Editorial: Defining corticosteroid use in clinical trials

J. Siffledeen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.18211

IF: 9.524

2024-09-25

Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics

Abstract:LINKED CONTENT This article is linked to Schreiber et al paper. To view this article, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.18184

pharmacology & pharmacy,gastroenterology & hepatology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Corticosteroid Use in Randomized Clinical Trials of Biologics and Small Molecules in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review

Bruno César da Silva,Sam Papasotiriou,Stephen B Hanauer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ibd/izae240

2024-10-17

Abstract:Background and aims: This systematic review aims to elucidate the use of corticosteroids in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating biologics and small molecules for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We analyzed corticosteroid use during both the induction and maintenance phases, highlighting areas needing standardization and improvement in clinical research. Methods: We selected placebo-controlled phase 3 RCTs involving adults with moderate to severe IBD. These studies included detailed reports on corticosteroid use during induction and maintenance phases, with clinical remission and/or corticosteroid-free clinical remission (CSF-CR) as primary endpoints. Results: Initially, 324 studies were identified and refined to 26 RCTs after screening. Analysis revealed variability in corticosteroid administration. Over time, corticosteroid use showed a decreasing trend (Spearman ρ = -0.42, P = .045). Studies allowing higher corticosteroid doses (up to 40 mg/day of prednisone or equivalent) reported a higher proportion of corticosteroid users (51.8%, range: 42.9%-61%) compared to those excluding patients on doses >20 mg/day (37.5%, range: 31.6%-51.8%; P = .007) or >30 mg/day (41.1%, range: 29.6%-53.7%; P = .023). Trials with mandatory tapering protocols showed a narrower gap between overall clinical remission and CSF-CR rates, with an average difference of 6% in the group without mandatory tapering and 1.2% in the group with forced tapering (T-test P = .038; Cohen's d ≈ 1.1). Conclusions: This review highlights the variability in corticosteroid use across RCTs and its impact on evaluating new IBD therapies. Standardizing tapering protocols and defining CSF-CR are essential for accurate outcomes.
Editorial: Corticosteroids for severe checkpoint inhibitor‐induced liver injury—Not one size fits all?

Morven Cunningham

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.17911

IF: 9.524

2024-03-12

Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics

Abstract:Alimentary Pharmacology &Therapeutics, Volume 59, Issue 7, Page 905-906, April 2024.

pharmacology & pharmacy,gastroenterology & hepatology
AB1143 BURDEN OF GLUCOCORTICOIDS AMONG RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF DISEASE-MODIFYING ANTIRHEUMATIC DRUG MANAGEMENT

R. K. Dore,J. Antonova,M. Gorritz,L. Chang,H. Xie,M. C. Genovese

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-eular.3776

IF: 27.973

2020-01-01

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases

Abstract:Background:EULAR and ACR guidelines recommend a treat-to-target approach for patients with RA including regular assessments of disease activity. Glucocorticoids are commonly used to control inflammation associated with uncontrolled disease. However, patients using glucocorticoids may develop short- and long-term side effects.Objectives:To examine the real-world use of glucocorticoids among patients with RA who are disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve or failing their first conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) or biologic DMARD (bDMARD).Methods:From a large US health claims database, this study included adults with ≥2 RA claims ≥30 days apart who started (index date [ID], 1/1/2012–3/31/2017) a first DMARD (DMARD-naïve) or patients who newly initiated a csDMARD and then switched to or added another DMARD (csDMARD switchers), and patients who initiated a first bDMARD and then switched to another bDMARD or Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi; bDMARD switchers). All patients had continuous enrollment 1-year before and ≥1 year after ID and were evaluated for pre- and post-ID use of glucocorticoids (oral or injectable), prednisone equivalent dose (PED), and duration of exposure ≥30 days.Results:The study included 28,201 patients in the DMARD-naïve cohort, 7,816 csDMARD switchers, and 4,656 bDMARD switchers (median age 54 years for all, 73%–78% female).Among DMARD-naïve patients, 66.5% used glucocorticoids during the pre-ID period (Figure 1) and 61.2% had >7.5 mg/day PED, 21.2% had >30 mg/day PED, and 21.2% had ≥30 days of exposure to glucocorticoids (Figure 2). Post-ID, 69.4% of patients used glucocorticoids, while 54.7% had >7.5 mg/day PED, 13.5% had >30 mg/day PED, and 44.9% had ≥30 days of exposure to glucocorticoids.Among csDMARD switchers, 84.5% of patients used glucocorticoids during the pre-ID period (Figure 1), and 73.4% had >7.5 mg/day PED, 16.0% had >30 mg/day PED, and 56.4% had ≥30 days of exposure to glucocorticoids (Figure 2). During the post-ID treatment, 74.1% of patients used glucocorticoids, 56.2% had >7.5 mg/day PED, 14.4% had >30 mg/day PED, and 45.8% had ≥30 days of exposure to glucocorticoids.Among bDMARD switchers, 85.1% of patients used glucocorticoids in the pre-ID period (Figure 1), and 70.2% had >7.5 mg/day PED, 17.4% had >30 mg/day PED, and 55.2% had ≥30 days of exposure to glucocorticoids (Figure 2). During post-ID treatment, 75.4% of patients used glucocorticoids and 59.7% of patients had >7.5 mg/day PED, 16.7% had >30 mg/day PED, and 45.6% had ≥30 days of exposure to glucocorticoids.Conclusion:Real world glucocorticoid use was high in all categories of DMARD-treated RA patients, at baseline and during their next treatment, suggesting ongoing medical needs. Glucocorticoid doses exceeded 7.5 mg/day for most patients. In addition, many patients had ≥30 days exposure to glucocorticoids, posing an additional safety risk.Disclosure of Interests:Robin K Dore Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Co., Gilead Sciences, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Myriad, Novartis, Pfizer, Radius, Regeneron, Sanofi, and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Co., Gilead Sciences, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Myriad, Novartis, Pfizer, Radius, Regeneron, Sanofi, and UCB., Jenya Antonova Employee of: Gilead Sciences. Inc., Magdaliz Gorritz Consultant of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Lawrence Chang Consultant of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Handing Xie Consultant of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Mark C. Genovese Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, Pfizer Inc., RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme
Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Systemic Corticosteroids in Autoimmune and Inflammatory Diseases: A Review of Current Evidence

Julia E Möhlmann,Solaiman Ezzafzafi,Caroline A Lindemans,Marc H A Jansen,Stefan Nierkens,Alwin D R Huitema,Matthijs van Luin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40262-024-01419-7

Abstract:Background and objective: Systemic corticosteroids have a long history of use in the treatment of autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Both efficacy and safety show large interindividual variability (IIV), suggesting that corticosteroids may have the potential for individualised dosing strategies to optimise therapy. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of current evidence on the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) relationships of systemic corticosteroids in patients with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Embase for PK/PD studies of systemic corticosteroids in autoimmune and inflammatory diseases in humans published until December 2023. Studies were scored from 1 to 5 according to criteria for the levels of evidence, as inspired by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Results: Twelve studies (1981-2016) were included. The majority of these studies had a small sample size. The corticosteroids involved were prednisone, prednisolone, methylprednisolone and budesonide. Substantial IIV of corticosteroid PK was described in all studies. Evidence for a relationship between the PK of corticosteroids and efficacy was inconclusive and limited. However, there was some evidence for a relationship between the PK of prednisolone and the severity of Cushingoid features. Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions on the potential associations between PK and clinical outcome of systemic corticosteroid treatment in autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. This is remarkable given the many decades that steroid drugs have been used in clinical care. Prospective research is recommended with robust and well-defined cohorts to fully quantify the PK/PD associations of corticosteroids.
Effect of Corticosteroids on Articular Cartilage: Have Animal Studies Said Everything?

Jean‐Michel Vandeweerd,Yang Zhao,Jean‐François Nisolle,Wenhui Zhang,Zhihong Liu,Peter Clegg,Pascal Gustin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/fcp.12137

2015-01-01

Abstract:Intra‐articular ( IA ) corticosteroids ( CS ) have been used in the treatment of osteoarthritis for many years, although their effects on articular cartilage are not fully understood. To identify whether previous animal studies have provided enough evidence about the effects of CS , we undertook a systematic review that identified 35 relevant in vivo animal experimental studies between 1965 and 2014 assessing the effects of CS on either normal cartilage, or in either induced osteoarthritis ( OA ) or synovitis. The quality of the methodology was assessed. Deleterious effects, both structural and biochemical, have mainly been reported in rabbits and are associated with frequent administration of CS , sometimes at high dose and with systemic side effects. In dogs, four identified studies concluded that there were beneficial effects with methylprednisolone acetate ( MPA ) and triamcinolone hexacetonide therapy. In horses, MPA was mostly deleterious, while triamcinolone acetonide had positive effects in one study highly rated at quality assessment. However, many methodological weaknesses have been identified, such as the lack of pharmacokinetic and pharmocodynamics data and the large variation in doses between studies, the limited selection criteria at baseline, the absence of blinding, and the lack of statistics or appropriate controls for testing the effects of the vehicle of the drug. Those methodological weaknesses weaken the conclusions of numerous studies that assess beneficial or deleterious effects of CS on articular cartilage. Animal studies have not yet provided definitive data, and further research is required into the role of CS in articular pathobiology.
Corticosteroids in critically ill patients: A narrative review

Bradley J Haan,Samantha N Blackmon,Alex M Cobb,Heather E Cohen,Margaret T DeVier,Mary M Perez,Samuel F Winslow

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.2944

Pharmacotherapy

Abstract:Corticosteroids have been utilized in modern medicine for decades. Many indications have been investigated across various treatment settings with both benefit and harm observed. Given the instability of critically ill patients, the increased risk of corticosteroid-related complications, and the pervasive comorbidities, patients who receive corticosteroids must be carefully managed. Common critical care disease states in which corticosteroids have been studied and are routinely utilized include acute respiratory distress syndrome, adrenal insufficiency, angioedema, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, community-acquired pneumonia, coronavirus disease 2019, septic shock, and spinal cord injury. Benefits of corticosteroids include an improvement in disease state-specific outcomes, decreased hospital length of stay, decreased mechanical ventilatory support, and decreased mortality. The harm of corticosteroids is well documented through adverse effects that include, but are not limited to, hyperglycemia, tachycardia, hypertension, agitation, delirium, anxiety, immunosuppression, gastrointestinal bleeding, fluid retention, and muscle weakness. Furthermore, corticosteroids are associated with increased health care costs through adverse effects as well as drug acquisition and administration costs. Given the assortment of agents, dosing, benefits, risks, and utilization in the critical care setting, there may be difficulty with identifying the appropriate places for use of corticosteroids in therapy. There currently exists no comprehensive report detailing the use of corticosteroids in the aforementioned disease states within the critical care setting. This narrative review sets out to describe these in detail.
P689 Adaptive steroid tapering impedes corticosteroid-free remissions compared to forced tapering in UC clinical trials

N Narula,H Hamam,E C Wong,J K Marshall,V Jairath,S B Hanauer,W Reinisch,P S Dulai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad212.0819

2024-01-01

Journal of Crohn's and Colitis

Abstract:Abstract Background Protocols for managing steroids in clinical trials of ulcerative colitis (UC) vary. Most trials mandate steroid tapering at the beginning of maintenance phase. Adaptive steroid tapering allows for some discretion on whether to taper steroids for a patient. It remains unclear what impact steroid tapering protocols have on trial outcomes. Methods This post-hoc analysis from many clinical trials of advanced therapies in UC (VARSITY, ACT 1/2, PURSUIT, GEMINI1, OCTAVE and ULTRA2) was carried out under protocols with Vivli (00007656) and YODA (20224882). Responders to induction therapy with baseline corticosteroid use were considered as the primary population of interest. Adjustments were made to account for re-randomization designs and treatment exposure. Univariate analyses were conducted to identify baseline variables that had an association with the primary outcome of interest, one-year corticosteroid-free clinical remission (CR). All covariates with a significant univariate association (p < 0.05) were considered for inclusion in the multivariate model. Logistic regression was used to assess the impact of steroid-weaning regimen on the outcome of interest. Secondary outcome of interest was one-year CR. Results There was a total of 861 patients from the seven included trials who had achieved clinical response after induction and were using corticosteroids. Within multivariate analysis, patients using adaptive steroid weaning regimens were less likely to achieve one year corticosteroid-free CR (odds ratio (OR) 0.66 (95% CI 0.48-0.92), p=0.015). Patients with higher partial Mayo scores were also less likely to achieve one year corticosteroid-free CR (OR 0.88 (95% 0.8-0.97), p=0.012). Other variables found significant on univariate analysis were no longer significant once considered within the multivariate model (smoking, race, albumin, endoscopic Mayo score). For the secondary outcome of one year CR, patients using adaptive steroid weaning regimens had increased odds for achieving one year CR as compared to those using fixed regimens (OR 1.9 (95% 1.43-2.52), p<0.001). Several other variables were also found to have an association with one year CR within the multivariate model (Table 1). Conclusion Among patients with UC on corticosteroids at the time of study enrolment, adaptive steroid weaning regimens were less likely to achieve one-year corticosteroid-free CR but more likely to achieve one-year CR. This may help explain the findings within the VARSITY study, where patients treated with vedolizumab had increased odds for one-year CR but were less likely to achieve one-year corticosteroid-free CR. Consideration should be given to implementing mandatory steroid weaning protocols in future clinical trials of UC.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Intra-articular corticosteroids for the treatment of osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis on the comparison of different molecules and doses

Alessandro Bensa,Manuela Salerno,Giacomo Moraca,Angelo Boffa,C Wayne McIlwraith,Giuseppe Filardo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jeo2.12060

2024-06-21

Abstract:Purpose: The purpose of this study was to quantify and compare the clinical relevance of the different intra-articular corticosteroids (CS) effects in vivo for osteoarthritis (OA) treatment. Methods: The search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science in October 2023. The PRISMA guidelines were used. Inclusion criteria: animal or human randomized controlled trials (RCTs), English language and no time limitation, on the comparison of different intra-articular CS for OA treatment. The articles' quality was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 and GRADE guidelines for human RCTs, and SYRCLE's tool for animal RCTs. Results: Eighteen RCTs were selected (16 human and 2 animal studies), including 1577 patients (1837 joints) and 31 animals (51 joints). The CS used were triamcinolone (14 human and 2 animal studies), methylprednisolone (7 human and 1 animal study), betamethasone (3 human studies) and dexamethasone (1 human study). All studies addressed knee OA except for three human and one animal study. A meta-analysis was performed on the comparison of methylprednisolone and triamcinolone in humans with knee OA analysing VAS pain at very short- (≤2 weeks), short- (>2 and ≤4 weeks), mid- (>4 and ≤8 weeks), long- (>8 and ≤ 12 weeks), and very long-term (>12 and ≤24 weeks). Triamcinolone showed better post-injection values compared to methylprednisolone at very short-term (p = 0.028). No difference in terms of VAS improvement was observed at any follow-up. Conclusions: The available preclinical and clinical literature provides limited evidence on the comparison of different CS, hindering the possibility of determining the best CS approach in terms of molecule and dose for the intra-articular injection of OA joints. Level of evidence: Level I.
Adaptive Steroid Tapering Impedes Corticosteroid-free Remissions Compared with Forced Tapering in Clinical Trials of Ulcerative Colitis

Neeraj Narula,Hasan Hamam,Jasmine Liu,Emily C L Wong,John K Marshall,Vipul Jairath,Stephen B Hanauer,Walter Reinisch,Parambir S Dulai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjae092

2024-06-13

Journal of Crohn's and Colitis

Abstract:Abstract Introduction It is unclear if steroid tapering protocols can affect clinical trial outcomes in ulcerative colitis [UC], particularly fixed versus adaptive steroid tapering. Fixed steroid tapering involves incremental dose decreases at prespecified intervals, and adaptive steroid tapering uses investigator discretion as determined by the patient’s response. Methods In this post-hoc analysis from six clinical trials of UC [VARSITY, ACT 1, PURSUIT, GEMINI1, OCTAVE, and ULTRA2], responders to induction therapy with baseline corticosteroid use were considered as the primary population of interest. Adjustments were made to account for treat-through versus re-randomisation designs, and multivariate regression was performed to account for other potential confounding variables. The primary outcome was corticosteroid-free clinical remission [CR] at 1 year, and secondary outcomes were CR and endoscopic improvement. Results There was a total of 861 patients who had achieved clinical response after induction and were using corticosteroids. Within multivariate analysis, patients using adaptive steroid tapering regimens were less likely to achieve corticosteroid-free CR at 1 year (odds ratio [OR] 0.66 [95% confidence interval, CI, 0.48-0.92], p = 0.015) but had increased odds for achieving CR at 1 year (OR 1.9 [95% CI 1.43-2.52], p < 0.001). The steroid tapering regimen was not associated with achievement of endoscopic improvement at 1 year. Conclusions Among patients with UC on corticosteroids in clinical trials, patients using adaptive steroid weaning regimens were less likely to achieve corticosteroid-free CR at 1 year but more likely to achieve CR at 1 year. Consideration should be given to implementing mandatory fixed steroid weaning protocols in future clinical trials of UC.

gastroenterology & hepatology
The Controversy about the Effects of Different Doses of Corticosteroid Treatment on Clinical Outcomes for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Patients: an Observational Study

Jia-Wei Yang,Ping Jiang,Wen-Wen Wang,Zong-Mei Wen,Bei Mao,Hai-Wen Lu,Li Zhang,Yuan-Lin Song,Jin-Fu Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.722537

IF: 5.6

2021-01-01

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Abstract:Background: Corticosteroid usage in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains controversial. We aim to explore the correlation between the different doses of corticosteroid administration and the prognosis of ARDS.Methods: All patients were diagnosed with ARDS on initial hospital admission and received systemic corticosteroid treatment for ARDS. The main outcomes were the effects of corticosteroid treatment on clinical parameters and the mortality of ARDS patients. Secondary outcomes were factors associated with the mortality of ARDS patients.Results: 105 ARDS patients were included in this study. Corticosteroid treatment markedly decreased serum interleukin-18 (IL-18) level (424.0 ± 32.19 vs. 290.2 ± 17.14; p = 0.0003) and improved arterial partial pressure of oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) (174.10 ± 65.28 vs. 255.42 ± 92.49; p < 0.0001). The acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE II) score (16.15 ± 4.41 vs. 14.88 ± 4.57, p = 0.042) decreased significantly on the seventh day after systemic corticosteroid treatment. Interestingly, the serum IL-18 decreased significantly (304.52 ± 286.00 vs. 85.85 ± 97.22, p < 0.0001), whereas the improvement of PaO2/FiO2 (24.78 ± 35.03 vs. 97.17 ± 44.82, p < 0.001) was inconspicuous after systemic corticosteroid treatment for non-survival patients, compared with survival patients. Furthermore, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) model revealed, when equivalent methylprednisolone usage was 146.5 mg/d, it had the best sensitivity and specificity to predict the death of ARDS. Survival analysis by Kaplan–Meier curves presented the higher 45-day mortality in high-dose corticosteroid treatment group (logrank test p < 0.0001). Multivariate Cox regression analyses demonstrated that serum IL-18 level, APACHE II score, D-dimer, and high-dose corticosteroid treatment were associated with the death of ARDS.Conclusion: Appropriate dose of corticosteroids may be beneficial for ARDS patients through improving the oxygenation and moderately inhibiting inflammatory response. The benefits and risks should be carefully weighed when using high-dose corticosteroid for ARDS.Trial registration: This work was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Name of the registry: Corticosteroid Treatment for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Trial registration number: NCT02819453. URL of trial registry record: https://register.clinicaltrials.gov.
Evaluating the Risk-Benefit Profile of Corticosteroid Therapy for COVID-19 Patients: A Scoping Review

Daniel Hsiang-Te Tsai,Emma Harmon,Jan Goelen,Heather E Barry,Li-Yang Chen,Yingfen Hsia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy12040129

2024-08-22

Abstract:Background: The 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak was declared a global pandemic in March 2020. It quickly spread across all continents, causing significant social, environmental, health, and economic impacts. During the pandemic, there has been consideration of repurposing and repositioning of medications, such as corticosteroids, for the treatment of hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Objective: To assess and summarise corticosteroid regimens used for hospitalised COVID-19 patients, focusing on dosage, route of administration, and clinical outcome from clinical trials. Methods: PubMed and Embase databases and the grey literature were searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of corticosteroids in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 between January 2020 and January 2023. This scoping review was conducted in line with the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. Key findings: A total of 24 RCTs were eligible for inclusion. There was variation in the steroid regimens used for treatment across COVID-19 trials. Despite the heterogeneity of included RCTs, the overall results have shown the benefits of improving lung function and a lower all-cause mortality rate in hospitalised COVID-19 patients treated with systematic corticosteroids. Conclusions: Corticosteroids have proven to be an effective treatment for COVID-19 patients in critical condition. However, comparative effectiveness studies should be conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of optimal corticosteroid treatment at the population level. Moreover, the global burden of long COVID is significant, affecting millions with persistent symptoms and long-term health complications. Thus, it is also necessary to evaluate the optimal steroid regimen for long COVID treatment.
Inhaled Corticosteroids Versus Placebo for Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Review

Erin Kamalanathan,Sargam Sharma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cea.14521

2024-06-14

Clinical & Experimental Allergy

Abstract:This is an abstract of a Cochrane review 'Inhaled corticosteroids versus placebo for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease' published in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2023 Issue 3 10.1002/14651858.cd002991.pub4. Accessed 9 May 2024 (see www.cochranelibrary.com for information). Cochrane reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and the Cochrane Library should be consulted for the more recent version of the review.

immunology,allergy
Corticosteroids for infectious critical illness: A multicenter target trial emulation stratified by predicted organ dysfunction trajectory

Suraj Rajendran,Zhenxing Xu,Weishen Pan,Chengxi Zang,Ilias Siempos,Lisa Torres,Jie Xu,Jiang Bian,Edward J. Schenck,Fei Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.07.24303926

2024-03-08

Abstract:Corticosteroids decrease the duration of organ dysfunction in a range of infectious critical illnesses, but their risk and benefit are not fully defined using this construct. This retrospective multicenter study aimed to evaluate the association between usage of corticosteroids and mortality of patients with infectious critical illness by emulating a target trial framework. The study employed a novel stratification method with predictive machine learning (ML) subphenotyping based on organ dysfunction trajectory. Our analysis revealed that corticosteroids’ effectiveness varied depending on the stratification method. The ML-based approach identified four distinct subphenotypes, two of which had a large enough sample size in our patient cohorts for further evaluation: “Rapidly Improving” (RI) and “Rapidly Worsening,” (RW) which showed divergent responses to corticosteroid treatment. Specifically, the RW group either benefited or were not harmed from corticosteroids, whereas the RI group appeared to derive harm. In the development cohort, which comprised of a combination of patients from the eICU and MIMIC-IV datasets, hazard ratio estimates for the primary outcome, 28-day mortality, in the RW group was 1.05 (95% CI: 0.96 - 1.04) whereas for the RW group, it was 1.40 (95% CI: 1.28 - 1.54). For the validation cohort, which comprised of patients from the Critical carE Database for Advanced Research, estimates for 28-day mortality for the RW and RI groups were 1.24 (95% CI: 1.05 - 1.46) and 1.34 (95% CI: 1.14 - 1.59), respectively. For secondary outcomes, the RW group had a shorter time to ICU discharge and time to cessation of mechanical ventilation with corticosteroid treatment, where the RI group again demonstrated harm. The findings support matching treatment strategies to empirically observed pathobiology and offer a more nuanced understanding of corticosteroid utility. Our results have implications for the design and interpretation of both observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), suggesting the need for stratification methods that account for the differential response to standard of care.

Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine
Corticosteroids for the management of immune-related adverse events in patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors

Kiersten J Williams,Dennis W Grauer,David W Henry,Michelle L Rockey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1078155217744872

2017-12-09

Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice

Abstract:Introduction Due to enhanced T-cell activity, immune checkpoint inhibitors cause immune-related adverse effects. Corticosteroids are the mainstay of immune-related adverse effect management but the optimal strategy has not been determined, putting patients at risk for steroid-related adverse effects and potentially decreased efficacy of immunotherapy. This study aims to characterize the use of corticosteroids for the management of immune-related adverse effect. Methods and materials A retrospective, single-center evaluation of patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors was conducted. The primary objective was to evaluate corticosteroid use for immune-related adverse effects, including starting dose, taper strategy, total duration, and resumption of immunotherapy. Secondary objective was to describe the incidence and significance of hyperglycemia. Results One hundred and three patients met inclusion criteria and experienced 123 immune-related adverse effects. Prednisone was used most commonly (67%) at an average starting dose of 0.88 mg/kg (range 0.07–17.0). On average, steroid tapers began 9.2 days after initiation (range 0–89) and were continued for a total of 84.2 days (range 3–693). In 21.1% of cases, checkpoint inhibitor therapy was not delayed and 68.6% resumed checkpoint inhibitors, while the patient was taking steroids (30.4 mg prednisone on average, range 5–80). On average, checkpoint inhibitor therapy was resumed 18.6 days after detection of immune-related adverse effect (range 0–150). Clinically relevant hyperglycemia occurred in 8.9%. Conclusion Utilization of steroids for immune-related adverse effect at our institution is highly variable. The majority of patients received prolonged courses of steroids and resumed checkpoint inhibitor therapy with concomitant steroids above recommended doses. Additional monitoring for hyperglycemia and other steroid associated adverse effects should be considered.

oncology,pharmacology & pharmacy
Comparison of a Target Trial Emulation Framework vs Cox Regression to Estimate the Association of Corticosteroids With COVID-19 Mortality

Katherine L Hoffman,Edward J Schenck,Michael J Satlin,William Whalen,Di Pan,Nicholas Williams,Iván Díaz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.34425

2022-10-03

Abstract:Importance: Communication and adoption of modern study design and analytical techniques is of high importance for the improvement of clinical research from observational data. Objective: To compare a modern method for statistical inference, including a target trial emulation framework and doubly robust estimation, with approaches common in the clinical literature, such as Cox proportional hazards models. Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective cohort study used longitudinal electronic health record data for outcomes at 28-days from time of hospitalization within a multicenter New York, New York, hospital system. Participants included adult patients hospitalized between March 1 and May 15, 2020, with COVID-19 and not receiving corticosteroids for chronic use. Data were analyzed from October 2021 to March 2022. Exposures: Corticosteroid exposure was defined as more than 0.5 mg/kg methylprednisolone equivalent in a 24-hour period. For target trial emulation, exposures were corticosteroids for 6 days if and when a patient met criteria for severe hypoxia vs no corticosteroids. For approaches common in clinical literature, treatment definitions used for variables in Cox regression models varied by study design (no time frame, 1 day, and 5 days from time of severe hypoxia). Main outcomes and measures: The main outcome was 28-day mortality from time of hospitalization. The association of corticosteroids with mortality for patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 was assessed using the World Health Organization (WHO) meta-analysis of corticosteroid randomized clinical trials as a benchmark. Results: A total of 3298 patients (median [IQR] age, 65 [53-77] years; 1970 [60%] men) were assessed, including 423 patients who received corticosteroids at any point during hospitalization and 699 patients who died within 28 days of hospitalization. Target trial emulation analysis found corticosteroids were associated with a reduced 28-day mortality rate, from 32.2%; (95% CI, 30.9%-33.5%) to 25.7% (95% CI, 24.5%-26.9%). This estimate is qualitatively identical to the WHO meta-analysis odds ratio of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.53-0.82). Hazard ratios using methods comparable with current corticosteroid research range in size and direction, from 0.50 (95% CI, 0.41-0.62) to 1.08 (95% CI, 0.80-1.47). Conclusions and relevance: These findings suggest that clinical research based on observational data can be used to estimate findings similar to those from randomized clinical trials; however, the correctness of these estimates requires designing the study and analyzing the data based on principles that are different from the current standard in clinical research.
Trends in Systemic Glucocorticoid Utilization in the United Kingdom from 1990 to 2019: A Population-Based, Serial Cross-Sectional Analysis

Andrew N Menzies-Gow,Trung N Tran,Brooklyn Stanley,Victoria Ann Carter,Josef S Smolen,Arnaud Bourdin,J Mark Fitzgerald,Tim Raine,Jatin Chapaneri,Benjamin Emmanuel,David J Jackson,David B Price

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/POR.S442959

2024-03-15

Abstract:Purpose: Associations between systemic glucocorticoid (SGC) exposure and risk for adverse outcomes have spurred a move toward steroid-sparing treatment strategies. Real-world changes in SGC exposure over time, after the introduction of steroid-sparing treatment strategies, reveal areas of successful risk mitigation as well as unmet needs. Patients and methods: A population-based ecological study was performed from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database to describe SGC prescribing trends of steroid-sparing treatment strategies in primary care practices before and after licensure of biologics in the United Kingdom from 1990 to 2019. Each analysis year included patients aged ≥5 years who were registered for ≥1 year with a participating primary care practice. The primary analysis was SGC exposure, defined as total cumulative SGC dose per patient per year, for asthma, severe asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), nasal polyps, Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and systemic lupus erythematosus. Secondary outcomes were percentages of patients prescribed SGCs and number of SGC prescriptions per patient per year. Results: The number of patients who met study inclusion criteria ranged from 219,862 (1990) to 1,261,550 (2019). At the population level, patients with asthma or COPD accounted for 67.7% to 73.2% of patients per year with an SGC prescription. Over three decades, decreases in SGC total yearly dose ≥1000 mg have been achieved in multiple conditions. Patients with COPD prescribed SGCs increased from 5.8% (1990) to 34.8% (2017). SGC prescribing trends for severe asthma, Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis show decreased prescribing trends after the introduction of biologics. Conclusion: Decreases in total yearly SGC doses have been shown in multiple conditions; however, for conditions such as severe asthma and COPD, an unmet need remains for increased awareness of SGC burden and the adoption or development of SGC-sparing alternatives to reduce overuse.
Steroid Use for Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A CHEER Network Study

David L. Witsell,Hillary Mulder,Steven Rauch,Kristine A. Schulz,Debara L. Tucci

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599818785142

2018-08-07

Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery

Abstract:Objective The objective of this study was to describe patterns of corticosteroid treatment for sudden sensorineural hearing loss and to evaluate effectiveness based on delivery mode (oral vs intratympanic vs both). Study Design Cross-sectional repeated measures. Setting Patients were recruited from practices within the Creating Healthcare Excellence through Education and Research (CHEER) Network. CHEER is a National Institutes of Health–funded nationwide network of 30 community and academic otolaryngology practice sites. Subjects and Methods A subset of 117 patients who had been treated with steroids for sudden sensorineural hearing loss were recruited from within a larger initial CHEER Network study on clinical practice guideline compliance. Outcomes included audiometric and speech scores and patient-perceived improvement. Descriptive analyses, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, and Fisher exact tests were run. Results Two categories (oral and simultaneous oral + intratympanic) had adequate sample sizes to support statistical comparison of treatment results. Improvements were seen in both audiometry and speech testing scores; 57% of patients self-reported improvement perceived as either minor or major. There were no significant differences in degree of improvement between these treatment groups. Conclusions We observed that a majority of steroid-treated patients demonstrated hearing improvement, but this improvement did not meet criteria for statistical significance. As in other studies on this topic, the relatively small sample size may have prevented differentiation of effectiveness among steroid treatments. We propose that the use of alternative approaches, such as pragmatic clinical trials and multidisciplinary electronic health record systems and megadatabases, may hold the most promise for an approach to best practice development.
Clinical Utilization of Stress Dose Hydrocortisone in Adult Patients with Septic Shock: A Retrospective Observational Study at a Large Academic Medical Center

Gretchen L. Sacha,Alyssa Y. Chen,Nicole M. Palm,Xiaofeng Wang,Manshi Li,Abhijit Duggal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/08971900211037589

2022-01-01

Journal of Pharmacy Practice

Abstract:Background: The use of stress dose corticosteroids, specifically, hydrocortisone, in septic shock is heterogeneous, and current clinical trials yield conflicting results. Regardless, they are still recommended by guidelines for vasopressor-dependent septic shock. Objectives: This study sought to characterize current practice of hydrocortisone use in patients with septic shock and secondarily to compare clinical outcomes of those who received hydrocortisone to those who did not. Methods: This single center, retrospective cohort study evaluated patients with septic shock admitted to a tertiary care center between 2012 and 2017. Patients receiving hydrocortisone for at least two doses were compared to those without. Results: 3411 septic shock patients were included; 1593 (47%) received hydrocortisone and 1818 (53%) did not. Patients who received hydrocortisone had higher lactate (4.0 vs 3.4 mmol/L; P < .01) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III scores (104.1 vs 91.0; P < .01). Vasopressor duration was 1.7 days longer in the hydrocortisone group ( P < .01), and the hydrocortisone group had higher hospital mortality (52% vs 38%; P < .01). A propensity score–matched population was conducted in patients with APACHE scores >100: vasopressor duration was longer in those who received hydrocortisone (3.9 vs 2.0 days; P < .01), and hospital mortality was higher (59.3% vs 53.1%; P = .036); however, after multivariable adjustment, no association between receipt of hydrocortisone and hospital mortality was detected (OR 1.2 [95% CI .9–1.6]). Conclusions: Patients who received hydrocortisone were more severely ill than those that did not, making retrospective evaluation of this question challenging. These results highlight the wide variability and heterogeneity in hydrocortisone use in clinical practice.
A guide to improving the design and analysis of observational studies on the long-term safety of topical corticosteroids

Aaron M Drucker,Peter C Austin,Jane Harvey,Stephanie J Lax,Mina Tadrous,Kim S Thomas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjd/ljae065

IF: 11.113

2024-02-16

British Journal of Dermatology

Abstract:Despite a long track-record of use, patients and clinicians continue to have concerns about the safety of topical corticosteroids. Observational studies in routinely collected health data provide an opportunity to address those concerns, but are challenging to conduct in a way that minimizes bias and confounding. In this paper we review challenges and potential solutions for the conduct of observational studies on the long-term safety of topical corticosteroids.

dermatology
Evaluating corticosteroid treatment strategies for cardiac sarcoidosis: analysis of the nationwide claims-based JROAD-DPC dataset

T Kitai,T Sakamoto,T Yoshii,S Kurashima,Y Irie,K Moriuchi,M Amano,M Amaki,H Kanzaki,C Izumi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.3059

IF: 39.3

2024-10-30

European Heart Journal

Abstract:Background Corticosteroid-based immunosuppressive therapy is the cornerstone of treatment for cardiac sarcoidosis (CS), aimed at preventing severe adverse events including death, heart failure and lethal arrhythmic events. Nevertheless, data on the optimal initial dosing, appropriate tapering schedules, suitable maintenance dosages, and the recurrence rates among patients are insufficient. Purpose This study sought to scrutinize real-world data on corticosteroid therapy regimen for CS and to reassess optimal treatment protocols. Methods From the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database, 6,282 patients with hospitalized CS were identified between 2012 and 2022. Among them, 3,067 CS patients who were initiated on corticosteroid therapy during hospitalization were analyzed. We examined the baseline patient characteristics and treatment strategies for corticosteroid therapy, including starting dose, tapering period, maintenance dose, and their correlation with the onset of adverse events. Results The cohort had a mean age was 63±11 years, and 1,256 patients (41.0 %) were female. The starting dose of corticosteroids was 30.3±6.9 mg, with 88.6% of patients receiving a dose of ≧30 mg/day. The doses of corticosteroids at 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 days post-discharge were 21.4±9.8, 15.7±6.9, 12.2±5.7, 10.4±5.0, 9.3±4.5 and 9.0±4.6 mg, respectively. By day 180, 83.7% of the patients were maintained on ≦10 mg/day. However, 17.1 % of patients required an increase in corticosteroid dosage during the tapering course, primarily due to exacerbation of sarcoidosis. When analyzing only the group without corticosteroid escalation up to 180 days post-discharge, the average corticosteroid dose was 8.7±3.8 mg, with 95.3% of patients on ≦10 mg/day. We observed 965 re-hospitalization (31.5 %) during follow-up, with 58.8% of these patients having corticosteroid escalation to ≧30 mg, and 12.8% of patients received second-line immunosuppressive therapy, such as methotrexate. Conclusion The majority of CS patients were initiated on a corticosteroid regimen of 30 mg/day, which was subsequently tapered to below 10 mg/day by day 180. However, non-negligible number of patients experienced clinical events or relapse, underscoring the necessity for vigilant follow-up during corticosteroid therapy.Figure

cardiac & cardiovascular systems

Editorial: Defining corticosteroid use in clinical trials

Corticosteroid Use in Randomized Clinical Trials of Biologics and Small Molecules in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review

Editorial: Corticosteroids for severe checkpoint inhibitor‐induced liver injury—Not one size fits all?

AB1143 BURDEN OF GLUCOCORTICOIDS AMONG RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF DISEASE-MODIFYING ANTIRHEUMATIC DRUG MANAGEMENT

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Systemic Corticosteroids in Autoimmune and Inflammatory Diseases: A Review of Current Evidence

Effect of Corticosteroids on Articular Cartilage: Have Animal Studies Said Everything?

Corticosteroids in critically ill patients: A narrative review

P689 Adaptive steroid tapering impedes corticosteroid-free remissions compared to forced tapering in UC clinical trials

Intra-articular corticosteroids for the treatment of osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis on the comparison of different molecules and doses

Adaptive Steroid Tapering Impedes Corticosteroid-free Remissions Compared with Forced Tapering in Clinical Trials of Ulcerative Colitis

The Controversy about the Effects of Different Doses of Corticosteroid Treatment on Clinical Outcomes for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Patients: an Observational Study

Evaluating the Risk-Benefit Profile of Corticosteroid Therapy for COVID-19 Patients: A Scoping Review

Inhaled Corticosteroids Versus Placebo for Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Review

Corticosteroids for infectious critical illness: A multicenter target trial emulation stratified by predicted organ dysfunction trajectory

Corticosteroids for the management of immune-related adverse events in patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors

Comparison of a Target Trial Emulation Framework vs Cox Regression to Estimate the Association of Corticosteroids With COVID-19 Mortality

Trends in Systemic Glucocorticoid Utilization in the United Kingdom from 1990 to 2019: A Population-Based, Serial Cross-Sectional Analysis

Steroid Use for Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A CHEER Network Study

Clinical Utilization of Stress Dose Hydrocortisone in Adult Patients with Septic Shock: A Retrospective Observational Study at a Large Academic Medical Center

A guide to improving the design and analysis of observational studies on the long-term safety of topical corticosteroids

Evaluating corticosteroid treatment strategies for cardiac sarcoidosis: analysis of the nationwide claims-based JROAD-DPC dataset