Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Wien Med Wochenschr ; 173(5-6): 140-151, 2023 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2174438

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: This prospective controlled clinical trial aimed to compare the efficacy of methylprednisolone, dexamethasone, and hydrocortisone at equivalent doses in patients with severe COVID-19. METHODS: In total, 106 patients with mild to moderate COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) were randomized to receive either dexamethasone (6 mg once a day), methylprednisolone (16 mg twice a day), or hydrocortisone (50 mg thrice a day) for up to 10 days. All participants received a standard of care for COVID-19. The primary and secondary efficacy outcomes included all-cause 28-day mortality, clinical status on day 28 assessed using the World Health Organization (WHO) eight-category ordinal clinical scale, number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit (ICU) care, number of ventilator-free days, length of hospital and ICU stay, change in PaO2:FiO2 ratios during the first 5 days after treatment, and incidence of serious adverse events. P-values below 0.008 based on Bonferroni's multiple-testing correction method were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: According to the obtained results, there was a trend toward more favorable clinical outcomes in terms of needing mechanical ventilation and ICU care, number of ventilator-free days, change in PaO2:FiO2 ratios during the first 5 days after treatment, clinical status score at day 28, length of ICU and hospital stay, and overall 28-day mortality in patients receiving dexamethasone compared to those receiving methylprednisolone or hydrocortisone; however, likely due to the study's small sample size, the difference between groups reached a significant level only in the case of clinical status score on day 28 (p-value = 0.003). There was no significant difference in the incidence of serious adverse events between the study groups. CONCLUSION: Based on the results, severe cases of COVID-19 treated with dexamethasone might have a better clinical status at 28-day follow-up compared to methylprednisolone and hydrocortisone at an equivalent dose. Larger multicenter trials are required to confirm our findings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , COVID-19/complications , Methylprednisolone/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2 , Hydrocortisone/therapeutic use , Prospective Studies , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/chemically induced , Dexamethasone/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome
2.
Pharmacol Rep ; 73(6): 1650-1659, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1265619

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We designed this single-centre clinical trial to assess the potential benefits of N-Acetylcysteine (NAC) in patients with COVID19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: Ninety-two patients with mild-to-moderate COVID19-associated ARDS were allocated to the placebo (45-cases) or NAC groups (47-cases). Besides standard-of-care treatment, the patients received either intravenous NAC at a dose of 40 mg/kg/day or the placebo for three consecutive days. The efficacy outcomes were overall mortality over 28-day, clinical status on day 28, based on the WHO Master Protocol, the proportion of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, changes in ARDS-severity (based on the PaO2/FiO2 ratio), and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores 48 and 96 h after intervention, RESULTS: No differences were found in the 28-day mortality rate between the two groups (25.5% vs. 31.1% in the NAC and placebo groups, respectively). Although the distribution of the clinical status at day 28 shifted towards better outcomes in the NAC-treated group, it did not reach a statistical significance level (p value = 0.83). Similar results were achieved in terms of the proportion of patients who required invasive ventilator support (38.3% vs. 44.4%), the number of ventilator-free days (17.4 vs. 16.6), and median time of ICU and hospital stay. Results regarding the change in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and SOFA scores also showed no significant differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study did not support the potential benefits of intravenous NAC in treating patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS. More studies are needed to determine which COVID-19 patients benefit from the NAC administration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (identifier code: IRCT20120215009014N355). Registration date: 2020-05-18.


Subject(s)
Acetylcysteine/therapeutic use , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , COVID-19/complications , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , Acetylcysteine/administration & dosage , Acetylcysteine/adverse effects , Administration, Intravenous , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Pilot Projects , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
3.
Cureus ; 12(8): e10142, 2020 Aug 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-761115

ABSTRACT

This article is about a known case of heart failure presented with acute liver failure following a coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) respiratory tract infection. The patient was admitted with encephalopathy and respiratory distress with a positive COVID-19 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. Elevated liver enzymes, severe coagulopathy, and hypoglycemia were apparent without any clinical or laboratory findings of sepsis, acute viral hepatitis, medicine related or drug-induced, or autoimmune-related acute liver failure. Supportive and therapeutic measures related to his cardiovascular, respiratory, and liver function were executed in the ICU. Unfortunately, the patient expired because of respiratory failure.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL