Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup

Review 2: "Inhaled corticosteroid use and risk COVID-19 related death among 966,461 patients with COPD or asthma: an OpenSAFELY analysis"

This well-conducted, high powered study provides strong evidence of that inhaled corticosteroids do not protect against COVID-19 related deaths.

Published onSep 10, 2020
Review 2: "Inhaled corticosteroid use and risk COVID-19 related death among 966,461 patients with COPD or asthma: an OpenSAFELY analysis"
1 of 2
key-enterThis Pub is a Review of
Inhaled corticosteroid use and risk COVID-19 related death among 966,461 patients with COPD or asthma: an OpenSAFELY analysis
Description

Background: Early descriptions of the coronavirus outbreak showed a lower prevalence of asthma and COPD than was expected for people diagnosed with COVID-19, leading to speculation that inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may protect against infection with SARS-CoV-2, and development of serious sequelae. We evaluated the association between ICS and COVID-19 related death using linked electronic health records in the UK. Methods: We conducted cohort studies on two groups of people (COPD and asthma) using the OpenSAFELY platform to analyse data from primary care practices linked to national death registrations. People receiving an ICS were compared to those receiving alternative respiratory medications. Our primary outcome was COVID-19 related death. Findings: We identified 148,588 people with COPD and 817,973 people with asthma receiving relevant respiratory medications in the four months prior to 01 March 2020. People with COPD receiving ICS were at a greater risk of COVID-19 related death compared to those receiving a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) (adjusted HR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.08 - 1.75). People with asthma receiving high dose ICS were at an increased risk of death compared to those receiving a short-acting beta agonist (SABA) only (adjusted HR = 1.52, 95%CI = 1.08 - 2.14); the adjusted HR for those receiving low-medium dose ICS was 1.10 (95% CI = 0.82 - 1.49). Quantitative bias analyses indicated that an unmeasured confounder of only moderate strength of association with exposure and outcome could explain the observed associations in both populations. Interpretation: These results do not support a major role of ICS in protecting against COVID-19 related deaths. Observed increased risks of COVID-19 related death among people with COPD and asthma receiving ICS can be plausibly explained by unmeasured confounding due to disease severity.

RR:C19 Evidence Scale rating by reviewer:

  • Strong. The main study claims are very well-justified by the data and analytic methods used. There is little room for doubt that the study produced has very similar results and conclusions as compared with the hypothetical ideal study. The study’s main claims should be considered conclusive and actionable without reservation.

***************************************

Review:

The main study claims are very well-justified by the data and analytic methods used. There is little room for doubt that the study produced has very similar results and conclusions as compared with the hypothetical ideal study. The study’s main claims should be considered conclusive and actionable without reservation.

The manuscript has a high degree of novelty and presents an answer to an interesting question on the relation between ICS use and COVID-19 in a large group of COPD and Ashma population. Findings of this study support advancement of COVID-19 understanding within society.

This manuscript cites the current literature and discusses the limitations—especially the confounding factors related to the severity of the diseases. The study is clearly and accurately presented. Findings are discussed in details and conclusion depends on the result of the findings.
The authors pay attention to ethics, diversity and inclusion.
The manuscript is well-structured and well-written, and can easily be understood by readers. It has a potential to have contribution to the current policies. I strongly recommend this manuscript for publishing.
I suggest, accepting the manuscript without modification.

Comments
0
comment
No comments here
Why not start the discussion?