糖皮质激素治疗由 Covid-19 引起的急性呼吸窘迫综合征的有效性和安全性:系统回顾与元分析》。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Clinical and Investigative Medicine Pub Date : 2023-12-01 DOI:10.3138/cim.v46i4e03
Xiangyang Jiang, Changyun Zhao, Weihang Hu, Difan Lu, Changqin Chen, Shijin Gong, Jing Yan, Wenchao Mao
{"title":"糖皮质激素治疗由 Covid-19 引起的急性呼吸窘迫综合征的有效性和安全性:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Xiangyang Jiang, Changyun Zhao, Weihang Hu, Difan Lu, Changqin Chen, Shijin Gong, Jing Yan, Wenchao Mao","doi":"10.3138/cim.v46i4e03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Glucocorticoids are often used to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids in the treatment of ARDS caused by COVID-19 are still controversial; therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis of the literature on this topic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched from the establishment of the databases to August 16, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared glucocorticoid versus standard treatment for ARDS caused by COVID-19 were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were used to evaluate the risk of bias. Review Manager 5.4 software and STATA 17.0 were used for meta-analy-sis, and the relative risk (RR), mean difference, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were then determined. Results: A total of 17 studies involving 8592 patients were evaluated, including 14 retrospective studies and 3 RCTs. Sixteen studies reported data on all-cause mortality. The results of the meta-analysis showed that glucocorticoids did not reduce all-cause (RR, 0.96; 95% CI 0.82-1.13, P = .62) or 28-day (RR, 1.01; 95% CI 0.78-1.32, P = .93) mortality. Subgroup analysis showed that only methylprednisolone reduced all-cause mortality. No matter whether glucocorticoid use was early or delayed, high-dose or low-dose, long-term or short-term, no regimen reduced all-cause mortality. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, length of hospital stay, hyperglycemia, and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP); how-ever, glucocorticoids increased the number of ventilator-free days.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although methylprednisolone may reduce all-cause mortality from ARDS caused by COVID-19, this effect was not found with other types of glucocorticoids. At the same time, glucocorticoid use was associ-ated with more ventilator-free days, without increasing the incidence of hyperglycemic events or VAP. Con-sidering that almost all of the included studies were retrospective cohort studies, more RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":50683,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Investigative Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and Safety of Glucocorticoid in the Treatment of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome caused by Covid-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Xiangyang Jiang, Changyun Zhao, Weihang Hu, Difan Lu, Changqin Chen, Shijin Gong, Jing Yan, Wenchao Mao\",\"doi\":\"10.3138/cim.v46i4e03\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Glucocorticoids are often used to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids in the treatment of ARDS caused by COVID-19 are still controversial; therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis of the literature on this topic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched from the establishment of the databases to August 16, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared glucocorticoid versus standard treatment for ARDS caused by COVID-19 were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were used to evaluate the risk of bias. Review Manager 5.4 software and STATA 17.0 were used for meta-analy-sis, and the relative risk (RR), mean difference, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were then determined. Results: A total of 17 studies involving 8592 patients were evaluated, including 14 retrospective studies and 3 RCTs. Sixteen studies reported data on all-cause mortality. The results of the meta-analysis showed that glucocorticoids did not reduce all-cause (RR, 0.96; 95% CI 0.82-1.13, P = .62) or 28-day (RR, 1.01; 95% CI 0.78-1.32, P = .93) mortality. Subgroup analysis showed that only methylprednisolone reduced all-cause mortality. No matter whether glucocorticoid use was early or delayed, high-dose or low-dose, long-term or short-term, no regimen reduced all-cause mortality. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, length of hospital stay, hyperglycemia, and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP); how-ever, glucocorticoids increased the number of ventilator-free days.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although methylprednisolone may reduce all-cause mortality from ARDS caused by COVID-19, this effect was not found with other types of glucocorticoids. At the same time, glucocorticoid use was associ-ated with more ventilator-free days, without increasing the incidence of hyperglycemic events or VAP. Con-sidering that almost all of the included studies were retrospective cohort studies, more RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50683,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and Investigative Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and Investigative Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3138/cim.v46i4e03\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Investigative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/cim.v46i4e03","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:糖皮质激素常用于治疗急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)和新型冠状病毒病2019(COVID-19)。然而,糖皮质激素治疗COVID-19引起的ARDS的有效性和安全性仍存在争议;因此,我们对这一主题的文献进行了荟萃分析:方法:检索了自数据库建立至 2023 年 8 月 16 日的四个数据库(PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane Library 和 Web of Science)。纳入了对COVID-19引起的ARDS进行糖皮质激素与标准治疗比较的随机对照试验(RCT)和队列研究。采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(NOS)核对表和《科克伦干预措施系统综述手册》评估偏倚风险。使用 Review Manager 5.4 软件和 STATA 17.0 进行元分析,然后确定相对风险 (RR)、平均差异和 95% 置信区间 (CI)。结果共评估了 17 项研究,涉及 8592 名患者,其中包括 14 项回顾性研究和 3 项研究性临床试验。16项研究报告了全因死亡率数据。荟萃分析结果显示,糖皮质激素不能降低全因死亡率(RR,0.96;95% CI 0.82-1.13,P = .62)或 28 天死亡率(RR,1.01;95% CI 0.78-1.32,P = .93)。亚组分析显示,只有甲基强的松龙能降低全因死亡率。无论糖皮质激素的使用是早期还是延迟、大剂量还是小剂量、长期还是短期,任何方案都不能降低全因死亡率。此外,在重症监护室(ICU)停留时间、住院时间、高血糖和呼吸机相关肺炎(VAP)方面没有明显差异;但糖皮质激素增加了无呼吸机天数:结论:尽管甲基强的松龙可降低 COVID-19 引起的 ARDS 的全因死亡率,但其他类型的糖皮质激素却没有这种效果。同时,使用糖皮质激素可增加无呼吸机天数,但不会增加高血糖事件或 VAP 的发生率。考虑到几乎所有纳入的研究都是回顾性队列研究,因此需要更多的研究性试验来证实这些发现。
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
Efficacy and Safety of Glucocorticoid in the Treatment of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome caused by Covid-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Glucocorticoids are often used to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids in the treatment of ARDS caused by COVID-19 are still controversial; therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis of the literature on this topic.

Methods: Four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched from the establishment of the databases to August 16, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared glucocorticoid versus standard treatment for ARDS caused by COVID-19 were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were used to evaluate the risk of bias. Review Manager 5.4 software and STATA 17.0 were used for meta-analy-sis, and the relative risk (RR), mean difference, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were then determined. Results: A total of 17 studies involving 8592 patients were evaluated, including 14 retrospective studies and 3 RCTs. Sixteen studies reported data on all-cause mortality. The results of the meta-analysis showed that glucocorticoids did not reduce all-cause (RR, 0.96; 95% CI 0.82-1.13, P = .62) or 28-day (RR, 1.01; 95% CI 0.78-1.32, P = .93) mortality. Subgroup analysis showed that only methylprednisolone reduced all-cause mortality. No matter whether glucocorticoid use was early or delayed, high-dose or low-dose, long-term or short-term, no regimen reduced all-cause mortality. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, length of hospital stay, hyperglycemia, and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP); how-ever, glucocorticoids increased the number of ventilator-free days.

Conclusions: Although methylprednisolone may reduce all-cause mortality from ARDS caused by COVID-19, this effect was not found with other types of glucocorticoids. At the same time, glucocorticoid use was associ-ated with more ventilator-free days, without increasing the incidence of hyperglycemic events or VAP. Con-sidering that almost all of the included studies were retrospective cohort studies, more RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.

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
Clinical and Investigative Medicine
Clinical and Investigative Medicine 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
12.50%
发文量
18
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Investigative Medicine (CIM), publishes original work in the field of Clinical Investigation. Original work includes clinical or laboratory investigations and clinical reports. Reviews include information for Continuing Medical Education (CME), narrative review articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.
期刊最新文献
Global Trends and Frontier in Research on Pancreatic Alpha Cells: A Bibliometric Analysis from 2013 to 2023. Recommendations for Recovery of the COVID-19 Pandemic-related Diagnostic, Screening, and Procedure Backlog in Ontario: A Survey of Healthcare Leaders. Spring 2024: Clinician Investigator Trainee Association of Canada (CITAC). Training Outcomes and Satisfaction in Canadian MD/PhD and MD/MSc Programs: Findings from a National Survey. A Discussion with Dr. Natasha Kekre, Hematologist and Clinician Scientist.
×
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