Evidence Hub

Patients With A High-Risk Common Type COVID-19 Pneumonia May Be the Optimal Time for Methylprednisolone Therapy: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Lei Liu, Xi-Qiu Zeng, Chun-Li Che, Jian-Jun Li, Weiyan Yang, Wensheng Gong, Hang Qu, Bin Liu et al.

Social Science Research Network, 2021

403 participants

Abstract

Background: The optimal timing of corticosteroid treatment for coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19) pneumonia is uncertain. We evaluated the clinical outcomes of methylprednisolone therapy (MPT) for patients with a high-risk common type(HRCT) COVID-19 pneumonia.

Methods: We conducted a multi-centre retrospective cohort study in northeast China. A comparison was performed between the standard treatment (SDT) group and the SDT+MPT group to determine the efficacy of methylprednisolone in treating HRCT COVID-19 pneumonia.

Results: We collected the medical records of 403 patients with HRCT COVID-19 pneumonia (127 in the SDT+MPT group and 276 in the SDT group). None of the patients had received mechanical ventilation or died. Further, there had been no side-effects associated with of MPT. Patients in the SDT+MPT group treated with methylprednisolone received an intravenous injection for a median interval of five days (interquartile range of three to seven days). The trends in lymphocyte count, C-reactive protein, interleukin 6, lactic acid dehydrogenase, respiratory rate, SpO2, PaO2, D-dimer and body temperature were similar between the SDT+MPT and SDT groups. The results for the SDT+MPT group seems to be faster improved than the SDT group; however, the results were not statistically significant. Clinical outcomes revealed that the average hospitalisation days and the rate of progression to severe type COVID-19 pneumonia in both the SDT+MPT group and the SDT group were present in…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 403 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free