High-Dose Dexamethasone Versus Tocilizumab in Moderate to Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids in the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

In the realm of acute respiratory infections, coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), poses a global public health challenge. The application of corticosteroids (CSs) in COVID-19 remains a contentious topic among researchers. Accordingly, our team performed a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to meticulously evaluate the safety and efficacy of CSs in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. To explore efficacy of CSs in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, we meticulously screened RCTs across key databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, as well as China's CNKI and Wanfang Data. We focused on assessing the 28 days mortality rates. We evaluated the data heterogeneity using the Chi-square test and I2 values, setting significance at 0.1 and 50%. Data from 21 RCTs involving 5721 participants were analyzed. The analysis did not demonstrate a significant association between CSs intervention and the 28 days mortality risk in hospitalized COVID-19 patients (relative risk [RR] = 0.93; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.84-1.03; P = 0.15). However, subgroup analysis revealed a significant reduction in 28 days mortality among patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 (RR at 0.85; 95% CI: 0.76-0.95; P = 0.004). Specifically, short-term CS administration (≤ 3 days) was associated with a substantial improvement in clinical outcomes (RR = 0.24; 95% CI: 0.09-0.63; P = 0.004), as was longer-term use (≥ 8 days) (RR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.77-0.99; P = 0.04). Additionally, in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, the administration of dexamethasone increased the number of 28 days ventilator-free days (Mean Difference = 1.92; 95% CI: 0.44-3.40; P = 0.01). Methylprednisolone also demonstrated significant benefits in improving clinical outcomes (RR = 0.24; 95% CI: 0.09-0.63; P = 0.004). Our meta-analysis demonstrated that although there is no significant difference in 28 days mortality rates among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the use of CSs may be beneficial in improving clinical outcomes in moderate or severe COVID-19 patients. There was no significant increase in the occurrence of adverse events associated with the use of CSs. Our meta-analysis provides evidence that while CSs may not be suitable for all COVID-19 patients, they could be effective and safe in severely ill COVID-19 patients. Consequently, it is recommended to administer CSs for personalized treatments in COVID-19 cases to improve the clinical outcomes while minimizing adverse events.

Tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the repurposing of medicines has been pursued to find interventions effective in preventing fatal outcome of the disease. One of these drugs was tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 inhibiting monoclonal antibody, previously used to treat several immune-related disorders.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, we present the results of the initial observational studies and subsequent randomized clinical trials on the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in the treatment of COVID-19. Despite conflicting results, possibly due to the heterogeneity of the studied populations, large studies have ultimately proven that preventing IL-6 from attaching to its receptors can effectively reverse the fatal course of the disease. We also discuss the meta-analyses, which mostly supported the validity of tocilizumab therapy. We show how tocilizumab found its place in the most important recommendations on COVID-19 treatment and obtained authorization from the major regulatory authorities.

EXPERT OPINION

The criteria for optimizing tocilizumab therapy in COVID-19 still need to be established. They are also important considering the existing risks of future zoonotic spillovers and epidemics that may trigger hyperinflammation that could be efficiently blocked. The experience gained with tocilizumab shall be perceived as preparedness for future challenges.

Drug repositioning in the COVID-19 pandemic: fundamentals, synthetic routes, and overview of clinical studies

INTRODUCTION

Drug repositioning is a strategy to identify a new therapeutic indication for molecules that have been approved for other conditions, aiming to speed up the traditional drug development process and reduce its costs. The high prevalence and incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) underline the importance of searching for a safe and effective treatment for the disease, and drug repositioning is the most rational strategy to achieve this goal in a short period of time. Another advantage of repositioning is the fact that these compounds already have established synthetic routes, which facilitates their production at the industrial level. However, the hope for treatment cannot allow the indiscriminate use of medicines without a scientific basis.

RESULTS

The main small molecules in clinical trials being studied to be potentially repositioned to treat COVID-19 are chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, favipiravir, colchicine, remdesivir, dexamethasone, nitazoxanide, azithromycin, camostat, methylprednisolone, and baricitinib. In the context of clinical tests, in general, they were carried out under the supervision of large consortiums with a methodology based on and recognized in the scientific community, factors that ensure the reliability of the data collected. From the synthetic perspective, compounds with less structural complexity have more simplified synthetic routes. Stereochemical complexity still represents the major challenge in the preparation of dexamethasone, ivermectin, and azithromycin, for instance.

CONCLUSION

Remdesivir and baricitinib were approved for the treatment of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. Dexamethasone and methylprednisolone should be used with caution. Hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, ivermectin, and azithromycin are ineffective for the treatment of the disease, and the other compounds presented uncertain results. Preclinical and clinical studies should not be analyzed alone, and their methodology's accuracy should also be considered. Regulatory agencies are responsible for analyzing the efficacy and safety of a treatment and must be respected as the competent authorities for this decision, avoiding the indiscriminate use of medicines.

Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19: Equity-related analyses and update on evidence

BACKGROUND

Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. Nonetheless, size of effect, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether and at which doses systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, to explore equity-related aspects in subgroup analyses, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 6 January 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19. We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids and the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care, different types, doses and timings (early versus late) of corticosteroids. We excluded corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality up to 30 and 120 days, discharged alive (clinical improvement), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (clinical worsening), serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 RCTs in 9549 participants, of whom 8271 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 4532 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 3766). These studies included participants mostly older than 50 years and male. We also identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design. Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo We included 11 RCTs (8019 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analyses included outcome data from 10 studies. Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care compared to standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.97; 7898 participants; estimated absolute effect: 274 deaths per 1000 people not receiving systemic corticosteroids compared to 246 deaths per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95% CI 230 to 265 per 1000 people); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.34; 485 participants). The chance of clinical improvement (discharged alive at day 28) may slightly increase (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11; 6786 participants; low-certainty evidence) while the risk of clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death) may slightly decrease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; 5586 participants; low-certainty evidence). For serious adverse events (two RCTs, 678 participants), adverse events (three RCTs, 447 participants), hospital-acquired infections (four RCTs, 598 participants), and invasive fungal infections (one study, 64 participants), we did not perform any analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence (high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting). Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids We identified one RCT (86 participants) comparing methylprednisolone to dexamethasone, thus the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of methylprednisolone on all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.07; 86 participants). None of the other outcomes of interest were reported in this study. We included four RCTs (1383 participants) comparing high-dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) to low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg). High-dose dexamethasone compared to low-dose dexamethasone may reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04; 1269 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of high-dose dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 1383 participants) and it may have little or no impact on clinical improvement (discharged alive at 28 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 200 participants; low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report data on clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death). For serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections, we did not perform analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence. We could not identify studies for comparisons of different timing and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances. Equity-related subgroup analyses We conducted the following subgroup analyses to explore equity-related factors: sex, age (< 70 years; ≥ 70 years), ethnicity (Black, Asian or other versus White versus unknown) and place of residence (high-income versus low- and middle-income countries). Except for age and ethnicity, no evidence for differences could be identified. For all-cause mortality up to 30 days, participants younger than 70 years seemed to benefit from systemic corticosteroids in comparison to those aged 70 years and older. The few participants from a Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic group showed a larger estimated effect than the many White participants. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease There are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality up to 30 days in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19, while the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality up to 120 days. For younger people (under 70 years of age) there was a potential advantage, as well as for Black, Asian, or people of a minority ethnic group; further subgroup analyses showed no relevant effects. Evidence related to the most effective type, dose, or timing of systemic corticosteroids remains immature. Currently, there is no evidence on asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). Due to the low to very low certainty of the current evidence, we cannot assess safety adequately to rule out harmful effects of the treatment, therefore there is an urgent need for good-quality safety data. Findings of equity-related subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution because of their explorative nature, low precision, and missing data. We identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design, suggesting there may be possible changes of the effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future.

Prevention and treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia in COVID-19

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is the most common acquired infection in the intensive care unit. Recent studies showed that the critical COVID-19 patients with invasive mechanical ventilation have a high risk of developing VAP, which result in a worse outcome and an increasing economic burden. With the development of critical care medicine, the morbidity and mortality of VAP remains high. Especially since the outbreak of COVID-19, the healthcare system is facing unprecedented challenges. Therefore, many efforts have been made in effective prevention, early diagnosis, and early treatment of VAP. This review focuses on the treatment and prevention drugs of VAP in COVID-19 patients. In general, prevention is more important than treatment for VAP. Prevention of VAP is based on minimizing exposure to mechanical ventilation and encouraging early release. There is little difference in drug prophylaxis from non-COVID-19. In term of treatment of VAP, empirical antibiotics is the main treatment, special attention should be paid to the antimicrobial spectrum and duration of antibiotics because of the existence of drug-resistant bacteria. Further studies with well-designed and large sample size were needed to demonstrate the prevention and treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia in COVID-19 based on the specificity of COVID-19.

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib and tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A comparison using systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: This review was performed to compare the efficacy and safety among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received baricitinib and those who received tocilizumab independently with placebo or the standard of care (SOC). Methods: Relevant databases were searched for randomized controlled trials which evaluated the effect of baricitinib or tocilizumab as compared to placebo or the SOC in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The primary endpoint was the comparison of the 28-day mortality. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences were compared and pooled for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. A two-staged exploratory network meta-analysis using a multivariate meta-analysis was also performed. All analyses were performed in Stata version 16.0. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the generated evidence (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022323363). Results: Treatment with baricitinib [RR, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.50-0.94), p = 0.02, i2 = 64.86%] but not with tocilizumab [RR, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.71-1.07), p = 0.19, i2 = 24.41%] led to a significant improvement in the 28-day mortality as compared to that with the SOC. Treatment with baricitinib or tocilizumab, both independently led to a significant reduction in the duration of hospitalization [baricitinib: mean difference, -1.13 days (95% CI, -1.51 to -0.76), p < 0.001, i2 = 0.00%; tocilizumab: mean difference, -2.80 days (95% CI, -4.17 to -1.43), p < 0.001, i2 = 55.47%] and a significant improvement in the proportion of patients recovering clinically by day 28 [baricitinib: RR, 1.24 (95% CI, 1.03-1.48), p = 0.02, i2 = 27.20%; tocilizumab: RR, 1.41 (95% CI, 1.12-1.78), p < 0.001, i2 = 34.59%] as compared to those with the SOC. From the safety point of view, both these drugs showed similar results. There were fewer patients who experienced any serious adverse event following treatment with barictinib and tocilizumab as compared to those following treatment with the SOC [baricitinib: RR, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.62-0.92), p = 0.01, i2 = 12.63%; tocilizumab: RR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.72-1.01), p = 0.07, i2 = 0.00%]. Conclusion: As baricitinib and tocilizumab are recommended interchangeably by various guidelines for the management of COVID-19, considering the better 28-day mortality data and other comparable efficacy and safety outcomes, baricitinib may be favored over tocilizumab considering its ease of administration, shorter half-life, and lower cost of treatment.

The effect of immunosuppressive therapy on the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients with COVID-19

Aim: It remains unclear whether immunosuppressive treatments such as corticosteroids and IL-6 receptor blockers have an effect on the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of immunosuppressive therapy on the development of VAP in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Material and Method: Two hundred thirty five patients with critically ill patients with COVID-19, who were treated in the intensive care unit (ICU) and received mechanical ventilator support, were evaluated retrospectively. VAP development, secondary infections, microorganisms isolated, and resistance patterns were compared between the groups that received and did not receive immunosuppressive therapy, and also the groups that did not receive immunosuppressive therapy, received only corticosteroid, received only tocilizumab, and received corticosteroid plus tocilizumab were compared in the subgroup analysis. Results: In the immunosuppressive treatment group, VAP development (40.2% vs. 21.2%; p=0.001), secondary infection development (48.4% vs. 29.2%; p=0.003), at least one drug resistant bacteria growth (46.7% vs. 27.4%; p=0.001), extensively-drug resistant (XDR) microorganism growth (89.8% vs. 72.7%; p=0.033) were higher than the group that did not receive immunosuppressive treatment. VAP (53.3%; p=0.004), secondary infection (73.3%; p=0.0002), the growth of bacteria resistant to at least one drug (70%; p=0.0003) were highest in the corticosteroid plus tocilizumab group in the subgroup analysis. In addition, XDR (95.5% vs. 72.7%; p=0.032) and pan-drug resistant (PDR) microorganism growth (31.8% vs. 9.1% p=0.032) were higher in the corticosteroid plus tocilizumab group than the no immunosuppressive therapy group. There was no difference between the groups in terms of mortality (p>0.05). Conclusion: Immunosuppressive therapy has been found to potentially enhance the risk of VAP and secondary infections in critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia as well as the growth of bacteria resistant to at least one drug, the length of stay in hospital and ICUs. In addition, it has been evaluated that there may be an increase in the growth of XDR and PDR microorganisms when corticosteroid and tocilizumab are used together. Although there was no difference in mortality, using immunosuppressive therapy may require careful use of targeted antibiotics and longer-term antimicrobial therapy.

The Characteristics of Patients with Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia Treated with Direct Hemoperfusion Using Polymyxin B-Immobilized Fiber Column (PMX-DHP)

Purpose

The characteristics of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia who underwent direct hemoperfusion using polymyxin B-immobilized fiber column (PMX-DHP), in addition to steroids and immunomodulators, remain unclear.

Patients and Methods

We conducted a retrospective observational study on 31 patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia treated with PMX-DHP in an intensive care unit (ICU) from December 2020 to September 2021.

Results

Outcomes 28 days after admission to the ICU were 20 in the survival group and 11 in the death group. Parameters significantly different between the survival and death group before PMX-DHP were percentage of invasive mechanical ventilation (25% vs 72.7%, P = 0.0209), PaO₂/F_IO₂ (P/F) ratio (104.5 vs 75, P = 0.0317), and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score (2 vs 3, P = 0.0356). Invasive mechanical ventilation avoidance rate was significantly different between the survival (100%) and death group (0%) (P = 0.0012). P/F ratio, respiratory ratio (RR), and lymphocyte counts improved significantly after PMX-DHP for all patients. The lymphocyte counts changed significantly in the survival (P < 0.0001), but not the death group (P = 0.7927).

Conclusion

PMX-DHP, in addition to steroids and immunomodulators, may improve oxygenation and alleviate tachypnea by modulating the lymphocyte numbers and levels of various mediator against severe COVID-19 pneumonia. It may be better to perform PMX-DHP before multi organ dysfunction and lung injury has progressed. Furthermore, the early increase in lymphocyte counts after PMX-DHP might be an indicate a positive outcome.

Biologics in COVID-19 So Far: Systematic Review

This systematic review aimed to reevaluate the available evidence of the use of biologics as treatment candidates for the treatment of severe and advanced COVID-19 disease; what are the rationale for their use, which are the most studied, and what kind of efficacy measures are described? A search through Cochrane, Embase, Pubmed, Medline, medrxiv.org, and Google scholar was performed on the use of biologic interventions in COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 infection, viral pneumonia, and sepsis, until 11 January 2022. Throughout the research, we identified 4821 records, of which 90 were selected for qualitative analysis. Amongst the results, we identified five popular targets of use: IL6 and IL1 inhibitors, interferons, mesenchymal stem cells treatment, and anti-spike antibodies. None of them offered conclusive evidence of their efficacy with consistency and statistical significance except for some studies with anti-spike antibodies; however, Il6 and IL1 inhibitors as well as interferons show encouraging data in terms of increased survival and favorable clinical course that require further studies with better methodology standardization.