Dataset Information

Systemic administration of glucocorticoids, cardiovascular complications and mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19, SARS, MERS or influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Administration of glucocorticoids might reduce mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 but have adverse cardiometabolic effects.

Objectives

to investigate the effect of systemic administration of glucocorticoids on cardiovascular complications and all-cause mortality in patients hospitalised with respiratory viral infections, including COVID-19, SARS, MERS and influenza.

Methods

We identified randomised trials published prior to July 28th, 2021. The Mantel-Haenszel random effects method and the Hartung and Knapp adjustment were used to obtain pooled estimates of treatment effect with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

No randomised trials of glucocorticoids for SARS, MERS or influenza reported relevant outcomes. We included eleven COVID-19 randomised trials (8109 patients). Overall, compared to placebo or standard care, glucocorticoids were not associated with a reduction of in-hospital mortality (p = 0.09). In a pre-specified sub-analysis, in-hospital mortality was reduced by 19% when follow-up was restricted to 14 days from randomisation (5/11 trials, 1329 patients, p = 0.02). With longer follow-up (9/11 trials, 7874 patients), administration of glucocorticoids was associated with a trend to benefit for those requiring mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.57-1.27) but possible harm for those not receiving oxygen at randomisation (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.00 - 1.61), an effect that was significantly different amongst subgroups (p = 0.0359). Glucocorticoids reduced the risk of worsening renal function by 37% (4/11 trials); reported rate of other cardiovascular complications was low.

Conclusions

Administration of systemic glucocorticoids to patients hospitalised with COVID-19 does not lower mortality overall but may reduce it in those requiring respiratory support and increase it in those who do not.

SUBMITTER: Caiazzo E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8719379 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSubgroup analyses are frequently used to assess heterogeneity of treatment effects in randomised clinical trials. Inconsistent, improper and incomplete implementation, reporting and interpretation have been identified as ongoing challenges. Further, subgroup analyses were frequently criticised because of unreliable or potentially misleading results. More recently, recommendations and guidelines have been provided to improve the reporting of data in this regard.MethodsThis systematic review was based on a literature search within the digital archives of three selected medical journals, The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and Circulation. We reviewed articles of randomised clinical trials in the domain of cardiovascular disease which were published in 2015 and 2016. We screened and evaluated the selected articles for the mode of implementation and reporting of subgroup analyses.ResultsWe were able to identify a total of 130 eligible publications of randomised clinical trials. In 89/130 (68%) articles, results of at least one subgroup analysis were presented. This was dependent on the considered journal (p < 0.001), the number of included patients (p < 0.001) and the lack of statistical significance of a trial's primary analysis (p < 0.001). The number of reported subgroup analyses ranged from 1 to 101 (median = 13). We were able to comprehend the specification time of reported subgroup analyses for 71/89 (80%) articles, with 55/89 (62%) articles presenting exclusively pre-specified analyses. This information was not always traceable on the basis of provided trial protocols and often did not include the pre-definition of cut-off values for the categorization of subgroups. The use of interaction tests was reported in 84/89 (94%) articles, with 36/89 (40%) articles reporting heterogeneity of the treatment effect for at least one primary or secondary trial outcome. Subgroup analyses were reported more frequently for larger randomised clinical trials, and if primary analyses did not reach statistical significance. Information about the implementation of subgroup analyses was reported most consistently for articles from The New England Journal of Medicine, since it was also traceable on the basis of provided trial protocols. We were able to comprehend whether subgroup analyses were pre-specified in a majority of the reviewed publications. Even though results of multiple subgroup analyses were reported for most published trials, a corresponding adjustment for multiple testing was rarely considered.ConclusionCompared to previous reviews in this context, we observed improvements in the reporting of subgroup analyses of cardiovascular randomised clinical trials. Nonetheless, critical shortcomings, such as inconsistent reporting of the implementation and insufficient pre-specification, persist.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The value of neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) in reducing severe clinical outcomes from influenza is debated. A clinical trial to generate better evidence is desirable. However, it is unknown whether UK clinicians would support a placebo-controlled trial. A survey was conducted to determine the attitude of clinicians towards a clinical trial and their current practice in managing adults admitted to hospital with suspected influenza. METHODS:Senior clinicians (n =?50) across the UK actively involved in the care of patients hospitalised with severe respiratory infections and/or respiratory infection research were invited to participate in an on-line survey. Participants were asked their opinion on the evidence for benefit of NAIs in influenza, their current practice in relation to: a) testing for influenza; b) treating empirically with NAIs; and c) when influenza infection is virolologically confirmed, prescribing NAIs. RESULTS:Thirty-five (70%) of 50 clinicians completed the survey. Respondents were drawn mainly from infectious diseases, intensive care and respiratory medicine. Only 11 (31%) of 35 respondents agreed that NAIs are effective at reducing influenza mortality; 14 (40%) disagreed, 10 (28.6%) neither agreed nor disagreed. When managing adults admitted to non-ICU wards with a respiratory infection during an influenza season, 15 (51.7%) clinicians indicated they would usually perform a test for influenza in greater than 60% of patients but only 9 (31%) would treat empirically with NAIs in greater than 60% of patients. Few clinicians would either test or empirically treat patients presenting with other (non-respiratory infection related) diagnoses. If influenza infection is confirmed, 17 (64.5%) clinicians would prescribe NAIs in greater than 80% of patients with a respiratory infection treated on non-ICU wards Thirty-one (89%) clinicians agreed that a placebo-controlled clinical trial should be conducted and 29 (85%) would participate in such a trial. CONCLUSIONS:There is strong support from UK clinicians for a placebo-controlled trial of NAI treatment in adults hospitalised with suspected influenza. Current variation in medical opinion and clinical practice demonstrates collective equipoise, supporting ethical justification for a trial. Low use of NAIs in the UK suggests randomisation of treatment would not substantially divert patients towards placebo.

Project description:BackgroundBecause the general population is largely naive to H5N1 influenza, antibodies generated to H5 allow analysis of novel influenza vaccines independent of background immunity from previous infection. We assessed the safety and immunogenicity of DNA encoding H5 as a priming vaccine to improve antibody responses to inactivated influenza vaccination.MethodsIn VRC 306 and VRC 310, two sequentially enrolled phase 1, open-label, randomised clinical trials, healthy adults (age 18-60 years) were randomly assigned to receive intramuscular H5 DNA (4 mg) at day 0 or twice, at day 0 and week 4, followed by H5N1 monovalent inactivated vaccine (MIV; 90 ?g) at 4 or 24 weeks, and compared with a two-dose regimen of H5N1 MIV with either a 4 or 24 week interval. Antibody responses were assessed by haemagglutination inhibition (HAI), ELISA, neutralisation (ID(80)), and immunoassays for stem-directed antibodies. T cell responses were assessed by intracellular cytokine staining. After enrolment, investigators and individuals were not masked to group assignment. VRC 306 and VRC 310 are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00776711 and NCT01086657, respectively.FindingsIn VRC 306, 60 individuals were randomly assigned to the four groups (15 in each) and 59 received the vaccinations. In VRC 310, of the 21 individuals enrolled, 20 received the vaccinations (nine received a two-dose regimen of H5N1 MIV and 11 received H5 DNA at day 0 followed by H5N1 MIV at week 24). H5 DNA priming was safe and enhanced H5-specific antibody titres following an H5N1 MIV boost, especially when the interval between DNA prime and MIV boost was extended to 24 weeks. In the two studies, DNA priming with a 24-week MIV boost interval induced protective HAI titres in 21 (81%) of 26 of individuals, with an increase in geometric mean titre (GMT) of more than four times that of individuals given the MIV-MIV regimen at 4 or 24 weeks (GMT 103-206 vs GMT 27-33). Additionally, neutralising antibodies directed to the conserved stem region of H5 were induced by this prime-boost regimen in several individuals. No vaccine-related serious adverse events were recorded.InterpretationDNA priming 24 weeks in advance of influenza vaccine boosting increased the magnitude of protective antibody responses (HAI) and in some cases induced haemagglutinin-stem-specific neutralising antibodies. A DNA-MIV vaccine regimen could enhance the efficacy of H5 or other influenza vaccines and shows that anti-stem antibodies can be elicited by vaccination in man.FundingNational Institutes of Health.