Rituximab for the treatment of acute exacerbation of interstitial lung disease associated with connective tissue disease

BACKGROUND

Acute exacerbation of interstitial lung disease (AE-ILD) is a severe complication with a poor prognosis. No clinical trials have supported the use of rituximab in AE-ILD associated with connective tissue disease.

METHODS

We present a series of four cases in which administration of rituximab was associated with appropriate clinical, radiological and functional progress.

RESULTS

The four patients were alive 30 days after discharge following their exacerbation.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the speed of action, safety and efficacy profile observed for rituximab, we believe that this agent should be further investigated in clinical trials so that it could be included in the daily clinical management of this severe condition.

Prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in a Spanish town: a population-based study

OBJECTIVE

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is western countries' most important cause of hepatic steatosis and hypertransaminasemia. The objective was to evaluate the prevalence of NAFLD among 261025 people in the East Valladolid public healthcare area in Spain.

METHODS

We randomly selected 1800 participants from a public healthcare system card database, representing most of the population. We performed a medical record, measurement of anthropometric parameters, abdominal ultrasound, and blood tests to rule out hepatic disease in all patients. We calculated the FLI score in all patients.

RESULTS

448 participants agreed to participate in the study. The prevalence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in our study was 22,3% [18,5%-26,2%]. Prevalence was highest between 50 and 70 years, increasing with age (p < 0,006). There were no significant differences in sex (p = 0,338). The median Body mass index was 27,2, and NAFLD was related to the weight (p < 0,001) and abdominal perimeter (p < 0,001). Logistic regression analysis showed GGT lower than 26 UI/ml, body mass index higher than 31, and HOMA IR greater than 2.54 as independent factors to predict NAFLD in the sample. NAFLD diagnosis matched with an elevated FLI score in 88% of cases.

CONCLUSION

According to other epidemiological studies, NAFLD's prevalence is very high. A complete study with a clinical consultation, image studies, and blood tests in all patients allows us to assess the prevalence of NAFLD in the population.

Effect of intravenous pulses of methylprednisolone 250 mg versus dexamethasone 6 mg in hospitalised adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: An open-label randomised trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of high versus medium doses of glucocorticoids for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 has shown mixed outcomes in controlled trials and observational studies. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of methylprednisolone 250 mg bolus versus dexamethasone 6 mg in patients with severe COVID-19.

METHODS

A randomised, open-label, controlled trial was conducted between February and August 2021 at four hospitals in Spain. The trial was suspended after the first interim analysis since the investigators considered that continuing the trial would be futile. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive dexamethasone 6 mg once daily for up to 10 days or methylprednisolone 250 mg once daily for 3 days.

RESULTS

Of the 128 randomised patients, 125 were analysed (mean age 60 ± 17 years; 82 males [66%]). Mortality at 28 days was 4.8% in the 250 mg methylprednisolone group versus 4.8% in the 6 mg dexamethasone group (absolute risk difference, 0.1% [95% CI, -8.8 to 9.1%]; p = 0.98). None of the secondary outcomes (admission to the intensive care unit, non-invasive respiratory or high-flow oxygen support, additional immunosuppressive drugs, or length of stay), or prespecified sensitivity analyses were statistically significant. Hyperglycaemia was more frequent in the methylprednisolone group at 27.0 versus 8.1% (absolute risk difference, -18.9% [95% CI, -31.8 to - 5.6%]; p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Among severe but not critical patients with COVID-19, 250 mg/d for 3 days of methylprednisolone compared with 6 mg/d for 10 days of dexamethasone did not result in a decrease in mortality or intubation.

1125. Effect of intravenous pulses of methylprednisolone 250 mg versus dexamethasone 6 mg in hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: an open-label randomized trial

Background

Pulse glucocorticoid therapy is used in COVID-19 infection. We evaluated the

effectiveness of methylprednisolone 250 mg/d for 3 days vs. dexamethasone 6 mg/d for 10 days in patients with severe but not critical COVID-19 pneumonia.

Methods

A multicentre, randomized, open-label, controlled trial was conducted between February 2021 and August 2021 at 4 hospitals in Spain and included 128 hospitalized adults with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia needing oxygen therapy but not critically ill. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive dexamethasone 6 once daily for 10 days or methylprednisolone 250 mg once daily for 3 days. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality.

Results

Of the 128 randomized patients, 125 were analysed (mean age 60 ± 17 years; 82 males [66%]). Mortality at 28 days was 4.8% in the 250 mg methylprednisolone group vs. 4.8 % in the 6 mg dexamethasone group (absolute risk difference, 0.1% [95% CI, -8.8 to 9.1%]; P=0.98). The post-hoc added composite outcome of mortality at 90 days or intubation was 15.9% in the 250 mg methylprednisolone group vs. 15% in the 6 mg dexamethasone group (absolute risk difference, -0.9% [95% CI, -13.8 to 12.3%];P=0.83). Hyperglycaemia was more frequent in the methylprednisolone group, at 27.0 vs. 8.1 % (absolute risk difference, -18.9% [95% CI, -31.8 to - 5.6%]; P=0.007).

Conclusion

Among severe but not critical patients with COVID-19, 250 mg/d for 3 days of methylprednisolone compared with 6 mg/d for 10 days of dexamethasone did not result in a decrease in mortality or intubation.

Disclosures

Carlos Dueñas Gutierrez, MD, ViIV, GILEAD, Jannsen, MSD: Lecture fees.

Immunomodulatory therapy for the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19: A narrative review

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Understanding the physiological and immunological processes underlying the clinical manifestations of COVID-19 is vital for the identification and rational design of effective therapies.

AIM

To describe the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 with the immune system and the subsequent contribution of hyperinflammation and abnormal immune responses to disease progression together with a complete narrative review of the different immunoadjuvant treatments used so far in COVID-19 and their indication in severe and life-threatening subsets.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was developed. Authors reviewed the selected manuscripts following the PRISMA recommendations for systematic review and meta-analysis documents and selected the most appropriate. Finally, a recommendation of the use of each treatment was established based on the level of evidence of the articles and documents reviewed. This recommendation was made based on the consensus of all the authors.

RESULTS

A brief rationale on the SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis, immune response, and inflammation was developed. The usefulness of 10 different families of treatments related to inflammation and immunopathogenesis of COVID-19 was reviewed and discussed. Finally, based on the level of scientific evidence, a recommendation was established for each of them.

CONCLUSION

Although several promising therapies exist, only the use of corticosteroids and tocilizumab (or sarilumab in absence of this) have demonstrated evidence enough to recommend its use in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Endotypes including both, clinical and biological characteristics can constitute specific targets for better select certain therapies based on an individualized approach to treatment.