RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To discuss the pathogenesis of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and the pharmacological effects of glucocorticoids (GCs) toward this infection. To review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using GCs to treat patients with severe COVID-19, and investigate whether GC timing, dosage, or duration affect clinical outcomes. Finally. to discuss the use of biological markers, respiratory parameters, and radiological evidence to select patients for improved GC therapeutic precision. BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has become an unprecedented global challenge. As GCs have been used as key immunomodulators to treat inflammation-related diseases, they may play key roles in limiting disease progression by modulating immune responses, cytokine production, and endothelial function in patients with severe COVID-19, who often experience excessive cytokine production and endothelial and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) dysfunction. Current clinical trials have partially proven this efficacy, but GC timing, dosage, and duration vary greatly, with no unifying consensus, thereby creating confusion. METHODS: Publications through March 2021 were retrieved from the Web of Science and PubMed. Results from cited references in published articles were also included. CONCLUSIONS: GCs play key roles in treating severe COVID-19 infections. Pharmacologically, GCs could modulate immune cells, reduce cytokine and chemokine, and improve endothelial functions in patients with severe COVID-19. Benefits of GCs have been observed in multiple clinical trials, but the timing, dosage and duration vary across studies. Tapering as an option is not widely accepted. However, early initiation of treatment, a tailored dosage with appropriate tapering may be of particular importance, but evidence is inconclusive and more investigations are needed. Biological markers, respiratory parameters, and radiological evidence could also help select patients for specific tailored treatments.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The long-term outcomes of patients with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) given the immunosuppressive treatment are considered to be preferable. However, little is known about the response of AIH patients with cirrhosis to immunosuppressive treatment. We assessed the effects of immunosuppressive therapy in Chinese AIH patients with cirrhosis from a tertiary hospital. METHODS: Patients with a clinical diagnosis of AIH January 2000 and December 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Two-hundred and fourteen patients who were followed up and satisfied the simplified AIH criteria were included in the study. Among these patients, 87 presented with cirrhosis when initially diagnosed for AIH. Immunosuppressive treatments were employed in 57 AIH patients who did not present with cirrhosis and 39 patients who presented with cirrhosis. Initial responses to immunosuppressive treatment of patients with and without cirrhosis were analyzed. Independent risk factors were assessed for predicting the prognosis of patients. The t-test and Cox regression statistical analysis were used. RESULTS: In total, 96 AIH patients including 39 with cirrhosis and 57 without cirrhosis underwent immunosuppressive therapy. The overall complete remission after initial immunosuppressive treatment was achieved in 81/96 patients (84.4%), whereas 9/96 (9.4%) achieved incomplete response, and 6/96 (6.3%) occurred treatment failure. Compared to noncirrhotic patients, patients who presented with cirrhosis responded to treatment to a comparable extent regarding complete response (noncirrhosis 50/57 [87.7%] vs. cirrhosis 31/39 [79.5%], P = 0.275), incomplete remission (noncirrhosis 4/57 [7.0%] vs. cirrhosis 5/39 [12.8%], P = 0.338), and treatment failure (noncirrhosis 3/57 [5.3%] vs. cirrhosis 3/39 [7.7%], P = 0.629). Importantly, the remission rate was comparable (54/57 [94.7%] and 36/39 [92.3%], P = 0.629) for noncirrhotic and cirrhotic patients after immunosuppressive therapy. Compared to patients who maintained remission (n = 19) after drug withdrawal, patients who experienced relapse (n = 17) had significantly higher levels of serum immunoglobulin G at entry (15.0 ± 6.5 g/L vs. 22.3 ± 5.8 g/L, t = 2.814, P = 0.004). Moreover, cirrhosis at presentation significantly increased the risk of disease exacerbation (hazard ratio [HR]: 4.603; P = 0.002). The treatment of immunosuppressant (HR: 0.058; P = 0.005) and the level of aspartate aminotransferase at presentation (HR: 1.002; P = 0.017) also increased the risk of disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of initial immunosuppressive treatment in AIH patients with cirrhosis is comparable to that in those without cirrhosis. Cirrhotic patients not treated by immunosuppressants have poor long-term outcomes.
