Abstract
Background Low dose dexamethasone demonstrated clinical improvement in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) needing oxygen therapy; however, evidence on the efficacy of high dose of dexamethasone is limited.
Methods We performed a randomised, open-label, controlled trial involving hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia needing oxygen therapy. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive low dose dexamethasone (6 mg once daily for 10 days) or high dose dexamethasone (20 mg once daily for 5 days, followed by 10 mg once daily for additional 5 days). The primary outcome was clinical worsening within 11 days since randomisation. Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, time to recovery, and clinical status at day 5, 11, 14 and 28 on an ordinal scale ranging from 1 (discharged) to 7 (death).
Results A total of 200 patients (mean (sd) age, 64 (14) years; 62% male) were enrolled. Thirty-two patients of 102 (31.4%) enrolled in the low dose group and 16 of 98 (16.3%) in the high dose group showed clinical worsening within 11 days since randomisation (rate ratio, 0.427; 95% CI, 0.216–0.842; p=0.014). The 28-day mortality was 5.9% in the low dose group and 6.1% in the high dose group (p=0.844). There was no significant difference in time to recovery, and in the 7-point ordinal scale at day 5, 11, 14 and 28.
Conclusions Among hospitalised COVID-19 patients needing oxygen therapy, high dose of dexamethasone reduced clinical worsening within 11 days after randomisation as compared with low dose.
Introduction
Since the emergence of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection in Wuhan, China in December 2019, it has rapidly spread across China and many other countries. The most common presenting symptoms by patients with COVID-19 are fever, cough, myalgia, dyspnea, headache, and diarrhea [1]. Many of those admitted to the hospital show fatigue and dyspnea, displaying on radiological imaging bilateral lung and/or multilobe involvement and requiring some type of oxygen support. Although most patients are known to have a favorable outcome, in some of them respiratory failure sets in, and may eventually progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Eventually, respiratory support such as high flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) or mechanical ventilation (MV) become necessary [2–4]. The unfavorable outcome of these patients has been related to an exaggerated inflammatory response caused by the SARS-CoV-2.
Recently one meta-analysis [5] that included seven randomised clinical trials showed improved outcomes in moderate or severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients treated with corticosteroids. However, the doses (high versus low dose) and the type of corticosteroids (dexamethasone versus hydrocortisone versus methylprednisolone) used in these trials were different. The most important clinical trial due to the number of patients investigated was the RECOVERY [6]. The RECOVERY trial used a fixed dose of 6 mg dexamethasone daily for 10 days showing a clear beneficial effect in patients with COVID-19 who were receiving MV at the time of randomisation. However, only a modest benefit was observed in less severe ill patients receiving oxygen without MV, whereas no benefits were seen in patients without respiratory support. As a result of the RECOVERY trial, numerous studies with different corticosteroids and higher doses were prematurely stopped [7–9] and low dose of dexamethasone was recommended by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA [10], the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) [11] and the WHO [12] for the usual care of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 needing oxygen therapy. At present, it is unclear which would be the optimal drug and dose, and when to initiate corticosteroid therapy. Findings from previous studies involving patients with moderate or severe COVID-19 pneumonia have suggested that the use of higher dose of corticosteroids may be associated with better outcomes [7, 13].
We performed a randomised, open-label, controlled clinical trial (HIGHLOWDEXA-COVID) to evaluate the efficacy of high dose of dexamethasone (20 mg once daily for 5 days, followed by 10 mg once daily for additional 5 days) versus low dose of dexamethasone (6 mg once daily for 10 days) in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 pneumonia needing oxygen therapy. We hypothesized that high dose of dexamethasone might reduce the risk of clinical worsening defined as worsening of the patient’s condition during treatment (need to increase fraction of inspired oxygen>0.2, need for fraction of inspired oxygen>0.5, respiratory rate>25) or score higher than 4 on the 7-point ordinal scale WHO-CIS.
Methods
Study design
This is a randomised, controlled, parallel-group, open-label clinical trial aimed to assess the efficacy of high versus low dose of dexamethasone in hospitalised COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure requiring oxygen therapy. Patients were randomised using a web-based system with a 1:1 allocation ratio. The trial was approved January 13, 2021, by the Ethics Committee of Galicia, Spain (CEIm-G, code No. 2020-636), and on January 14, 2021, by the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Health Products (AEMPS, N° EudraCT 2020-005702-25). The study was conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines, the Declaration of Helsinki, local requirements, and the institutional protocol for the care of hospitalised COVID-19 patients. The authors designed the trial, collected the data, and performed the analysis. All the authors revised the manuscript, testify for its accuracy and the completeness of the data, and approved the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Participants
Patients were enrolled if they were at least 18 years old, had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by nasopharyngeal swab polymerase chain reaction, and were receiving supplemental oxygen in order to maintain an oxygen saturation greater than 92% (Level 4 using the World Health Organization 7-point Ordinal Scale for clinical improvement (WHO-CIS)). Scores on the 7-point ordinal scale WHO-CIS were defined as follows: 1. Not hospitalised; 2. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen, no longer requires ongoing medical care (independent); 3. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen, but in need of ongoing medical care (COVID-19 related or otherwise); 4. Hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen; 5. Hospitalised, requiring non-invasive ventilation or high flow nasal cannula; 6. Hospitalised, requiring UCI admission and invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); 7. Death. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy or active lactation, known history of dexamethasone allergy or known contraindication to the use of corticosteroids, indication for corticosteroids use for other clinical conditions (e.g. refractory septic shock), daily use of oral or intravenous corticosteroids in the past 15 days, expected death within the next 48 h, different level of 4 using the 7-point ordinal scale WHO-CIS, need of supplemental oxygen with fraction of inspired oxygen>0.5 in order to maintain an oxygen saturation greater than 92%, and consent refusal for participating in the trial. All the patients provided the informed consent before randomisation.
Randomisation
Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard care plus dexamethasone, 6 mg once daily for 10 days (low dose group) or dexamethasone 20 mg once daily for 5 days, followed by 10 mg once daily for additional 5 days (high dose group). Randomisation sequence was performed by a computer program in blocks of six and was not stratified. Physicians, patients, and individuals who assessed the outcomes were not blinded for the assigned treatment. All clinical interventions, such as use of antiviral agents, antibiotics, other immunomodulators, anticoagulants, laboratory testing, were left at the discretion of the medical team for both groups in accordance with the hospital's own protocol, previously agreed upon by the Pneumology, Internal Medicine (Infectious Diseases Unit), Anesthesiology, Intensive Medicine, and Hospital Pharmacy departments. Patients who suffered clinical worsening could receive high dose of dexamethasone as a rescue therapy. Protocol adherence was assessed daily until day 11.
Procedures
The following data of all patients were collected on Hospital admission: demographic characteristics, coexisting disorders, home treatments, time from initial symptoms to randomisation, time from Hospital admission to randomisation, laboratory values on randomisation (biochemical parameters, leukocytes, lymphocytes, serum ferritin, procalcitonin, Lactate dehydrogenase, D-dimer, C-reactive protein). During the Hospital stay we assessed the patientś overall outcome, clinical status using the 7-point ordinal scale WHO-CIS, their medication (antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, anticoagulants), the need of respiratory support (nasal cannula, simple mask, high flow nasal cannula, noninvasive mechanical ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation), the need of ICU admission, and complications (hospital-acquired infection, hyperglycemia, thromboembolic complications, acute kidney injury needing kidney replacement, gastrointestinal bleeding, death).
Outcomes
The goal of the investigation was to evaluate the efficacy of high versus low dose of dexamethasone in patients with respiratory failure by COVID-19. The primary outcome was clinical worsening within 11 days since randomisation, defined as worsening of the patient’s condition during treatment (need to increase fraction of inspired oxygen>0.2, need for fraction of inspired oxygen>0.5, respiratory rate>25) or score higher than 4 on the 7-point ordinal scale WHO-CIS. Secondary outcomes included: time to recovery (defined as the first day after enrollment, on which a patient attained category 1, 2, or 3 on the 7-point ordinal scale WHO-CIS), clinical status of patients using the 7-point ordinal scale WHO-CIS at day 5, 11, 14, 28, and 60 days after randomisation, adverse drug reactions, number of patients admitted to the ICU, number of patients who needed mechanical ventilation, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU and Hospital stay, number of patients discharged from hospital at day 28, mortality during hospitalisation and mortality at day 28 and 60.
Statistical analysis
We assumed, by clinical experience during the pandemic, that the risk of clinical worsening (primary outcome) within 11 days after randomisation in patients with COVID-19 needing oxygen therapy would be 35% in the low dose dexamethasone group and that the risk with high dose would be about 15%. Also, it was decided to set a limit of 5% superiority. We found that a minimum of 98 patients will need to be included in each group of the test to ensure a power of 80% and to be able to conclude with a significance level of 5%.
For primary outcome and the secondary outcomes: recovery, hospital discharge and death at 28 day, Kaplan – Meier survival curves were performed to show time-to-event analysis between the two patterns of treatment. Also, by the Kaplan-Meier analysis, the number of patients in risk at specific time points in each group was estimated. The two treatments strategies were compared with the use of log-rank tests. For the prespecified primary and all prespecified secondary outcomes stated in protocol, a logistic regression model was used to estimate the risk ratios and their 95% confidence intervals. Risk ratios were estimated for the outcomes of complications and adverse events (nosocomial infection, insulin use for hyperglycemia, thrombosis, death at day 28 and death at day 60). To consider the age as an important prognostic factor, estimates of risk ratios were adjusted for the baseline age as a continuous variable.
All p values are two-sided and are shown without adjustment for multiple testing. All analyses were performed according to the intention- to-treat principle.
Finally, we examined whether the treatment effect on the primary outcome varied within subgroups defined as clinical risk factors for poor evolution of COVID-19 such as advanced age, obesity, low PaO2:FiO2 and StO2:FiO2 ratio, and time from symptoms onset to randomisation. Although these analysis were not stated in study protocol, we analysed a low number of subgroups and treatment-effect modification was assessed in separate interaction models for each risk factor to assess heterogeneity between groups. The statistical significance of the interactions will allow to determine if the differences between the subgroups are random or are due to the effect of the treatment studied.
Results
Between January 15 and May 26, 2021, a total of 200 patients were enrolled; 102 patients were randomly assigned to the low dose group and 98 patients to the high dose group (figure 1). The number of patients randomised weekly during the study period is represented in supplementary table S1. Follow-up was completed on July 5, 2021, and at that time no patient remained hospitalised. Demographic, baseline clinical and biological characteristics of patients, and details of the treatments received during hospitalisation in the two groups are summarised in table 1. One patient in the low dose group and 3 patients in the high dose group did not receive supplemental oxygen during the study period. The mean (standard deviation) age was 64.3±14.3 years and 62% were male. The median time for symptoms onset to randomisation was 8 days (interquartile range (IQR): 7–10).
All patients were followed for 11 days according to the study protocol (primary outcome) and for 28 days for secondary outcomes. Follow-up at 60 days was completed in 182 patients (91%).
Thirty-two patients of 102 (31.4%) enrolled in the low dose group and 16 of 98 (16.3%) in the high dose group showed clinical worsening within 11 days since randomisation (risk ratio, 0.427; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.216–0.842; p=0.014), (table 2). The Kaplan-Meier curves for the time to clinical worsening are shown in figure 1a and in supplementary Figure S1. Patients who suffered clinical worsening in the low dose was allowed to receive high dose of dexamethasone. Table 2 describe the event that led to clinical worsening in the 48 patients of the trial. Supplementary Tables 4 and 5 describe the evolution of these 48 patients.
Secondary outcomes are shown in table 2 and figures 1–3. The median time to recovery was 7.0 days (interquartile range, 5.0 to 11.0) in the low dose group and 7.0 days (interquartile range, 5.0 to 11.2) in the high dose group (risk ratio, 0.997; 95% CI, 0.961–1.035; p=0.895). The Kaplan-Meier curves for the time to recovery are shown in figure 1b and in supplementary Figure S2. At 14 days, 78.6% of patients in the high dose group and 77.5% in the low dose group were no longer receiving supplemental oxygen. At 28 days, the percentages were 90.8% and 90.2%, respectively (table 2).
The median time to home discharge was 9.0 days (interquartile range, 6.7 to 14) in the high dose group and 8.5 days (interquartile range, 6.0 to 13.2) in the low dose group (risk ratio, 0.993; 95% CI, 0.973–1.014; p=0.523). The Kaplan-Meier curves for the time to home discharge are shown in figure 1c and in supplementary Figure S3. At 14 days, 69.4% of patients in the high dose group and 71.6% in the low dose group were discharged home. At 28 days, the percentages were 86.7% and 88.2%, respectively.
There was no significant difference between the two groups in need of ICU admission, need of mechanical ventilation, in-hospital mortality, and in all-cause mortality at 28 days (table 2). The Kaplan-Meier curves for the time to death are shown in figure 1d and in supplementary Figure S4.
There was no significant difference between the two groups in the 7-point ordinal scale at day 5, 11, 14, and 28. (Figure 3, and supplementary Table S2).
In the subgroup analyses performed according to age, sex, obesity, PaO2:FiO2 ratio, SpO2:FiO2 ratio, and time from symptoms onset to randomisation, we cannot establish difference for the treatment effect. These results are shown in supplementary Table S3.
Adverse events are shown in table 2. Both groups had a comparable need for insulin use for hyperglycemia: 47 patients (48%) in the high dose group versus 49 (48%) in low dose group. There was no significant difference in complications and adverse events between the two groups studied (table 2).
Discussion
In this randomised clinical trial involving 200 hospitalised patients with respiratory failure by COVID-19 needing oxygen therapy, high dose compared with low dose of dexamethasone significantly decreased clinical worsening within 11 days after randomisation. In addition, high dose of dexamethasone was not associated with increased risk of adverse events in this population of COVID-19 patients.
Clinical studies in which corticosteroids have been used to treat patients with COVID-19 have a high heterogeneity regarding the type of corticosteroids, the dose, the course for which the medication was given, and which patients are suitable for the drug [6–9, 13–16]. Since the publication of the RECOVERY trial, all studies comparing different corticosteroids and regimens have been discontinued. Since then, the corticosteroids and the recommended dose for COVID-19 needing oxygen therapy is dexamethasone 6 mg [10–12]. However, we do not know if a higher dose can improve outcome of COVID-19 patients. The high dose of dexamethasone used in present trial was chosen based on previous trials showing the benefit of this dose in patients with COVID-19 [7] and non-COVID-19 ARDS [14].
In the present trial we decided to include only hospitalised patients with moderate or severe COVID-19 pneumonia, needing oxygen therapy at the time of randomisation. Instead, HFNC, NIMV, MV or ICU patients were not included. Clinical worsening in these patients was chosen as the primary outcome to investigate whether a higher dose of dexamethasone than the one recommended in the RECOVERY trial, administered in an early phase of the disease, when the inflammation is starting and the patient needs oxygen therapy but is not sick enough to need more respiratory support or intensive care, may be more effective in reducing progression to a more severe disease. This primary outcome was also used in trials of other drugs such as remdesivir, tocilizumab or hydroxychloroquine in non-ICU patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia [17–23]. Our data suggest that an early intervention with high dose of dexamethasone may have prevented the progression to a more severe respiratory disease, as shown by the lower proportion of clinical worsening in patients who received high dose of dexamethasone compared to those who received the low dose (16.4% versus 31.4%). In a recent multicenter, observational, cohort study in patients with severe respiratory disease admitted in ICU, authors observed that early use of moderate to high dose of corticosteroids was associated with better outcomes such as shorter length ICU stay, decreased organ dysfunction, fewer days on MV and no increase in medical or infections complications [13]. In a recent trial involving severely ill COVID-19 patients, the administration of high dose of methylprednisolone compared with standard care in the early pulmonary phase of the disease decreased the mortality rate and improved pulmonary involvement, oxygen saturation, and inflammatory markers [15]. The results of these studies [13, 15] and the present trial should lead us to believe that ideally, the corticosteroids should be started in the early stages of inflammation to avoid onset of severe inflammation.
Although in present study we observed a decrease on clinical worsening within 11 days in the group of patients who received high doses of corticosteroids (primary outcome), we did not observe differences between the two groups in secondary outcomes such as the time of recovery, clinical status at day 5, 11, 14, and 28, or mortality. This may be explained mainly because in the low dose group, all patients who suffered a clinical worsening, high dose of dexamethasone was administered. Many of these patients, after administration of high dose of dexamethasone, improved, avoiding a further clinical deterioration, or the need of HFNC, NIV, and MV (Supplementary table 4).
The lower mortality rate seen in present study compared with RECOVERY trial might be explained by the type of patients studied, and the higher doses administered. In the RECOVERY trial, patients were divided into those who needed oxygen therapy and mechanical ventilation with a mortality of 29.3% and those who did not need mechanical ventilation with mortality of 23.3%. However, in this last group the authors included patients with different levels of severity disease. In present trial we included only patients who needed oxygen therapy and we excluded patients requiring HFNC, NIMV, or MV. Consequently, this might have excluded patients with comorbidities and high risk of mortality.
The main adverse events related to corticosteroids are hyperglycemia and new infections. Although higher doses of corticosteroids could be associated with more complications, in the present trial the number of adverse events, new infections, and the use of insulin were comparable in both groups, in line with previous studies that did not demonstrate an augmented risk of adverse events with corticosteroids in patients with ARDS and with or without COVID-19 [7, 14, 23].
This trial has several limitations. First, 31.4% of the patients in the low dexamethasone group received high dose of dexamethasone after clinical worsening (first outcome studied), related to the open-label design and because it was allowed in the study protocol according to the treatment protocol of our hospital. The decision to allow a rescue therapy with high dose of dexamethasone was motivated by ethical concerns regarding the use of a safe and potentially effective drug as reported by previous clinical trials [7, 14]. Nevertheless, although rescue therapy did not affect the results of the primary endpoint, it would have biased the results towards the null in the secondary endpoints such as mortality, hospital stay, or side effects. Second, the open-label design and investigator-reported data on adverse events and infections may have led to bias in the description of these events. Third, the trial was underpowered for important secondary outcomes like mortality and the study was limited to demonstrate benefits in secondary outcomes. Fourth, our study did not include critically ill patients or patients with mild disease. Nevertheless, the study results confirm the beneficial effects of high dose of dexamethasone in a well-defined subset of patients, including those with moderate or severe pneumonia needing oxygen therapy who are at risk of developing ARDS, thus becoming critically ill and requiring MV. To our knowledge, this is the first randomised clinical trial evaluating the effect of two doses of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and pneumonia. Another six randomised clinical trials are being carried out comparing high versus standard doses (6 mg) of dexamethasone in adult patients with COVID-19 and hypoxia (NCT04509973, NCT04545242, NCT04663555, NCT04726098, NCT04395105, IRCT20100228003449N31.
In conclusion, among hospitalised COVID-19 patients needing oxygen therapy, high dose of dexamethasone reduced clinical worsening within 11 days after randomisation as compared with low dose of dexamethasone. Further studies are necessary for confirming these preliminary results and to compare different types of corticosteroids, doses, and regimens in different stages of the disease. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04726098
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to physicians and nurses of the University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela.
Footnotes
This article has supplementary material available from erj.ersjournals.com
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04726098; EudraCT Identifier: 2020-005702-25
Prior Presentations: No
Data availability: Data collected for the study, including deidentified participant data and related documents, including the protocol, statistical analysis plan, will be made available to qualified researches after publication of the manuscript upon reasonable request via application to the corresponding author (MT)
Author contributions: Drs Manuel Taboada and Valentín Caruezo had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. The authors contributed equally to this study. Concept and design: All authors. Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: all authors. Drafting of the manuscript: All authors. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Taboada M, Varela P, Rodríguez N, Rodríguez T, Caruezo V, Cariñena A. Statistical analysis: Estany-Gestal A. Administrative, technical, or material support: Taboada, Varela, Rodríguez N, Rodríguez T, Caruezo V. Supervision: Taboada, Varela, Rodríguez N, Rodríguez T, Caruezo V. Editing and approval of the manuscript: All authors
Support statement: Support was provided solely from institutional and departmental sources.
Conflict of interest: Manuel Taboada has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Nuria Rodríguez has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Pablo Manuel Varela has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: María Teresa Rodríguez has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Romina Abelleira has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Amara González has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Ana Casal has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: José Antonio Díaz Peromingo has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Adriana Lama has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: María Jesús Domínguez has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Carlos Rábade has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Emilio Manuel Páez has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Vanessa Riveiro has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Hadrián Pernas has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: María del Carmen Beceiro has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Valentín Caruezo has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Alberto Naveira has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Agustín Cariñena has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Teresa Cabaleiro has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Ana Estany-Gestal has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Irene Zarra has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Antonio Pose has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Luis Valdés has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Julián Álvarez-Escudero has nothing to disclose.
- Received September 18, 2021.
- Accepted December 2, 2021.
- Copyright ©The authors 2021.
This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org