The Association Between Inhaled Corticosteroid and the Risks of SARS-COV-2 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background The effect of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) on the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infection is unclear. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies that assessed the association between the use of ICS and the risk of SARS-COV-2 infection. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar were searched to January 1st, 2023. ROBINS-I was used to assess risk of bias of included studies. The outcome of interest was the risk of SARS-COV-2 infection in patients and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated using Comprehensive Meta-analysis software version 3. Results Twelve studies involving seven observational cohort studies, three case-control studies, and two cross-sectional studies were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, compared to non-ICS use, the pooled odds ratio (OR) of the risk of SARS-COV-2 infection was 0.997 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.664-1.499;p=0.987) for patients with ICS use. Subgroup analyses demonstrated no statistical significance in the increased risk of SARS-COV-2 infection in patients with ICS monotherapy or in combination with bronchodilators (pooled OR=1.408;95% CI=0.693-2.858;p=0.344 in ICS monotherapy, and pooled OR=1.225;95% CI=0.533-2.815;p=0.633 in ICS combination, respectively). In addition, no significant association was observed between ICS use and the risk of SARS-COV-2 infection for patients with COPD (pooled OR=0.715;95% CI=0.415-1.230;p=0.225) and asthma (pooled OR=1.081;95% CI=0.970-1.206;p=0.160). Conclusions The use of ICS, either monotherapy or in combination with bronchodilators, does not have impact on the risk of SARS-COV-2 infection. Data availability The datasets used and analysed in the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

The association between inhaled corticosteroid and the risks of SARS-COV-2 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effect of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) on the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infection is unclear. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies that assessed the association between the use of ICS and the risk of SARS-COV-2 infection. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar were searched to January 1st, 2023. ROBINS-I was used to assess risk of bias of included studies. The outcome of interest was the risk of SARS-COV-2 infection in patients and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated using Comprehensive Meta-analysis software version 3. RESULTS: Twelve studies involving seven observational cohort studies, three case-control studies, and two cross-sectional studies were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, compared to non-ICS use, the pooled odds ratio (OR) of the risk of SARS-COV-2 infection was 0.997 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.664-1.499; p = 0.987) for patients with ICS use. Subgroup analyses demonstrated no statistical significance in the increased risk of SARS-COV-2 infection in patients with ICS monotherapy or in combination with bronchodilators (pooled OR=1.408; 95% CI=0.693-2.858; p = 0.344 in ICS monotherapy, and pooled OR=1.225; 95% CI=0.533-2.815; p = 0.633 in ICS combination, respectively). In addition, no significant association was observed between ICS use and the risk of SARS-COV-2 infection for patients with COPD (pooled OR=0.715; 95% CI=0.415-1.230; p = 0.225) and asthma (pooled OR=1.081; 95% CI=0.970-1.206; p = 0.160). CONCLUSIONS: The use of ICS, either monotherapy or in combination with bronchodilators, does not have impact on the risk of SARS-COV-2 infection.

The Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Anti-Viral Agents for Non-Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

This network meta-analysis compared the clinical efficacy and safety of anti-viral agents for the prevention of disease progression among non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched from their inception to 28 May 2022. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the clinical efficacy of anti-viral agents for non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were included. Three RCTs involving 4241 patients were included. Overall, anti-viral agents were associated with a significantly lower risk of COVID-19 related hospitalization or death compared with the placebo (OR, 0.23; 95% CI: 0.06-0.96; p = 0.04). Compared with the placebo, patients receiving nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir had the lowest risk of hospitalization or death (OR, 0.12; 95% CI: 0.06-0.24), followed by remdesivir (OR, 0.13; 95% CI: 0.03-0.57) and then molnupiravir (OR, 0.67; 95% CI: 0.46-0.99). The rank probability for each treatment calculated using the P-score revealed that nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir was the best anti-viral treatment, followed by remdesivir and then molnupiravir. Finally, anti-viral agents were not associated with an increased risk of adverse events compared with the placebo. For non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who are at risk of disease progression, the currently recommended three anti-viral agents, nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir, molnupiravir and remdesivir, should continue to be recommended for the prevention of disease progression. Among them, oral nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir and intravenous remdesivir seem to be the better choice, followed by molnupiravir, as determined by this network meta-analysis. Additionally, these three anti-viral agents were shown to be as tolerable as the placebo in this clinical setting.

The effect of inhaled corticosteroids on the outcomes of patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The effect of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) on the clinical outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was not known. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Only phase 2 and 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from electronic databases that investigated ICS in the treatment of COVID-19 patients were included. The outcomes of interest were the resolution of symptoms, risk of hospitalization or urgent medical visit, mortality, and the incidence of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Five RCTs involving 1243 patients who received ICS and 1526 patients with placebo or usual care were included. The ICS group had a higher rate of symptom resolution than the control group at day 14 (risk ratio [RR], 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.30, p < 0.00001) and day 28 (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.06-1.18, p < 0.0001). Additionally, the ICS group had a significantly lower risk of needing urgent medical care or hospitalization than the control group (RR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05-0.50; I2 = 0, p = 0.002). However, no significant difference in the 28-day mortality rate. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, ICS therapy improved symptom resolution, and decreased the risk of needing urgent medical care or hospitalization.

Clinical efficacy and safety of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide updated information regarding the clinical efficacy of remdesivir in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries of ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for relevant articles published up to 18 November 2020. RESULTS: Five RCTs, including 13 544 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Among them, 3839 and 391 patients were assigned to the 10 day and 5 day remdesivir regimens, respectively. Patients receiving 5 day remdesivir therapy presented greater clinical improvement than those in the control group [OR = 1.68 (95% CI 1.18-2.40)], with no significant difference observed between the 10 day and placebo groups [OR = 1.23 (95% CI 0.90-1.68)]. Patients receiving remdesivir revealed a greater likelihood of discharge [10 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.32 (95% CI 1.09-1.60); 5 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.73 (95% CI 1.28-2.35)] and recovery [10 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.29 (95% CI 1.03-1.60); 5 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.80 (95% CI 1.31-2.48)] than those in the control group. In contrast, no mortality benefit was observed following remdesivir therapy. Furthermore, no significant association was observed between remdesivir treatment and an increased risk of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir can help improve the clinical outcome of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and a 5 day regimen, instead of a 10 day regimen, may be sufficient for treatment. Moreover, remdesivir appears as tolerable as other comparators or placebo.

Global coronavirus disease 2019: What has daily cumulative index taught us?

In addition to the absolute case number, a rapid increase in the number of COVID-19 cases within a short time results in insufficiency of healthcare systems and further negatively affects patient outcomes. This study was conducted to investigate the association between the outcomes of COVID-19 patients and daily cumulative index (DCI), which was defined as the average daily number of new cases of COVID-19 and calculated by cumulative cases/number of days between the first reported case and March 6, 2020, by country. Spearman's rank correlation analyses were conducted to evaluate the relationship between mortality, incidence, and DCI. In this study, DCI was positively correlated with incidence (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00-1.02, P < 0.01). Higher correlation was observed between mortality and DCI (mortality rate: r = 0.397, P = 0.018; mortality per 1 000 000 people: r = 0.0.428, P = 0.004) than between disease incidence and DCI. DCI remained statistically significantly associated with mortality per 1 000 000 people after adjustment of Health Care Index (aRR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.01-1.03, P < 0.001) or Healthcare Access and Quality Index (aRR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.01-1.04, P < 0.01. Reducing DCI through strict infection control measures can help slow the number of new COVID-19 cases and further improve outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

Global epidemiology of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): disease incidence, daily cumulative index, mortality, and their association with country healthcare resources and economic status.

It has been 2 months since the first case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported in Wuhan, China. So far, COVID-19 has affected 85 403 patients in 57 countries/territories and has caused 2924 deaths in 9 countries. However, epidemiological data differ between countries. Although China had higher morbidity and mortality than other sites, the number of new daily cases in China has been lower than outside of China since 26 February 2020. The incidence ranged from 61.44 per 1 000 000 people in the Republic of Korea to 0.0002 per 1 000 000 people in India. The daily cumulative index (DCI) of COVID-19 (cumulative cases/no. of days between the first reported case and 29 February 2020) was greatest in China (1320.85), followed by the Republic of Korea (78.78), Iran (43.11) and Italy (30.62). However, the DCIs in other countries/territories were <10 per day. Several effective measures including restricting travel from China, controlling the distribution of masks, extensive investigation of COVID-19 spread, and once-daily press conferences by the government to inform and educate people were aggressively conducted in Taiwan. This is probably the reason why there was only 39 cases (as of 29 February 2020) with a DCI of 1 case per day in Taiwan, which is much lower than that of nearby countries such as the Republic of Korea and Japan. In addition, the incidence and mortality were correlated with the DCI. However, further study and continued monitoring are needed to better understand the underlying mechanism of COVID-19.

Asymptomatic carrier state, acute respiratory disease, and pneumonia due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): Facts and myths.

Since the emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (formerly known as the 2019 novel coronavirus [2019-nCoV]) in Wuhan, China in December 2019, which is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), more than 75,000 cases have been reported in 32 countries/regions, resulting in more than 2000 deaths worldwide. Despite the fact that most COVID-19 cases and mortalities were reported in China, the WHO has declared this outbreak as the sixth public health emergency of international concern. The COVID-19 can present as an asymptomatic carrier state, acute respiratory disease, and pneumonia. Adults represent the population with the highest infection rate; however, neonates, children, and elderly patients can also be infected by SARS-CoV-2. In addition, nosocomial infection of hospitalized patients and healthcare workers, and viral transmission from asymptomatic carriers are possible. The most common finding on chest imaging among patients with pneumonia was ground-glass opacity with bilateral involvement. Severe cases are more likely to be older patients with underlying comorbidities compared to mild cases. Indeed, age and disease severity may be correlated with the outcomes of COVID-19. To date, effective treatment is lacking; however, clinical trials investigating the efficacy of several agents, including remdesivir and chloroquine, are underway in China. Currently, effective infection control intervention is the only way to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2.