鼻内注射与静脉注射地塞米松治疗 COVID-19 住院患者:随机多中心临床试验

IF 4.7 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Archives of Medical Research Pub Date : 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.arcmed.2024.102960
Graciela Cárdenas , María Chávez-Canales , Ana María Espinosa , Antonio Jordán-Ríos , Daniel Anica Malagon , Manlio Fabio Márquez Murillo , Laura Victoria Torres Araujo , Ricardo Leopoldo Barajas Campos , Rosa María Wong-Chew , Luis Esteban Ramirez González , Karent Ibet Cresencio , Enrique García Velázquez , Mariana Rodriguez de la Cerda , Yoana Leyva , Joselin Hernández-Ruiz , María Luisa Hernández-Medel , Mireya León-Hernández , Karen Medina Quero , Anahí Sánchez Monciváis , Eduardo Beltrán Sarmiento , Edda Sciutto
{"title":"鼻内注射与静脉注射地塞米松治疗 COVID-19 住院患者:随机多中心临床试验","authors":"Graciela Cárdenas ,&nbsp;María Chávez-Canales ,&nbsp;Ana María Espinosa ,&nbsp;Antonio Jordán-Ríos ,&nbsp;Daniel Anica Malagon ,&nbsp;Manlio Fabio Márquez Murillo ,&nbsp;Laura Victoria Torres Araujo ,&nbsp;Ricardo Leopoldo Barajas Campos ,&nbsp;Rosa María Wong-Chew ,&nbsp;Luis Esteban Ramirez González ,&nbsp;Karent Ibet Cresencio ,&nbsp;Enrique García Velázquez ,&nbsp;Mariana Rodriguez de la Cerda ,&nbsp;Yoana Leyva ,&nbsp;Joselin Hernández-Ruiz ,&nbsp;María Luisa Hernández-Medel ,&nbsp;Mireya León-Hernández ,&nbsp;Karen Medina Quero ,&nbsp;Anahí Sánchez Monciváis ,&nbsp;Eduardo Beltrán Sarmiento ,&nbsp;Edda Sciutto","doi":"10.1016/j.arcmed.2024.102960","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p><span><span><span>SARS-CoV2 induces flu-like symptoms that can rapidly progress to severe acute lung injury<span> and even death. The virus<span> also invades the central nervous system (CNS), causing </span></span></span>neuroinflammation and death from central failure. Intravenous (IV) or oral </span>dexamethasone (DXM) reduced 28 d mortality </span>in patients who required supplemental oxygen compared to those who received conventional care alone. Through these routes, DMX fails to reach therapeutic levels in the CNS. In contrast, the intranasal (IN) route produces therapeutic levels of DXM in the CNS, even at low doses, with similar systemic bioavailability.</p></div><div><h3>Aims</h3><p>To compare IN vs. IV DXM treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A controlled, multicenter, open-label trial. Patients with COVID-19 (69) were randomly assigned to receive IN-DXM (0.12 mg/kg for three days, followed by 0.6 mg/kg for up to seven days) or IV-DXM (6 mg/d for 10 d). The primary outcome was clinical improvement, as defined by the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) ordinal scale. The secondary outcome was death at 28 d between IV and IN patients. Effects of both treatments on biochemical and immunoinflammatory profiles were also recorded.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Initially, no significant differences in clinical severity, biometrics, and immunoinflammatory parameters were found between both groups. The NEWS-2 score was reduced, in 23 IN-DXM treated patients, with no significant variations in the 46 IV-DXM treated ones. Ten IV-DXM-treated patients and only one IN-DXM patient died.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>IN-DMX reduced NEWS-2 and mortality more efficiently than IV-DXM, suggesting that IN is a more efficient route of DXM administration.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8318,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Medical Research","volume":"55 2","pages":"Article 102960"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intranasal Versus Intravenous Dexamethasone to Treat Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Randomized Multicenter Clinical Trial\",\"authors\":\"Graciela Cárdenas ,&nbsp;María Chávez-Canales ,&nbsp;Ana María Espinosa ,&nbsp;Antonio Jordán-Ríos ,&nbsp;Daniel Anica Malagon ,&nbsp;Manlio Fabio Márquez Murillo ,&nbsp;Laura Victoria Torres Araujo ,&nbsp;Ricardo Leopoldo Barajas Campos ,&nbsp;Rosa María Wong-Chew ,&nbsp;Luis Esteban Ramirez González ,&nbsp;Karent Ibet Cresencio ,&nbsp;Enrique García Velázquez ,&nbsp;Mariana Rodriguez de la Cerda ,&nbsp;Yoana Leyva ,&nbsp;Joselin Hernández-Ruiz ,&nbsp;María Luisa Hernández-Medel ,&nbsp;Mireya León-Hernández ,&nbsp;Karen Medina Quero ,&nbsp;Anahí Sánchez Monciváis ,&nbsp;Eduardo Beltrán Sarmiento ,&nbsp;Edda Sciutto\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.arcmed.2024.102960\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p><span><span><span>SARS-CoV2 induces flu-like symptoms that can rapidly progress to severe acute lung injury<span> and even death. The virus<span> also invades the central nervous system (CNS), causing </span></span></span>neuroinflammation and death from central failure. Intravenous (IV) or oral </span>dexamethasone (DXM) reduced 28 d mortality </span>in patients who required supplemental oxygen compared to those who received conventional care alone. Through these routes, DMX fails to reach therapeutic levels in the CNS. In contrast, the intranasal (IN) route produces therapeutic levels of DXM in the CNS, even at low doses, with similar systemic bioavailability.</p></div><div><h3>Aims</h3><p>To compare IN vs. IV DXM treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A controlled, multicenter, open-label trial. Patients with COVID-19 (69) were randomly assigned to receive IN-DXM (0.12 mg/kg for three days, followed by 0.6 mg/kg for up to seven days) or IV-DXM (6 mg/d for 10 d). The primary outcome was clinical improvement, as defined by the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) ordinal scale. The secondary outcome was death at 28 d between IV and IN patients. Effects of both treatments on biochemical and immunoinflammatory profiles were also recorded.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Initially, no significant differences in clinical severity, biometrics, and immunoinflammatory parameters were found between both groups. The NEWS-2 score was reduced, in 23 IN-DXM treated patients, with no significant variations in the 46 IV-DXM treated ones. Ten IV-DXM-treated patients and only one IN-DXM patient died.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>IN-DMX reduced NEWS-2 and mortality more efficiently than IV-DXM, suggesting that IN is a more efficient route of DXM administration.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8318,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Medical Research\",\"volume\":\"55 2\",\"pages\":\"Article 102960\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Medical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0188440924000134\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0188440924000134","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景SARS-CoV2 会诱发类似流感的症状,并迅速发展为严重的急性肺损伤,甚至导致死亡。病毒还会入侵中枢神经系统(CNS),导致神经炎症和中枢衰竭死亡。与只接受常规护理的患者相比,静脉注射(IV)或口服地塞米松(DXM)可降低需要补充氧气的患者的 28 天死亡率。通过这些途径,DMX 无法在中枢神经系统中达到治疗水平。相比之下,鼻内(IN)途径即使剂量较低,也能在中枢神经系统中产生治疗水平的 DXM,而且全身生物利用度相似。69名COVID-19患者被随机分配接受IN-DXM(0.12 mg/kg,连续3天,之后0.6 mg/kg,最多7天)或IV-DXM(6 mg/d,连续10天)治疗。主要结果是临床改善,以国家早期预警评分(NEWS)序数表定义。次要结果是 IV 和 IN 患者 28 天后的死亡情况。此外,还记录了两种治疗方法对生化指标和免疫炎症指标的影响。结果最初,两组患者的临床严重程度、生化指标和免疫炎症指标均无显著差异。23 名接受 IN-DXM 治疗的患者的 NEWS-2 评分有所下降,而 46 名接受 IV-DXM 治疗的患者的 NEWS-2 评分则无明显变化。结论IN-DMX 比 IV-DXM 更有效地降低了 NEWS-2 和死亡率,表明 IN 是一种更有效的 DXM 给药途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Intranasal Versus Intravenous Dexamethasone to Treat Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Randomized Multicenter Clinical Trial

Background

SARS-CoV2 induces flu-like symptoms that can rapidly progress to severe acute lung injury and even death. The virus also invades the central nervous system (CNS), causing neuroinflammation and death from central failure. Intravenous (IV) or oral dexamethasone (DXM) reduced 28 d mortality in patients who required supplemental oxygen compared to those who received conventional care alone. Through these routes, DMX fails to reach therapeutic levels in the CNS. In contrast, the intranasal (IN) route produces therapeutic levels of DXM in the CNS, even at low doses, with similar systemic bioavailability.

Aims

To compare IN vs. IV DXM treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Methods

A controlled, multicenter, open-label trial. Patients with COVID-19 (69) were randomly assigned to receive IN-DXM (0.12 mg/kg for three days, followed by 0.6 mg/kg for up to seven days) or IV-DXM (6 mg/d for 10 d). The primary outcome was clinical improvement, as defined by the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) ordinal scale. The secondary outcome was death at 28 d between IV and IN patients. Effects of both treatments on biochemical and immunoinflammatory profiles were also recorded.

Results

Initially, no significant differences in clinical severity, biometrics, and immunoinflammatory parameters were found between both groups. The NEWS-2 score was reduced, in 23 IN-DXM treated patients, with no significant variations in the 46 IV-DXM treated ones. Ten IV-DXM-treated patients and only one IN-DXM patient died.

Conclusions

IN-DMX reduced NEWS-2 and mortality more efficiently than IV-DXM, suggesting that IN is a more efficient route of DXM administration.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Archives of Medical Research
Archives of Medical Research 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
12.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
84
审稿时长
28 days
期刊介绍: Archives of Medical Research serves as a platform for publishing original peer-reviewed medical research, aiming to bridge gaps created by medical specialization. The journal covers three main categories - biomedical, clinical, and epidemiological contributions, along with review articles and preliminary communications. With an international scope, it presents the study of diseases from diverse perspectives, offering the medical community original investigations ranging from molecular biology to clinical epidemiology in a single publication.
期刊最新文献
Response to: Comment on “Impaired Ischemia-Reperfusion Responses in the Hearts of Aged Male and Female Offspring of Obese Rats” Impact of maternal hormone profile and paternal sperm DNA fragmentation on clinical outcomes following assisted reproduction Cognitive Frailty and Aging: Clinical Characteristics, Pathophysiological Mechanisms, and Potential Prevention Strategies Influence of hormonal factors, number of sexual partners, surgical intervention on gastrointestinal and urogenital microbiota of patients endometriosis Relevance of Circulating microRNA, and their Association with Islet Cell Autoantibodies in Type 1 Diabetes Pathogenesis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1