The Role of Inhaled Corticosteroids (ICS) in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Multicenter, Cohort Study.

Background: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can boost the systematic inflammatory response in critically ill patients, causing a systemic hyperinflammatory state leading to multiple complications. In COVID-19 patients, the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is surrounded by controversy regarding their impacts on viral infections. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ICS in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and its clinical outcomes. Method: A multicenter, noninterventional, cohort study for critically ill patients with COVID-19 who received ICS. All patients aged ≥ 18 years old with confirmed COVID-19 and admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) between March 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021 were screened. Eligible patients were classified into two groups based on the use of ICS ± long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) during ICU stay. Propensity score (PS)-matched was used based on patient's Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, systemic corticosteroids use, and acute kidney injury (AKI) within 24 h of ICU admission. We considered a P-value of < 0.05 statistically significant. Results: A total of 954 patients were eligible; 130 patients were included after PS matching (1:1 ratio). The 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval [CI]]: 0.53 [0.31, 0.93], P-value = 0.03) was statistically significant lower in patients who received ICS. Conversely, the in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days (VFDs), ICU length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS were not statistically significant between the two groups. Conclusion: The use of ICS ± LABA in COVID-19 patients may have survival benefits at 30 days. However, it was not associated with in-hospital mortality benefits nor VFDs.

The use of metformin for type 2 diabetes prevention: Observational multicenter study from Saudi Arabia.

Background: Patients with prediabetes are at higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes. While intensive lifestyle modification is the primary approach to delaying diabetes, metformin has been shown to be effective, especially among patients younger than 60 years and obese (body mass index (BMI) > 35 kg/m2), patients with fasting blood glucose ≥ 6.1 mmol/L or HbA1c ≥ 6%, and women with history of gestational diabetes. Thus, metformin is now recommended as an option for diabetes prevention by the American Diabetes Association (ADA). The use of metformin among patients with prediabetes in Saudi Arabia and their adherence to the guideline's recommendation for the prevention of type 2 diabetes is unknown. This study aimed to identify the prevalence of metformin use among prediabetes patients overall and patients who are more likely to benefit from metformin use per the ADA guidelines. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted encompassing data from three tertiary care hospitals between January 2015 and June 2019. All patients aged 20 to 70 years with prediabetes (HbA1c of 5.7-6.4%) were included, while patients with an established diagnosis of diabetes, creatinine clearance <45 ml/min, using antihyperglycemic medications other than metformin, or on metformin for other indications were excluded. Prediabetes patients who are most likely to benefit from metformin for type 2 diabetes prevention are those younger than 60 years with a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2, patients with fasting blood glucose ≥ 6.1 mmol/L or HbA1c ≥ 6%, and women with history of gestational diabetes. This study examined the prevalence of metformin use among all patients with prediabetes, as well as patients who would be more likely to benefit from metformin use per the ADA guidelines. Results: A total of 251 patients were included in this study; 52.2% were female, with a mean age of 47.0 (11.9) years and BMI of 32.3 (6.5) kg/m2, and the median HbA1c at baseline was 5.8% (5.7-6.0). Among the overall sample, 18 patients (7.2%) received metformin for the prevention of type 2 diabetes, 14 of those were from the groups that are more likely to benefit from metformin use per the ADA guidelines (9.9%). Conclusions: Among individuals with prediabetes in Saudi Arabia, metformin use was very low despite the evidence supporting its safety, convenience, and efficacy. Healthcare providers seemed hesitant to medicalize prediabetes; furthermore, the low use of metformin suggests the existence of several barriers that need to be identified and resolved. Increasing providers' knowledge and awareness regarding screening and management of prediabetes is highly encouraged.