Higher, but Not Too High, Dose Is Only One Determinant of Corticosteroid Treatment Success in Severe COVID-19.

IF 6.8 2区 医学 Q1 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Francesco Salton, Paola Confalonieri, Chiara Torregiani, Barbara Ruaro, Marco Confalonieri
{"title":"Higher, but Not Too High, Dose Is Only One Determinant of Corticosteroid Treatment Success in Severe COVID-19.","authors":"Francesco Salton,&nbsp;Paola Confalonieri,&nbsp;Chiara Torregiani,&nbsp;Barbara Ruaro,&nbsp;Marco Confalonieri","doi":"10.1513/AnnalsATS.202304-329LE","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We read with interest the study from Pitre and colleagues, who systematically reviewed 20 randomized controlled trials published through August 2022, concluding that higher doses of corticosteroids (CSs) probably reduce mortality (relative risk, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85–0.98) and the need for mechanical ventilation (relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.87–1.03) compared with lower doses in severe-to-critical coronavirus disease (COVID-19), without significantly impacting either the duration of hospitalization or the incidence of nosocomial infections (1). These results are mostly aligned with those of our recent randomized controlled trial investigating methylprednisolone 80mg as a continuous daily infusion for 8days followed by slow tapering, versus dexamethasone 6mg daily for 10 days in a similar population (2). However, their results need to be interpreted comprehensively before being transferred into clinical practice, as possible misinterpretations may lead to hazardous conclusions. First, the authors defined “higher” and “lower” doses in a comparative fashion, referring to 12mg of dexamethasone equivalent daily for 10 days as the former and to 6mg of dexamethasone equivalent daily for 10 days as the latter. However, both these dosages and administration schedules fall within the prolonged, paraphysiological, low-to-intermediate dose (i.e.,<1mg of prednisone equivalent/kg/d for at least 8–10 d) CS treatment conception that has shown the greatest efficacy in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (3). On the contrary, short courses (<3 d) of truly high doses (10–30mg of prednisone equivalent/kg/d) of CSs have proven detrimental in both septic shock and ARDS—including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)related ARDS—because of inflammatory rebound after discontinuation (4). Second, there is now substantial evidence of a proportional benefit of CSs for patients requiring higher-intensity respiratory support modalities (i.e., mechanical ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula) rather than lower-intensity ones (i.e., low-flow oxygen therapy), as opposed to the increased mortality observed among patients not requiring any respiratory support (5). Therefore, we highlight that the findings of this study can only be generalized to patients affected by moderate-to-severe COVID-19 and not by COVID-19 of any severity. Third, different patients receiving the same CS protocol may experience different disease progression and outcomes. This provides a rationale for dose and duration adjustments based on clinical and laboratory responses, as a higher dose may overcome a decreased sensitivity to CSs in the most critically ill patients (3). Indeed, both traditional and Bayesian analyses conducted within the COVID STEROID 2 trial suggest that 12mg of dexamethasone/d might benefit patients who require high levels of respiratory support more than 6mg of dexamethasone/d (6). Therefore, some clinicians might choose to titrate CS treatment, increasing its dose and/or duration when patients require endotracheal intubation as a result of noninvasive respiratory support strategy failure.","PeriodicalId":8018,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the American Thoracic Society","volume":"20 9","pages":"1371"},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d7/48/AnnalsATS.202304-329LE.PMC10502891.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the American Thoracic Society","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202304-329LE","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

We read with interest the study from Pitre and colleagues, who systematically reviewed 20 randomized controlled trials published through August 2022, concluding that higher doses of corticosteroids (CSs) probably reduce mortality (relative risk, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85–0.98) and the need for mechanical ventilation (relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.87–1.03) compared with lower doses in severe-to-critical coronavirus disease (COVID-19), without significantly impacting either the duration of hospitalization or the incidence of nosocomial infections (1). These results are mostly aligned with those of our recent randomized controlled trial investigating methylprednisolone 80mg as a continuous daily infusion for 8days followed by slow tapering, versus dexamethasone 6mg daily for 10 days in a similar population (2). However, their results need to be interpreted comprehensively before being transferred into clinical practice, as possible misinterpretations may lead to hazardous conclusions. First, the authors defined “higher” and “lower” doses in a comparative fashion, referring to 12mg of dexamethasone equivalent daily for 10 days as the former and to 6mg of dexamethasone equivalent daily for 10 days as the latter. However, both these dosages and administration schedules fall within the prolonged, paraphysiological, low-to-intermediate dose (i.e.,<1mg of prednisone equivalent/kg/d for at least 8–10 d) CS treatment conception that has shown the greatest efficacy in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (3). On the contrary, short courses (<3 d) of truly high doses (10–30mg of prednisone equivalent/kg/d) of CSs have proven detrimental in both septic shock and ARDS—including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)related ARDS—because of inflammatory rebound after discontinuation (4). Second, there is now substantial evidence of a proportional benefit of CSs for patients requiring higher-intensity respiratory support modalities (i.e., mechanical ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula) rather than lower-intensity ones (i.e., low-flow oxygen therapy), as opposed to the increased mortality observed among patients not requiring any respiratory support (5). Therefore, we highlight that the findings of this study can only be generalized to patients affected by moderate-to-severe COVID-19 and not by COVID-19 of any severity. Third, different patients receiving the same CS protocol may experience different disease progression and outcomes. This provides a rationale for dose and duration adjustments based on clinical and laboratory responses, as a higher dose may overcome a decreased sensitivity to CSs in the most critically ill patients (3). Indeed, both traditional and Bayesian analyses conducted within the COVID STEROID 2 trial suggest that 12mg of dexamethasone/d might benefit patients who require high levels of respiratory support more than 6mg of dexamethasone/d (6). Therefore, some clinicians might choose to titrate CS treatment, increasing its dose and/or duration when patients require endotracheal intubation as a result of noninvasive respiratory support strategy failure.
在重症COVID-19中,较高但不过高的剂量只是皮质类固醇治疗成功的一个决定因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Annals of the American Thoracic Society
Annals of the American Thoracic Society Medicine-Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
CiteScore
9.30
自引率
3.60%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Annals of the American Thoracic Society (AnnalsATS) is the official international online journal of the American Thoracic Society. Formerly known as PATS, it provides comprehensive and authoritative coverage of a wide range of topics in adult and pediatric pulmonary medicine, respiratory sleep medicine, and adult medical critical care. As a leading journal in its field, AnnalsATS offers up-to-date and reliable information that is directly applicable to clinical practice. It serves as a valuable resource for clinical specialists, supporting their formative and continuing education. Additionally, the journal is committed to promoting public health by publishing research and articles that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in these fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信