scholarly journals Systemic Corticosteroids and Mortality in Severe and Critical COVID-19 Patients in Wuhan, China

2020 ◽  
Vol 105 (12) ◽  
pp. e4230-e4239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jianfeng Wu ◽  
Jianqiang Huang ◽  
Guochao Zhu ◽  
Yihao Liu ◽  
Han Xiao ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Systemic corticosteroids are now recommended in many treatment guidelines, although supporting evidence is limited to 1 randomized controlled clinical trial (RECOVERY). Objective To identify whether corticosteroids were beneficial to COVID-19 patients. Methods A total of 1514 severe and 249 critical hospitalized COVID-19 patients from 2 medical centers in Wuhan, China. Multivariable Cox models, Cox model with time-varying exposure and propensity score analysis (inverse-probability-of-treatment-weighting [IPTW] and propensity score matching [PSM]) were used to estimate the association of corticosteroid use with risk of in-hospital mortality in severe and critical cases. Results Corticosteroids were administered in 531 (35.1%) severe and 159 (63.9%) critical patients. Compared to the non-corticosteroid group, systemic corticosteroid use was not associated with beneficial effect in reducing in-hospital mortality in either severe cases (HR = 1.77; 95% CI, 1.08-2.89; P = 0.023), or critical cases (HR = 2.07; 95% CI, 1.08–3.98; P = 0.028). Findings were similar in time-varying Cox analysis. For patients with severe COVID-19 at admission, corticosteroid use was not associated with improved or harmful outcome in either PSM or IPTW analysis. For critical COVID-19 patients at admission, results were consistent with multivariable Cox model analysis. Conclusion Corticosteroid use was not associated with beneficial effect in reducing in-hospital mortality for severe or critical cases in Wuhan. Absence of the beneficial effect in our study in contrast to that observed in the RECOVERY clinical trial may be due to biases in observational data, in particular prescription by indication bias, differences in clinical characteristics of patients, choice of corticosteroid used, timing of initiation of treatment, and duration of treatment.

Author(s):  
Jianfeng Wu ◽  
Jianqiang Huang ◽  
Guochao Zhu ◽  
Yihao Liu ◽  
Han Xiao ◽  
...  

Background: Systemic corticosteroids are recommended by some treatment guidelines and used in severe and critical COVID-19 patients, though evidence supporting such use is limited. Methods: From December 26, 2019 to March 15, 2020, 1514 severe and 249 critical hospitalized COVID-19 patients were collected from two medical centers in Wuhan, China. We performed multivariable Cox models, Cox model with time-varying exposure and propensity score analysis (both inverse-probability-of-treatment-weighting (IPTW) and propensity score matching (PSM)) to estimate the association of corticosteroid use with the risk of in-hospital mortality among severe and critical cases. Results: Corticosteroids were administered in 531 (35.1%) severe and 159 (63.9%) critical patients. Compared to no corticosteroid use group, systemic corticosteroid use showed no benefit in reducing in-hospital mortality in both severe cases (HR=1.77, 95% CI: 1.08-2.89, p=0.023), and critical cases (HR=2.07, 95% CI: 1.08-3.98, p=0.028). In the time-varying Cox analysis that with time varying exposure, systemic corticosteroid use still showed no benefit in either population (for severe patients, HR=2.83, 95% CI: 1.72-4.64, p< 0.001; for critical patients, HR=3.02, 95% CI: 1.59-5.73, p=0.001). Baseline characteristics were matched after IPTW and PSM analysis. For severe COVID-19 patients at admission, corticosteroid use was not associated with improved outcome in either the IPTW analysis. For critical COVID-19 patients at admission, results were consistent with former analysis that corticosteroid use did not reduce in-hospital mortality. Conclusions: Corticosteroid use showed no benefit in reducing in-hospital mortality for severe or critical cases. The routine use of systemic corticosteroids among severe and critical COVID-19 patients was not recommended.


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 773.1-774
Author(s):  
A. Ogdie ◽  
T. Love ◽  
J. Takeshita ◽  
J. Gelfand ◽  
J. Scher ◽  
...  

Background:One of the strongest known risk factors for the development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is psoriasis. A key question is whether treatment of psoriasis may prevent or delay onset of PsA.Objectives:To compare the incidence of PsA among patients with psoriasis treated with a biologic compared to those treated with a non-biologic therapy for psoriasisMethods:We performed a retrospective cohort study in the Optum de-identified Electronic Health Record dataset between 2006-2017. Patients with two or more ICD codes for psoriasis between the ages of 16 and 90, who were initiating an oral medication, a biologic therapy, or phototherapy (defined as no preceding codes for the therapy in the prior 12 months) were identified. Covariates at baseline were determined in the 12 months prior to therapy initiation. The outcome of interest was PsA as defined by one ICD code. The incidence of PsA was described overall and within each therapy group. We analyzed the data in two ways: a) a multivariable Cox model using a time varying exposure (once the patient was exposed to a biologic, they were considered always exposed) derived from automated stepwise regression and b) propensity score matching (greedy matching, caliper 0.1) between biologic-exposed patients and oral/phototherapy exposed patients.Results:Among 215,386 patients with psoriasis without PsA at baseline, 9,848 were excluded for prior biologic exposure, and among the remaining, 60,258 initiated phototherapy, oral or biologic therapy during follow up. Among 22,461 new biologic initiations, 29,121 oral therapy and 8,676 phototherapy initiations, the mean age was lower in the biologics group compared to the non-biologic groups (46.9 vs 50.8), with a similar proportion of females and Caucasians. Observational time was also similar. A total of 1,643, 1,813, and 122 new PsA cases occurred over 60,739, 85,670, and 28,528 person/years (PY) of follow up, respectively (incidence 27.1, 21.2 and 4.2 per 1,000 person years respectively). Using a traditional multivariable adjustment approach with time varying exposure, the age and sex adjusted and fully adjusted HR (95% CI) for biologic users were 1.01 (0.99-1.04) and 0.93 (0.91-0.95), respectively. However, after propensity score matching, the HR (95% CI) was 1.64 (1.51-1.77). Survival curves cross, however, at approximately 8 years (Figure 1) and most of the new diagnoses of PsA occurred shortly after therapy initiation (Figure 2).Conclusion:Confounding by indication or protopathic bias may explain the observed association of biologic therapy with the development of PsA among patients with psoriasis. Some patients may be receiving therapy because they have both psoriasis and early symptoms of PsA or their PsA diagnosis is not recorded appropriately. Given the directional discrepancy in the results between traditional modeling and propensity score analysis, further work is needed to understand the nature of this relationship.FigureFigure 3.Directed Acyclic Graphdescribing potential confounders in relationship between therapy prescription and diagnosis of PsADisclosure of Interests:Alexis Ogdie Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Novartis, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Corrona, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Thorvardur Love: None declared, Junko Takeshita: None declared, Joel Gelfand Grant/research support from: grants (to the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania) from Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis Corp, Celgene, Ortho Dermatologics, and Pfizer Inc., Consultant of: BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Biologics, Novartis Corp, UCB (DSMB), Neuroderm (DSMB), Dr. Reddy’s Labs, Pfizer Inc., and Sun Pharma, Paid instructor for: received payment for continuing medical education work related to psoriasis that was supported indirectly by Lilly, Ortho Dermatologics and Novartis., Jose Scher Consultant of: Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Sanofi., Hyon Choi Grant/research support from: Ironwood, Horizon, Consultant of: Takeda, Selecta, Horizon, Kowa, Vaxart, Ironwood, Robert Fitzsimmons: None declared, Christopher T. Ritchlin Grant/research support from: UCB Pharma, AbbVie, Amgen, Consultant of: UCB Pharma, Amgen, AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Gilead, Janssen, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: Merck, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB Pharma, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Sorono, Avotres and LEO Pharma


2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 290-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucia Sukys-Claudino ◽  
Walter Moraes ◽  
Christian Guilleminault ◽  
Sergio Tufik ◽  
Dalva Poyares

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Ponce-Alonso ◽  
Borja M Fernández-Félix ◽  
Ana Halperin ◽  
Mario Rodríguez-Domínguez ◽  
Ana M Sánchez-Díaz ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose: Classically, men have been considered to have a higher incidence of infectious diseases, with controversy over the possibility that sex could condition the prognosis of the infection. The aim of the present work was to explore this assumption in patients admitted to the ICU with sepsis using a robust statistical analysis.Methods: Retrospective analysis (2006-2017) in patients with microbiologically confirmed bacteremia (n=440) by majoritarian bacterial pathogens. Risk of ICU and in-hospital mortality in males respect to females was compared by an univariant analysis and a propensity score correspondence analysis integrating their clinical characteristics. Results: Relevant differences were related to the infection source: urinary origin for females (28.7% vs 19.8%) and abdominopelvic surgery for males (8.8% vs 4.8%). Sepsis occurred more frequently in males (80.2% vs 76.1%) as well as in-hospital (48.0% vs 41.3%) and ICU (39.9% vs 36.5%) mortality. Escherichia coli was 2 times more frequent in survivors whereas Staphylococcus aureus was 3 times more frequent in deceased patients. Univariate analyses showed that males had a higher Charlson comorbidity index, a poorer McCabe prognostic score; however the propensity score in 296 patients demonstrated that females had higher risk of both ICU (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.13), and in-hospital mortality (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.30) but without statistical significance. Conclusion: Men with sepsis have worse clinical characteristics when admitted to the ICU, but sex has no influence on the prognosis of mortality. Our data contributes to help reduce the sex-dependent gap present in health care provision.


2011 ◽  
Vol 18 (11) ◽  
pp. 1208-1216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth E. Stewart ◽  
Linda D. Cowan ◽  
David M. Thompson ◽  
John C. Sacra ◽  
Roxie Albrecht

Circulation ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 144 (Suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wulfran Bougouin ◽  
Kaci Slimani ◽  
Marie Renaudier ◽  
Yannick Binois ◽  
Marine Paul ◽  
...  

Backgound: Whether epinephrine or norepinephrine is preferable as the continuous intravenous vasopressor used to treat postresuscitation shock is unclear. Objectives: To compare outcomes of patients with postresuscitation shock after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest according to whether the continuous intravenous vasopressor used was epinephrine or norepinephrine. Methods: We conducted an observational multicenter study of consecutive patients managed in 2011-2018 for postresuscitation shock. The primary outcome was all-cause hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were cardiovascular hospital mortality and unfavorable neurological outcome (Cerebral Performance Category 3 to 5). A multivariate regression analysis and a propensity score analysis were performed, as well as several sensitivity analyses. Results: Of the 766 patients included in five hospitals, 285 (37%) received epinephrine and 481 (63%) norepinephrine. All-cause hospital mortality was significantly higher in the epinephrine group (OR 2.6; 95%CI, 1.4-4.7; P =0.002). Cardiovascular hospital mortality was also higher with epinephrine (aOR 5.5; 95%CI 3.0-10.3; P <0.001), as was the proportion of patients with CPC of 3 to 5 at hospital discharge. Sensitivity analyses produced consistent results. The analysis involving adjustment on a propensity score to control for confounders showed similar findings (aOR 2.1; 95%CI 1.1-4.0; P =0.02). Conclusions: Among patients with postresuscitation shock after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, use of epinephrine was associated with higher all-cause and cardiovascular-specific mortality, compared with norepinephrine infusion. A randomized controlled trial comparing the two vasopressors in this population is warranted.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document