Effectiveness of pulse dose methyl prednisolone in management of COVID 19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Mohanty, Rashmi Ranjan; Padhy, Biswa Mohan; Meher, Bikash Ranjan

doi:10.18433/jpps32430

Cited by 15 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Coincidentally, some systematic reviews [ 64 – 66 ] on the same topic have been published recently. One review [ 65 ] published in the form of "Letters" also included the three RCTs analyzed in our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review and meta-analysis of glucocorticoids treatment in severe COVID-19: methylprednisolone versus dexamethasone

Hong

Wang

et al. 2023

BMC Infect Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The preferred agent of glucocorticoids in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19 is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19. Methods By searching the electronic literature database including PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science, the clinical studies comparing methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in the treatment of severe COVID-19 were selected according to the inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria. Relevant data were extracted and literature quality was assessed. The primary outcome was short-term mortality. The secondary outcomes were the rates of ICU admission and mechanical ventilation, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, plasma levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, hospital stay, and the incidence of severe adverse events. Statistical pooling applied the fixed or random effects model and reported as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.1.0. Results Twelve clinical studies were eligible, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nine non-RCTs. A total of 2506 patients with COVID-19 were analyzed, of which 1242 (49.6%) received methylprednisolone and 1264 (50.4%) received dexamethasone treatment. In general, the heterogeneity across studies was significant, and the equivalent doses of methylprednisolone were higher than that of dexamethasone. Our meta-analysis showed that methylprednisolone treatment in severe COVID-19 patients was related to significantly reduced plasma ferritin and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio compared with dexamethasone, and that no significant difference in other clinical outcomes between the two groups was found. However, subgroup analyses of RCTs demonstrated that methylprednisolone treatment was associated with reduced short-term mortality, and decreased CRP level compared with dexamethasone. Moreover, subgroup analyses observed that severe COVID-19 patients treated with a moderate dose (2 mg/kg/day) of methylprednisolone were related to a better prognosis than those treated with dexamethasone. Conclusions This study showed that compared with dexamethasone, methylprednisolone could reduce the systemic inflammatory response in severe COVID-19, and its effect was equivalent to that of dexamethasone on other clinical outcomes. It should be noted that the equivalent dose of methylprednisolone used was higher. Based on the evidence of subgroup analyses of RCTs, methylprednisolone, preferably at a moderate dose, has an advantage over dexamethasone in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review and meta-analysis of glucocorticoids treatment in severe COVID-19: methylprednisolone versus dexamethasone

Hong

Wang

et al. 2023

BMC Infect Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the outcome progression of disease (need for mechanical ventilation in 4 SRs, and admission to ICU in one), low-dose steroids were found as effective as high-dose steroids in 2 SRs [39,42], and more effective than SOC in one SR [44] (from very-low to low certainty of evidence). High-dose steroids were found as effective as SOC in one SR (low certainty of evidence) [44].…”

Section: Steroids Regimensmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2022

infez med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A reappraisal of the validity of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses related to corticosteroids use for the treatment of COVID-19. Material and Methods: An overview of SRs (umbrella review). The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed using tha AMSTAR-2 checklist; quality of the evidence was appraised following the GRADE approach. Results: 35 SRs were included in this overview. Data were from 307 overlapping reports, based on 121 individual primary studies (25 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 96 non-RCTs. In critically ill patients the use of steroids significantly reduced mortality compared to standard of care in 80% of the SRs, more often with moderate/high level of certainty; however, in patients not requiring oxygen supplementation the use of steroids increased the overall mortality in 2/3 of the comparisons. Clinical progression of diseases (need for me-chanical ventilation, or for intensive care admission) was more commonly observed among controls compared to steroids recipients (in 9 out of 14 comparisons; certainty of evidence from very-low to moderate). The occurrence of adverse events was similar among steroids recipients and controls. Other outcomes (i.e., viral clearance, length of hospital stay) or issue related to optimal dose and type of steroids were addressed in a minority of SRs, with a high level of uncertainty, so that no definitive conclusions can be drawn. Conclusions: There is moderate certainty of evidence that corticosteroids reduce mortality and progression of disease in critically ill COVID-19 patients compared to standard of care, without increasing the occurrence of adverse events.

show abstract

“…Pulse dosing of steroids can potentially increase the risk of fatal complications such as aspergillosis/mucormycotic infections, and gastrointestinal, renal, hepatic, metabolic, or coagulation abnormalities [ 6 , 7 ]. Indeed, previous meta-analyses and systematic reviews of observational studies have reported conflicting results regarding the outcomes of high doses of steroid therapy [ 5 , 8 , 9 ]. However, these results are likely affected by numerous confounders and biases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intravenous methylprednisolone pulse therapy and the risk of in-hospital mortality among acute COVID-19 patients: Nationwide clinical cohort study

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Steroids are widely used to modulate the inflammatory reactions associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, the optimal upper limit dose of steroid use for acute COVID-19 care remains unclear and currently available data may suffer from a time-dependent bias of no effectiveness or reversed causation given the desperate situation of treatment during this pandemic. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to elucidate the impact of intravenous pulse therapy with methylprednisolone (500 mg or greater per day) on the risk of in-hospital mortality among patients with COVID-19 by controlling for time-dependent bias. Methods We performed a prospective cohort study with 67,348 hospitalised acute COVID-19 patients at 438 hospitals during 2020–2021 in Japan. The impact of intravenous methylprednisolone pulse therapy on the risk of in-hospital mortality was examined based on hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), with stratification according to the status of invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV). Time-dependent bias was controlled for in a marginal structural model analysis, with reference to patients without methylprednisolone therapy. Results During the study period, 2400 patients died. In-hospital mortality rates of iMV-free patients without or with methylprednisolone pulse therapy were 2.3% and 19.5%, and the corresponding values for iMV-receiving patients were 24.7% and 28.6%, respectively. The marginal structural model analysis showed that intravenous pulse therapy with methylprednisolone was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality among patients receiving-iMV (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.52–0.68). In contrast, pulse therapy with methylprednisolone increased the risk of in-hospital mortality among iMV-free patients (HR 3.38; 95% CI 3.02–3.79). The benefits of pulse therapy for iMV-receiving patients were greater than in those treated with intermediate/higher doses (40–250 mg intravenously) of methylprednisolone (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.71–0.89). Conclusion The results of our study suggest that intravenous methylprednisolone showed dose–response efficiencies, and pulse therapy may benefit critically ill patients with acute COVID-19, such as those requiring iMV.

show abstract

Effectiveness of pulse dose methyl prednisolone in management of COVID 19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Cited by 15 publications

References 29 publications

A systematic review and meta-analysis of glucocorticoids treatment in severe COVID-19: methylprednisolone versus dexamethasone

A systematic review and meta-analysis of glucocorticoids treatment in severe COVID-19: methylprednisolone versus dexamethasone

Untitled

Intravenous methylprednisolone pulse therapy and the risk of in-hospital mortality among acute COVID-19 patients: Nationwide clinical cohort study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About