8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Use of glucocorticoids in patients with adrenal insufficiency and COVID-19 infection

      letter

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In March 2020, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the cause of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), reached pandemic level with a high global mortality rate. 1 The initial immune response to viral load is followed by an uncontrolled cytokine storm with hyperinflammation and immunosuppression. In the patients who are critically ill, infected alveolar epithelial cells trigger the release of inflammatory cytokines, which activates fibroblasts. Subsequently, uncontrolled viral propagation induces cytotoxicity and hyperactivation of immune cells. The cytokine storm leads to increased clotting, vascular inflammation, thromboembolism, and hypotensive shock. Glucocorticoids have both stimulating and inhibitory effects on the immune response. In the initial phases of an infection, physiological glucocorticoid concentrations help to prime the immune system. In turn, this response activates the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis to mild immunosuppression to reduce autoimmunity and cytokine toxicity. In critical illness (eg, COVID-19 pneumonia), HPA activation might be blunted, leading to corticosteroid insufficiency related to critical illness. 2 The rationale for use of glucocorticoids in lung damage lies in their ability to reduce inflammation and, ideally, fibrosis. However, the absence of benefit on overall survival has discouraged their use 3 to the point that WHO guidance on management of COVID-19 advises against corticosteroids, unless indicated for other reasons. 4 Adrenal insufficiency is one of those reasons and standard care suggests to apply the so-called sick day rules when COVID-19 is suspected. 5 Patients with adrenal insufficiency have an increased risk of infection due to their depleted innate immunity, characterised by increased monocytes and decreased cytotoxic natural killer cells, 6 which could facilitate the worsening of a SARS-CoV-2 infection into severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Given the role of the HPA axis in stress priming the immune response, patients with adrenal insufficiency are intuitively at high risk of infection, especially as corticosteroid therapy during infection is still largely tailored empirically, often disregarding timing and dosage. The rationale of the more the better avoids risking inadequate concentrations of corticosteroids. However, mild COVID-19 symptoms such as fatigue, malaise, gastrointestinal symptoms, and diarrhoea are common in patients with adrenal insufficiency, and patients' fears might lead them to increase their dose unnecessarily. Establishing the correct timing of stress dose administration relative to the degree of inflammatory damage and the desired effect on the immune system is crucial—ie, not too early, not too late. Given that hydrocortisone clearance decreases with stress, in mild symptomatic COVID-19 it seems safe to replace the missing stress-induced cortisol rise with additional doses (at least doubling the original regimen). In cases of persistent fever or progression of respiratory damage to severe pneumonia, an initial bolus of 50–100 mg of hydrocortisone followed by continuous intravenous infusion of 200 mg of hydrocortisone would be the most appropriate replacement for patients with adrenal insufficiency. 7 Such regimen can reduce the harmful effects of peaks and troughs of hydrocortisone on the immune system, 7 and the length of stay in an intensive care unit. 8 Hydration and electrolyte balance should also be corrected promptly, as severe hypotension is very frequent with disease progression. There is also increasing concern over the disseminated thromboembolic disease observed in severe COVID-19. Given the coagulation abnormalities associated with glucocorticoid use, low molecular weight heparin should be introduced early. 9 In summary, tailoring of glucocorticoid stress regimens in COVID-19 requires a more evidence-based approach. The pathophysiology of immune response and the systemic complications associated with a SARS-CoV-2 infection set the pace, and the protocol should be adapted to the patient's clinical stage.

          Related collections

          Most cited references9

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Clinical evidence does not support corticosteroid treatment for 2019-nCoV lung injury

          The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak is a major challenge for clinicians. The clinical course of patients remains to be fully characterised, little data are available that describe the disease pathogenesis, and no pharmacological therapies of proven efficacy yet exist. Corticosteroids were widely used during the outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV 1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)-CoV, 2 and are being used in patients with 2019-nCoV in addition to other therapeutics. 3 However, current interim guidance from WHO on clinical management of severe acute respiratory infection when novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infection is suspected (released Jan 28, 2020) advises against the use of corticosteroids unless indicated for another reason. 4 Understanding the evidence for harm or benefit from corticosteroids in 2019-nCoV is of immediate clinical importance. Here we discuss the clinical outcomes of corticosteroid use in coronavirus and similar outbreaks (table ). Table Summary of clinical evidence to date Outcomes of corticosteroid therapy * Comment MERS-CoV Delayed clearance of viral RNA from respiratory tract 2 Adjusted hazard ratio 0·4 (95% CI 0·2–0·7) SARS-CoV Delayed clearance of viral RNA from blood 5 Significant difference but effect size not quantified SARS-CoV Complication: psychosis 6 Associated with higher cumulative dose, 10 975 mg vs 6780 mg hydrocortisone equivalent SARS-CoV Complication: diabetes 7 33 (35%) of 95 patients treated with corticosteroid developed corticosteroid-induced diabetes SARS-CoV Complication: avascular necrosis in survivors 8 Among 40 patients who survived after corticosteroid treatment, 12 (30%) had avascular necrosis and 30 (75%) had osteoporosis Influenza Increased mortality 9 Risk ratio for mortality 1·75 (95% CI 1·3–2·4) in a meta-analysis of 6548 patients from ten studies RSV No clinical benefit in children10, 11 No effect in largest randomised controlled trial of 600 children, of whom 305 (51%) had been treated with corticosteroids CoV=coronavirus. MERS=Middle East respiratory syndrome. RSV=respiratory syncytial virus. SARS=severe acute respiratory syndrome. * Hydrocortisone, methylprednisolone, dexamethasone, and prednisolone. Acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome are partly caused by host immune responses. Corticosteroids suppress lung inflammation but also inhibit immune responses and pathogen clearance. In SARS-CoV infection, as with influenza, systemic inflammation is associated with adverse outcomes. 12 In SARS, inflammation persists after viral clearance.13, 14 Pulmonary histology in both SARS and MERS infections reveals inflammation and diffuse alveolar damage, 15 with one report suggesting haemophagocytosis. 16 Theoretically, corticosteroid treatment could have a role to suppress lung inflammation. In a retrospective observational study reporting on 309 adults who were critically ill with MERS, 2 almost half of patients (151 [49%]) were given corticosteroids (median hydrocortisone equivalent dose [ie, methylprednisolone 1:5, dexamethasone 1:25, prednisolone 1:4] of 300 mg/day). Patients who were given corticosteroids were more likely to require mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and renal replacement therapy. After statistical adjustment for immortal time and indication biases, the authors concluded that administration of corticosteroids was not associated with a difference in 90-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0·8, 95% CI 0·5–1·1; p=0·12) but was associated with delayed clearance of viral RNA from respiratory tract secretions (adjusted hazard ratio 0·4, 95% CI 0·2–0·7; p=0·0005). However, these effect estimates have a high risk of error due to the probable presence of unmeasured confounders. In a meta-analysis of corticosteroid use in patients with SARS, only four studies provided conclusive data, all indicating harm. 1 The first was a case-control study of SARS patients with (n=15) and without (n=30) SARS-related psychosis; all were given corticosteroid treatment, but those who developed psychosis were given a higher cumulative dose than those who did not (10 975 mg hydrocortisone equivalent vs 6780 mg; p=0·017). 6 The second was a randomised controlled trial of 16 patients with SARS who were not critically ill; the nine patients who were given hydrocortisone (mean 4·8 days [95% CI 4·1–5·5] since fever onset) had greater viraemia in the second and third weeks after infection than those who were given 0·9% saline control. 5 The remaining two studies reported diabetes and avascular necrosis as complications associated with corticosteroid treatment.7, 8 A 2019 systematic review and meta-analysis 9 identified ten observational studies in influenza, with a total of 6548 patients. The investigators found increased mortality in patients who were given corticosteroids (risk ratio [RR] 1·75, 95% CI 1·3–2·4; p=0·0002). Among other outcomes, length of stay in an intensive care unit was increased (mean difference 2·1, 95% CI 1·2–3·1; p<0·0001), as was the rate of secondary bacterial or fungal infection (RR 2·0, 95% CI 1·0–3·8; p=0·04). Corticosteroids have been investigated for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in clinical trials in children, with no conclusive evidence of benefit and are therefore not recommended. 10 An observational study of 50 adults with RSV infection, in which 33 (66%) were given corticosteroids, suggested impaired antibody responses at 28 days in those given corticosteroids. 17 Life-threatening acute respiratory distress syndrome occurs in 2019-nCoV infection. 18 However, generalising evidence from acute respiratory distress syndrome studies to viral lung injury is problematic because these trials typically include a majority of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome of non-pulmonary or sterile cause. A review of treatments for acute respiratory distress syndrome of any cause, based on six studies with a total of 574 patients, 19 concluded that insufficient evidence exists to recommend corticosteroid treatment. 20 Septic shock has been reported in seven (5%) of 140 patients with 2019-nCoV included in published reports as of Jan 29, 2020.3, 18 Corticosteroids are widely used in septic shock despite uncertainty over their efficacy. Most patients in septic shock trials have bacterial infection, leading to vasoplegic shock and myocardial insufficiency.21, 22 In this group, there is potential that net benefit might be derived from steroid treatment in severe shock.21, 22 However, shock in severe hypoxaemic respiratory failure is often a consequence of increased intrathoracic pressure (during invasive ventilation) impeding cardiac filling, and not vasoplegia. 23 In this context, steroid treatment is unlikely to provide a benefit. No clinical data exist to indicate that net benefit is derived from corticosteroids in the treatment of respiratory infection due to RSV, influenza, SARS-CoV, or MERS-CoV. The available observational data suggest increased mortality and secondary infection rates in influenza, impaired clearance of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, and complications of corticosteroid therapy in survivors. If it is present, the effect of steroids on mortality in those with septic shock is small, and is unlikely to be generalisable to shock in the context of severe respiratory failure due to 2019-nCoV. Overall, no unique reason exists to expect that patients with 2019-nCoV infection will benefit from corticosteroids, and they might be more likely to be harmed with such treatment. We conclude that corticosteroid treatment should not be used for the treatment of 2019-nCoV-induced lung injury or shock outside of a clinical trial.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Real estimates of mortality following COVID-19 infection

            As of March 1, 2020, 79 968 patients in China and 7169 outside of China had tested positive for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). 1 Among Chinese patients, 2873 deaths had occurred, equivalent to a mortality rate of 3·6% (95% CI 3·5–3·7), while 104 deaths from COVID-19 had been reported outside of China (1·5% [1·2–1·7]). However, these mortality rate estimates are based on the number of deaths relative to the number of confirmed cases of infection, which is not representative of the actual death rate; patients who die on any given day were infected much earlier, and thus the denominator of the mortality rate should be the total number of patients infected at the same time as those who died. Notably, the full denominator remains unknown because asymptomatic cases or patients with very mild symptoms might not be tested and will not be identified. Such cases therefore cannot be included in the estimation of actual mortality rates, since actual estimates pertain to clinically apparent COVID-19 cases. The maximum incubation period is assumed to be up to 14 days, 2 whereas the median time from onset of symptoms to intensive care unit (ICU) admission is around 10 days.3, 4 Recently, WHO reported that the time between symptom onset and death ranged from about 2 weeks to 8 weeks. 5 We re-estimated mortality rates by dividing the number of deaths on a given day by the number of patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection 14 days before. On this basis, using WHO data on the cumulative number of deaths to March 1, 2020, mortality rates would be 5·6% (95% CI 5·4–5·8) for China and 15·2% (12·5–17·9) outside of China. Global mortality rates over time using a 14-day delay estimate are shown in the figure , with a curve that levels off to a rate of 5·7% (5·5–5·9), converging with the current WHO estimates. Estimates will increase if a longer delay between onset of illness and death is considered. A recent time-delay adjusted estimation indicates that mortality rate of COVID-19 could be as high as 20% in Wuhan, the epicentre of the outbreak. 6 These findings show that the current figures might underestimate the potential threat of COVID-19 in symptomatic patients. Figure Global COVID-19 mortality rates (Feb 11 to March 1, 2020) Current WHO mortality estimates (total deaths divided by total confirmed cases), and mortality rates calculated by dividing the total number of deaths by the total number of confirmed cases 14 days previously.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Guidelines on the Management of Critically Ill Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

              Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol
                Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol
                The Lancet. Diabetes & Endocrinology
                Elsevier Ltd.
                2213-8587
                2213-8595
                23 April 2020
                23 April 2020
                Affiliations
                [a ]Policlinico Umberto I, COVID Hospital, Department of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome 00161, Italy
                [b ]Dipartimento di Medicina Clinica e Chirurgia, Sezione di Endocrinologia, Università Federico II di Napoli, Naples, Italy
                Article
                S2213-8587(20)30149-2
                10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30149-2
                7180011
                32334645
                a830675b-33cf-4350-bd50-d23cb5cbc8da
                © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article