Department of Infection Prevention and Control, Tokyo Medical University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Department of Infection Prevention and Control, Tokyo Medical University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
J Infect Chemother. 2023 Mar;29(3):269-273. doi: 10.1016/j.jiac.2022.11.008. Epub 2022 Nov 24.
Although dexamethasone is an effective treatment in cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring oxygen, the efficacy of methylprednisolone pulse is unclear. We compared the characteristics and outcomes of methylprednisolone pulse to those of dexamethasone.
We conducted a retrospective cohort study on adult COVID-19 cases requiring oxygen and no invasive mechanical ventilation treated with methylprednisolone pulse (1 g/day for 3 days) or dexamethasone (6 mg/day orally or 6.6 mg/day intravenously for ≥5 days). The primary outcome was intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The secondary outcomes were hospital mortality, length of hospital stay (LoS), duration of oxygen requirement, and requirement for hospital transfer, vasopressor(s), intubation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT).
Twenty two cases of methylprednisolone pulse and 77 cases of dexamethasone were included. Mask ventilation was more common in the methylprednisolone pulse group (P < 0.001). The proportion of ICU admissions was similar between both groups (P = 0.635). The secondary outcomes of hospital mortality and the requirement for hospital transfer, vasopressor(s), intubation, and CRRT were similar between groups. No cases received ECMO. Median LoS (P = 0.006) and duration of oxygen requirement (P = 0.004) were longer in the methylprednisolone pulse group.
The proportion of ICU admissions was similar between the methylprednisolone pulse and the dexamethasone group. However, more cases in the methylprednisolone pulse group required mask ventilation than in the dexamethasone group, suggesting that some cases benefited from methylprednisolone pulse.
虽然地塞米松对需要吸氧的 2019 冠状病毒病(COVID-19)患者是一种有效的治疗方法,但甲泼尼龙脉冲治疗的疗效尚不清楚。我们比较了甲泼尼龙脉冲与地塞米松的特征和结局。
我们对需要吸氧且未接受有创机械通气的成年 COVID-19 患者进行了回顾性队列研究,这些患者接受了甲泼尼龙脉冲(1g/天,连续 3 天)或地塞米松(口服 6mg/天或静脉内 6.6mg/天,持续至少 5 天)治疗。主要结局是入住重症监护病房(ICU)。次要结局是医院死亡率、住院时间(LoS)、氧疗持续时间和住院转科需求、血管加压药、插管、体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)和连续肾脏替代治疗(CRRT)。
纳入了 22 例甲泼尼龙脉冲患者和 77 例地塞米松患者。甲泼尼龙脉冲组更常见面罩通气(P<0.001)。两组入住 ICU 的比例相似(P=0.635)。两组的医院死亡率和住院转科、血管加压药、插管和 CRRT 需求等次要结局相似。无患者接受 ECMO。甲泼尼龙脉冲组的中位 LOS(P=0.006)和氧疗持续时间(P=0.004)较长。
甲泼尼龙脉冲组和地塞米松组入住 ICU 的比例相似。然而,甲泼尼龙脉冲组中需要面罩通气的病例多于地塞米松组,这表明一些病例从甲泼尼龙脉冲治疗中获益。