Pharmacological agents for adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome

Abstract

Background Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening condition caused by direct or indirect injury to the lungs. Despite improvements in clinical management (for example, lung protection strategies), mortality in this patient group is at approximately 40%. This is an update of a previous version of this review, last published in 2004. Objectives To evaluate the e ectiveness of pharmacological agents in adults with ARDS on mortality, mechanical ventilation, and fitness to return to work at 12 months. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL on 10 December 2018. We searched clinical trials registers and grey literature, and handsearched reference lists of included studies and related reviews. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological agents with control (placebo or standard therapy) to treat adults with established ARDS. We excluded trials of nitric oxide, inhaled prostacyclins, partial liquid ventilation, neuromuscular blocking agents, fluid and nutritional interventions and medical oxygen. We excluded studies published earlier than 2000, because of changes to lung protection strategies for people with ARDS since this date. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. Main results We included 48 RCTs with 6299 participants who had ARDS; two included only participants with mild ARDS (also called acute lung injury). Most studies included causes of ARDS that were both direct and indirect injuries. We noted di erences between studies, for example the time of administration or the size of dose, and because of unclear reporting we were uncertain whether all studies had used equivalent lung protection strategies.

Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in COVID-19 based on evidence for COVID-19, other coronavirus infections, influenza, community-acquired pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Our search for systematic reviews of ARDS identified 836 citations; we ultimately chose a systematic review published in 2019 as the target for updating. 29 Our search for primary studies identified 1 new eligible RCT published in 2020. 30 Including 6 RCTs identified from the previous review, we included 7 RCTs 30-36 with 851 patients.…”

The anti-viral facet of anti-rheumatic drugs: Lessons from COVID-19

“…Nonetheless, in reference to ARDS, at the moment there is very low evidence on the positive effect of the treatment in this critical condition [54]. There is not conclusive evidence that supports the use of GCs in the treatment of viral respiratory infection and their use remains controversial in COVID-19 [52].…”

Clinical evidence does not support corticosteroid treatment for 2019-nCoV lung injury

“…A review of treatments for acute respiratory distress syndrome of any cause, based on six studies with a total of 574 patients, 19 concluded that insufficient evidence exists to recommend corticosteroid treatment. 20 Septic shock has been reported in seven (5%) of 140 patients with 2019-nCoV included in published reports as of Jan 29, 2020. 3,18 Corticosteroids are widely used in septic shock despite uncertainty over their efficacy.…”