A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study on the Efficacy and Safety of Methylprednisolone Pulse Therapy for COVID-19 Pneumonia

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with fatal acute respiratory distress syndrome, which can be ameliorated by methylprednisolone pulse therapy, thereby reducing the risk of progression to respiratory failure and death. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone pulse therapy for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. In this retrospective, observational cohort study, seventy patients (age, 35–91 years) who were admitted to Saitama Medical University Hospital in Japan between March 2020 and January 2021 due to COVID-19 pneumonia were included. The difference in mortality between the methylprednisolone pulse therapy (n = 22) and dexamethasone therapy (n = 48) groups was the primary outcome. Between-group differences in the average length of intensive care unit stay, duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, and incidence of treatment-related adverse events were the secondary outcomes. The methylprednisolone pulse therapy group showed a significantly lower mortality rate (3.8% vs. 20.2%, p = 0.006) and increased survival rate compared with the dexamethasone therapy group (p = 0.044). Additionally, without statistical significance, the average length of intensive care unit stay tended to be shorter in the methylprednisolone pulse therapy group (11.5 ±6.1 days) than in the dexamethasone therapy group (22.3 ±23.1 days) (p = 0.793). The average duration of invasive mechanical ventilation also tended to be shorter in the methylprednisolone pulse therapy group (15.3 ±10.1 vs. 28.8 ±9.2 days, p = 0.120). There were no significant differences in the incidence of treatment-related serious adverse events between the two groups. In conclusion, methylprednisolone pulse therapy for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia significantly reduced mortality and increased the survival rate compared to conventional dexamethasone therapy.

HbA1c level may be a risk factor for oxygen therapy requirement in patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

INTRODUCTION: Many clinical studies have identified significant predictors or risk factors for the severity or mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. However, there are very limited reports on the risk factors for requiring oxygen therapy during hospitalization. In particular, we sought to investigate whether plasma glucose and HbA1c levels could be risk factors for oxygen therapy requirement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-center, retrospective study was conducted of 131 COVID-19 patients hospitalized at Saitama Medical University Hospital between March 2020 and November 2020. To identify the risk factors for oxygen therapy requirement during hospitalization, a stepwise multivariate binary logistic regression analysis was performed using several clinical parameters commonly obtained on admission, including plasma glucose and HbA1c levels. RESULTS: Of the 131 patients with COVID-19, 33.6% (44/131) received oxygen therapy during hospitalization. According to the logistic regression analysis, male sex (odds ratio [OR]: 8.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.65-46.5, P < 0.05), age (OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.02-1.12, P < 0.01), HbA1c levels (OR: 1.94, 95% CI: 1.09-3.44, P < 0.05), and serum C-reactive protein (CRP) levels (OR: 2.22, 95% CI: 1.54-3.20, P < 0.01) emerged as independent variables associated with oxygen therapy requirement during hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to male sex, age, and serum CRP levels, HbA1c levels on admission may serve as a risk factor for oxygen therapy requirement during the clinical course of COVID-19, irrespective of diabetes history and status. This may contribute to the efficient delegation of limited numbers of hospital beds to patients at risk for oxygen therapy requirement.

Antibody response patterns in COVID-19 patients with different levels of disease severity in Japan.

We analyzed antibody response patterns according to the level of disease severity in patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Japan. We analyzed 611 serum specimens from 231 patients with COVID-19 (mild, 170; severe, 31; critical, 30). Immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG antibodies against nucleocapsid protein (N) and spike 1 protein (S1) were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. The peaks of fitting curves for the optical density (OD) values of IgM and IgG antibodies against N appeared simultaneously, while those against S1 were delayed compared with N. The OD values of IgM against N and IgG against both N and S1 were significantly higher in the severe and critical cases than in the mild cases at 11 days after symptom onset. The seroconversion rates of IgG were higher than those of IgM against both N and S1 during the clinical course based on the optimal cut-off values defined in this study. The seroconversion rates of IgG and IgM against N and S1 were higher in the severe and critical cases than in the mild cases. Our findings show that a stronger antibody response occurred in COVID-19 patients with greater disease severity and there were low seroconversion rates of antibodies against N and S1 in the mild cases.

Clinical evaluation of the antibody response in patients with COVID-19 using automated high-throughput immunoassays.

Several automated high-throughput immunoassays for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies by a semi-quantitative approach have been commercialized. In this study, we describe the timeline of the antibody response in patients with RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19. A total of 292 sequential serum samples from 33 Japanese patients were retrospectively analyzed using four test kits for SARS-CoV-2: the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay (Abbott), Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay (Roche Diagnostic), and VITROS® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total and IgG assays (Ortho Clinical Diagnostics). All automated immunoassays could equivalently identify positive sera collected within 2 weeks after symptom onset (99.3%-100%). In addition, the S protein-based automated immunoassay, the VITROS® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total assay, may play a complementary role in evaluating passive antibody therapies or vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, although further research is required.