Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Corticosteroid Use in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

We conducted a comprehensive literature review to synthesize evidence for the relationship between corticosteroid use and mortality in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

The PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to March 13, 2021. We searched and analyzed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OSs) that examined corticosteroid use in patients with COVID-19. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, while the secondary outcome was the need for mechanical ventilation (MV) and serious adverse events.

Results

A total of 11 RCTs and 44 OSs involving 7893 and 41,164 patients with COVID-19 were included in the study. Corticosteroid use was associated with lower COVID-19 mortality in RCTs, but was not statistically significant (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77-1.07; I² = 63.4%). The subgroup analysis of pulse dose corticosteroid showed survival benefit statistically (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.15-0.56). Moreover, the corticosteroid use may reduce the need for MV (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51-0.90; I² = 7.5%) with no significant increase in serious adverse reactions (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.30-2.37; I² = 33.3%). In addition, the included OSs showed that the pulse dose (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45-0.95; I² = 30.8%) might lower the mortality in patients with COVID-19. The pulse dose of methylprednisolone (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45-0.80; I² = 0%) had a beneficial effect on survival. It was especially significant when the duration of pulse methylprednisolone use was less than 7 days (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43-0.80; I² = 0%).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis indicated that corticosteroid use might cause a slight reduction in COVID-19 mortality. However, it could significantly reduce the MV requirement in patients with COVID-19 and restrict serious adverse events. Additionally, the pulse dose of methylprednisolone for less than 7 days may be a good treatment choice for patients with COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Cui Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8363240 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: Until now, there is no clinically approved specific medicine to treat COVID-19. Prior systematic reviews (SRs) have shown that traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) reduces the number of patients with severe disease and time to fever clearance, promotes clinical effectiveness, and improves chest images and the negativity rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid test. Few SRs arrived at a definitive conclusion, and more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were published. We conducted this study to summarize the latest evidence of TCM in COVID-19. Methods: Eight online databases were searched from December 2019 to July 2020, updated to March 2021. Only RCTs evaluating the clinical efficacy and safety of TCM in the treatment of COVID-19 were included. Primary outcomes were clinical cure and the negativity of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test. Secondary outcomes included clinical deterioration, ARDS, mechanical ventilation, death, time to fever clearance, duration of hospitalization, and chest imaging improvement. Safety outcomes included adverse events and serious adverse events during treatment. Two reviewers selected the included articles, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data independently and in duplicate. Results: A total of 25 RCTs involving 2222 participants were selected in the systematic review, and seven RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that TCM plus routine treatment was significantly better than routine treatment alone in clinical cure (risk ratio [RR] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.04, 1.38], P = 0.01) and chest image improvement (RR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.07, 1.39], P = 0.01) and could reduce clinical deterioration (RR = 0.39, 95% CI [0.18, 0.86], P = 0.02), ARDS (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.11, 0.69], P = 0.01), mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.30, 95% CI [0.12, 0.77], P = 0.01), or death rate (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.09, 0.84], P = 0.02). No significant difference between TCM and routine treatment in the negativity of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test (RR = 1.08, 95% CI [0.94, 1.23], P = 0.29) was observed. Finally, there was no overall significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. The summary of evidence showed moderate confidence of a benefit of 11.8% in clinical cure and 14.0% in chest image improvement and a reduction of 5.9% in clinical deterioration, 25.4% in ARDS, 18.3% in mechanical ventilation, and 4.5% in death with TCM plus routine treatment compared to routine treatment alone in patients with COVID-19. A low confidence of a benefit of 5.4% in the negativity of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test was also observed. Conclusions: Synethized evidence of 21 outcomes in 8 RCTs showed moderate certainty that TCM treatment plus routine treatment may promote a clinical cure and chest image improvement compared to routine treatment alone while reducing clinical deterioration, development of ARDS, use of mechanical ventilation, and death in patients with COVID-19. TCM treatment plus routine treatment may not promote the negativity of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test compared to routine treatment alone. TCM treatment was found to be safe for patients with COVID-19.

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is a type of pneumonia caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection that was identified in December 2019. Corticosteroid therapy was empirically used for clinical treatment in the early stage of the disease outbreak; however, data regarding its efficacy and safety are controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid therapy in patients with COVID-19.MethodsThe PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and China Science and Technology Journal (VIP) databases were searched for studies. Data on clinical improvement, mortality, virus clearance time, adverse events (AEs), utilization of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization, and hospital stay were extracted by two authors independently. Study quality was assessed by the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (cohort studies). The pooled data were meta-analyzed using a random effects model, and the quality of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach.ResultsEleven cohort studies (corticosteroid group vs control group), two retrospective cohort studies (without control group), and seven case studies were identified. A total of 2840 patients were included. Compared with the control treatments, corticosteroid therapy was associated with clinical recovery (RR = 1.30, 95% CI [0.98, 1.72]) and a significantly shortened length of ICU hospitalization (RR = -6.50; 95% CI [-7.63 to -5.37]), but it did not affect the mortality ((RR = 1.59; 95% CI [0.69-3.66], I2 = 93.5%), utilization of mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.35; 95% CI [0.10, 1.18]), duration of symptoms (WMD = 1.69; 95% CI [-0.24 to 3.62]) or virus clearance time (RR = 1.01; 95% CI [-0.91 to 2.92], I2 = 57%) in COVID-19 patients. Treatment with corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19 may cause mild adverse outcomes. The quality of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes.ConclusionThe findings of our study indicate that corticosteroid therapy is not highly effective, but it appears to improve prognosis and promote clinical recovery in patients with severe COVID-19.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate, using meta-analysis, the efficacy and safety profile of Jinhua Qinggan granules (JHQG) in the treatment of novel coronavirus pneumonia.MethodsWe screened multiple publication databases (PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP), using parameters designed to identify articles detailing randomized controlled trials relating to the treatment of novel coronavirus pneumonia with JHQG. The inclusion period for each search was the point of database inception to November 2022. Each piece of literature identified in our initial screening was independently reviewed by 2 researchers, who extracted the relevant data and evaluated the bias risk associated with the study. The data was split in 2: the control group (containing patients who had received routine treatment or placebo) and the experimental group (containing patients treated with JHQG). The meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.4 software. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.ResultsFour articles were selected for this study and combined included a total of 582 patients, which were subdivided into experimental (n = 347) and control (n = 235) groups. The results showed that treatment with JHQG could significantly: enhance the improvement rate of primary symptoms [relative ratio (RR) = 1.26,95% confidence interval (CI) (1.07, 1.49), P = .007] and fever [RR = 1.48, 95% CI (1.07, 2.04), P = .02]; decrease the viral nucleic acid in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) [RR = 2.04, 95% CI (1.15, 3.62), P = .02] and reduce the progression of pneumonia [RR = 0.34, 95% CI (0.17, 0.67), P = .002]. However, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups with regards to: the improvement rate of cough, nausea and vomiting, fatigue, computed tomography, or frequency of adverse reactions.ConclusionsCurrent evidence indicates that JHQG is effective in treating COVID-19, increasing the rate of improvement for fever, increasing the negative rate of viral nucleic acid in patients with COVID-19 and reducing the aggravation rate of pneumonia. These conclusions need to be verified by further rigorous studies, as the existing results were limited by the number and quality of the included studies.

Project description:Objective:Clinical and laboratory biomarkers to predict the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are essential in this pandemic situation of which resource allocation must be urgently prepared especially in the context of respiratory support readiness. Lymphocyte count has been a marker of interest since the first COVID-19 publication. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to investigate the association of lymphocyte count on admission and the severity of COVID-19. We would also like to analyze whether patient characteristics such as age and comorbidities affect the relationship between lymphocyte count and COVID-19. Methods:Comprehensive and systematic literature search was performed from PubMed, SCOPUS, EuropePMC, ProQuest, Cochrane Central Databases, and Google Scholar. Research articles in adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 with information on lymphocyte count and several outcomes of interest, including mortality, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), intensive care unit (ICU) care, and severe COVID-19, were included in the analysis. Inverse variance method was used to obtain mean differences and its standard deviations. Maentel-Haenszel formula was used to calculate dichotomous variables to obtain odds ratios (ORs) along with its 95% confidence intervals. Random-effect models were used for meta-analysis regardless of heterogeneity. Restricted-maximum likelihood random-effects meta-regression was performed for age, gender, cardiac comorbidity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, COPD, and smoking. Results:There were a total of 3099 patients from 24 studies. Meta-analysis showed that patients with poor outcome have a lower lymphocyte count (mean difference - 361.06 μL [- 439.18, - 282.95], p < 0.001; I 2 84%) compared to those with good outcome. Subgroup analysis showed lower lymphocyte count in patients who died (mean difference - 395.35 μL [- 165.64, - 625.07], p < 0.001; I 2 87%), experienced ARDS (mean difference - 377.56 μL [- 271.89, - 483.22], p < 0.001; I 2 0%), received ICU care (mean difference - 376.53 μL [- 682.84, - 70.22], p = 0.02; I 2 89%), and have severe COVID-19 (mean difference - 353.34 μL [- 250.94, - 455.73], p < 0.001; I 2 85%). Lymphopenia was associated with severe COVID-19 (OR 3.70 [2.44, 5.63], p < 0.001; I 2 40%). Meta-regression showed that the association between lymphocyte count and composite poor outcome was affected by age (p = 0.034). Conclusion:This meta-analysis showed that lymphopenia on admission was associated with poor outcome in patients with COVID-19.

Project description:Importance: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly emerging infectious disease that has caused a global pandemic. The presenting symptoms are mainly respiratory symptom, yet studies have reported nervous system involvement in the disease. A systematic review and meta-analysis of these studies are required to understanding the neurologic characteristic of the disease and help physicians with early diagnosis and management. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the neurologic characteristics in patients with COVID-19. Evidence Review: Authors conducted a literature search through PubMed from January 1st, 2020 to April 8th, 2020. Furthermore, the authors added additional sources by reviewing related references. Studies presenting the neurologic features of COVID-19 patients in their data were included. Case reports and case series were also included in this review. The quality of the studies was assessed based on the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. Selected studies were included in the meta-analysis of proportion and the heterogeneity test. Finding: From 280 identified studies, 33 were eligible, with 7,559 participants included. Most of the included studies were from China (29 [88%]). Muscle injury or myalgia was the most common (19.2%, 95%CI 15.4-23.2%) neurologic symptom of COVID-19, followed by headache (10.9%, 95%CI 8.62-13.51%); dizziness (8.7%, 95%CI 5.02-13.43%); nausea with or without vomiting (4.6%, 95%CI 3.17-6.27%); concurrent cerebrovascular disease (4.4%, 95%CI 1.92-7.91%); and impaired consciousness (3.8%, 95%CI 0.16-12.04%). Underlying cerebrovascular disease was found in 8.5% (95%CI 4.5-13.5%) of the studies. Conclusion: Neurologic findings vary from non-specific to specific symptoms in COVID-19 patients. Some severe symptoms or diseases can present in the later stage of the disease. Physicians should be aware of the presence of neurologic signs and symptoms as a chief complaint of COVID-19, in order to improve management and prevent a worsening outcome of the patients.