4.0 Review

Dexamethasone for treating SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

SAO PAULO MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 139, 期 6, 页码 657-661

出版社

ASSOCIACAO PAULISTA MEDICINA
DOI: 10.1590/1516-3180.2021.0120.R1.30062021

关键词

Dexamethasone; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Meta-analysis [publication type]; Pulmonary medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study suggests that dexamethasone may significantly improve outcomes for hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and associated severe respiratory complications. Further studies should consider dose-dependent administration and outcomes in both early and later stages of the disease.
BACKGROUND: Considering the disruptions imposed by lockdowns and social distancing recommendations, coupled with overwhelmed healthcare systems, researchers worldwide have been exploring drug repositioning strategies for treating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). OBJECTIVE: To compile results from randomized clinical trials on the effect of dexamethasone, compared with standard treatment for management of SARS-CoV-2. DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in a Brazilian public university. METHODS: We sought to compile data from 6724 hospitalized patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Treatment with dexamethasone significantly reduced mortality within 28 days (risk ratio, RR: 0.89; 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.82-0.97). Dexamethasone use was linked with being discharged alive within 28 days (odds ratio, OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.07-1.33). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that dexamethasone may significantly improve the outcome among hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and associated severe respiratory complications. Further studies need to consider both dose-dependent administration and outcomes in early and later stages of the disease.

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

4.0
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