Combination of low-dose glucocorticosteroids and mineralocorticoids as adjunct therapy for adult patients with septic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies

Effect of hydrocortisone-fludrocortisone combination on mortality in septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study assessed the effect of hydrocortisone-fludrocortisone combination therapy on the mortality of patients with septic shock.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and other databases for articles published until October 1, 2023. Only clinical studies that assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of hydrocortisone-fludrocortisone therapy for the treatment of septic shock were included. The primary outcome was the in-hospital mortality rate.

RESULTS

Seven studies with a total of 90, 756 patients were included. The study group exhibited lower in-hospital mortality rates (40.8% vs. 42.8%; OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.92). Compared to the control group, the study group also had lower intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.95), 28-day mortality (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.00), 90-day mortality (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.71-1.01), 180-day mortality (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.90), and one-year mortality (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42-1.16). Subgroup analyses showed a similar trend, particularly prominent in the pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials, multicenter studies, and ICU patients, the study drug regimen involved hydrocortisone at a dose of 50 mg every 6 h in combination with fludrocortisone at 50 µg daily, with the control group receiving either placebo or standard care. Hydrocortisone-fludrocortisone also increased vasopressor-free days and reduced vasopressor duration, without elevating the risk of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This study emphasizes the potential survival benefits of hydrocortisone-fludrocortisone combination therapy for patients with septic shock and its additional advantages, including reduced vasopressor use.

Problematic meta-analyses: Bayesian and frequentist perspectives on combining randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies

PURPOSE

In the literature, the propriety of the meta-analytic treatment-effect produced by combining randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non-randomized studies (NRS) is questioned, given the inherent confounding in NRS that may bias the meta-analysis. The current study compared an implicitly principled pooled Bayesian meta-analytic treatment-effect with that of frequentist pooling of RCT and NRS to determine how well each approach handled the NRS bias.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Binary outcome Critical-Care meta-analyses, reflecting the importance of such outcomes in Critical-Care practice, combining RCT and NRS were identified electronically. Bayesian pooled treatment-effect and 95% credible-intervals (BCrI), posterior model probabilities indicating model plausibility and Bayes-factors (BF) were estimated using an informative heavy-tailed heterogeneity prior (half-Cauchy). Preference for pooling of RCT and NRS was indicated for Bayes-factors > 3 or < 0.333 for the converse. All pooled frequentist treatment-effects and 95% confidence intervals (FCI) were re-estimated using the popular DerSimonian-Laird (DSL) random effects model.

RESULTS

Fifty meta-analyses were identified (2009-2021), reporting pooled estimates in 44; 29 were pharmaceutical-therapeutic and 21 were non-pharmaceutical therapeutic. Re-computed pooled DSL FCI excluded the null (OR or RR = 1) in 86% (43/50). In 18 meta-analyses there was an agreement between FCI and BCrI in excluding the null. In 23 meta-analyses where FCI excluded the null, BCrI embraced the null. BF supported a pooled model in 27 meta-analyses and separate models in 4. The highest density of the posterior model probabilities for 0.333 < Bayes factor < 1 was 0.8.

CONCLUSIONS

In the current meta-analytic cohort, an integrated and multifaceted Bayesian approach gave support to including NRS in a pooled-estimate model. Conversely, caution should attend the reporting of naïve frequentist pooled, RCT and NRS, meta-analytic treatment effects.

Food Enrichment with Glycyrrhiza glabra Extract Suppresses ACE2 mRNA and Protein Expression in Rats-Possible Implications for COVID-19

Angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is a key entry point of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus known to induce Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We have recently outlined a concept to reduce ACE2 expression by the administration of glycyrrhizin, a component of Glycyrrhiza glabra extract, via its inhibitory activity on 11beta hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 2 (11betaHSD2) and resulting activation of mineralocorticoid receptor (MR). We hypothesized that in organs such as the ileum, which co-express 11betaHSD2, MR and ACE2, the expression of ACE2 would be suppressed. We studied organ tissues from an experiment originally designed to address the effects of Glycyrrhiza glabra extract on stress response. Male Sprague Dawley rats were left undisturbed or exposed to chronic mild stress for five weeks. For the last two weeks, animals continued with a placebo diet or received a diet containing extract of Glycyrrhiza glabra root at a dose of 150 mg/kg of body weight/day. Quantitative PCR measurements showed a significant decrease in gene expression of ACE2 in the small intestine of rats fed with diet containing Glycyrrhiza glabra extract. This effect was independent of the stress condition and failed to be observed in non-target tissues, namely the heart and the brain cortex. In the small intestine we also confirmed the reduction of ACE2 at the protein level. Present findings provide evidence to support the hypothesis that Glycyrrhiza glabra extract may reduce an entry point of SARS-CoV-2. Whether this phenomenon, when confirmed in additional studies, is linked to the susceptibility of cells to the virus requires further studies.