The therapeutic dilemma of immunosuppressive drugs for refractory cardiac sarcoidosis in COVID-19 infection.

Patients with refractory cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) take a high dose of corticosteroid and immunosuppressive agents. During the pandemic outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, appropriate treatment of corticosteroids or immunosuppressive agents in CS patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unknown. Here, the woman with refractory CS receiving maintenance therapy with 15 mg of prednisolone daily and 10 mg of methotrexate weekly was emergently admitted to our hospital because of COVID-19. This case was successfully treated by the intravenous administration of dexamethasone 6 mg/day instead of prednisolone and interruption of methotrexate without resulting in recurrent life-threatening ventricular lethal arrhythmias or obvious sarcoidosis flare-ups. She started taking prednisolone and methotrexate at the maintenance dose immediately and at 2 weeks after discharge, respectively. Although the optimal regimen of immunosuppressive agents during COVID-19 is under intense debate, this report might provide an effective treatment strategy for CS patients with COVID-19.

Remote cardiac rehabilitation is a good alternative of outpatient cardiac rehabilitation in the COVID-19 era.

BACKGROUND: In the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, people need to practice social distancing in order to protect themselves from SARS-CoV-2 infection. In such stressful situations, remote cardiac rehabilitation (CR) might be a viable alternative to the outpatient CR program. METHODS: We prospectively investigated patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) with a left ventricular ejection fraction of < 50%. As for patients who participated in the remote CR program, telephone support was provided by cardiologists and nurses who specialized in HF every 2 weeks after discharge. The emergency readmission rate within 30 days of discharge was compared among the outpatient CR, remote CR, and non-CR groups, and the EQ-5D score was compared between the outpatient CR and remote CR groups. RESULTS: The participation rate of HF patients in our remote CR program elevated during the COVID-19 pandemic. As observed in the outpatient CR group (n = 69), the emergency readmission rate within 30 days of discharge was lower in the remote CR group (n = 30) than in the non-CR group (n = 137) (P = 0.02). The EQ-5D score was higher in the remote CR group than in the outpatient CR group (P = 0.03) 30 days after discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Remote CR is as effective as outpatient CR for improving the short-term prognosis of patients hospitalized for heart failure post-discharge. This suggests that the remote CR program can be provided as a good alternative to the outpatient CR program.