Inhaled ciclesonide for outpatients with COVID-19: A meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hsu CK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9359495 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Inhaled ciclesonide for outpatients with COVID-19: A meta-analysis.
Hsu Chi-Kuei CK Chao Chien-Ming CM Lai Chih-Cheng CC
Journal of microbiology, immunology, and infection = Wei mian yu gan ran za zhi 20220808 6 Pt 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine if inhaled and intranasal ciclesonide are superior to placebo at decreasing respiratory symptoms in adult outpatients with covid-19.DesignRandomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial.SettingThree Canadian provinces (Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia).Participants203 adults aged 18 years and older with polymerase chain reaction confirmed covid-19, presenting with fever, cough, or dyspnoea.InterventionParticipants were randomised to receive either inhaled ciclesonide (600 μg twice daily) and intranasal ciclesonide (200 μg daily) or metered dose inhaler and nasal saline placebos for 14 days.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was symptom resolution at day 7. Analyses were conducted on the modified intention-to-treat population (participants who took at least one dose of study drug and completed one follow-up survey) and adjusted for stratified randomisation by sex.ResultsThe modified intention-to-treat population included 203 participants: 105 were randomly assigned to ciclesonide (excluding two dropouts and one loss to follow-up) and 98 to placebo (excluding three dropouts and six losses to follow-up). The median age was 35 years (interquartile range 27-47 years) and 54% were women. The proportion of participants with resolution of symptoms by day 7 did not differ significantly between the intervention group (42/105, 40%) and control group (34/98, 35%); absolute adjusted risk difference 5.5% (95% confidence interval -7.8% to 18.8%). Results might be limited to the population studied, which mainly included younger adults without comorbidities. The trial was stopped early, therefore could have been underpowered.ConclusionCompared with placebo, the combination of inhaled and intranasal ciclesonide did not show a statistically significant increase in resolution of symptoms among healthier young adults with covid-19 presenting with prominent respiratory symptoms. As evidence is insufficient to determine the benefit of inhaled and intranasal corticosteroids in the treatment of covid-19, further research is needed.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04435795.
| S-EPMC8561042 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of inhaled ciclesonide in reducing the duration of oxygen therapy (an indicator of time to clinical improvement) among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.DesignMulticentre, randomised, controlled, open-label trial.Setting9 hospitals (3 academic hospitals and 6 non-academic hospitals) in Sweden between 1 June 2020 and 17 May 2021.ParticipantsAdults hospitalised with COVID-19 and receiving oxygen therapy.InterventionInhaled ciclesonide 320 µg two times a day for 14 days versus standard care.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was duration of oxygen therapy, an indicator of time to clinical improvement. Key secondary outcome was a composite of invasive mechanical ventilation/death.ResultsData from 98 participants were analysed (48 receiving ciclesonide and 50 receiving standard care; median (IQR) age, 59.5 (49-67) years; 67 (68%) men). Median (IQR) duration of oxygen therapy was 5.5 (3-9) days in the ciclesonide group and 4 (2-7) days in the standard care group (HR for termination of oxygen therapy 0.73 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.11), with the upper 95% CI being compatible with a 10% relative reduction in oxygen therapy duration, corresponding to a <1 day absolute reduction in a post-hoc calculation). Three participants in each group died/received invasive mechanical ventilation (HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.15 to 5.32)). The trial was discontinued early due to slow enrolment.ConclusionsIn patients hospitalised with COVID-19 receiving oxygen therapy, this trial ruled out, with 0.95 confidence, a treatment effect of ciclesonide corresponding to more than a 1 day reduction in duration of oxygen therapy. Ciclesonide is unlikely to improve this outcome meaningfully.Trial registration numberNCT04381364.
| S-EPMC9950582 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe successful management of patients infected with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with inhaled ciclesonide has been reported, however few studies have investigated its application among hospitalized patients.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study enrolled all adult patients admitted to our hospital with confirmed COVID-19 infection from May to June 2021. Critical patients who received mechanical ventilation within 24 h after admission and those who started ciclesonide more than 14 days after symptom onset were excluded. The in-hospital mortality rate was compared between those who did and did not receive inhaled ciclesonide.ResultsA total of 269 patients were enrolled, of whom 184 received inhaled ciclesonide and 85 did not. The use of ciclesonide was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (7.6% vs. 23.5%, p = 0.0003) and a trend of shorter hospital stay (12.0 (10.0-18.0) days vs. 13.0 (10.0-25.3) days, p = 0.0577). In subgroup analysis, the use of inhaled ciclesonide significantly reduced mortality in the patients with severe COVID-19 infection (6.8% vs. 50.0%, p < 0.0001) and in those with a high risk of mortality (16.4% vs. 43.2%, p = 0.0037). The use of inhaled ciclesonide also reduced the likelihood of receiving mechanical ventilation in the patients with severe COVID-19 infection. After multivariate analysis, inhaled ciclesonide remained positively correlated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio: 0.2724, 95% confidence interval: 0.087-0.8763, p = 0.0291).ConclusionsThe use of inhaled ciclesonide in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection can reduce in-hospital mortality. Further randomized studies in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 infection are urgently needed.
| S-EPMC9517967 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceSystemic corticosteroids are commonly used in treating severe COVID-19. However, the role of inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of patients with mild to moderate disease is less clear.ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy of the inhaled steroid ciclesonide in reducing the time to alleviation of all COVID-19-related symptoms among nonhospitalized participants with symptomatic COVID-19 infection.Design, setting, and participantsThis phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted at 10 centers throughout the US and assessed the safety and efficacy of a ciclesonide metered-dose inhaler (MDI) for treating nonhospitalized participants with symptomatic COVID-19 infection who were screened from June 11, 2020, to November 3, 2020.InterventionsParticipants were randomly assigned to receive ciclesonide MDI, 160 μg per actuation, for a total of 2 actuations twice a day (total daily dose, 640 μg) or placebo for 30 days.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was time to alleviation of all COVID-19-related symptoms (cough, dyspnea, chills, feeling feverish, repeated shaking with chills, muscle pain, headache, sore throat, and new loss of taste or smell) by day 30. Secondary end points included subsequent emergency department visits or hospital admissions for reasons attributable to COVID-19.ResultsA total of 413 participants were screened and 400 (96.9%) were enrolled and randomized (197 [49.3%] in the ciclesonide arm and 203 [50.7%] in the placebo arm; mean [SD] age, 43.3 [16.9] years; 221 [55.3%] female; 2 [0.5%] Asian, 47 [11.8%] Black or African American, 3 [0.8%] Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 345 [86.3%] White, and 1 multiracial individuals [0.3%]; 172 Hispanic or Latino individuals [43.0%]). The median time to alleviation of all COVID-19-related symptoms was 19.0 days (95% CI, 14.0-21.0) in the ciclesonide arm and 19.0 days (95% CI, 16.0-23.0) in the placebo arm. There was no difference in resolution of all symptoms by day 30 (odds ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.84-1.97). Participants who were treated with ciclesonide had fewer subsequent emergency department visits or hospital admissions for reasons related to COVID-19 (odds ratio, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04-0.85). No participants died during the study.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this randomized clinical trial demonstrated that ciclesonide did not achieve the primary efficacy end point of reduced time to alleviation of all COVID-19-related symptoms.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04377711.
| S-EPMC8609464 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy of inhaled ciclesonide in reducing the risk of adverse outcomes in COVID-19 outpatients at risk of developing severe illness.MethodsCOVERAGE is an open-label, randomized controlled trial. Outpatients with documented COVID-19, risk factors for aggravation, symptoms for ≤7 days, and absence of criteria for hospitalization are randomly allocated to either a control arm or one of several experimental arms, including inhaled ciclesonide. The primary efficacy endpoint is COVID-19 worsening (hospitalization, oxygen therapy at home, or death) by Day 14. Other endpoints are adverse events, maximal follow-up score on the WHO Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement, sustained alleviation of symptoms, cure, and RT-PCR and blood parameter evolution at Day 7. The trial's Safety Monitoring Board reviewed the first interim analysis of the ciclesonide arm and recommended halting it for futility. The results of this analysis are reported here.ResultsThe analysis involved 217 participants (control 107, ciclesonide 110), including 111 women and 106 men. Their median age was 63 years (interquartile range 59-68), and 157 of 217 (72.4%) had at least one comorbidity. The median time since first symptom was 4 days (interquartile range 3-5). During the 28-day follow-up, 2 participants died (control 2/107 [1.9%], ciclesonide 0), 4 received oxygen therapy at home and were not hospitalized (control 2/107 [1.9%], ciclesonide 2/110 [1.8%]), and 24 were hospitalized (control 10/107 [9.3%], ciclesonide 14/110 [12.7%]). In intent-to-treat analysis of observed data, 26 participants reached the composite primary endpoint by Day 14, including 12 of 106 (11.3%, 95% CI: 6.0%-18.9%) in the control arm and 14 of 106 (13.2%; 95% CI: 7.4-21.2%) in the ciclesonide arm. Secondary outcomes were similar for both arms.DiscussionOur findings are consistent with the European Medicines Agency's COVID-19 task force statement that there is currently insufficient evidence that inhaled corticosteroids are beneficial for patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8920965 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Inhaled pulmonary vasodilators (IPVD) have been previously studied in patients with non-coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The use of IPVD has been shown to improve the partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2), reduce fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) requirements, and ultimately increase PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) ratios in ARDS patients. However, the role of IPVD in COVID-19 ARDS is still unclear. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the role of IPVD in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases from inception through April 22, 2022 was performed for all published studies that utilized IPVD in COVID-19 ARDS patients. The single arm studies and case series were combined for a 1-arm meta-analysis, and the 2-arm studies were combined for a 2-arm meta-analysis. Primary outcomes for the 1-arm and 2-arm meta-analyzes were change in pre- and post-IPVD P/F ratios and mortality, respectively. Secondary outcomes for the 1-arm meta-analysis were change in pre- and post-IPVD positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and lung compliance, and for the 2-arm meta-analysis the secondary outcomes were need for endotracheal intubation and hospital length of stay (LOS). Results: 13 single arm retrospective studies and 5 case series involving 613 patients were included in the 1-arm meta-analysis. 3 studies involving 640 patients were included in the 2-arm meta-analysis. The pre-IPVD P/F ratios were significantly lower compared to post-IPVD, but there was no significant difference between pre- and post-IPVD PEEP and lung compliance. The mortality rates, need for endotracheal intubation, and hospital LOS were similar between the IPVD and standard therapy groups. Conclusion: Although IPVD may improve oxygenation, our investigation showed no benefits in terms of mortality compared to standard therapy alone. However, randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate our findings.
| S-EPMC9346441 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSevere COVID-19 is associated with hypoxemia and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which may predispose multiorgan failure and death. Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is a clinical vasodilator used in the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This study evaluated the response rate to iNO in patients with COVID-19-ARDS.MethodWe searched Medline and Embase databases in May 2022, and data on the use of iNO in the treatment of ARDS in COVID-19 patients were synthesized from studies that satisfied predefined inclusion criteria. A systematic synthesis of data was performed followed by meta-analysis. We performed the funnel plot and leave-one-out sensitivity test on the included studies to assess publication bias and possible exaggerated effect size. We compared the effect size of the studies from the Unites States with those from other countries and performed meta-regression to assess the effect of age, year of publication, and concomitant vasodilator use on the effect size.ResultsA total of 17 studies (including 712 COVID-19 patients) were included in this systematic review of which 8 studies (involving 265 COVID-19 patients) were subjected to meta-analysis. The overall response rate was 66% (95% CI, 47-84%) with significantly high between-studies heterogeneity (I2 = 94%, p < 0.001). The funnel plot showed publication bias, although the sensitivity test using leave-one-out analysis showed that removing any of the study does not remove the significance of the result. The response rate was higher in the Unites States, and meta-regression showed that age, year of publication, and use of concomitant vasodilators did not influence the response rate to iNO.ConclusioniNO therapy is valuable in the treatment of hypoxemia in COVID-19 patients and may improve systemic oxygenation in patients with COVID-19-ARDS. Future studies should investigate the mechanism of the activity of iNO in COVID-19 patients to provide insight into the unexplored potential of iNO in general ARDS.
| S-EPMC9566710 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Data on convalescent plasma (CP) treatment in COVID-19 outpatients are scarce. We aimed to assess whether CP administered during the first week of symptoms reduced the disease progression or risk of hospitalization of outpatients. Two multicenter, double-blind randomized trials (NCT04621123, NCT04589949) were merged with data pooling starting when <20% of recruitment target was achieved. A Bayesian-adaptive individual patient data meta-analysis was implemented. Outpatients aged ≥50 years and symptomatic for ≤7days were included. The intervention consisted of 200-300mL of CP with a predefined minimum level of antibodies. Primary endpoints were a 5-point disease severity scale and a composite of hospitalization or death by 28 days. Amongst the 797 patients included, 390 received CP and 392 placebo; they had a median age of 58 years, 1 comorbidity, 5 days symptoms and 93% had negative IgG antibody-test. Seventy-four patients were hospitalized, 6 required mechanical ventilation and 3 died. The odds ratio (OR) of CP for improved disease severity scale was 0.936 (credible interval (CI) 0.667-1.311); OR for hospitalization or death was 0.919 (CI 0.592-1.416). CP effect on hospital admission or death was largest in patients with ≤5 days of symptoms (OR 0.658, 95%CI 0.394-1.085). CP did not decrease the time to full symptom resolution.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT04621123 and NCT04589949.RegistrationNCT04621123 and NCT04589949 on https://www.Clinicaltrialsgov.
| S-EPMC9095637 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7491401 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeExtrafine-particle inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) have greater small airway deposition than standard fine-particle ICS. We sought to compare asthma-related outcomes after patients initiated extrafine-particle ciclesonide or fine-particle ICS (fluticasone propionate or non-extrafine beclomethasone).MethodsThis historical, matched cohort study included patients aged 12-60 years prescribed their first ICS as ciclesonide or fine-particle ICS. The 2 cohorts were matched 1:1 for key demographic and clinical characteristics over the baseline year. Co-primary endpoints were 1-year severe exacerbation rates, risk-domain asthma control, and overall asthma control; secondary endpoints included therapy change.ResultsEach cohort included 1,244 patients (median age 45 years; 65% women). Patients in the ciclesonide cohort were comparable to those in the fine-particle ICS cohort apart from higher baseline prevalence of hospitalization, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and rhinitis. Median (interquartile range) prescribed doses of ciclesonide and fine-particle ICS were 160 (160-160) μg/day and 500 (250-500) μg/day, respectively (P<0.001). During the outcome year, patients prescribed ciclesonide experienced lower severe exacerbation rates (adjusted rate ratio [95% CI], 0.69 [0.53-0.89]), and higher odds of risk-domain asthma control (adjusted odds ratio [95% CI], 1.62 [1.27-2.06]) and of overall asthma control (2.08 [1.68-2.57]) than those prescribed fine-particle ICS. The odds of therapy change were 0.70 (0.59-0.83) with ciclesonide.ConclusionsIn this matched cohort analysis, we observed that initiation of ICS with ciclesonide was associated with better 1-year asthma outcomes and fewer changes to therapy, despite data suggesting more difficult-to-control asthma. The median prescribed dose of ciclesonide was one-third that of fine-particle ICS.
| S-EPMC5266109 | biostudies-literature