Dexamethasone versus methylprednisolone for multiple organ dysfunction in COVID-19 critically ill patients: a multicenter propensity score matching study

Abstract Background Dexamethasone usually recommended for patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to reduce short-term mortality. However, it is uncertain if another corticosteroid, such as methylprednisolone, may be utilized to obtain better clinical outcome. This study assessed dexamethasone’s clinical and safety outcomes compared to methylprednisolone. Methods A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted between March 01, 2020, and July 31, 2021. It included adult COVID-19 patients who were initiated on either dexamethasone or methylprednisolone therapy within 24 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The primary outcome was the progression of multiple organ dysfunction score (MODS) on day three of ICU admission. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:3 ratio) based on the patient’s age and MODS within 24 h of ICU admission. Results After Propensity Score (PS) matching, 264 patients were included; 198 received dexamethasone, while 66 patients received methylprednisolone within 24 h of ICU admission. In regression analysis, patients who received methylprednisolone had a higher MODS on day three of ICU admission than those who received dexamethasone (beta coefficient: 0.17 (95% CI 0.02, 0.32), P = 0.03). Moreover, hospital-acquired infection was higher in the methylprednisolone group (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.01, 4.66; p = 0.04). On the other hand, the 30-day and the in-hospital mortality were not statistically significant different between the two groups. Conclusion Dexamethasone showed a lower MODS on day three of ICU admission compared to methylprednisolone, with no statistically significant difference in mortality

Additional file 1 of Dexamethasone versus methylprednisolone for multiple organ dysfunction in COVID-19 critically ill patients: a multicenter propensity score matching study

Additional file 1. Outcome definition (s)

Developmental and epigenetic pathways to obesity: an evolutionary-developmental perspective

Although variation in individual lifestyle and genotype are important factors in explaining individual variation in the risk of developing obesity in an obesogenic environment, there is growing evidence that developmentally plastic processes also contribute. These effects are mediated at least in part through epigenetic processes. These developmental pathways do not directly cause obesity but rather alter the risk of an individual developing obesity later in life. At least two classes of developmental pathway are involved. The mismatch pathway involves the evolved adaptive responses of the developing organism to anticipated future adverse environments, which have maladaptive consequences if the environment is mismatched to that predicted. This pathway can be cued by prenatal undernutrition or stresses that lead the organism to forecast an adverse future environment and change its developmental trajectory accordingly. As a result, individuals develop with central and peripheral changes that increase their sensitivity to an obesogenic environment. It provides a model for how obesity emerges in populations in rapid transition, but also operates in developed countries. There is growing experimental evidence that this pathway can be manipulated by, for example, postnatal leptin exposure. Secondly, maternal diabetes, maternal obesity and infant overfeeding are associated with a greater risk of later obesity. Early life offers a potential point for preventative intervention

Ten putative contributors to the obesity epidemic

The obesity epidemic is a global issue and shows no signs of abating, while the cause of this epidemic remains unclear. Marketing practices of energy-dense foods and institutionally-driven declines in physical activity are the alleged perpetrators for the epidemic, despite a lack of solid evidence to demonstrate their causal role. While both may contribute to obesity, we call attention to their unquestioned dominance in program funding and public efforts to reduce obesity, and propose several alternative putative contributors that would benefit from equal consideration and attention. Evidence for microorganisms, epigenetics, increasing maternal age, greater fecundity among people with higher adiposity, assortative mating, sleep debt, endocrine disruptors, pharmaceutical iatrogenesis, reduction in variability of ambient temperatures, and intrauterine and intergenerational effects as contributing factors to the obesity epidemic are reviewed herein. While the evidence is strong for some contributors such as pharmaceutical-induced weight gain, it is still emerging for other reviewed factors. Considering the role of such putative etiological factors of obesity may lead to comprehensive, cause specific, and effective strategies for prevention and treatment of this global epidemic