Search

Objective: To describe the impact of different doses of corticosteroids on the evolution of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, based on the potential benefit of the non-genomic mechanism of these drugs at higher doses. Methods: Observational study using data collected from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. We evaluated the epidemiological, radiological and analytical scenario between patients treated with megadoses therapy of corticosteroids vs low-dose of corticosteroids and the development of complications. The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality according to use of corticosteroids megadoses. Results: Of a total of 14,921 patients, corticosteroids were used in 5,262 (35.3%). Of them, 2,216 (46%) specifically received megadoses. Age was a factor that differed between those who received megadoses therapy versus those who did not in a significant manner (69 years [IQR 59–79] vs 73 years [IQR 61–83]; p <.001). Radiological and analytical findings showed a higher use of megadoses therapy among patients with an interstitial infiltrate and elevated inflammatory markers associated with COVID-19. In the univariate study it appears that steroid use is associated with increased mortality (OR 2.07 95% CI 1.91–2.24 p <.001) and megadose use with increased survival (OR 0.84 95% CI 0.75–0.96, p 0.011), but when adjusting for possible confounding factors, it is observed that the use of megadoses is also associated with higher mortality (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.32–1.80; p <.001). There is no difference between megadoses and low-dose (p.298). Although, there are differences in the use of megadoses versus low-dose in terms of complications, mainly infectious, with fewer pneumonias and sepsis in the megadoses group (OR 0.82 95% CI 0.71–0.95; p <.001 and OR 0.80 95% CI 0.65–0.97; p <.001) respectively. Conclusion: There is no difference in mortality with megadoses versus low-dose, but there is a lower incidence of infectious complications with glucocorticoid megadoses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Whether immunosuppressed (IS) patients have a worse prognosis of COVID-19 compared to non-IS patients is not known. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical characteristics and outcome of IS patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared to non-IS patients. Methods: We designed a retrospective cohort study. We included all patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, a large multicentre national cohort in Spain, from March 27th until June 19th, 2020. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of in-hospital death among IS compared to non-IS patients. Results: Among 13 206 included patients, 2 111 (16.0%) were IS. A total of 166 (1.3%) patients had solid organ (SO) transplant, 1081 (8.2%) had SO neoplasia, 332 (2.5%) had hematologic neoplasia, and 570 (4.3%), 183 (1.4%) and 394 (3.0%) were receiving systemic steroids, biological treatments, and immunosuppressors, respectively. Compared to non-IS patients, the aOR (95% CI) for in-hospital death was 1.60 (1.43–1.79) for all IS patients, 1.39 (1.18–1.63) for patients with SO cancer, 2.31 (1.76–3.03) for patients with haematological cancer and 3.12 (2.23–4.36) for patients with SO transplant. The aOR (95% CI) for death for patients who were receiving systemic steroids, biological treatments and immunosuppressors compared to non-IS patients were 2.16 (1.80–2.61), 1.97 (1.33–2.91) and 2.06 (1.64–2.60), respectively. IS patients had a higher odds than non-IS patients of in-hospital acute respiratory distress syndrome, heart failure, myocarditis, thromboembolic disease and multiorgan failure. Conclusions: IS patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have a higher odds of in-hospital complications and death compared to non-IS patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Passive immunotherapy has been evaluated as a therapeutic alternative for patients with COVID-19 disease. Equine polyclonal immunotherapy for COVID-19 (EPIC) showed adequate safety and potential efficacy in a clinical trial setting and obtained emergency use authorization in Argentina. We studied its utility in a real world setting with a larger population., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at "Hospital de Campaña Escuela-Hogar" (HCEH) in Corrientes, Argentina, to assess safety and effectiveness of EPIC in hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Primary endpoints were 28-days all-cause mortality and safety. Mortality and improvement in modified WHO clinical scale at 14 and 21 days were secondary endpoints. Potential confounder adjustment was made by logistic regression weighted by the inverse of the probability of receiving the treatment (IPTW) and doubly robust approach., Findings: Subsequent clinical records of 446 non-exposed (Controls) and 395 exposed (EPIC) patients admitted between November 2020 and April 2021 were analyzed. Median age was 58 years and 56.8% were males. Mortality at 28 days was 15.7% (EPIC) vs. 21.5% (Control). After IPTW adjustment the OR was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.46-0.96) P = 0.03. The effect was more evident in the subgroup who received two EPIC doses (complete treatment, n = 379), OR 0.58 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.85) P = 0.005. Overall and serious adverse events were not significantly different between groups., Conclusions: In this retrospective cohort study, EPIC showed adequate safety and effectiveness in the treatment of hospitalized patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 disease., Competing Interests: DHFS, FA, AAG, NAO, SNMP, LSN, FC, OIMI declare reimbursement for conduction of the observational study as investigators. EN, GL, WHB, DHG and LP report personal fees from Inmunova. SG and BK declare no competing interests. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.