Dataset Information

High-Dose Methylprednisolone Pulses for 3 Days vs. Low-Dose Dexamethasone for 10 Days in Severe, Non-Critical COVID-19: A Retrospective Propensity Score Matched Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Corticosteroids are largely recommended in patients with severe COVID-19. However, evidence to support high-dose methylprednisolone (MP) pulses is not as robust as that demonstrated for low-dose dexamethasone (DXM) in the RECOVERY trial. This is a retrospective cohort study on severe, non-critically ill patients with COVID-19, comparing 3-day MP pulses ≥ 100 mg/day vs. DXM 6 mg/day for 10 days. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and the secondary outcomes were need of intensive care unit (ICU) admission or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis was applied. From March 2020 to April 2021, a total of 2,284 patients were admitted to our hospital due to severe, non-critically ill COVID-19, and of these, 189 (8.3%) were treated with MP, and 493 (21.6%) with DXM. The results showed that patients receiving MP showed higher in-hospital mortality (31.2% vs. 17.8%, p < 0.001), need of ICU admission (29.1% vs. 20.5%, p = 0.017), need of IMV (25.9% vs. 13.8, p < 0.001), and median hospital length of stay (14 days vs. 11 days, p < 0.001). Our results suggest that treatment with low-dose DXM for 10 days is superior to 3 days of high-dose MP pulses in preventing in-hospital mortality and need for ICU admission or IMV in severe, non-critically ill patients with COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Mora-Lujan JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8509662 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

High-Dose Methylprednisolone Pulses for 3 Days vs. Low-Dose Dexamethasone for 10 Days in Severe, Non-Critical COVID-19: A Retrospective Propensity Score Matched Analysis.

Mora-Luján José María JM Tuells Manel M Montero Abelardo A Formiga Francesc F Homs Narcís A NA Albà-Albalate Joan J Corbella Xavier X Rubio-Rivas Manuel M

Journal of clinical medicine 20210928 19

Corticosteroids are largely recommended in patients with severe COVID-19. However, evidence to support high-dose methylprednisolone (MP) pulses is not as robust as that demonstrated for low-dose dexamethasone (DXM) in the RECOVERY trial. This is a retrospective cohort study on severe, non-critically ill patients with COVID-19, comparing 3-day MP pulses ≥ 100 mg/day vs. DXM 6 mg/day for 10 days. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and the secondary outcomes were need of intensive care ...[more]

PMID: 34640481

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is no effective therapy for the severe acute respiratory syndrome by coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) responsible for the Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). To date, dexamethasone has shown a decrease in mortality in patients who require oxygen, especially those with invasive mechanical ventilation. However, it is unknown if another corticosteroid can be used, the optimal dose and its duration, to achieve a better clinical outcome. The objective of the study was to compare the differences in clinical outcome and laboratory results in hospitalized patients with severe SARS-CoV2 Pneumonia treated with dexamethasone at 6 mg doses versus patients treated with high-dose methylprednisolone.Materials and methodsAmbispective cohort study with survival analysis of 216 patients diagnosed with severe Covid-19 pneumonia confirmed by polymerase chain reaction for SARS-CoV2 by Berlin protocol, who were hospitalized in a high-complexity clinic in Medellín, Colombia. The patients should also have supplementary oxygen and radiological confirmation of Pneumonia by chest tomography. Sample size was not calculated since the total population that met the inclusion criteria was evaluated. 111 patients were treated with the institutional protocol with intravenous dexamethasone 6 mg QD for seven to 10 days if they required oxygen. Since September 15, 2020, the hospitalization protocol of the clinic was modified by the Infectious Diseases and Pulmonology service, recommending a high dose of methylprednisolone of 250 to 500 mg every day for three days with a subsequent change to oral prednisone 50 mg every day for 14 days. The protocol was not applied in the intensive care unit, where dexamethasone continued to be administered. The clinical outcome and differences in laboratory results of the patients who received dexamethasone vs. the prospective cohort that received methylprednisolone from September 15 to October 31, 2020, were evaluated. Follow-up was carried out by outpatient consultation one month after discharge or by telephone, inquiring about readmission or living-dead status.Results216 patients had Covid-19 pneumonia documented by ground-glass imaging and alveolar pressure / inspired oxygen fraction (PaFi) less than 300. 111 patients received dexamethasone (DXM) and 105 received methylprednisolone (MTP). Patients in the DXM group evolved to severe ARDS in a higher proportion (26.1% vs 17.1% than the MTP group). Upon completion 4 days of treatment with parenteral corticosteroid, laboratory markers of severity decreased significantly in the group that received MTP, CRP 2.85 (2.3-3.8) vs 7.2 (5.4-9.8), (p-value < 0.0001), D-dimer 691 (612-847) vs 1083 (740-1565) (p-value = 0.04) and DHL 273 (244-289) vs 355 (270.6-422) (p-value = 0.01). After starting the corticosteroid, transfer to the intensive care unit (4.8% vs. 14.4%) and mortality (9,5% vs. 17.1%) was lower in the group that received MTP. Recovery time was shorter in patients treated with MTP, three days (3-4) vs. DXM 6 days (5-8) (p-value < 0.0001). At 30-day follow-up, 88 (92.6%) were alive in MTP vs 58 (63.1%) of those who received dexamethasone.ConclusionsIn this study, the treatment of severe Covid-19 Pneumonia with high-dose methylprednisolone for three days followed by oral prednisone for 14 days, compared with 6 mg dexamethasone for 7 to 10 days, statistically significantly decreased the recovery time, the need for transfer to intensive care and the severity markers C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer and LDH. Randomized controlled studies with methylprednisolone are required to corroborate its effect, and studies in a population hospitalized in intensive care wards.

Project description:Background: It remains unclear whether the short-term benefits of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) accrue to patients with recurrent liver tumors. The present study aimed to report our own center's experience and perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and feasibility of LRH in comparison with open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) for treating recurrent liver tumors. Patients and Methods: A propensity score-matched study was performed including 426 patients receiving LRH or ORH for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma between January 2017 and December 2018. Surgical outcomes and perioperative inflammation-based markers, including monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, and systemic immune-inflammation index were collected from medical records and analyzed. Additionally, a systematic literature review was performed to identify relevant studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane library databases up to October 1, 2020. Information including patient demographics, pathologic characteristics, and short-term outcomes was extracted and analyzed using random- or fixed-effects models. Results: Of 68 LRHs, 57 were matched with an ORH finally. Our study demonstrated that LRH was significantly associated with less intraoperative blood loss (50 vs. 100 mL; P < 0.001), lower rate of hepatic inflow occlusion (10.52 vs. 33.3%; P = 0.003), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (5 vs. 6 days; P = 0.001) after 1:1 propensity score matching. The operation time, rate of blood transfusion, and postoperative complications were similar between the two groups. Moreover, all four inflammation-based markers were significantly lower in LRH group on postoperative day 1. In the meta-analysis, a total of 12 studies comprising 1,315 patients receiving repeat hepatectomy met the selection criteria. Similar to our own study, the meta-analysis showed shorter hospital stay [standard mean difference (SMD) = -0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.79 to -0.22, P < 0.001], less intraoperative blood loss (SMD = -0.79, 95% CI = -1.11 to -0.47, P < 0.001), and lower rate of major postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.19-0.66, P = 0.001] in the LRH group. There was no difference in the field of overall postoperative complication and operation time between LRH and ORH groups. Conclusion: Compared with ORH, LRH results in relatively better surgical outcomes and faster postoperative recovery. It could be considered a feasible and effective option for the treatment of recurrent liver tumors.

Project description:BackgroundEscalation to triple therapy (long-acting muscarinic antagonist/β2-agonist, inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) is recommended for patients on LAMA/LABA combinations with frequent exacerbations and severe symptoms. An extended time-to-escalation to triple therapy suggests patients are in a stable condition and is an indicator of treatment effectiveness. No studies in Japanese clinical practice have compared the effectiveness of LAMA/LABA fixed-dose combination therapies with LAMA monotherapy in terms of time-to-escalation to triple therapy. The primary objective of this real-world study in Japan was to compare time-to-escalation to triple therapy among new users of tiotropium/olodaterol or tiotropium monotherapy for COPD without asthma.MethodsIn this active-comparator cohort study, new users of tiotropium/olodaterol (n = 1436) and tiotropium monotherapy (n = 5352) were identified from a large Japanese hospital-based database (Medical Data Vision Co., Ltd., Tokyo; prespecified study period: 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2019); patients in each group were matched 1:1 using high-dimensional propensity scores (hdPS). The primary outcome was time-to-escalation to triple therapy.ResultsFor the prespecified study period in the hdPS-matched cohort, escalation to triple therapy was infrequent among new users of tiotropium/olodaterol (n = 1302, 7 escalation events) and tiotropium monotherapy (n = 1302, 8 escalation events). The difference in time-to-escalation to triple therapy between groups was not statistically significant (median [interquartile range]: 28 days [15.0-139.2] for tiotropium monotherapy vs 193 days [94.5-302.0] for tiotropium/olodaterol; hazard ratio: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.32-2.46). Similar findings (hazard ratio: 0.71; 95% Cl: 0.36-1.40) were observed in a post hoc analysis, which extended the study period by 1 year to 31 March 2020. Risks of first moderate and/or severe COPD exacerbation were lower for tiotropium/olodaterol than tiotropium monotherapy (between-group differences not significant). There were no significant between-group differences for the risks of all-cause inpatient mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, and first use of home oxygen therapy.ConclusionsICS monotherapy or ICS/LABA added to tiotropium or tiotropium/olodaterol is limited in Japanese clinical settings. The number of escalations to triple therapy was very limited in the dataset and there was insufficient power to detect differences between the treatment groups in the primary hdPS-matched cohort.

Dataset Information

High-Dose Methylprednisolone Pulses for 3 Days vs. Low-Dose Dexamethasone for 10 Days in Severe, Non-Critical COVID-19: A Retrospective Propensity Score Matched Analysis.

Publications

High-Dose Methylprednisolone Pulses for 3 Days vs. Low-Dose Dexamethasone for 10 Days in Severe, Non-Critical COVID-19: A Retrospective Propensity Score Matched Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets