Outcomes Associated with the use of High Dose Corticosteroids and IL-6 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Secondary to SARS COV-2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, treatment strategies evolved rapidly. The RECOVERY trial established corticosteroids as the standard care for reducing mortality in COVID-19 patients. However, some critical care clinicians began using doses higher than those recommended in RECOVERY. Objective: To characterize the use of high-dose corticosteroids and IL-6 inhibitors in critically ill COVID-19 patients and examine their association with adverse drug events (ADEs). Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 320 electronic health records (January 1, 2020 - June 30, 2022) was conducted on COVID-19 patients requiring high-flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation. Patients were categorized based on corticosteroid dose: "high dose dexamethasone" (daily dose greater than 12 mg and/or for longer than 10 days), "low dose dexamethasone" (daily dose 12 mg or less for 10 days or less), and "no dexamethasone" (no corticosteroid therapy). Subgroups were created based on IL-6 inhibitor use. Results: High-dose dexamethasone was associated with increased odds of ADEs compared to low dose (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.45 to 4.49) and no dexamethasone (OR 6.29, 95% CI 2.08 to 19.03). No additional efficacy benefit was observed in patients receiving high dose corticosteroids when compared to low dose corticosteroids. Patients receiving both an IL-6 inhibitor and high-dose dexamethasone had further increased odds of ADEs. High-dose dexamethasone was also associated with increased mortality compared to low dose (OR 3.78, 95% CI 1.97-7.25) and no dexamethasone (OR 15.22, 95% CI 3.27-70.74). Conclusions: Acknowledging the risk for residual confounding, higher doses of dexamethasone were associated with increased ADEs and mortality. These findings highlight the need for careful consideration of the use of high-dose dexamethasone.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".