Corticosteroids in critical COVID-19: Are all corticosteroids equal?

BACKGROUND: The hyperinflammation seen as part of a dysregulated immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in its most severe form leads to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), multiorgan failure and death. Corticosteroid therapy targets this hyperinflammation, otherwise known as a cytokine storm. It is the only therapeutic agent to date with a mortality benefit, with clear guidelines from national and international health authorities guiding its use. Objectives. To compare severity-of-illness indices, survival, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay and potential ICU complications in patients treated with different corticosteroid regimens (high-dose hydrocortisone, high-dose methylprednisolone and lower-dose dexamethasone). Methods. In this single-centre descriptive retrospective observational study of a cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to a COVID-dedicated ICU, we compared patients treated with the three different corticosteroid regimens. Results. In 242 cases we could not demonstrate any statistically or clinically significant difference in the outcome of patients with critical COVID-19 treated with high-dose intravenous hydrocortisone (n=88) or methylprednisolone (n=46) compared with a relatively lower dose of dexamethasone (n=108). The survival rates were 38.6%, 39.1% and 33.3%, respectively (p=0.68). Patients treated with methylprednisolone tended to have a shorter length of ICU stay (median (interquartile range) 6 (4 - 10), 4 (2 - 8) and 5 (2 - 8) days; p=0.015) and fewer episodes of nosocomial sepsis (47.7%, 32.6% and 48.1%; p=0.01). Conclusions. Hydrocortisone or methylprednisolone can be given as an alternative to dexamethasone in the management of critical COVID-19, and this is a feasible alternative, especially in resource-constrained settings.

Dynamics and risk of transmission of bovine tuberculosis in the emerging dairy regions of Ethiopia.

The Ethiopian government has several initiatives to expand and intensify the dairy industry; however, the risk of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) spread is a challenge. To assess the rate of expansion and risk factors for transmission of bTB within-herds, we carried out a repeated cross-sectional survey at two time points, 2016/17 and 2018, in three regional cities, namely, Gondar, Hawassa and Mekelle, representing the emerging dairy belts of Ethiopia. The total number of herds involved was 128, comprising an average of 2303 cattle in each round. The Single Intradermal Comparative Cervical Tuberculin (SICCT) test was used to identify reactor status and data on herd-level risk factors were collected using a structured questionnaire. In the first survey, the apparent prevalence of bTB, as measured by the SICCT test, was 4.5% (95% CI 3.7-5.4%) at the individual animal-level and 24% (95% CI 17.5-32%) at the herd-level. There was no statistically significant change in the overall apparent prevalence or regional distribution at the second survey, consistent with the infection being endemic. The incidence rate was estimated at 3.6 (95% CI 2.8-4.5) and 6.6 (95% CI 3.0-12.6) cases/100 cattle (or herd)-years at the animal- and herd-levels, respectively. Risk factors significantly associated with the within-herd transmission of bTB were age group and within-herd apparent prevalence at the start of the observation period. We noted that farmers voluntarily took steps to remove reactor cattle from their herds as a consequence of the information shared after the first survey. Removal of reactors between surveys was associated with a reduced risk of transmission within these herds. However, with no regulatory barriers to the sale of reactor animals, such actions could potentially lead to further spread between herds. We therefore advocate the importance of setting up regulations and then establishing a systematic bTB surveillance programme to monitor the impact prior to implementing any control measures in Ethiopia.