Corticosteroids in H1N1, non-viral, and COVID-19 ARDS.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kwon KE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9521857 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Corticosteroids in H1N1, non-viral, and COVID-19 ARDS.
Kwon Kyoung-Eun KE Jung Sun-Young SY Baek Moon Seong MS Kim Won-Young WY
Intensive care medicine 20220929 12
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeCorticosteroids are now recommended for patients with severe COVID-19 including those with COVID-related ARDS. This has generated renewed interest regarding whether corticosteroids should be used in non-COVID ARDS as well. The objective of this study was to summarize all RCTs examining the use of corticosteroids in ARDS.MethodsThe protocol of this study was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020200659). We searched online databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDC library of COVID research, CINAHL, and COCHRANE. We included RCTs that compared the effect of corticosteroids to placebo or usual care in adult patients with ARDS, including patients with COVID-19. Three reviewers abstracted data independently and in duplicate using a pre-specified standardized form. We assessed individual study risk of bias using the revised Cochrane ROB-2 tool and rated certainty in outcomes using GRADE methodology. We pooled data using a random effects model. The main outcome for this review was 28-day-mortality.ResultsWe included 18 RCTs enrolling 2826 patients. The use of corticosteroids probably reduced mortality in patients with ARDS of any etiology (2740 patients in 16 trials, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.95, ARR 8.0%, 95% CI 2.2-12.5%, moderate certainty). Patients who received a longer course of corticosteroids (over 7 days) had higher rates of survival compared to a shorter course.ConclusionThe use of corticosteroids probably reduces mortality in patients with ARDS. This effect was consistent between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS, corticosteroid types, and dosage.
| S-EPMC8054852 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7645397 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a type of respiratory failure characterized by lung inflammation and pulmonary edema. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with ARDS in the more severe cases. This study aimed to compare the specificity of the metabolic alterations induced by COVID-19 or Influenza A pneumonia (IAP) in ARDS.MethodsEighteen patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 and twenty patients with ARDS due to IAP, admitted to the intensive care unit. ARDS was defined as in the American-European Consensus Conference. As compared with patients with COVID-19, patients with IAP were younger and received more often noradrenaline to maintain a mean arterial pressure > 65 mm Hg. Serum samples were analyzed by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy. Multivariate Statistical Analyses were used to identify metabolic differences between groups. Metabolic pathway analysis was performed to identify the most relevant pathways involved in ARDS development.ResultsARDS due to COVID-19 or to IAP induces a different regulation of amino acids metabolism, lipid metabolism, glycolysis, and anaplerotic metabolism. COVID-19 causes a significant energy supply deficit that induces supplementary energy-generating pathways. In contrast, IAP patients suffer more marked inflammatory and oxidative stress responses. The classificatory model discriminated against the cause of pneumonia with a success rate of 100%.ConclusionsOur findings support the concept that ARDS is associated with a characteristic metabolomic profile that may discriminate patients with ARDS of different etiologies, being a potential biomarker for the diagnosis, prognosis, and management of this condition.
| S-EPMC8591432 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The effectiveness of corticosteroids in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and COVID-19 still remains uncertain. Since ARDS is due to a hyperinflammatory response to a direct injury, we decided to perform a meta-analysis and an evaluation of robustness of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the impact of corticosteroids on mortality in ARDS in both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. We conducted a systematic search of the literature from inception up to 30 October 2020, using the MEDLINE database and the PubMed interface. We evaluated the fragility index (FI) of the included RCTs using a two-by-two contingency table and the p-value produced by the Fisher exact test; the fragility quotient (FQ) was calculated by dividing the FI score by the total sample size of the trial. Thirteen RCTs were included in the analysis; five of them were conducted in COVID-19 ARDS, including 7692 patients, while 8 RCTS were performed in non-COVID ARDS with 1091 patients evaluated. Three out of eight RCTs in ARDS had a FI > 0 while 2 RCTs out of five in COVID-19 had FI > 0. The median of FI for ARDS was 0.625 (0.47) while the median of FQ was 0.03 (0.014). The median of FI for COVID-19 was 6 (2) while the median of FQ was 0.059 (0.055). In this systematic review, we found that FI and FQ of RCTs evaluating the use of corticosteroids in ARDS and COVID-19 were low.
| S-EPMC8624335 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), extravascular lung water index (EVLWi) and pulmonary vascular permeability index (PVPI) measured by transpulmonary thermodilution reflect the degree of lung injury. Whether EVLWi and PVPI are different between non-COVID-19 ARDS and the ARDS due to COVID-19 has never been reported. We aimed at comparing EVLWi, PVPI, respiratory mechanics and hemodynamics in patients with COVID-19 ARDS vs. ARDS of other origin.MethodsBetween March and October 2020, in an observational study conducted in intensive care units from three university hospitals, 60 patients with COVID-19-related ARDS monitored by transpulmonary thermodilution were compared to the 60 consecutive non-COVID-19 ARDS admitted immediately before the COVID-19 outbreak between December 2018 and February 2020.ResultsDriving pressure was similar between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS, at baseline as well as during the study period. Compared to patients without COVID-19, those with COVID-19 exhibited higher EVLWi, both at the baseline (17 (14-21) vs. 15 (11-19) mL/kg, respectively, p = 0.03) and at the time of its maximal value (24 (18-27) vs. 21 (15-24) mL/kg, respectively, p = 0.01). Similar results were observed for PVPI. In COVID-19 patients, the worst ratio between arterial oxygen partial pressure over oxygen inspired fraction was lower (81 (70-109) vs. 100 (80-124) mmHg, respectively, p = 0.02) and prone positioning and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) were more frequently used than in patients without COVID-19. COVID-19 patients had lower maximal lactate level and maximal norepinephrine dose than patients without COVID-19. Day-60 mortality was similar between groups (57% vs. 65%, respectively, p = 0.45). The maximal value of EVLWi and PVPI remained independently associated with outcome in the whole cohort.ConclusionCompared to ARDS patients without COVID-19, patients with COVID-19 had similar lung mechanics, but higher EVLWi and PVPI values from the beginning of the disease. This was associated with worse oxygenation and with more requirement of prone positioning and ECMO. This is compatible with the specific lung inflammation and severe diffuse alveolar damage related to COVID-19. By contrast, patients with COVID-19 had fewer hemodynamic derangement. Eventually, mortality was similar between groups.Trial registration number and date of registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04337983). Registered 30 March 2020-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04337983 .
| S-EPMC8169440 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Fatal COVID-19 is often complicated by hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Mechanisms governing lung injury and repair in ARDS remain poorly understood because there are no biomarker-targeted therapeutics for patients with ARDS. We hypothesized that plasma proteomics may uncover unique biomarkers that correlate with disease severity in COVID-19 ARDS. We analyzed the circulating plasma proteome from 32 patients with ARDS and COVID-19 using an aptamer-based platform, which measures 7289 proteins, and correlated protein measurements with sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores at 2 time points (Days 1 and 7 following ICU admission). We compared differential protein abundance and SOFA scores at each individual time point and identified 119 proteins at Day 1 and 46 proteins at Day 7 that correlated with patient SOFA scores. We modeled the relationship between dynamic protein abundance and changes in SOFA score between Days 1 and 7 and identified 39 proteins that significantly correlated with changes in SOFA score. Using Ingenuity Pathway Analysis, we identified increased ephrin signaling and acute phase response signaling correlated with increased SOFA scores over time, while pathways related to pulmonary fibrosis signaling and wound healing had an inverse relationship with SOFA scores between Days 1 and 7. These findings suggest that persistent inflammation may drive worsened disease severity, while repair processes correlate with improvements in organ dysfunction over time. This approach is generalizable to more diverse ARDS cohorts for identification of protein biomarkers and disease mechanisms as we strive towards targeted therapies in ARDS.
2025-04-09 | GSE283501 | GEO
Project description:BackgroundThis study compared the ventilatory variables and computed tomography (CT) features of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) versus those of patients with pulmonary non-COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) during the early phase of ARDS.MethodsThis prospective, observational cohort study of ARDS patients in Taiwan was performed between February 2017 and June 2018 as well as between October 2020 and January 2024. Analysis was performed on clinical characteristics, including consecutive ventilatory variables during the first week after ARDS diagnosis. Analysis was also performed on CT scans obtained within one week after ARDS onset.ResultsA total of 222 ARDS patients were divided into a COVID-19 ARDS group (n = 44; 19.8%) and a non-COVID-19 group (all pulmonary origin) (n = 178; 80.2%). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of all-cause hospital mortality (38.6% versus 47.8%, p = 0.277). Pulmonary non-COVID-19 patients presented higher values for mechanical power (MP), MP normalized to predicted body weight (MP/PBW), MP normalized to compliance (MP/compliance), ventilatory ratio (VR), peak inspiratory pressure (Ppeak), and dynamic driving pressure (∆P) as well as lower dynamic compliance from day 1 to day 7 after ARDS onset. In both groups, non-survivors exceeded survivors and presented higher values for MP, MP/PBW, MP/compliance, VR, Ppeak, and dynamic ∆P with lower dynamic compliance from day 1 to day 7 after ARDS onset. The CT severity score for each of the five lung lobes and total CT scores were all significantly higher in the non-COVID-19 group (all p < 0.05). Multivariable logistic regression models revealed that Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was independently associated with mortality in the COVID-19 group. In the non-COVID-19 group, body mass index, immunocompromised status, SOFA score, MP/PBW and total CT severity scores were independently associated with mortality.ConclusionsIn the early course of ARDS, physicians should be aware of the distinctions between COVID-19-related ARDS and non-COVID-19-related ARDS in terms of ventilatory variables and CT imaging presentations. It is also important to tailor the mechanical ventilation settings according to these distinct subsets of ARDS.
| S-EPMC11773838 | biostudies-literature
Project description:SARS-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus that causes acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), death and long-term sequelae. Innate immune cells are critical for host defense but are also the primary drivers of ARDS. The relationships between innate cellular responses in ARDS resulting from COVID-19 compared to other causes of ARDS, such as bacterial sepsis is unclear. Moreover, the beneficial effects of dexamethasone therapy during severe COVID-19 remain speculative, but understanding the mechanistic effects could improve evidence-based therapeutic interventions. To interrogate these relationships, we developed an scRNAseq atlas that is freely accessible (biernaskielab.ca/COVID_neutrophil). We discovered that compared to bacterial ARDS, COVID-19 was associated with distinct neutrophil polarization characterized by either interferon (IFN) or prostaglandin (PG) active states. Neutrophils from bacterial ARDS had higher expression of antibacterial molecules such as PLAC8 and CD83. Dexamethasone therapy in COVID patients rapidly altered the IFNactive state, downregulated interferon responsive genes, and activated IL1R2+ve neutrophils. Dexamethasone also induced the emergence of immature neutrophils expressing immunosuppressive molecules ARG1 and ANXA1, which were not present in healthy controls. Moreover, dexamethasone remodeled global cellular interactions by changing neutrophils from information receivers into information providers. Importantly, male patients had higher proportions of IFNactive neutrophils and a greater degree of steroid-induced immature neutrophil expansion. Indeed, the highest proportion of IFNactive neutrophils was associated with mortality. These results define neutrophil states unique to COVID-19 when contextualized to other life-threatening infections, thereby enhancing the relevance of our findings at the bedside. Furthermore, the molecular benefits of dexamethasone therapy are also defined. The identified molecular pathways can now be targeted to develop improved therapeutics.
2021-10-05 | PXD028429 | Pride
Project description:BackgroundProne positioning is recommended for patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving mechanical ventilation. While the debate continues as to whether COVID-19 ARDS is clinically different from non-COVID ARDS, there is little data on whether the physiological effects of prone positioning differ between the two conditions. We aimed to compare the physiological effect of prone positioning between patients with COVID-19 ARDS and those with non-COVID ARDS.MethodsWe retrospectively compared 23 patients with COVID-19 ARDS and 145 patients with non-COVID ARDS treated using prone positioning while on mechanical ventilation. Changes in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static respiratory system compliance (Crs) after the first session of prone positioning were compared between the two groups: first, using all patients with non-COVID ARDS, and second, using subgroups of patients with non-COVID ARDS matched 1:1 with patients with COVID-19 ARDS for baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static Crs. We also evaluated whether the response to the first prone positioning session was associated with the clinical outcome.ResultsWhen compared with the entire group of patients with non-COVID ARDS, patients with COVID-19 ARDS showed more pronounced improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio [adjusted difference 39.3 (95% CI 5.2-73.5) mmHg] and static Crs [adjusted difference 3.4 (95% CI 1.1-5.6) mL/cmH2O]. However, these between-group differences were not significant when the matched samples (either PaO2/FiO2-matched or compliance-matched) were analyzed. Patients who successfully discontinued mechanical ventilation showed more remarkable improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio [median 112 (IQR 85-144) vs. 35 (IQR 6-52) mmHg, P = 0.003] and static compliance [median 5.7 (IQR 3.3-7.7) vs. - 1.0 (IQR - 3.7-3.0) mL/cmH2O, P = 0.006] after prone positioning compared with patients who did not. The association between oxygenation and Crs responses to prone positioning and clinical outcome was also evident in the adjusted competing risk regression.ConclusionsIn patients with COVID-19 ARDS, prone positioning was as effective in improving respiratory physiology as in patients with non-COVID ARDS. Thus, it should be actively considered as a therapeutic option. The physiological response to the first session of prone positioning was predictive of the clinical outcome of patients with COVID-19 ARDS.
| S-EPMC8343350 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RationaleAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening critical care syndrome commonly associated with infections such as COVID-19, influenza, and bacterial pneumonia. Ongoing research aims to improve our understanding of ARDS, including its molecular mechanisms, individualized treatment options, and potential interventions to reduce inflammation and promote lung repair.ObjectiveTo map and compare metabolic phenotypes of different infectious causes of ARDS to better understand the metabolic pathways involved in the underlying pathogenesis.MethodsWe analyzed metabolic phenotypes of 3 ARDS cohorts caused by COVID-19, H1N1 influenza, and bacterial pneumonia compared to non-ARDS COVID-19-infected patients and ICU-ventilated controls. Targeted metabolomics was performed on plasma samples from a total of 150 patients using quantitative LC-MS/MS and DI-MS/MS analytical platforms.ResultsDistinct metabolic phenotypes were detected between different infectious causes of ARDS. There were metabolomics differences between ARDSs associated with COVID-19 and H1N1, which include metabolic pathways involving taurine and hypotaurine, pyruvate, TCA cycle metabolites, lysine, and glycerophospholipids. ARDSs associated with bacterial pneumonia and COVID-19 differed in the metabolism of D-glutamine and D-glutamate, arginine, proline, histidine, and pyruvate. The metabolic profile of COVID-19 ARDS (C19/A) patients admitted to the ICU differed from COVID-19 pneumonia (C19/P) patients who were not admitted to the ICU in metabolisms of phenylalanine, tryptophan, lysine, and tyrosine. Metabolomics analysis revealed significant differences between C19/A, H1N1/A, and PNA/A vs ICU-ventilated controls, reflecting potentially different disease mechanisms.ConclusionDifferent metabolic phenotypes characterize ARDS associated with different viral and bacterial infections.
| S-EPMC10900651 | biostudies-literature