Background Steroid use for COVID-19 is based on the possible role of these drugs in mitigating the inflammatory response, mainly in the lungs, triggered by SARS-CoV-2. This study aimed at evaluating at evaluating the efficacy of methylprednisolone (MP) among hospitalized patients with suspected COVID-19. Methods Parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase IIb clinical trial was performed with hospitalized patients aged ≥ 18 years with clinical, epidemiological and/or radiological suspected COVID-19, at a tertiary care facility in Manaus, Brazil. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) to receive either intravenous MP (0.5 mg/kg) or placebo (saline solution), twice daily, for 5 days. A modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis was conducted. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. ClinicalTrials Identifier NCT04343729. Findings From April 18 to June 16, 2020, 647 patients were screened, 416 randomized, and 393 analyzed as mITT, MP in 194 and placebo in 199 individuals. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed by RT-PCR in 81.3%. Mortality at day 28 was not different between groups. A subgroup analysis showed that patients over 60 years in the MP group had a lower mortality rate at day 28. Patients in the MP arm tended to need more insulin therapy, and no difference was seen in virus clearance in respiratory secretion until day 7. Conclusion The findings of this study suggest that a short course of MP in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 did not reduce mortality in the overall population.

No abstract

The uncertainty about the real burden of causes of death (CoD) is increasingly recognized by the international health community as a critical limitation for prioritizing effective public health measures. The minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) has shown to be a satisfactory substitute of the complete diagnostic autopsy (CDA), the gold standard for CoD determination in low- and middle-income countries. However, more studies are needed to confirm its adequate performance in settings with different epidemiology. In this observational study, the CoD obtained with the MIA were compared with the clinical diagnosis and the results of the CDA in 61 deaths that occurred in an infectious diseases referral hospital in Manaus, Brazilian Amazon. Concordance between the categories of diseases obtained by the three methods was evaluated by the Kappa statistic. Additionally, we evaluated discrepancies between clinical and complete diagnostic autopsy diagnoses. The MIA showed a substantial concordance with the CDA (Kappa = 0.777, 95% CI 0.608–0.946), and a perfect or almost perfect coincidence in specific diagnosis (ICD-10 code) between MIA and CDA was observed in 85% of the cases. In contrast, the clinical diagnosis showed a fair concordance with the CDA (Kappa = 0.311, 95% CI 0.071–0.552). Major clinico-pathological discrepancies were identified in 49% of cases. In conclusion, the MIA showed a substantial performance for CoD identification. Clinico-pathological discrepancies remain high and justify the need for post-mortem studies, even in referral hospitals. The MIA is a robust substitute of the CDA for CoD surveillance and quality improvement of clinical practice in low- and middle-income settings.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00428-019-02602-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.