while those treated with everolimus were associated with higher protective titer. Of 35 (58.3%) patients who received PrEP, within 12 months, 6 (17.1%) (all KT) developed pauci-symptomatic COVID-19 disease, while 15/25 (60%) of non-responders, who did not receive the prophylaxis, developed COVID-19 disease. After PrEP, hospitalization rate was lower (2.8% vs. 16%), and no adverse events, neither graft loss nor rejection, were observed. Conclusions: Despite complete COVID-19 vaccination, SOT recipients might be not protected from the SARS-CoV-2 infection, especially after KT. In non-protected SOT patients, the subsequent pre-exposure prophylaxis with combination of monoclonal antibodies (TGM/CGM) might be an efficacy and safe strategy to prevent COVID-19 severe disease and hospitalization.

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.

Comparison of methylprednisolone pulse vs conventional dexamethasone for adult cases of COVID-19 requiring oxygen; a Japanese retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although dexamethasone is an effective treatment in cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring oxygen, the efficacy of methylprednisolone pulse is unclear. We compared the characteristics and outcomes of methylprednisolone pulse to those of dexamethasone.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study on adult COVID-19 cases requiring oxygen and no invasive mechanical ventilation treated with methylprednisolone pulse (1 g/day for 3 days) or dexamethasone (6 mg/day orally or 6.6 mg/day intravenously for ≥5 days). The primary outcome was intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The secondary outcomes were hospital mortality, length of hospital stay (LoS), duration of oxygen requirement, and requirement for hospital transfer, vasopressor(s), intubation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT).

RESULTS

Twenty two cases of methylprednisolone pulse and 77 cases of dexamethasone were included. Mask ventilation was more common in the methylprednisolone pulse group (P < 0.001). The proportion of ICU admissions was similar between both groups (P = 0.635). The secondary outcomes of hospital mortality and the requirement for hospital transfer, vasopressor(s), intubation, and CRRT were similar between groups. No cases received ECMO. Median LoS (P = 0.006) and duration of oxygen requirement (P = 0.004) were longer in the methylprednisolone pulse group.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of ICU admissions was similar between the methylprednisolone pulse and the dexamethasone group. However, more cases in the methylprednisolone pulse group required mask ventilation than in the dexamethasone group, suggesting that some cases benefited from methylprednisolone pulse.

Antibiotics and Therapeutic Agent Prescription in COVID-19 Management

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, only few therapeutic options have been approved for the treatment of COVID-19 with substantial evidence [...]

Efficacy and Safety of Remdesivir in COVID-19 Positive Dialysis Patients

(1) Background: Immune compromised hemodialysis patients are more likely to develop COVID-19 infections, which increase the risk of mortality. The benefits of Remdesivir, despite less literature support on its effectiveness in dialysis patients due to renal toxicity, can outweigh the risks if prescribed early. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of Remdesivir on the 30-day in-hospital clinical outcome of hemodialysis population with COVID-19 infection and safety endpoints of adverse events. (2) Study design: A prospective quasi-experimental study design was used in the study. (3) Methods: The sample population consisted of 83 dialysis patients with COVID-19 who were administered Remdesivir at a dose of 100 mg before hemodialysis, as per hospital protocol. After the treatment with Remdesivir, we assessed the outcomes across two endpoints, namely primary (surviving vs. dying) as well as clinical and biochemical changes (ferritin, liver function test, C-reactive protein, oxygen requirements, and lactate dehydrogenase levels) and secondary (adverse effects, such as diarrhea, rise in ALT). In Kaplan-Meier analysis, the survival probabilities were compared between patients who received Remdesivir within 48 h of diagnosis and those who received it after 48 h. Cox regression analysis was employed to determine the predictors of outcome. (4) Results: Of the 83 patients, 91.5% survived and 8.4% died. Remdesivir administration did not reduce the death rate overall. Hospital stays were shorter (p = 0.03) and a nasopharyngeal swab for COVID-19 was negative earlier (p = 0.001) in survivors who had received Remdesivir within 48 h of diagnosis compared to those who had received Remdesivir after 48 h. The only variables linked to the 30-day mortality were serum CRP (p = 0.028) and TLC (p = 0.013). No major adverse consequences were observed with Remdesivir. (5) Conclusions: Remdesivir has the potential to shorten the recovery time for dialysis patients if taken within 48 h of onset of symptoms, without any adverse effects.