Citations

Abstract Background: Palliative care (PC) benefits patients with cancer and those undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), but remains under-utilized in HSCT. While transplant physicians have substantial concerns regarding how patients perceive PC, studies examining HSCT recipients' perceptions of PC are lacking. Methods: Between 11/2020-4/2021, the CIBMTR Survey Research Group conducted a multi-site cross-sectional survey of adult autologous and allogeneic HSCT recipients at 11 transplant centers in the United States who were 3-12 months post-transplant to assess their experience, knowledge, and perceptions of PC. Using validated questionnaires, we assessed patients' familiarity with PC, knowledge and perception of PC, unmet PC needs, quality of life, and symptom burden. We computed a composite score of patients' perceptions of PC (mean = 48.8, SD = 12.2). We used a generalized linear regression model to examine factors associated with patients' perceptions of PC. Results: Of 359 potentially eligible patients, 250 (69.6%) enrolled in the study and 249 were eligible for analysis. Median participant age was 58.1 years (IQR 16.6). Most were white (85.9%), non-Hispanic or Latino (95.2%), and male (53.0%). Overall, 63.1% underwent autologous HSCT. The most common diagnoses were multiple myeloma (42.2%), lymphoma (22.1%), leukemia (16.9%), and MDS/MPN (12.4%). Overall, 44.2% (110/249) of patients reported limited knowledge about PC and 51.0% (127/249) endorsed being familiar with PC. Most patients stated that when they hear the term PC, they feel hopeful (54%), and reassured (50%) while a minority reported feeling scared (21%), stressed (22%), or depressed (15%) [Figure 1]. Most endorsed that when a PC referral is suggested for them, they think their doctor really cares about what is happening to them (83%), and only 7% of patients stated that when a PC referral is suggested, they think their doctor has given up on them [Figure 2]. In multivariate analyses, patients who were more knowledgeable about PC were more likely to have a positive perception of PC (B = 7.54, SE=1.61, P < 0.001) compared to those who had less knowledge about PC. Patients with postgraduate education were more likely to have a negative perception of PC (B = -5.55, SE=2.60, P = 0.034) compared to those with high school education or less. Patients' demographics, HSCT type, diagnosis, unmet PC needs, quality of life, and symptom burden were not statistically significantly associated with their perceptions of PC. Conclusions: A substantial proportion of HSCT recipients report limited knowledge and familiarity with PC. Most patients reported positive perceptions of PC, and those who were more knowledgeable about PC were more likely to have positive perceptions of PC. These data do not support transplant physicians' concerns about how patients perceive PC and underscore the need for future interventions to further educate patients about PC to overcome barriers to PC utilization in HSCT. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Burns: Astellas Pharma Inc.: Research Funding; Medac GmbH: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; OncoImmune: Research Funding; Fate: Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; PrioThera: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin International: Research Funding. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. LeBlanc: Amgen: Consultancy, Other: travel; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Flatiron: Consultancy, Other: Advisory board; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board; Travel fees, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board; Travel fees, Speakers Bureau; Helsinn: Consultancy, Research Funding; Duke University: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; NINR/NIH: Research Funding; CareVive: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; American Cancer Society: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board; Heron: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory board.

Abstract MAJIC is a phase II trial of Ruxolitinib (RUX) vs Best Available Therapy (BAT) in polycythemia vera (PV) patients with resistance/intolerance to Hydroxycarbamide (HC). This analysis involved a primary comparison between the RUX and BAT arms for quality of life (QOL) durability over 60 months, with secondary comparisons of best QOL response within first year in complete hematologic responders (CR) vs a group of partial or no response (NR/PR). This is a unique analysis due to cross-over nature of prior studies. Patients were stratified by treatment arm with either RUX or BAT. QOL was assessed over 0-60 months using the Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF). MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (TSS) was computed as the average of all completed items multiplied by 10 (scale 0-100, higher score represents higher symptom burden). Estimates of change from baseline and between arm differences in change by timepoint were made using a linear mixed model with compound symmetry covariance structure, which included covariates for categorical time point, treatment arm, and the interaction between time point and treatment arm. The difference between arms in proportion of patients with best post-baseline TSS response of 50% or greater was testing using a Chi-square test. In this study, 147 of the 190 trial patients had started treatment and completed at least their baseline assessment and were included in the analysis with 39 patients completing through 60 months. Groups were comprised of 76 patients in the RUX group (31 females, 45 males, mean age 64.2 [SD 11.4]) and 71 patients in the BAT group (29 females, 42 males, mean age 64.6 [SD 11.5]). Symptom scores at baseline were similar between arms, with MPN-SAF weight loss the only statistically significant difference (BAT 0.7 [SD 1.71] vs RUX 1.7 [SD 2.83], p=0.02). Significant, durable improvements in TSS were noted in RUX patients with symptom improvements lasting a mean of 52 months. BAT patients experienced a worsening of their symptom burden with improvements back to baseline notable at 56 months (Figure 1). MPN-SAF TSS there were significant differences between treatment arms in change from baseline to months 2-32, 44, and 48 (all p<0.05). In all months the trend was in the direction of larger improvement in the RUX arm, with the point estimate for difference ranging from 2.1 (at month 56) to 11.3 (at month 4) with most prominent changes occurring between months 2 and 32. Of the 80 patients with MPN-SAF TSS scores at baseline and at least one post-baseline timepoint, 13/41 (31.7%) BAT and 24/39 (61.5%) RUX patients had TSS reduction of 50% or greater in at least one time point, which was statistically significant (p=0.008). In regard to specific symptoms, there was a statistically significant between arm difference seen in over 5 timepoints for fatigue, early satiety, night-sweats, itching, bone pain, and weight loss. Comparing MPN-SAF TSS in Complete Response (CR n=51) vs Non-Responder/Partial Responders (NR/PR) (n=96) there was no difference at baseline in any of the measures at any time point. A possible limitation of this study is the potential for bias in which the patients who were lost to follow up could be different then the patients who remained in the study through all 60 months which would affect generalization, particularly at time points at the later years. The novel findings of this investigation demonstrate that Ruxolitinib ameliorates the PV symptom burden in patients resistant or intolerant to HC in a robust durable manner over at least four years, while patients receiving BAT have worsening of their symptom burden over this same time period. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mead: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Yap: Celgene: Honoraria; Faron Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Scherber: Incyte Corporation: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Knapper: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Ended employment in the past 24 months, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Drummond: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; CTI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. McMullin: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: clinical trial support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mesa: CTI: Research Funding; AOP: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Pharma: Consultancy; Promedior: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; La Jolla Pharma: Consultancy. Harrison: CTI BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Geron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Galacteo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Promedior: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Keros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract The myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) polycythaemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythaemia (ET) are associated with significant symptom burden with impaired quality of life (QoL). In the MAJIC study patients refractory/intolerant to hydroxycarbamide (HC), were randomised to treatment with ruxolitinib (Rux) or best available therapy (BAT). In this unique and comprehensive analysis we explore quality of life (QoL) outcomes in the MAJIC study using the MPN10 Self-Assessment Form (SAF) in particular using this unique dataset to explore for the first time differences between JAK2 ET vs PV, and JAK2 ET vs CALR ET at baseline and 12 months of therapy with Rux or BAT. Methods 306 patients were randomised, (190, PV and 116 ET arm) and followed for 5 years, no cross over was permitted. MPN10 SAF was assessed at baseline, 2, 4, 8 and 12 months in both arms. Equal variance two sample t-tests were used to test differences between diagnosis groups (JAK2 ET vs PV & JAK2 ET vs CALR ET) in baseline scores and 12-month change from baseline scores, here negative change from baseline indicates improvement. QoL data was also collected using MD Anderson Symptoms Inventory (MDASI) and 5 level EQ5D at the same time points as the MPN10 SAF. Results JAK2 ET vs PV 110 participants with JAK2 mutation were included in the analysis for JAK2 ET vs PV. 81 (74%) had PV and 29 (26%) had JAK2 ET; 44 patients (54.3%) with PV and 18 (62.1%) patients with ET were randomised to Rux, and 37 (45.6%) patients with PV and 11 (37.9%) with ET to BAT. Baseline mean total symptom score (TSS) was similar (JAK2 ET: 18.9. SD 18.4 and PV: 23.7, SD 17.81 (p=0.27). Mean for pruritus was 1.9 (SD 2.47) in JAK2 ET and 3.5 (SD 2.99) in PV (p=0.03). Other baseline scores were comparable: mean scores for fatigue was 3.3 (SD 3.07) for JAK2 ET vs 4.7 (SD 2.68) for PV, for early satiety was 2.6 (SD 2.78) for JAK2 ET vs 2.1 (SD 2.40) for PV, for abdominal discomfort 3.0 (SD 3.34) for JAK2 ET vs 2.0 (SD 2.78) for PV, for inactivity was 2.4 (SD 2.86) for JAK2 ET vs 3.2 (SD 2.72) for PV; for concentration problems was 2.2 (SD 2.51) for JAK2 ET vs 2.9 (SD 3.11) for PV, for night sweats was 1.6 (SD 2.20) for JAK2 ET vs 2.1 (SD 2.66) for PV, for bone pain was 1.8 (SD 2.97) for JAK2 ET vs 2.0 (SD 2.86) for PV, for fever was 0.5 (SD 1.46) for JAK2 ET vs 0.5 (SD 1.70) for PV and for weight loss was 0.3 (SD 0.73) for JAK2 ET vs 1.0 (SD 2.15) for PV (p>0.05 for all). Concerning change at 12 months, mean (SD) change in TSS was -0.5 (SD 10.86) for JAK2 ET (n=21) vs -0.8 (SD 13.32) for PV (n=66) (P=0.93). Mean for individual symptom scores at 12 months were also not significantly different between the two phenotypic disease group (P>0.05 for all parameters). (Fig 1, top panels). CALR vs JAK2 ET Exploring symptoms for CALR vs JAK2 ET: 45 patients were included; 9/16 (56.3%) CALR and 18/29 (62.1%) JAK2 patients were assigned to Rux (p=0.70). 10/16 (62.5%) CALR ET and 19/29 (65.5%) JAK2 ET. Baseline mean total symptom score (TSS) was similar (JAK2 ET: 18.9, SD 18.4 and CALR ET: 18.8, SD 16.99 (p=0. 0.98). All other baseline scores were comparable in this intolerant/ refractory population (p>0.05 for all. Concerning change at 12 months, mean (SD) change in TSS was -0.5 (SD 10.86) for JAK2 ET vs -2.8 (SD 9.96) for CALR ET (P=0.56). Mean for individual symptom scores at 12 months were also not significantly different between the two phenotypic disease group (P>0.05 for all parameters); the mean change in night sweats approached but did not reach significance similar (JAK2 ET: 0.2 (SD 1.89) and CALR ET: 1.8 (SD 3.07) (p=0. 0.06). (Fig 1, lower panels). Preliminary analysis of the MDASI and EQ5D-5L data at baseline and at 12 months shows similar results and will be presented. Conclusion This first analysis of its kind compared the symptom burden and other parameters of QoL of patients with PV and ET, resistant/intolerant to HC shows that with the exception of pruritus at baseline there were no substantial differences between JAK2 ET or PV. Equally changes in symptom burden across 12 months did not substantially differ between JAK2 ET or PV. A second analysis of JAK2 vs CALR ET also failed to show substantial differences. This data should be expanded in a larger cohort but supports a symptom continuum of JAK2 ET and PV and also JAK2 vs CALR ET. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mead: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Yap: Faron Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Knapper: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Drummond: CTI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Mesa: Pharma: Consultancy; CTI: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; AOP: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; La Jolla Pharma: Consultancy; Samus: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding. Scherber: Incyte Corporation: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. McMullin: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: clinical trial support, Research Funding. Harrison: CTI BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Promedior: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Keros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Geron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Galacteo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Background: Individuals with brachial plexus injuries (BPIs) can be prescribed assistive devices, including myoelectric elbow orthoses (MEOs), for rehabilitation or functional use after failed treatment for elbow flexion restoration. Although recent case studies indicate potential for clinical improvements after using an MEO after BPI, the patients' perspectives on such use are still unknown. Objective: To explore patient perspectives on the use of an MEO after surgical treatment for a traumatic BPI. Study design: Qualitative using both a focus group and semistructured interviews. Methods: Patients with BPI that used an MEO were recruited. Five patients participated in an in-person focus group, whereas three patients participated in individual phone interviews. Themes that emerged from the focus group were compared against those that emerged from the personal interviews. Results: Feedback was grouped into three themes: device usage, hardware performance, and device design. Within each theme, positive elements, areas for improvement, and additional considerations emerged. Patients indicated a positive attitude toward using an MEO as a rehabilitation tool. They desired a streamlined, stronger device to support them and assist during activities of daily living. Conclusions: For patients with BPI, a well-designed MEO that meets their needs could assist with rehabilitation and increase independence in daily activities. Continued patient engagement in the evaluation and development of both medical devices and treatment plans offers the best opportunity for improved outcomes that are important to the patient.

AbstractObjectiveEctopic Cushing′s syndrome (ECS) induced by medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) is rare, and data on clinical characteristics, treatment and outcome are limited.DesignRetrospective cohort study in three German and one Swiss referral centres.PatientsEleven patients with MTC and occurrence of ECS and 22 matched MTC patients without ECS were included.MeasurementsThe primary endpoint of this study was the overall survival (OS) in MTC patients with ECS versus 1:2 matched MTC patients without ECS.ResultsThe median age at diagnosis of ECS was 59 years (range: 35–81) and the median time between initial diagnosis of MTC and diagnosis of ECS was 29 months (range: 0–193). Median serum morning cortisol was 49 µg/dl (range: 17–141, normal range: 6.2–18). Eight (73%) patients received treatment for ECS. Treatment of ECS consisted of bilateral adrenalectomy (BADX) in four (36%) patients and adrenostatic treatment in eight (73%) patients. One patient received treatment with multityrosine kinase inhibitor (MKI) to control hypercortisolism. All patients experienced complete resolution of symptoms of Cushing's syndrome and biochemical control of hypercortisolism. Patients with ECS showed a shorter median OS of 87 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 64–111) than matched controls (190 months, 95% CI: 95–285). Of the nine deaths, four were related to progressive disease (PD). Four patients showed PD as well as complications and comorbidities of hypercortisolism before death.ConclusionThis study shows that ECS occurs in advanced stage MTC and is associated with a poor prognosis. Adrenostatic treatment and BADX were effective systemic treatment options in patients with MTC and ECS to control their hypercortisolism. MKI treatment achieved complete remission of hypercortisolism and sustained tumour control in one treated case.

Key points Rates of anxiety and depression have increased during the COVID‐19 pandemic in older adults. Younger generations have reported higher rates of anxiety and depression during the pandemic compared to older adults. Factors influencing the risk of mental illness in older adults during the pandemic include sex, age group, location, living situation, socioeconomic status, and medical and psychiatric comorbidities. Strategies for older adults, caregivers, and health‐care providers may mitigate the effects of social isolation on the older adult population.

Abstract Neuromyelitis optica is an autoimmune inflammatory disorder targeting aquaporin-4 water channels in CNS astrocytes. Histopathological descriptions of astrocytic lesions reported in neuromyelitis optica so far have emphasized a characteristic loss of aquaporin-4, with deposition of IgG and complement and lysis of astrocytes, but sublytic reactions have been underappreciated. We performed a multi-modality study of 23 neuromyelitis optica autopsy cases (clinically and/or pathologically confirmed; 337 tissue blocks). By evaluating astrocytic morphology, immunohistochemistry and AQP4 RNA transcripts, and their associations with demyelinating activity, we documented a spectrum of astrocytopathy in addition to complement deposition, microglial reaction, granulocyte infiltration and regenerating activity. Within advanced demyelinating lesions, and in periplaque areas, there was remarkable hypertrophic astrogliosis, more subtle than astrocytic lysis. A degenerative component was suggested by ‘dystrophic’ morphology, cytoplasmic vacuolation, Rosenthal fibres and associated stress protein markers. The abundance of AQP4 mRNA transcripts in sublytic reactive astrocytes devoid of aquaporin-4 protein supported in vivo restoration following IgG-induced aquaporin-4 endocytosis/degradation. Astrocytic alterations extending beyond demyelinating lesions speak to astrocytopathy being an early and primary event in the evolving neuromyelitis optica lesion. Focal astrocytopathy observed without aquaporin-4 loss or lytic complement component deposition verifies that astrocytic reactions in neuromyelitis optica are not solely dependent on IgG-mediated aquaporin-4 loss or lysis by complement or by IgG-dependent leucocyte mediators. We conclude that neuromyelitis optica reflects a global astrocytopathy, initiated by binding of IgG to aquaporin-4 and not simply definable by demyelination and astrocytic lysis. The spectrum of astrocytic morphological changes in neuromyelitis optica attests to the complexity of factors influencing the range of astrocytic physiological responses to a targeted attack by aquaporin-4-specific IgG. Sublytic astrocytic reactions are no doubt an important determinant of the lesion’s evolution and potential for repair. Pharmacological manipulation of the astrocytic stress response may offer new avenues for therapeutic intervention.

AbstractData regarding the use of corticosteroids for treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are conflicting. As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic progresses, more literature supporting the use of corticosteroids for COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 ARDS have emerged. Glucocorticoids are proposed to attenuate the inflammatory response and prevent progression to the fibroproliferative phase of ARDS through their multiple mechanisms and anti‐inflammatory properties. The purpose of this systematic review was to comprehensively evaluate the literature surrounding corticosteroid use in ARDS (non‐COVID‐19 and COVID‐19) in addition to a narrative review of clinical considerations of corticosteroid use in these patient populations. OVID Medline and EMBASE were searched. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of corticosteroids for COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 ARDS in adult patients on mortality outcomes were included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. There were 388 studies identified, 15 of which met the inclusion criteria that included a total of 8877 patients. The studies included in our review reported a mortality benefit in 6/15 (40%) studies with benefit being seen at varying time points of mortality follow‐up (ICU survival, hospital, and 28 and 60 days) in the COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 ARDS studies. The two non‐COVID19 trials assessing lung injury score improvements found that corticosteroids led to significant improvements with corticosteroid use. The number of mechanical ventilation‐free days significantly were found to be increased with the use of corticosteroids in all four studies that assessed this outcome. Corticosteroids are associated with improvements in mortality and ventilator‐free days in critically ill patients with both COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 ARDS, and evidence suggests their use should be encouraged in these settings. However, due to substantial differences in the corticosteroid regimens utilized in these trials, questions still remain regarding the optimal corticosteroid agent, dose, and duration in patients with ARDS.