Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
1.
Wien Med Wochenschr ; 173(5-6): 140-151, 2023 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2174438

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Síndrome de Dificultad Respiratoria , Humanos , COVID-19/complicaciones , Metilprednisolona/efectos adversos , SARS-CoV-2 , Hidrocortisona/uso terapéutico , Estudios Prospectivos , Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , Síndrome de Dificultad Respiratoria/tratamiento farmacológico , Síndrome de Dificultad Respiratoria/inducido químicamente , Dexametasona/efectos adversos , Resultado del Tratamiento
2.
Pharmacol Rep ; 73(6): 1650-1659, 2021 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1265619

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
Acetilcisteína/uso terapéutico , Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , COVID-19/complicaciones , Síndrome de Dificultad Respiratoria/tratamiento farmacológico , Acetilcisteína/administración & dosificación , Acetilcisteína/efectos adversos , Administración Intravenosa , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Mortalidad , Proyectos Piloto , Estudios Prospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Resultado del Tratamiento
3.
J Res Health Sci ; 21(1): e00502, 2021 Jan 18.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1178660

RESUMEN

No Abstract.


Asunto(s)
Pandemias , Humanos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA