METHODS: This is a systematic review and a meta-analysis evaluating the evidence from clinical trials on the effect of colchicine and corticosteroids against COVID-19. In this review, we have systematically searched five databases [(PubMed, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, ICTRP, CINAHL (EBSCO)]. Cochrane's data extraction sheet was used to collect the required information, and RevMan-5.4.1 was used to conduct the meta-analysis and to assess the risk of bias. The review was registered in Prospero (CRD42022299718).
RESULTS: The total number of included studies was 17, with 18,956 participants; the majority were male 12,001. Out of which, 8772 participants were on colchicine, 569 took methylprednisolone, and 64 patients received prednisolone. The meta-analysis has shown that colchicine had no significant effect on reducing the mortality rate among COVID-19 patients [OR 0.98(95% CI 0.90-1.08), p = .70), I2:1%)], corticosteroids have significantly reduced the mortality rates [OR 0.55 (95% CI 0.33-0.91), p = .02, I2:40]. Colchicine did not reduce the incidence of ICU admissions [OR 0.74 (95% CI 0.39-1.40), p = .35, I2:0%], while steroidal drugs significantly reduced the ICU admissions [OR 0.42 (95% CI 0.23-0.78), p = .005, I2:0%]. Unlike steroidal drugs [OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.30-0.95), p = .03, I2:61%], colchicine failed to reduce the need for mechanical ventilation [OR 0.73 (95% CI 0.48-1.10), p = .13, I2:76%]. Steroidal drugs significantly reduced the duration of hospitalization among COVID-19 patients [OR -0.50 (95% CI -0.79-0.21), p = .0007, I2:36%].
CONCLUSIONS: The use of colchicine did not significantly reduce the mortality rate, ICU admissions, and mechanical ventilation among COVID-19 patients. Conversely, corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate, ICU admissions, mechanical ventilation, and hospitalization duration among COVID-19 patients.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prevalence, risk factors for contracting COVID-19, and complications of COVID-19, in children with CLD.
METHODS: This systematic review was based on articles published between January 1, 2020 and July 25, 2022. Children under 18 years old, with any CLD and infected with COVID-19 were included.
RESULTS: Ten articles involving children with asthma and four involving children with cystic fibrosis (CF) were included in the analyses. The prevalence of COVID-19 in children with asthma varied between 0.14% and 19.1%. The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) was associated with reduced risk for COVID-19 (risk ratio [RR]: 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40-0.90). Uncontrolled asthma, younger age, AND moderate-severe asthma were not significant risk factors for contracting COVID-19. Children with asthma had an increased risk for hospitalization (RR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.07-2.45) but were not more likely to require assisted ventilation (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.14-1.90). The risk of COVID-19 infection among children with CF was <1%. Posttransplant and cystic fibrosis-related diabetes mellitus (CFRDM) patients were at an increased risk for hospitalization and intensive care treatment.
CONCLUSION: Hospitalizations were higher in children with asthma with COVID-19 infection. However, using ICS reduced the risk of COVID-19 infection. As for CF, postlung transplantation and CFRDM were risk factors for severe disease.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of peri-operative tranexamic acid versus no therapy or placebo on operative parameters in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (with or without nasal polyps) who are undergoing functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS).
SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 10 February 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intravenous, oral or topical tranexamic acid with no therapy or placebo in the treatment of patients (adults and children) with chronic rhinosinusitis, with or without nasal polyps, undergoing FESS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcome measures were surgical field bleeding score (e.g. Wormald or Boezaart grading system), intraoperative blood loss and significant adverse effects (seizures or thromboembolism within 12 weeks of surgery). Secondary outcomes were duration of surgery, incomplete surgery, surgical complications and postoperative bleeding (placing of packing or revision surgery) in the first two weeks after surgery. We performed subgroup analyses for methods of administration, different dosages, different forms of anaesthesia, use of thromboembolic prophylaxis and children versus adults. We evaluated each included study for risk of bias and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies in the review, with a total of 942 participants. Sample sizes in the included studies ranged from 10 to 170. All but two studies included adult patients (≥ 18 years). Two studies included children. Most studies had more male patients (range 46.6% to 80%). All studies were placebo-controlled and four studies had three treatment arms. Three studies investigated topical tranexamic acid; the other studies reported the use of intravenous tranexamic acid. For our primary outcome, surgical field bleeding score measured with the Boezaart or Wormald grading score, we pooled data from 13 studies. The pooled result demonstrated that tranexamic acid probably reduces the surgical field bleeding score, with a standardised mean difference (SMD) of -0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.23 to -0.51; 13 studies, 772 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A SMD below -0.70 represents a large effect (in either direction). Tranexamic acid may result in a slight reduction in blood loss during surgery compared to placebo with a mean difference (MD) of -70.32 mL (95% CI -92.28 to -48.35 mL; 12 studies, 802 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tranexamic acid probably has little to no effect on the development of significant adverse events (seizures or thromboembolism) within 24 hours of surgery, with no events in either group and a risk difference (RD) of 0.00 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 8 studies, 664 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, there were no studies reporting significant adverse event data with a longer duration of follow-up. Tranexamic acid probably results in little difference in the duration of surgery with a MD of -13.04 minutes (95% CI -19.27 to -6.81; 10 studies, 666 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Tranexamic acid probably results in little to no difference in the incidence of incomplete surgery, with no events in either group and a RD of 0.00 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.09; 2 studies, 58 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and likely results in little to no difference in surgical complications, again with no events in either group and a RD of 0.00 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.09; 2 studies, 58 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), although these numbers are too small to draw robust conclusions. Tranexamic acid may result in little to no difference in the likelihood of postoperative bleeding (placement of packing or revision surgery within three days of surgery) (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02; 6 studies, 404 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no studies with longer follow-up.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence to support the beneficial value of topical or intravenous tranexamic acid during endoscopic sinus surgery with respect to surgical field bleeding score. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests a slight decrease in total blood loss during surgery and duration of surgery. Whilst there is moderate-certainty evidence that tranexamic acid does not lead to more immediate significant adverse events compared to placebo, there is no evidence regarding the risk of serious adverse events more than 24 hours after surgery. There is low-certainty evidence that tranexamic acid may not change postoperative bleeding. There is not enough evidence available to draw robust conclusions about incomplete surgery or surgical complications.
METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched for studies involving tocilizumab, dexamethasone, and methylprednisolone in treating COVID-19. We included case-control and randomized or partially randomized trials. Meta-regression for patient baseline characteristics, co-medications, and tocilizumab dose regimens was performed to identify contributing factors to drug efficacy.
RESULTS: Thirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and twenty-four case-control studies were included in our meta-analysis involving 18,702 patients. Meta-analysis among the RCTs showed that a summary estimate favoring mortality reduction (OR 0.71, 95%CI 0.55 - 0.92) contributed mainly by tocilizumab and dexamethasone. Among case-control studies, meta-analysis showed mortality reduction (OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.36 - 0.75) contributed by tocilizumab and tocilizumab-methylprednisolone combination. Methylprednisolone alone did not reduce mortality except for one study involving high dose pulse therapy. Meta-analysis also found that all three drugs did not significantly reduce mechanical ventilation (OR 0.72, 95%CI 0.32 - 1.60).
CONCLUSION: Tocilizumab and dexamethasone emerge as viable options in reducing mortality in severe COVID-19 patients. A tocilizumab-corticosteroid combination strategy may improve therapeutic outcome in cases where single therapy fails.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING: Electronic search for randomized controlled trials and observational studies (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL).
PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized adults ≥ 18 years old who were SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive.
INTERVENTIONS: High-dose and low-dose corticosteroids.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of twelve studies (n=2759 patients) were included in this review. The pooled analysis demonstrated no significant difference in mortality rate between the high-dose and low-dose corticosteroids groups (n=2632; OR: 1.07 [95%CI 0.67, 1.72], p=0.77, I2=76%, trial sequential analysis=inconclusive). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate (n=1544; OR: 0.77[95%CI 0.43, 1.37], p=0.37, I2= 72%), duration of hospital stay (n=1615; MD: 0.53[95%CI -1.36, 2.41], p=0.58, I2=87%), respiratory support (n=1694; OR: 1.51[95%CI 0.77, 2.96], p=0.23, I2=84%), duration of mechanical ventilation (n=419; MD: -1.44[95%CI -4.27, 1.40], p=0.32, I2=93%), incidence of hyperglycemia (n=516, OR: 0.91[95%CI 0.58, 1.43], p=0.68, I2=0%) and infection rate (n=1485, OR: 0.86[95%CI 0.64, 1.16], p=0.33, I2=29%).
CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis demonstrated high-dose corticosteroids did not reduce mortality rate. However, high-dose corticosteroids did not pose higher risk of hyperglycemia and infection rate for COVID-19 patients. Due to the inconclusive trial sequential analysis, substantial heterogeneity and low level of evidence, future large-scale randomized clinical trials are warranted to improve the certainty of evidence for the use of high-dose compared to low-dose corticosteroids in COVID-19 patients.
METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of severe COVID-19 patients who were admitted to a single tertiary centre from 1 January 2021 to 30 June 2021. The clinical data of the patients during admission and clinic follow-up, including radiological images, were traced using electronic medical records.
RESULTS: In our cohort, the mortality rate for those with severe COVID-19 was 23.1% (173/749). Among the survivors, 46.2% (266/576) had persistent respiratory failure (PRF) after 14 days of illness. Of them, 70.3% (187/266) were followed up, and 68% (128/187) received oral corticosteroid (prednisolone) maintenance treatment. OP pattern made up the majority (81%) of the radiological pattern with a mean severity CT score of 10 (SD±3). The mean prednisolone dose was 0.68mg/kg/day with a mean treatment duration of 47 days (SD±18). About one-third of patients (67/187) had respiratory symptoms at 4 weeks (SD±3). Among 78.1% (146/187) who had a repeated CXR during follow-up, only 12 patients (8.2%, SD±3) had radiological improvement of less than 50% at 6 weeks (SD±3), with 2 of them later diagnosed as pulmonary tuberculosis. Functional assessments, such as the 6-minute walk test and the spirometry, were only performed in 52.4% and 15.5% of the patients, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Almost half of the patients with severe COVID-19 had PRF, with a predominant radiological OP pattern. More than two-thirds of the PRF patients required prolonged oral corticosteroid treatment. Familiarising clinicians with the disease course, radiological patterns, and potential outcomes of this group of patients may better equip them to manage their patients.
METHODS: Seven licensed practicing community pharmacists (from the Klang Valley, Malaysia) were interviewed between 23rd September to 14th November 2021. These were CPs participating in the questionnaire study who agreed to be interviewed. NVIVO 11 software was used for data analysis. Codes and themes were generated and agreed on by the researchers.
RESULTS: The major themes identified related to the process mentioned of providing information to patients, the issues addressed by CPs during the counselling (including steroid phobia, overuse of TCS, patients asking for a specific preparation by name), less counselling support material, language barriers, lesser knowledge about certain conditions, information sources used by CPs (material provided by Ministry of Health and Malaysian Pharmacists Association, MIMS) and suggestions to strengthen the quality of counselling (specialization in skin diseases, webinars, shared care models). For patients requesting a particular preparation by name, the pharmacist will decide whether the preparation requested is suitable or suggest an alternative. Steroid phobia was seen more commonly among parents of young children and young patients. MIMS was available as a smartphone application making it easier to use. Advanced training for CPs in the management of skin conditions like that provided for diabetes mellitus can be considered.
CONCLUSIONS: Counselling was conducted while dispensing TCS in the open area of the pharmacy. Challenges to counselling were lack of time, limited counselling materials, and language barriers. Steroid phobia requires attention. Initiatives to strengthen counselling were mentioned by respondents and appear feasible. Further research covering the entire country is required.
METHODS: This is a pilot and pragmatic randomized trial conducted at a university hospital in Malaysia. Women with singleton pregnancies planned for elective CS between 37+0 and 38+6 weeks gestation were randomly allocated into the intervention group, where they received two doses of IM dexamethasone 12 mg of 12 h apart, 24 h prior to surgery OR into the standard care, control group, and both groups received the normal routine antenatal care. The primary outcome measures were neonatal respiratory illnesses, NICU admission and length of stay.
RESULTS: A total of 189 patients were recruited, 93 women in the intervention group and 96 as controls. Between the steroid and control groups, the mean gestation at CS was similar, 266.1 ± 3.2 days (38 weeks) vs. 265.8 ± 4.0 days (37+6 weeks), p = 0.53. The mean birthweight of infants was 3.06 ± 0.41 kg vs. 3.04 ± 0.37 kg, p = 0.71. Infants with respiratory morbidities were primarily due to transient tachypnea of newborn (9.7% vs. 6.3%), and congenital pneumonia (1.1% vs. 3.1%) but none had respiratory distress syndrome. Only four infants required NICU admission (2.2% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.63). Their average length of stay was not statistically different; 3.5 ± 2.1 days vs. 5.7 ± 1.5 days, p = 0.27.
CONCLUSIONS: Elective CS at early term before 39 weeks was associated with a modest overall incidence of neonatal respiratory illness (10.1%) in this Asian population. Antenatal dexamethasone did not diminish infants needing respiratory support, NICU admission and length of stay.
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the prevalence and degree of topical corticosteroid phobia and its impact on treatment adherence in various dermatological conditions. Additionally, we explored the sources of information regarding topical corticosteroids.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 300 participants with topical corticosteroid usage experience. Topical corticosteroid phobia was assessed with the topical corticosteroid phobia (TOPICOP) scale, and treatment adherence was measured with the Elaboration d'un outil d'evaluation de l'observance des traitements medicamenteux (ECOB) score. Information sources regarding topical corticosteroids were identified, and their level of trust was assessed. The data were collected via questionnaires in three languages, namely English, Malay and Mandarin.
RESULTS: The study found that topical corticosteroid phobia was prevalent, with 98% of participants expressing a certain degree of phobia. The mean global TOPICOP score was 32.7 ± 6.7%. The mean score of each domain was 27.1 ± 17.2% for knowledge and belief, 35.7 ± 23.8% for fears and 40.8 ± 25.8% for behaviour. Patients/caregivers who have eczema, highly educated, severe disease, low tolerability to symptoms, previous adverse effects with topical corticosteroids and tend to traditional/non-steroidal alternative therapy usage had a significant association with topical corticosteroid phobia (p<0.05). Dermatologists were the most common and trusted source of information on topical corticosteroids.
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the widespread topical corticosteroid phobia in dermatological practice. Dermatologists should take the lead in combating steroid phobia and provide patients with public awareness regarding topical corticosteroids to improve treatment adherence and therapeutic outcomes.
CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of drugs in the treatment of patients with covid-19?
CONTEXT: The evidence base for therapeutics for covid-19 is evolving with numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recently completed and underway. Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants are changing the role of therapeutics.
WHAT IS NEW?: The guideline development group (GDG) defined 1.5% as a new threshold for an important reduction in risk of hospitalisation in patients with non-severe covid-19. Combined with updated baseline risk estimates, this resulted in stratification into patients at low, moderate, and high risk for hospitalisation. New recommendations were added for moderate risk of hospitalisation for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and for moderate and low risk of hospitalisation for molnupiravir and remdesivir. New pharmacokinetic evidence was included for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir, supporting existing recommendations for patients at high risk of hospitalisation. The recommendation for ivermectin in patients with non-severe illness was updated in light of additional trial evidence which reduced the high degree of uncertainty informing previous guidance. A new recommendation was made against the antiviral agent VV116 for patients with non-severe and with severe or critical illness outside of randomised clinical trials based on one RCT comparing the drug with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. The structure of the guideline publication has also been changed; recommendations are now ordered by severity of covid-19.
ABOUT THIS GUIDELINE: This living guideline from the World Health Organization (WHO) incorporates new evidence to dynamically update recommendations for covid-19 therapeutics. The GDG typically evaluates a therapy when the WHO judges sufficient evidence is available to make a recommendation. While the GDG takes an individual patient perspective in making recommendations, it also considers resource implications, acceptability, feasibility, equity, and human rights. This guideline was developed according to standards and methods for trustworthy guidelines, making use of an innovative process to achieve efficiency in dynamic updating of recommendations. The methods are aligned with the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development and according to a pre-approved protocol (planning proposal) by the Guideline Review Committee (GRC). A box at the end of the article outlines key methodological aspects of the guideline process. MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation provides methodological support, including the coordination of living systematic reviews with network meta-analyses to inform the recommendations. The full version of the guideline is available online in MAGICapp and in PDF on the WHO website, with a summary version here in The BMJ. These formats should facilitate adaptation, which is strongly encouraged by WHO to contextualise recommendations in a healthcare system to maximise impact.
FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations on anticoagulation are planned for the next update to this guideline. Updated data regarding systemic corticosteroids, azithromycin, favipiravir and umefenovir for non-severe illness, and convalescent plasma and statin therapy for severe or critical illness, are planned for review in upcoming guideline iterations.