Dataset Information

High-Dose Intravenous Immunoglobulin in Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Multicenter Retrospective Study in China.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The effective treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. We reported successful use of high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) in cases of severe COVID-19, but evidence from larger case series is still lacking.

Methods

A multi-center retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of IVIg administered within two weeks of disease onset at a total dose of 2 g/kg body weight, in addition to standard care. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. Efficacy of high-dose IVIg was assessed by using the Cox proportional hazards regression model and the Kaplan-Meier curve adjusted by inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis, and IPTW after multiple imputation (MI) analysis.

Results

Overall, 26 patients who received high-dose IVIg with standard therapy and 89 patients who received standard therapy only were enrolled in this study. The IVIg group was associated with a lower 28-day mortality rate and less time to normalization of inflammatory markers including IL-6, IL-10, and ferritin compared with the control. The adjusted HR of 28-day mortality in high-dose IVIg group was 0.24 (95% CI 0.06-0.99, p<0.001) in IPTW model, and 0.27 (95% CI 0.10-0.57, p=0.031) in IPTW-MI model. In subgroup analysis, patients with no comorbidities or treated in the first week of disease were associated with more benefit from high-dose IVIg.

Conclusions

High-dose IVIg administered in severe COVID-19 patients within 14 days of onset was linked to reduced 28-day mortality, more prominent with those having no comorbidities or treated at earlier stage.

SUBMITTER: Cao W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7933558 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Dysregulated neutrophil and platelet interactions mediate immunothrombosis and cause lung injury in coronavirus disease 2019. IV immunoglobulin modulates neutrophil activation through Fc?RIII binding. We hypothesized that early therapy with IV immunoglobulin would abrogate immunothrombosis and improve oxygenation and reduce progression to mechanical ventilation in coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia. Design:Prospective randomized open label. Setting:Inpatient hospital. Patients and Intervention:Hypoxic subjects with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia were randomized 1:1 to receive standard of care plus IV immunoglobulin 0.5?g/kg/d with methylprednisolone 40?mg 30 minutes before infusion for 3 days versus standard of care alone. Main Results:Sixteen subjects received IV immunoglobulin and 17 standard of care. Median ages were 51 and 58 years for standard of care and IV immunoglobulin, respectively. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and Charlson comorbidity scores were similar for IV immunoglobulin and standard of care. Seven standard of care versus two IV immunoglobulin subjects required mechanical ventilation (p = 0.12, Fisher exact test). Among subjects with A-a gradient of greater than 200?mm Hg at enrollment, the IV immunoglobulin group showed: 1) a lower rate of progression to requiring mechanical ventilation (2/14 vs 7/12, p = 0.038 Fisher exact test), 2) shorter median hospital length of stay (11 vs 19 d, p = 0.01 Mann Whitney U test), 3) shorter median ICU stay (2.5 vs 12.5 d, p = 0.006 Mann Whitey U test), and 4) greater improvement in Pao2/Fio2 at 7 days (median [range] change from time of enrollment +131 [+35 to +330] vs +44·5 [-115 to +157], p = 0.01, Mann Whitney U test) than standard of care. Pao2/Fio2 improvement at day 7 was significantly less for the standard of care patients who received glucocorticoid therapy than those in the IV immunoglobulin arm (p = 0.0057, Mann Whiney U test). Conclusions:This pilot study showed that IV immunoglobulin significantly improved hypoxia and reduced hospital length of stay and progression to mechanical ventilation in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with A-a gradient greater than 200?mm Hg. A phase 3 multicenter randomized double-blinded clinical trial is under way to validate these findings.

Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has infected people in many countries worldwide. Discovering an effective treatment for this disease, particularly in severe cases, has become the subject of intense scientific investigation. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) in patients with severe COVID-19 infection.MethodsThis study was conducted as a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trial. Fifty-nine patients with severe COVID-19 infection who did not respond to initial treatments were randomly assigned into two groups. One group received IVIg (human)-four vials daily for 3 days (in addition to initial treatment), while the other group received a placebo. Patients' demographic, clinical, and select laboratory test results, as well as the occurrence of in-hospital mortality, were recorded.ResultsAmong total study subjects, 30 patients received IVIg and 29 patients received a placebo. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and laboratory tests were not statistically different (P > 0.05) between the two groups. The in-hospital mortality rate was significantly lower in the IVIg group compared to the control group (6 [20.0%] vs. 14 [48.3%], respectively; P = 0.022). Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that administration of IVIg did indeed have a significant impact on mortality rate (aOR = 0.003 [95% CI: 0.001-0.815]; P = 0.042).ConclusionsOur study demonstrated that the administration of IVIg in patients with severe COVID-19 infection who did not respond to initial treatment could improve their clinical outcome and significantly reduce mortality rate. Further multicenter studies with larger sample sizes are nonetheless required to confirm the appropriateness of this medication as a standard treatment.Trial registrationA study protocol was registered at the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials ( www.IRCT.ir ), number IRCT20200501047259N1 . It was registered retrospectively on May 17th, 2020.

Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. Although it is known that the COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is associated with higher incidence of pulmonary barotrauma, unique mechanisms causing the aforementioned complication are still to be investigated. The goal of this research was to investigate the incidence of barotrauma among COVID-19 patients treated in the intensive care unit (ICU) and to examine different clinical outcomes among those subjects. This retrospective observational cohort study included adult COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU from September 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022. All admitted subjects received invasive respiratory support. Subjects were divided into two groups based on occurrence of pulmonary barotrauma. Data were collected from available electronical medical records. In the study period, a total of 900 subjects met inclusion criteria. Pulmonary barotrauma occurred in 88 (9.8%) of them. Subcutaneous emphysema developed in 73 (83%), pneumomediastinum in 68 (77.3%) and pneumothorax in 54 (61.4%) subjects. A small group of subjects developed less common complications like pneumoperitoneum (8 subjects, 9.1%) and pneumopericardium (2 subjects, 2.3%). Survival rate was higher in control than in barotrauma group [396 (48.8%) vs. 22 (25.0%), P<0.05]. There was also a significant difference between two groups in PaO2/FiO2 ratio on admission, duration of non-invasive respiratory support before mechanical ventilation, duration of mechanical ventilation and duration of ICU and hospital stay, all in favour of control group. Development of barotrauma in patients with severe forms of COVID-19 disease and in need of respiratory support is associated with longer ICU and hospital stay as well as lower survival rates at hospital discharge. Further efforts are needed in understanding mechanism in developing barotrauma and finding new prevention and treatment options.

Project description:ObjectivesAn ongoing outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 is spreading globally. Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is the most common complication of coronavirus disease 2019. However, the clinical effectiveness of early high-flow nasal oxygen treatment in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure has not been explored. This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of high-flow nasal oxygen treatment and to identify the variables predicting high-flow nasal oxygen treatment failure in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.DesignA multicenter, retrospective cohort study.SettingThree tertiary hospitals in Wuhan, China.PatientsForty-three confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with high-flow nasal oxygen.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsMean age of the enrolled patients was 63.0 ± 9.7 years; female patients accounted for 41.9%. High-flow nasal oxygen failure (defined as upgrading respiratory support to positive pressure ventilation or death) was observed in 20 patients (46.5%), of which 13 (30.2%) required endotracheal intubation. Patients with high-flow nasal oxygen success had a higher median oxygen saturation (96.0% vs 93.0%; p < 0.001) at admission than those with high-flow nasal oxygen failure. High-flow nasal oxygen failure was more likely in patients who were older (p = 0.030) and male (p = 0.037), had a significant increase in respiratory rate and a significant decrease in the ratio of oxygen saturation/FIO2 to respiratory rate index within 3 days of high-flow nasal oxygen treatment. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis model, male and lower oxygen saturation at admission remained independent predictors of high-flow nasal oxygen failure. The hospital mortality rate of the cohort was 32.5%; however, the hospital mortality rate in patients with high-flow nasal oxygen failure was 65%.ConclusionsHigh-flow nasal oxygen may be effective for treating coronavirus disease 2019 patients with mild to moderate acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, high-flow nasal oxygen failure was associated with a poor prognosis. Male and lower oxygenation at admission were the two strong predictors of high-flow nasal oxygen failure.