脉冲甲泼尼龙与地塞米松治疗COVID-19:一项多中心队列研究

Atsuyuki Watanabe, Ryota Inokuchi, Toshiki Kuno, Kazuaki Uda, Jun Komiyama, Motohiko Adomi, Yoshiko Ishisaka, Toshikazu Abe, Nanako Tamiya, Masao Iwagami
{"title":"脉冲甲泼尼龙与地塞米松治疗COVID-19:一项多中心队列研究","authors":"Atsuyuki Watanabe,&nbsp;Ryota Inokuchi,&nbsp;Toshiki Kuno,&nbsp;Kazuaki Uda,&nbsp;Jun Komiyama,&nbsp;Motohiko Adomi,&nbsp;Yoshiko Ishisaka,&nbsp;Toshikazu Abe,&nbsp;Nanako Tamiya,&nbsp;Masao Iwagami","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000886","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although pulse (high-dose) methylprednisolone therapy can hypothetically control immune system flare-ups effectively, the clinical benefit of pulse methylprednisolone compared with dexamethasone in COVID-19 remains inconclusive.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare pulse methylprednisolone to dexamethasone as a COVID-19 treatment.</p><p><strong>Design setting and participants: </strong>Using a Japanese multicenter database, we identified adult patients admitted for COVID-19 and discharged between January 2020 and December 2021 treated with pulse methylprednisolone (250, 500, or 1,000 mg/d) or IV dexamethasone (≥ 6 mg/d) at admission day 0 or 1.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, new ICU admission, insulin initiation, fungal infection, and readmission. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to differentiate the dose of pulse methylprednisolone (250, 500, or 1,000 mg/d). Additionally, subgroup analyses by characteristics such as the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were also conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 7,519, 197, 399, and 1,046 patients received dexamethasone, 250, 500, and 1,000 mg/d of methylprednisolone, respectively. The crude in-hospital mortality was 9.3% (702/7,519), 8.6% (17/197), 17.0% (68/399), and 16.2% (169/1,046) for the different doses, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) was 1.26 (0.69-2.29), 1.48 (1.07-2.04), and 1.75 (1.40-2.19) in patients starting 250, 500, and 1,000 mg/d of methylprednisolone, respectively, compared with those starting dexamethasone. In subgroup analyses, the adjusted odds ratio of in-hospital mortality was 0.78 (0.25-2.47), 1.12 (0.55-2.27), and 1.04 (0.68-1.57) in 250, 500, and 1,000 mg/d of methylprednisolone, respectively, among patients with IMV, whereas the adjusted odds ratio was 1.54 (0.77-3.08), 1.62 (1.13-2.34), and 2.14 (1.64-2.80) among patients without IMV.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Higher doses of pulse methylprednisolone (500 or 1,000 mg/d) may be associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes when compared with dexamethasone, especially in patients not on IMV.</p>","PeriodicalId":10759,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Explorations","volume":"5 4","pages":"e0886"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/5f/ff/cc9-5-e0886.PMC10047604.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pulse Methylprednisolone Versus Dexamethasone in COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study.\",\"authors\":\"Atsuyuki Watanabe,&nbsp;Ryota Inokuchi,&nbsp;Toshiki Kuno,&nbsp;Kazuaki Uda,&nbsp;Jun Komiyama,&nbsp;Motohiko Adomi,&nbsp;Yoshiko Ishisaka,&nbsp;Toshikazu Abe,&nbsp;Nanako Tamiya,&nbsp;Masao Iwagami\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000886\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Although pulse (high-dose) methylprednisolone therapy can hypothetically control immune system flare-ups effectively, the clinical benefit of pulse methylprednisolone compared with dexamethasone in COVID-19 remains inconclusive.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare pulse methylprednisolone to dexamethasone as a COVID-19 treatment.</p><p><strong>Design setting and participants: </strong>Using a Japanese multicenter database, we identified adult patients admitted for COVID-19 and discharged between January 2020 and December 2021 treated with pulse methylprednisolone (250, 500, or 1,000 mg/d) or IV dexamethasone (≥ 6 mg/d) at admission day 0 or 1.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, new ICU admission, insulin initiation, fungal infection, and readmission. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to differentiate the dose of pulse methylprednisolone (250, 500, or 1,000 mg/d). Additionally, subgroup analyses by characteristics such as the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were also conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 7,519, 197, 399, and 1,046 patients received dexamethasone, 250, 500, and 1,000 mg/d of methylprednisolone, respectively. The crude in-hospital mortality was 9.3% (702/7,519), 8.6% (17/197), 17.0% (68/399), and 16.2% (169/1,046) for the different doses, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) was 1.26 (0.69-2.29), 1.48 (1.07-2.04), and 1.75 (1.40-2.19) in patients starting 250, 500, and 1,000 mg/d of methylprednisolone, respectively, compared with those starting dexamethasone. In subgroup analyses, the adjusted odds ratio of in-hospital mortality was 0.78 (0.25-2.47), 1.12 (0.55-2.27), and 1.04 (0.68-1.57) in 250, 500, and 1,000 mg/d of methylprednisolone, respectively, among patients with IMV, whereas the adjusted odds ratio was 1.54 (0.77-3.08), 1.62 (1.13-2.34), and 2.14 (1.64-2.80) among patients without IMV.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Higher doses of pulse methylprednisolone (500 or 1,000 mg/d) may be associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes when compared with dexamethasone, especially in patients not on IMV.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10759,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care Explorations\",\"volume\":\"5 4\",\"pages\":\"e0886\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/5f/ff/cc9-5-e0886.PMC10047604.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care Explorations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000886\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000886","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然假设脉冲(高剂量)甲基强的松龙治疗可以有效控制免疫系统突发事件,但与地塞米松相比,脉冲甲基强的松龙治疗COVID-19的临床益处仍不确定。目的:比较脉冲甲基强的松龙与地塞米松治疗COVID-19的疗效。设计环境和参与者:使用日本多中心数据库,我们确定了2020年1月至2021年12月期间因COVID-19入院并出院的成年患者,在入院第0或1天接受了脉冲甲泼尼龙(250、500或1000 mg/d)或静脉地塞米松(≥6 mg/d)治疗。主要结局和测量:主要结局为住院死亡率。次要结局为30天死亡率、新ICU入院、胰岛素起始、真菌感染和再入院。采用多变量logistic回归来区分脉冲甲基强的松龙的剂量(250、500或1000 mg/d)。此外,根据有创机械通气(IMV)的需要等特征进行亚组分析。结果:共有7519例、197例、399例和1046例患者分别接受了地塞米松、250、500和1000 mg/d的甲基强的松龙治疗。不同剂量的粗院内死亡率分别为9.3%(702/ 7519)、8.6%(17/197)、17.0%(68/399)和16.2%(169/ 1046)。与开始使用地塞米松的患者相比,开始使用250 mg/d、500 mg/d和1,000 mg/d甲基强的松的调整优势比(95% CI)分别为1.26(0.69-2.29)、1.48(1.07-2.04)和1.75(1.40-2.19)。在亚组分析中,在IMV患者中,250、500和1,000 mg/d甲基强的松龙的住院死亡率校正比值比分别为0.78(0.25-2.47)、1.12(0.55-2.27)和1.04(0.68-1.57),而在无IMV患者中,校正比值比分别为1.54(0.77-3.08)、1.62(1.13-2.34)和2.14(1.64-2.80)。结论和相关性:与地塞米松相比,高剂量的脉冲甲基强的松龙(500或1000 mg/d)可能与更差的COVID-19结局相关,特别是在未接受IMV治疗的患者中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Pulse Methylprednisolone Versus Dexamethasone in COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

Pulse Methylprednisolone Versus Dexamethasone in COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

Although pulse (high-dose) methylprednisolone therapy can hypothetically control immune system flare-ups effectively, the clinical benefit of pulse methylprednisolone compared with dexamethasone in COVID-19 remains inconclusive.

Objectives: To compare pulse methylprednisolone to dexamethasone as a COVID-19 treatment.

Design setting and participants: Using a Japanese multicenter database, we identified adult patients admitted for COVID-19 and discharged between January 2020 and December 2021 treated with pulse methylprednisolone (250, 500, or 1,000 mg/d) or IV dexamethasone (≥ 6 mg/d) at admission day 0 or 1.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, new ICU admission, insulin initiation, fungal infection, and readmission. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to differentiate the dose of pulse methylprednisolone (250, 500, or 1,000 mg/d). Additionally, subgroup analyses by characteristics such as the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were also conducted.

Results: A total of 7,519, 197, 399, and 1,046 patients received dexamethasone, 250, 500, and 1,000 mg/d of methylprednisolone, respectively. The crude in-hospital mortality was 9.3% (702/7,519), 8.6% (17/197), 17.0% (68/399), and 16.2% (169/1,046) for the different doses, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) was 1.26 (0.69-2.29), 1.48 (1.07-2.04), and 1.75 (1.40-2.19) in patients starting 250, 500, and 1,000 mg/d of methylprednisolone, respectively, compared with those starting dexamethasone. In subgroup analyses, the adjusted odds ratio of in-hospital mortality was 0.78 (0.25-2.47), 1.12 (0.55-2.27), and 1.04 (0.68-1.57) in 250, 500, and 1,000 mg/d of methylprednisolone, respectively, among patients with IMV, whereas the adjusted odds ratio was 1.54 (0.77-3.08), 1.62 (1.13-2.34), and 2.14 (1.64-2.80) among patients without IMV.

Conclusions and relevance: Higher doses of pulse methylprednisolone (500 or 1,000 mg/d) may be associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes when compared with dexamethasone, especially in patients not on IMV.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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