Effect of intravenous pulses of methylprednisolone 250 mg versus dexamethasone 6 mg in hospitalised adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: An open-label randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of high versus medium doses of glucocorticoids for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 has shown mixed outcomes in controlled trials and observational studies. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of methylprednisolone 250 mg bolus versus dexamethasone 6 mg in patients with severe COVID-19. METHODS: A randomised, open-label, controlled trial was conducted between February and August 2021 at four hospitals in Spain. The trial was suspended after the first interim analysis since the investigators considered that continuing the trial would be futile. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive dexamethasone 6 mg once daily for up to 10 days or methylprednisolone 250 mg once daily for 3 days. RESULTS: Of the 128 randomised patients, 125 were analysed (mean age 60 ± 17 years; 82 males [66%]). Mortality at 28 days was 4.8% in the 250 mg methylprednisolone group versus 4.8% in the 6 mg dexamethasone group (absolute risk difference, 0.1% [95% CI, -8.8 to 9.1%]; p = 0.98). None of the secondary outcomes (admission to the intensive care unit, non-invasive respiratory or high-flow oxygen support, additional immunosuppressive drugs, or length of stay), or prespecified sensitivity analyses were statistically significant. Hyperglycaemia was more frequent in the methylprednisolone group at 27.0 versus 8.1% (absolute risk difference, -18.9% [95% CI, -31.8 to - 5.6%]; p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Among severe but not critical patients with COVID-19, 250 mg/d for 3 days of methylprednisolone compared with 6 mg/d for 10 days of dexamethasone did not result in a decrease in mortality or intubation.

Low molecular weight heparin is useful in adult COVID-19 inpatients. Experience during the first Spanish wave: observational study

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: The intensity of the thromboprophylaxis needed as a potential factor for preventing inpatient mortality due to coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between anticoagulation intensity and COVID-19 survival. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective observational study in a tertiary-level hospital in Spain. METHODS: Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) status was ascertained based on prescription at admission. To control for immortal time bias, anticoagulant use was analyzed as a time-dependent variable. RESULTS: 690 patients were included (median age, 72 years). LMWH was administered to 615 patients, starting from hospital admission (89.1%). 410 (66.7%) received prophylactic-dose LMWH; 120 (19.5%), therapeutic-dose LMWH; and another 85 (13.8%) who presented respiratory failure, high D-dimer levels (> 3 mg/l) and non-worsening of inflammation markers received prophylaxis of intermediate-dose LMWH. The overall inpatient-mortality rate was 38.5%. The anticoagulant nonuser group presented higher mortality risk than each of the following groups: any LMWH users (HR 2.1; 95% CI: 1.40-3.15); the prophylactic-dose heparin group (HR 2.39; 95% CI, 1.57-3.64); and the users of heparin dose according to biomarkers (HR 6.52; 95% CI, 2.95-14.41). 3.4% of the patients experienced major hemorrhage. 2.8% of the patients developed an episode of thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS: This observational study showed that LMWH administered at the time of admission was associated with lower mortality among unselected adult COVID-19 inpatients. The magnitude of the benefit may have been greatest for the intermediate-dose subgroup. Randomized controlled trials to assess the benefit of heparin within different therapeutic regimes for COVID-19 patients are required.

Low molecular weight heparin is useful in adult COVID-19 inpatients. Experience during the first Spanish wave: observational study.

BACKGROUND: The intensity of the thromboprophylaxis needed as a potential factor for preventing inpatient mortality due to coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between anticoagulation intensity and COVID-19 survival. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective observational study in a tertiary-level hospital in Spain. METHODS: Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) status was ascertained based on prescription at admission. To control for immortal time bias, anticoagulant use was analyzed as a time-dependent variable. RESULTS: 690 patients were included (median age, 72 years). LMWH was administered to 615 patients, starting from hospital admission (89.1%). 410 (66.7%) received prophylactic-dose LMWH; 120 (19.5%), therapeutic-dose LMWH; and another 85 (13.8%) who presented respiratory failure, high D-dimer levels (> 3 mg/l) and non-worsening of inflammation markers received prophylaxis of intermediate-dose LMWH. The overall inpatient-mortality rate was 38.5%. The anticoagulant nonuser group presented higher mortality risk than each of the following groups: any LMWH users (HR 2.1; 95% CI: 1.40-3.15); the prophylactic-dose heparin group (HR 2.39; 95% CI, 1.57-3.64); and the users of heparin dose according to biomarkers (HR 6.52; 95% CI, 2.95-14.41). 3.4% of the patients experienced major hemorrhage. 2.8% of the patients developed an episode of thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS: This observational study showed that LMWH administered at the time of admission was associated with lower mortality among unselected adult COVID-19 inpatients. The magnitude of the benefit may have been greatest for the intermediate-dose subgroup. Randomized controlled trials to assess the benefit of heparin within different therapeutic regimes for COVID-19 patients are required.

Use of noninvasive ventilation on internal wards for elderly patients with limitations to respiratory care: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The use of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) outside the intensive wards has been evaluated in patients with no limitation on life-sustaining support. Our aim was to evaluate its usefulness in general wards for patients with NPPV as the ceiling of ventilator care when admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) has been withheld. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation was used in 44 patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) and limitations to respiratory care- 22 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations and 22 with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (CPE). Survival at hospital discharge, and survival and readmission rate at 12 months were assessed. RESULTS: Sixty-three per cent of COPD and 55% of CPE patients survived hospital discharge; and 50% and 37% respectively, were alive after 1 year. The cause of the in-hospital mortality was related to the admission diagnosis in 88% of cases. Cancer in COPD patients [P = 0·040, odds ratio (OR) = 15, 95% CI = 1·14-198] and the completion of NPPV treatment in both diseases (P = 0·008, OR = 0·03, 95% CI = 0·00-0·39 for COPD and P = 0·010, OR = 0·04, 95% CI = 0·00-0·45 for CPE) were related to in-hospital mortality. Fifty-six per cent of COPD and 33% of CPE patients that survived hospital admission were readmitted. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that the use of NPPV in general wards could be a safe and effective option, as a last choice treatment, in patients with NPPV as the ceiling of ventilator care when admission to ICU has been withheld.