-
International Journal of Cardiology May 2014AMS is a disease that occurs when accessing high altitude (HA) or upon exposure to a higher altitude after acclimatising over 3,000 m. Evidence shows that drugs can... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
AMS is a disease that occurs when accessing high altitude (HA) or upon exposure to a higher altitude after acclimatising over 3,000 m. Evidence shows that drugs can prevent AMS. The function of dexamethasone for preventing AMS is important. No systematic review has previously been published about the effect of dexamethasone. The effect of intervention is unclear, which has limited the use of dexamethasone in the prevention of AMS.
METHODS
We searched PubMed and Embase for studies from inception to July 2013. We selected randomised controlled trials including dexamethasone versus placebo as prophylaxis for AMS. The studies included were required to provide a clear dose of dexamethasone, the final altitude and clear diagnostic criteria used to judge the AMS severity of symptoms and incidence. Finally, 8 studies were included in this review. There were 116 participants in the experimental groups and 110 in the control groups. Three different doses of dexamethasone were used in these studies (8, 12, and 16 mg/d).
RESULT
Eight of the 79 considered studies were eventually added to the meta-analysis. We used the fixed-effect model (RevMan 5.0) based on the heterogeneity (I(2)=0%, p=0.43). Dexamethasone could reduce the incidence of AMS with an odds ratio of 6.03 (95% CI, 2.23 to 21.00) for dexamethasone compared with placebo; the p value for overall effect was less than 0.00001.
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review suggests that oral dexamethasone is effective in preventing AMS. Additionally, there is some evidence that the effect of dexamethasone is related to height and dosage.
Topics: Acute Disease; Altitude; Altitude Sickness; Dexamethasone; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Mountaineering
PubMed: 24679688
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.03.019 -
Anaesthesia Jan 2015We systematically reviewed the safety and efficacy of perineural dexamethasone as an adjunct for peripheral nerve blockade in 29 controlled trials of 1695 participants.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We systematically reviewed the safety and efficacy of perineural dexamethasone as an adjunct for peripheral nerve blockade in 29 controlled trials of 1695 participants. We grouped trials by the duration of local anaesthetic action (short- or medium- vs long-term). Dexamethasone increased the mean (95% CI) duration of analgesia by 233 (172-295) min when injected with short- or medium-term action local anaesthetics and by 488 (419-557) min when injected with long-term action local anaesthetics, p < 0.00001 for both. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to the extreme heterogeneity of results, with I2 exceeding 90% for both analyses. Meta-regression did not show an interaction between dose of perineural dexamethasone (4-10 mg) and duration of analgesia (r2 = 0.02, p = 0.54). There were no differences between 4 and 8 mg dexamethasone on subgroup analysis.
Topics: Adjuvants, Anesthesia; Analgesia; Anesthetics, Local; Dexamethasone; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Nerve Block; Time Factors
PubMed: 25123271
DOI: 10.1111/anae.12823 -
Sao Paulo Medical Journal = Revista... 2021Considering the disruptions imposed by lockdowns and social distancing recommendations, coupled with overwhelmed healthcare systems, researchers worldwide have been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Considering the disruptions imposed by lockdowns and social distancing recommendations, coupled with overwhelmed healthcare systems, researchers worldwide have been exploring drug repositioning strategies for treating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).
OBJECTIVE
To compile results from randomized clinical trials on the effect of dexamethasone, compared with standard treatment for management of SARS-CoV-2.
DESIGN AND SETTING
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in a Brazilian public university.
METHODS
We sought to compile data from 6724 hospitalized patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection.
RESULTS
Treatment with dexamethasone significantly reduced mortality within 28 days (risk ratio, RR: 0.89; 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.82-0.97). Dexamethasone use was linked with being discharged alive within 28 days (odds ratio, OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.07-1.33).
CONCLUSIONS
This study suggests that dexamethasone may significantly improve the outcome among hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and associated severe respiratory complications. -Further studies need to consider both dose-dependent administration and outcomes in early and later stages of the disease.
PROSPERO PLATFORM
CRD42021229825.
Topics: Communicable Disease Control; Dexamethasone; Humans; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34644768
DOI: 10.1590/1516-3180.2021.0120.R1.30062021 -
Cancers Apr 2024Glioblastomas are the most common primary central nervous system (CNS) tumors. Although modern management strategies have modestly improved overall survival, the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Glioblastomas are the most common primary central nervous system (CNS) tumors. Although modern management strategies have modestly improved overall survival, the prognosis remains dismal, with treatment side effects often impinging on the clinical course. Glioblastomas cause neurological dysfunction by infiltrating CNS tissue and via perifocal oedema formation. The administration of steroids such as dexamethasone is thought to alleviate symptoms by reducing oedema. However, despite its widespread use, the evidence for the administration of dexamethasone is limited and conflicting. Therefore, we aimed to review the current evidence concerning the use and outcomes of dexamethasone in patients with glioblastoma.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the PRISMA-P guidelines. We performed a restricted search using the keywords "Dexamethasone" and "Glioblastoma" on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Academic Search Premier. We included studies reporting on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in glioblastoma patients receiving higher or lower dexamethasone doses. The risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I. We performed a meta-analysis using a random effects model for OS and PFS.
RESULTS
Twenty-two retrospective studies were included. Higher doses of dexamethasone were associated with poorer OS (hazard ratio 1.62, confidence interval 1.40-1.88) and PFS (1.49, 1.23-1.81). OS remained worse even when studies corrected for clinical status (1.52, 1.38-1.67).
CONCLUSION
Despite the widespread use of dexamethasone in glioblastoma patients, its use is correlated with worse long-term outcomes. Consequently, Dexamethasone administration should be restricted to selected symptomatic patients. Future prospective studies are crucial to confirm these findings.
PubMed: 38611071
DOI: 10.3390/cancers16071393 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022Despite the widespread use of antenatal corticosteroids to prevent respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm infants, there is currently no consensus as to the type... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite the widespread use of antenatal corticosteroids to prevent respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm infants, there is currently no consensus as to the type of corticosteroid to use, dose, frequency, timing of use or the route of administration. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality, on maternal morbidity and mortality, and on the child and adult in later life, of administering different types of corticosteroids (dexamethasone or betamethasone), or different corticosteroid dose regimens, including timing, frequency and mode of administration.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (9 May 2022) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all identified published and unpublished randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing any two corticosteroids (dexamethasone or betamethasone or any other corticosteroid that can cross the placenta), comparing different dose regimens (including frequency and timing of administration) in women at risk of preterm birth. We planned to exclude cross-over trials and cluster-randomised trials. We planned to include studies published as abstracts only along with studies published as full-text manuscripts.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 trials (2494 women and 2762 infants) in this update, all of which recruited women who were at increased risk of preterm birth or had a medical indication for preterm birth. All trials were conducted in high-income countries. Dexamethasone versus betamethasone Nine trials (2096 women and 2319 infants) compared dexamethasone versus betamethasone. All trials administered both drugs intramuscularly, and the total dose in the course was consistent (22.8 mg or 24 mg), but the regimen varied. We assessed one new study to have no serious risk of bias concerns for most outcomes, but other studies were at moderate (six trials) or high (two trials) risk of bias due to selection, detection and attrition bias. Our GRADE assessments ranged between high- and low-certainty, with downgrades due to risk of bias and imprecision. Maternal outcomes The only maternal primary outcome reported was chorioamnionitis (death and puerperal sepsis were not reported). Although the rate of chorioamnionitis was lower with dexamethasone, we did not find conclusive evidence of a difference between the two drugs (risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 1.06; 1 trial, 1346 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The proportion of women experiencing maternal adverse effects of therapy was lower with dexamethasone; however, there was not conclusive evidence of a difference between interventions (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.13; 2 trials, 1705 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Infant outcomes We are unsure whether the choice of drug makes a difference to the risk of any known death after randomisation, because the 95% CI was compatible with both appreciable benefit and harm with dexamethasone (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.63; 5 trials, 2105 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). The choice of drug may make little or no difference to the risk of RDS (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.22; 5 trials, 2105 infants; high-certainty evidence). While there may be little or no difference in the risk of intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), there was substantial unexplained statistical heterogeneity in this result (average (a) RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.81; 4 trials, 1902 infants; I² = 62%; low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference between the two drugs for chronic lung disease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.34; 1 trial, 1509 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), and we are unsure of the effects on necrotising enterocolitis, because there were few events in the studies reporting this outcome (RR 5.08, 95% CI 0.25 to 105.15; 2 studies, 441 infants; low-certainty evidence). Longer-term child outcomes Only one trial consistently followed up children longer term, reporting at two years' adjusted age. There is probably little or no difference between dexamethasone and betamethasone in the risk of neurodevelopmental disability at follow-up (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.22; 2 trials, 1151 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether the choice of drug makes a difference to the risk of visual impairment (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.15; 1 trial, 1227 children; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between the drugs for hearing impairment (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.16; 1 trial, 1227 children; moderate-certainty evidence), motor developmental delay (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.20; 1 trial, 1166 children; moderate-certainty evidence) or intellectual impairment (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.20; 1 trial, 1161 children; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the effect estimate for cerebral palsy is compatible with both an important increase in risk with dexamethasone, and no difference between interventions (RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.97 to 6.39; 1 trial, 1223 children; low-certainty evidence). No trials followed the children beyond early childhood. Comparisons of different preparations and regimens of corticosteroids We found three studies that included a comparison of a different regimen or preparation of either dexamethasone or betamethasone (oral dexamethasone 32 mg versus intramuscular dexamethasone 24 mg; betamethasone acetate plus phosphate versus betamethasone phosphate; 12-hourly betamethasone versus 24-hourly betamethasone). The certainty of the evidence for the main outcomes from all three studies was very low, due to small sample size and risk of bias. Therefore, we were limited in our ability to draw conclusions from any of these studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, it remains unclear whether there are important differences between dexamethasone and betamethasone, or between one regimen and another. Most trials compared dexamethasone versus betamethasone. While for most infant and early childhood outcomes there may be no difference between these drugs, for several important outcomes for the mother, infant and child the evidence was inconclusive and did not rule out significant benefits or harms. The evidence on different antenatal corticosteroid regimens was sparse, and does not support the use of one particular corticosteroid regimen over another.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Betamethasone; Child; Child, Preschool; Chorioamnionitis; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Lung; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn
PubMed: 35943347
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006764.pub4 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Feb 2015To determine the antiemetic efficacy of dexamethasone in the prevention of postoperative sore throat (POST) and postoperative hoarseness (PH). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STUDY OBJECTIVE
To determine the antiemetic efficacy of dexamethasone in the prevention of postoperative sore throat (POST) and postoperative hoarseness (PH).
DESIGN
Meta-analysis.
SETTING
Metropolitan university medical center.
MEASUREMENTS
This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted and reported in agreement with the PRISMA guideline. We searched online databases of MEDLINE (from 1966 to August 2013), EMBASE (from 1982 to August 2013), Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review. Relative ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.
RESULTS
Four trials with a total of 480 patients were included for the analysis: 283 received prophylactic dexamethasone and 197 received placebo. Pooled result by random-effects model showed that dexamethasone significantly decreased the incidence of POST at 1 hour (RR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.27-0.94, P = .03; P for heterogeneity = .0005, I(2) = 83%) and at 24 hour postextubation (RR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.26-0.79, P < .05; P for heterogeneity = .01, I(2) = 72%). Our analysis indicated that dexamethasone significantly decreased the incidence of PH at 1 hour (RR = 0.22, 95% CI 0.11-0.46, P < .01; P for heterogeneity = .48, I(2) = 0%), but did not affect the incidence of PH at 24 hours postextubation (RR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.37-1.20, P > .1; P for heterogeneity = .12, I(2) = 59%).
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis suggested that intravenous dexamethasone can effectively reduce the incidence of POST both at 1 and at 24 hours postextubation. In addition, the present study showed that prophylactic dexamethasone reduced the incidence of PH at 1 hours but not at 24 hours postextubation.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Dexamethasone; Hoarseness; Humans; Incidence; Intubation, Intratracheal; Pharyngitis; Postoperative Complications; Time Factors
PubMed: 25468585
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2014.06.014 -
Health Technology Assessment... Nov 2017Non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis and panuveitis are a heterogeneous group of inflammatory eye disorders. Management includes local and systemic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis and panuveitis are a heterogeneous group of inflammatory eye disorders. Management includes local and systemic corticosteroids, immunosuppressants and biological drugs.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous adalimumab (Humira; AbbVie Ltd, Maidenhead, UK) and a dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex; Allergan Ltd, Marlow, UK) in adults with non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases and clinical trials registries including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched to June 2016, with an update search carried out in October 2016.
REVIEW METHODS
Review methods followed published guidelines. A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone and adalimumab, each compared with current practice, from a NHS and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon, parameterised with published evidence. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5%. Substantial sensitivity analyses were undertaken.
RESULTS
Of the 134 full-text articles screened, three studies (four articles) were included in the clinical effectiveness review. Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) [VISUAL I (active uveitis) and VISUAL II (inactive uveitis)] compared adalimumab with placebo, with limited standard care also provided in both arms. Time to treatment failure (reduced visual acuity, intraocular inflammation, new vascular lesions) was longer in the adalimumab group than in the placebo group, with a hazard ratio of 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.70; < 0.001] in the VISUAL I trial and 0.57 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84; = 0.004) in the VISUAL II trial. The adalimumab group showed a significantly greater improvement than the placebo group in the 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25) composite score in the VISUAL I trial (mean difference 4.20; = 0.010) but not the VISUAL II trial (mean difference 2.12; = 0.16). Some systemic adverse effects occurred more frequently with adalimumab than with placebo. One RCT [HURON (active uveitis)] compared a single 0.7-mg dexamethasone implant against a sham procedure, with limited standard care also provided in both arms. Dexamethasone provided significant benefits over the sham procedure at 8 and 26 weeks in the percentage of patients with a vitreous haze score of zero ( < 0.014), the mean best corrected visual acuity improvement ( ≤ 0.002) and the percentage of patients with a ≥ 5-point improvement in VFQ-25 score ( < 0.05). Raised intraocular pressure and cataracts occurred more frequently with dexamethasone than with the sham procedure. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for one dexamethasone implant in one eye for a combination of patients with unilateral and bilateral uveitis compared with limited current practice, as per the HURON trial, was estimated to be £19,509 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The ICER of adalimumab for patients with mainly bilateral uveitis compared with limited current practice, as per the VISUAL trials, was estimated to be £94,523 and £317,547 per QALY gained in active and inactive uveitis respectively. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the rate of blindness has the biggest impact on the model results. The interventions may be more cost-effective in populations in which there is a greater risk of blindness.
LIMITATIONS
The clinical trials did not fully reflect clinical practice. Thirteen additional studies of clinically relevant comparator treatments were identified; however, network meta-analysis was not feasible. The model results are highly uncertain because of the limited evidence base.
CONCLUSIONS
Two RCTs of systemic adalimumab and one RCT of a unilateral, single dexamethasone implant showed significant benefits over placebo or a sham procedure. The ICERs for adalimumab were estimated to be above generally accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone was estimated to fall below standard thresholds. However, there is substantial uncertainty around the model assumptions. In future work, primary research should compare dexamethasone and adalimumab with current treatments over the long term and in important subgroups and consider how short-term improvements relate to long-term effects on vision.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041799.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Adalimumab; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dexamethasone; Humans; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Technology Assessment, Biomedical; Uveitis, Intermediate; Uveitis, Posterior
PubMed: 29183563
DOI: 10.3310/hta21680 -
European Review For Medical and... Nov 2022Triplet regimens based on pomalidomide and dexamethasone have been applied to treat relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, but the safety and efficacy are not yet very... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficacy and safety of triplet regimens based on pomalidomide and dexamethasone for treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Triplet regimens based on pomalidomide and dexamethasone have been applied to treat relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, but the safety and efficacy are not yet very clear. This meta-analysis aimed at comparing the safety and efficacy of different triplet therapies and analyzing the best therapy regimen.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A comprehensive literature search identified a total of 615 studies, and 22 studies assessing 1,889 subjects met the inclusion criteria of this meta: phase II/III trial, over 2 median lines of prior therapy, and detailed efficacy outcomes like overall response rate (ORR), overall survival, and progression-free survival (PFS). All statistical analyses were performed by Revman version 5.3, and the heterogeneity was tested by I2 (25% indicating low heterogeneity, 50% moderate, and 75% high). For those with less heterogeneity, fixed-effect model was used. With a significant high heterogeneity, a random-effect model was used.
RESULTS
Pooled analysis showed ORR 66.2% across all triplet regimens based on pomalidomide and dexamethasone. Among all triplet regimens, therapy containing bortezomib showed the highest ORR (90.3%), and the one containing elotuzumab showed the lowest ORR (41.2%). The pooled ORRs for the remaining treatment regimens are as follows: cyclophosphamide (70.1%), isatuximab (66.3%), daratumumab (61.2%), clarithromycin (60.0%), pembrolizumab (47.3%). A total of 21 adverse events appeared in the included studies, with neutropenia being the highest incidence of hematologic adverse events (32.1%) and cough being the highest incidence of non-hematologic adverse events (43.3.%).
CONCLUSIONS
Three-drug regimens based on pomalidomide and dexamethasone could yield excellent overall response rate to relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, but there are still various adverse events; therefore, consequent studies should address these adverse events.
Topics: Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Dexamethasone; Thalidomide
PubMed: 36394758
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202211_30162 -
Journal of Neuro-oncology Jan 2024Glioblastomas, the most common primary malignant brain tumors in adults, still hold poor prognosis. Corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone, are usually prescribed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Glioblastomas, the most common primary malignant brain tumors in adults, still hold poor prognosis. Corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone, are usually prescribed to reduce peritumoral edema and limit neurological symptoms, although potential detrimental effects of these drugs have been described. The present meta-analysis aimed to explore the association of dexamethasone with overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma.
METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for pertinent studies following the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis checklist. Pooled multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for OS and PFS and their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random-effects model and the heterogeneity among studies was assessed using I. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria.
RESULTS
Seven studies were included, pooling data of 1,257 patients, with age varying from 11 to 81 years. Glioblastoma patients on pre- or peri-operative dexamethasone were associated with a significantly poorer overall survival (HR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.15, 1.55; 7 studies; I: 59.9%) and progression free survival (HR: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.05, 2.97; 3 studies; I: 71.1%) compared to patients not on dexamethasone. The quality of evidence was moderate for overall survival and low for progression free survival.
CONCLUSION
Dexamethasone appeared to be associated with poor survival outcomes of glioblastoma patients.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Adolescent; Young Adult; Middle Aged; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Glioblastoma; Progression-Free Survival; Dexamethasone; Disease-Free Survival
PubMed: 38151699
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-023-04549-3 -
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Feb 2024The optimal dose of dexamethasone for severe/critical COVID-19 is uncertain. We compared higher versus standard doses of dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The optimal dose of dexamethasone for severe/critical COVID-19 is uncertain. We compared higher versus standard doses of dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 and hypoxia.
METHODS
We searched PubMed and trial registers until 23 June 2023 for randomised clinical trials comparing higher (>6 mg) versus standard doses (6 mg) of dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 and hypoxia. The primary outcome was mortality at 1 month. Secondary outcomes were mortality closest to 90 days; days alive without life support; and the occurrence of serious adverse events/reactions (SAEs/SARs) closest to 1 month. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB2 tool, risk of random errors using trial sequential analysis, and certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).
RESULTS
We included eight trials (2478 participants), of which four (1293 participants) had low risk of bias. Higher doses of dexamethasone probably resulted in little to no difference in mortality at 1 month (relative risk [RR] 0.97, 95% CI: 0.79-1.19), mortality closest to Day 90 (RR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.86-1.20), and SAEs/SARs (RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.97-1.02). Higher doses of dexamethasone probably increased the number of days alive without invasive mechanical ventilation and circulatory support but had no effect on days alive without renal replacement therapy.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on low to moderate certainty evidence, higher versus standard doses of dexamethasone probably result in little to no difference in mortality, SAEs/SARs, and days alive without renal replacement therapy, but probably increase the number of days alive without invasive mechanical ventilation and circulatory support.
Topics: Adult; Humans; COVID-19; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Patients; Dexamethasone; Hypoxia
PubMed: 37881881
DOI: 10.1111/aas.14346