MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study enrolled hospitalised patients between May 2021 and August 2021, aged 18 years and above, with severe respiratory failure defined by a ratio of oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen (SF ratio) of less than 235. The treatment protocol involved administering high-dose MTP for 3 days, followed by DXM, and the outcomes were compared with those of patients who received DXM alone (total treatment duration of 10 days for both groups).
RESULTS: A total of 99 patients were enrolled, with 79 (79.8%) receiving pulse MTP therapy and 20 (20.2%) being treated with DXM only. The SF ratio significantly improved from a mean of 144.49 (±45.16) at baseline to 208 (±85.19) at 72 hours (p < 0.05), with a mean difference of 63.51 (p < 0.001) in patients who received ≤750 mg of MTP. Additionally, in patients who received >750 mg of MTP, the SF ratio improved from a baseline mean of 130.39 (±34.53) to 208.44 (±86.61) at 72 hours (p < 0.05), with a mean difference of 78.05 (p = 0.001). In contrast, patients who received DXM only demonstrated an SF ratio of 132.85 (±44.1) at baseline, which changed minimally to 133.35 (±44.4) at 72 hours (p = 0.33), with a mean difference of 0.50 (p = 0.972). The incidence of nosocomial infection was higher in the MTP group compared with the DXM group (40.5% vs. 35%, p = 0.653), with a relative risk of 1.16 (95% CI: 0.60-2.23).
CONCLUSION: MTP did not demonstrate a significant reduction in intubation or intensive care unit admissions. Although a high dose of MTP improved gas exchange in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, it did not provide an overall mortality benefit compared to standard treatment.
METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched for studies involving tocilizumab, dexamethasone, and methylprednisolone in treating COVID-19. We included case-control and randomized or partially randomized trials. Meta-regression for patient baseline characteristics, co-medications, and tocilizumab dose regimens was performed to identify contributing factors to drug efficacy.
RESULTS: Thirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and twenty-four case-control studies were included in our meta-analysis involving 18,702 patients. Meta-analysis among the RCTs showed that a summary estimate favoring mortality reduction (OR 0.71, 95%CI 0.55 - 0.92) contributed mainly by tocilizumab and dexamethasone. Among case-control studies, meta-analysis showed mortality reduction (OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.36 - 0.75) contributed by tocilizumab and tocilizumab-methylprednisolone combination. Methylprednisolone alone did not reduce mortality except for one study involving high dose pulse therapy. Meta-analysis also found that all three drugs did not significantly reduce mechanical ventilation (OR 0.72, 95%CI 0.32 - 1.60).
CONCLUSION: Tocilizumab and dexamethasone emerge as viable options in reducing mortality in severe COVID-19 patients. A tocilizumab-corticosteroid combination strategy may improve therapeutic outcome in cases where single therapy fails.
METHODS: This is a pilot and pragmatic randomized trial conducted at a university hospital in Malaysia. Women with singleton pregnancies planned for elective CS between 37+0 and 38+6 weeks gestation were randomly allocated into the intervention group, where they received two doses of IM dexamethasone 12 mg of 12 h apart, 24 h prior to surgery OR into the standard care, control group, and both groups received the normal routine antenatal care. The primary outcome measures were neonatal respiratory illnesses, NICU admission and length of stay.
RESULTS: A total of 189 patients were recruited, 93 women in the intervention group and 96 as controls. Between the steroid and control groups, the mean gestation at CS was similar, 266.1 ± 3.2 days (38 weeks) vs. 265.8 ± 4.0 days (37+6 weeks), p = 0.53. The mean birthweight of infants was 3.06 ± 0.41 kg vs. 3.04 ± 0.37 kg, p = 0.71. Infants with respiratory morbidities were primarily due to transient tachypnea of newborn (9.7% vs. 6.3%), and congenital pneumonia (1.1% vs. 3.1%) but none had respiratory distress syndrome. Only four infants required NICU admission (2.2% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.63). Their average length of stay was not statistically different; 3.5 ± 2.1 days vs. 5.7 ± 1.5 days, p = 0.27.
CONCLUSIONS: Elective CS at early term before 39 weeks was associated with a modest overall incidence of neonatal respiratory illness (10.1%) in this Asian population. Antenatal dexamethasone did not diminish infants needing respiratory support, NICU admission and length of stay.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cost evaluation refers to 2011, the year in which the observation was conducted. Direct costs incurred by hospitals including the drug acquisition, materials and time spent for clinical activities from prescribing to dispensing of home medications were evaluated (MYR 1=$0.32 USD). As reported to be significantly different between two regimens (96.1% vs 81.0%; p=0.017), the complete response rate of acute emesis which was defined as a patient successfully treated without any emesis episode within 24 hours after LEC was used as the main indicator for effectiveness.
RESULTS: Antiemetic drug acquisition cost per patient was 40.7 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen than for the standard regimen (MYR 64.3 vs 1.58). When both the costs for materials and clinical activities were included, the total cost per patient was 8.68 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen (MYR 73.5 vs 8.47). Considering the complete response rates, the mean cost per successfully treated patient in granisetron group was 7.31 times higher (MYR 76.5 vs 10.5). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with granisetron-based regimen, relative to the standard regimen, was MYR 430.7. It was found to be most sensitive to the change of antiemetic effects of granisetron-based regimen.
CONCLUSIONS: While providing a better efficacy in acute emesis control, the low incidence of acute emesis and high ICER makes use of granisetron as primary prophylaxis in LEC controversial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-centre, prospective cohort study. A total of 96 patients receiving LEC (52 with and 42 without granisetron) were randomly selected from the full patient list generated using the e-Hospital Information System (e-His). The rates of complete control (no CINV from days 1 to 5) and complete response (no nausea or vomiting in both acute and delayed phases) were identified through patient diaries which were adapted from the MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT). Selected covariates including gender, age, active alcohol consumption, morning sickness and previous chemotherapy history were controlled using the multiple logistic regression analyses.
RESULTS: Both groups showed significant difference with LEC regimens (p<0.001). No differences were found in age, gender, ethnic group and other baseline characteristics. The granisetron group indicated a higher complete response rate in acute emesis (adjusted OR: 0.1; 95%CI 0.02-0.85; p=0.034) than did the non-granisetron group. Both groups showed similar complete control and complete response rates for acute nausea, delayed nausea and delayed emesis.
CONCLUSIONS: Granisetron injection used as the primary prophylaxis in LEC demonstrated limited roles in CINV control. Optimization of the guideline-recommended antiemetic regimens may serve as a less costly alternative to protect patients from uncontrolled acute emesis.
METHODS: Using a decision tree model, clinical and economic outcomes associated with olanzapine-containing regimen and standard antiemetic regimen (doublet antiemetic regimen: dexamethasone+first generation 5HT3RA) in most SEA countries except in Singapore (triplet antiemetic regimen: dexamethasone+first generation 5HT3RA + aprepitant) for CINV prevention following HEC were evaluated. This analysis was performed in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore, using societal perspective method with 5-day time horizon. Input parameters were derived from literature, network meta-analysis, government documents, and hospital databases. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in USD/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. A series of sensitivity analyses including probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also performed.
RESULTS: Compared to doublet antiemetic regimen, addition of olanzapine resulted in incremental QALY of 0.0022-0.0026 with cost saving of USD 2.98, USD 27.71, and USD 52.20 in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, respectively. Compared to triplet antiemetic regimen, switching aprepitant to olanzapine yields additional 0.0005 QALY with cost saving of USD 60.91 in Singapore. The probability of being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of 1 GDP/capita varies from 14.7 to 85.2% across countries.
CONCLUSION: The use of olanzapine as part of standard antiemetic regimen is cost-effective for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving HEC in multiple SEA countries.
METHOD: We reviewed the medical records of 9550 women (9665 infants including 111 twins and two triplets) admitted to the labour wards of nine hospitals in four South East Asian countries during 2005. For women who gave birth before 34 weeks gestation we collected information on women's demographic and pregnancy background, the type, dose and use of corticosteroids, and key birth and infant outcomes.
RESULTS: Administration of antenatal corticosteroids to women who gave birth before 34 weeks gestation varied widely between countries (9% to 73%) and also between hospitals within countries (0% to 86%). Antenatal corticosteroids were most commonly given when women were between 28 and 34 weeks gestation (80%). Overall 6% of women received repeat doses of corticosteroids. Dexamethasone was the only type of antenatal corticosteroid used. Women receiving antenatal corticosteroids compared with those not given antenatal corticosteroids were less likely to have had a previous pregnancy and to be booked for birth at the hospital and almost three times as likely to have a current multiple pregnancy. Exposed women were less likely to be induced and almost twice as likely to have a caesarean section, a primary postpartum haemorrhage and postpartum pyrexia. Infants exposed to antenatal corticosteroids compared with infants not exposed were less likely to die. Live born exposed infants were less likely to have Apgar scores of < 7 at five minutes and less likely to have any lung disease.
CONCLUSION: In this survey the use of antenatal corticosteroids prior to preterm birth varied between countries and hospitals. Evaluation of the enablers and barriers to the uptake of this effective antenatal intervention at individual hospitals is needed.