4.6 Article

The use of methylprednisolone in COVID-19 patients: A propensity score matched retrospective cohort study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 15, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244128

关键词

-

资金

  1. Social Development Guiding (Key) Project of Fujian Provincial Science and Technology Department [2020Y0027]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To evaluate the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone in treating the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted, and all COVID-19 patients were recruited who were admitted to the Yichang Third People's Hospital from February 1(st) to March 31(st), 2020. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was used for minimizing confounding effects. The primary outcome was hospital mortality, with the secondary outcomes being the time needed for a positive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test to turn negative and the length of hospital stay. Results Totaling 367 patients with COVID-19 hospitalized at the Yichang Third People's Hospital were identified, of whom 276 were mild or stable COVID-19, and 67 were serious or critically ill. Among them, 255 patients were treated using methylprednisolone, and 188 did not receive any corticosteroid-related treatment. After PSM, no statistically significant difference was found in the baseline characteristics between the two groups. Regarding the outcomes, there also were no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Patients without the use of methylprednisolone were more quickly to obtain negative results of their nasopharyngeal swab tests of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid after treatment, compared to those receiving methylprednisolone. Conclusion Methylprednisolone could not improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19, and the efficacy and safety of the use of methylprednisolone in patients with COVID-19 still remain uncertain, thus the use of corticosteroids clinically in patients with COVID-19 should be with cautions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据