
==== Front
Heliyon
Heliyon
Heliyon
2405-8440
Elsevier

S2405-8440(24)12368-7
10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36337
e36337
Research Article
Clinical utility of the neutrophil elastase inhibitor sivelestat for the treatment of ALI/ARDS patients with COVID-19
Wang Ruiying wry0526@163.com
ab1
Yin Junping c1
Li Jian c
Bai Xueli a
Liu Hu a
Cheng Mengyu a
Wang Lei a
Chen Yuan d
Wei Shuang wsdavid2001@163.com
abe⁎
Liu Xiansheng doctorliu69@126.com
abe⁎⁎
a Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Shanxi Bethune Hospital, Shanxi Academy of Medical Sciences, Tongji Shanxi Hospital, Third Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China
b Sino-German Joint Oncological Research Laboratory, Shanxi Bethune Hospital, Shanxi Academy of Medical Sciences, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China
c Institute of Molecular Medicine and Experimental Immunology, University Clinic of Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University, Bonn, Germany
d Department of Geriatrics, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1096 Jiefang Road, Wuhan, Hubei, China
e Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine,Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China
⁎ Corresponding author. wsdavid2001@163.com
⁎⁎ Corresponding author. Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Shanxi Bethune Hospital, Shanxi Academy of Medical Sciences, Tongji Shanxi Hospital, Third Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China. doctorliu69@126.com
1 Equally contributing authors.

20 8 2024
15 9 2024
20 8 2024
10 17 e3633714 2 2024
31 7 2024
13 8 2024
© 2024 The Authors
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Background

Sivelestat, a neutrophil elastase inhibitor, is postulated to mitigate acute lung injury in patients following emergency surgery. However, its efficacy in patients with acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) induced by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains uncertain. This study aims to evaluate the pulmonary protective effects of sivelestat in COVID-19 patients with ALI/ARDS.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted involving 2454 COVID-19 patients between October 5, 2022, and February 1, 2023. Of these, 102 patients received sivelestat (0.2 mg/kg/h), while 2352 age- and sex-matched controls were identified. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used to match sivelestat and non-sivelestat subgroups in ratios of 1:1 and 1:3 for sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was a composite of effective outcomes, including 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2), the ratio of PaO2 to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2), and various cytokine levels. Safety evaluations included assessments of liver function, kidney function, and leukopenia.

Results

In the propensity score-matched analysis, the sivelestat group had a higher proportion of severe/critical patients (87.26 % vs. 51.02 %, P < 0.001), more ARDS patients (4.9 % vs. 0.43 %, P < 0.001), and more patients with interstitial lung disease (4.9 % vs. 1.49 %, P = 0.023), but fewer patients with stroke (17.65 % vs. 19.86 %, P < 0.001). Oxygen therapy rates were similar between the groups (79.41 % vs. 80.95 %, P = 0.9). The relative risk reduction in 30-day mortality was 88.45 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 81.23%–93.21 %) for severe/critical COVID-19 patients treated with sivelestat. Sivelestat significantly decreased cytokine levels of interferon alpha (IFNα), interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β), and interleukin-2 (IL-2).In the sivelestat group, the mortality rate was significantly reduced with standard oxygenation and HFNC therapy(P < 0.05). The treatment with sivelestat did not increase side effects.

Conclusion

The administration of the neutrophil elastase inhibitor sivelestat may improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients with ALI/ARDS. These findings suggest that sivelestat could be considered an effective treatment option to alleviate pulmonary inflammatory injury caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Keywords

COVID-19
Sivelestat
Treatment
ARDS
Lung injury
==== Body
pmc1 Introduction

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is a severe form of acute lung injury (ALI), often characterized by extensive damage to the alveolar epithelium and capillary endothelium, leading to pulmonary edema and the formation of hyaline membranes, leading to impaired gas exchange and accompanied by the release of systemic inflammatory mediators [1]. It is one of the most prevalent conditions in the intensive care unit (ICU) and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide [2]. Although various causes or risk factors can lead to ALI/ARDS, the most common are pneumonia and non-pulmonary sepsis [3]. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the incidence of ARDS, with 42 % of COVID-19 patients presenting with pneumonia [4], highlighting the syndrome's challenges, its unacceptably high mortality, and the lack of effective pharmacotherapy.

Sivelestat is a selective, reversible, and competitive neutrophil elastase inhibitor [5,6], demonstrating protective effects in attenuating ALI/ARDS. Studies have shown that sivelestat can lower the production of inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α [7], and reduce the infiltration and activation of inflammatory cells [8], thereby protecting against post-perfusion-induced lung injury [9]. Furthermore, sivelestat therapy might positively impact the PaO2/FiO2 ratio, although it appears to have no significant effect on 28–30 day mortality, ventilation days, and ICU stays in ARDS induced by the SARS virus [10]. Recently, some researchers suggested that neutrophil elastase inhibitors might be a potential prophylactic treatment for COVID-19 patients [11], based on evidence from basic research indicating the inhibitory effects of sivelestat on NF-κB signaling [[12], [13], [14]]. However, clinical studies have produced controversial results regarding the efficacy of sivelestat in treating ARDS [15]. Current evidence suggests that sivelestat may offer some benefit in ALI/ARDS treatment, but large-scale clinical trials are needed to explore these potential benefits in specific pathophysiological conditions.

To address this issue, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sivelestat in treating COVID-19 patients with ALI/ARDS.

2 Methods

2.1 Study population

This retrospective cohort study was approved by the ethical committee of Shanxi Bethune Hospital (approval number: 2022-102-01). The inclusion criteria were: (1) patients confirmed with a positive nucleic acid test for SARS-CoV-2 using reverse transcriptase PCR and subsequently admitted to the hospital; (2) chest imaging showing lesions in both lungs. The exclusion criteria were: (1) patients who died, were anticipated to be discharged, transferred to another hospital, or received standard care for ≤48 h after diagnosis; (2) pregnancy or breastfeeding; (3) known allergy.

COVID-19 was clinically categorized into several stages: mild to moderate disease encompassing both non-pneumonia and pneumonia presentations; severe disease characterized by dyspnea, respiratory frequency exceeding 30 breaths per minute, oxygen saturation below 93 %, PaO2/FiO2 ratio less than 300, and/or lung infiltrates over 50 % within 24–48 h; and critical illness involving respiratory failure, septic shock, and/or multi-organ dysfunction/failure [16,17].

The diagnostic criteria for ARDS are as follows [18]:(1)Acute onset (within 7 days of new or worsening respiratory symptoms).(2) Bilateral radiographic opacities not fully explained by effusion, atelectasis, or masses.(3)Arterial hypoxemia defined by the following thresholds:Mild: 200 < PaO2/FiO2 ratio ≤300 mm Hg, CPAP/PEEP≥5 cm H2O.Moderate: 100 < PaO2/FiO2 ratio≤200 mm Hg, PEEP≥5 cm H2O.Severe: PaO2/FiO2 ratio≤100 mm Hg, PEEP≥5 cm H2O.(4)Identified risk factor for ARDS (if no clear risk factor, exclude heart failure as a cause). (5)Condition not exclusively due to cardiac causes.

2.2 Procedures

According to the application instructions for sivelestat, dissolve the drug with a daily dose (4.8 mg/kg) in 0.9 % sodium chloride, then use a 50 ml syringe to draw and hold the sivelestat solution. Afterwards, dilute this solution with 250–500 ml normal saline to a total volume of 500 ml, ready for use. Set the dosing rate to 2 ml/h with the intravenous injection micropump for a 24-h constant rate of injection. The daily dosage can be divided into 3 parts and administered via continuous intravenous infusion, with the longest course of drug administration being 14 days. The last follow-up date was 3thMarch 2023.

Patients are stratified and assigned to different respiratory support modalities based on their oxygenation index and the severity of their condition. The gradation of respiratory support includes:(1)Standard oxygenation (nasal cannula/mask: Initial treatment for patients with mild to moderate hypoxemia.(2)High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC,up to 60 L/min)): Upgraded from standard oxygen therapy if patients fail to maintain adequate oxygenation levels.(3)Non-Invasive Mechanical Ventilation (NIV): Utilized when HFNC is insufficient to alleviate respiratory distress.(4)Invasive Mechanical Ventilation with Lung-Protective Strategy: Implemented as a last resort if the patient's condition continues to worsen despite NIV.Patients are grouped according to the most advanced level of respiratory support they receive.

2.3 Biological sample collection

Biological samples were collected at two specific times: before any treatment was initiated upon patient admission and 14 days after the treatment.

2.4 Data collection

Survival time was calculated from the date of hospital admission to death from any cause. The primary outcome was to evaluate efficacy by examining the 30-day mortality rate. The secondary outcomes included observing changes in PaO2, PaO2/FiO2 ratios, and various cytokine levels. Safety evaluations were performed, focusing on liver function injury, kidney function injury, and leukopenia.

2.5 Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using the latest versions of Stata, Easy-R, and R (version 4.0). GraphPad (https://www.graphpad.com/scientific-software/prism/) was used for drawing purposes. Continuous variables were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or median with interquartile ranges (IQRs), while categorical variables were presented as proportions (%). Continuous data were analyzed using t-tests or rank-sum tests, and qualitative data were analyzed using chi-square tests and/or Fisher's exact chi-square tests. Multivariate linear regression, logistic regression, and Cox proportional hazards models were applied to analyze risk ratios and hazard risk ratios.

To mitigate potential biases that could affect our findings, we used propensity score matching (PSM) to adjust the study cohort. This methodology allowed for a comparison between patients who received sivelestat and those in the control group with a similar risk profile. PSM analysis was performed to match sivelestat and non-sivelestat groups in ratios of 1:1 and 1:3 for sensitivity analysis. A P-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3 Results

3.1 Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients

Between 5th October 2022, and 1st February 2023, a total of 2731 COVID-19 patients were screened at Shanxi Bethune Hospital. Ultimately, 2454 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were included in the analysis (Fig. 1). Nearly everyone has been vaccinated. Specifically, 80.9 % of patients have completed the full course of COVID-19 vaccination, while 19.1 % have received only one dose.Among them, 102 patients received sivelestat (sivelestat group), while 2352 patients did not receive this drug (non-sivelestat group). All patients completed the follow-up.Fig. 1 Workflow of study design.

Fig. 1

In this cohort, the median age was 69.0 years (IQR 57.0–81.0). Of the total, 1323 patients (53.91 %) were male, 510 (20.78 %) were current smokers, and 1289 (52.53 %) experienced a severe/critical disease course.(Table 1). Common comorbidities associated with increased risk of progression to severe/critical COVID-19 at baseline included interstitial lung disease (ILD) in 40 patients (1.63 %), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in 78 patients (3.18 %), hypertension in 823 patients (33.54 %), coronary heart disease (CHD) in 140 patients (5.70 %), stroke in 485 patients (19.76 %), diabetes mellitus (DM) in 667 patients (27.18 %), malignant tumors in 323 patients (13.16 %), hematologic disorders in 490 patients (19.97 %), renal dysfunction in 231 patients (9.41 %), and liver dysfunction in 262 patients (10.68 %).(Table 2, Table 3).Table 1 Characteristics in pre-propensity matching.

Table 1		Total (N = 2454)	Non-Siv (N = 2352)	Sivelestat (N = 102)	Pvalue	
Age	mean ± sd	65,34 ± 19,60	64,99 ± 19,78	73,27 ± 12,66	5.13E-09	
min	0	0	28	
max	102	102	96	
median	69,00 (57,00, 81,00)	69,00 (57,00, 80,00)	75,00 (63,00, 84,00)	
Sex	Male	1323 (53,91 %)	1261 (53,61 %)	62 (60,78 %)	0.186556783968456	
Female	1131 (46,09 %)	1091 (46,39 %)	40 (39,22 %)	
Smoking	No	1915 (78,04 %)	1830 (77,81 %)	85 (83,33 %)	0.285388933310671	
Yes	510 (20,78 %)	493 (20,96 %)	17 (16,67 %)	
Diseases severity	Moderate	1165 (47,47 %)	1152 (48,98 %)	13 (12,75 %)	1.94E-13	
Sever	1167 (47,56 %)	1092 (46,43 %)	75 (73,53 %)	
More than sever	122 (4,97 %)	108 (4,59 %)	14 (13,73 %)	
ILD	No	2414 (98,37 %)	2317 (98,51 %)	97 (95,10 %)	0.0234333718633592	
Yes	40 (1,63 %)	35 (1,49 %)	5 (4,90 %)	
COPD	No	2375 (96,78 %)	2277 (96,81 %)	98 (96,08 %)	0.889730561616863	
Yes	78 (3,18 %)	74 (3,15 %)	4 (3,92 %)	
ARDS	No	2439 (99,39 %)	2342 (99,57 %)	97 (95,10 %)	4.90E-07	
Yes	15 (0,61 %)	10 (0,43 %)	5 (4,90 %)	
Hypertension	No	1622 (66,10 %)	1554 (66,07 %)	68 (66,67 %)	0.940889570629115	
Yes	823 (33,54 %)	789 (33,55 %)	34 (33,33 %)	
CHD	No	2305 (93,93 %)	2211 (94,01 %)	94 (92,16 %)	0.734197566933726	
Yes	140 (5,70 %)	132 (5,61 %)	8 (7,84 %)	
Stroke	No	1968 (80,20 %)	1885 (80,14 %)	83 (81,37 %)	8.64E-06	
Yes	485 (19,76 %)	467 (19,86 %)	18 (17,65 %)	
DM	No	1787 (72,82 %)	1712 (72,79 %)	75 (73,53 %)	0.95943807531091	
Yes	667 (27,18 %)	640 (27,21 %)	27 (26,47 %)	
Malignant tumors	No	2131 (86,84 %)	2036 (86,56 %)	95 (93,14 %)	0.0762888677637222	
Yes	323 (13,16 %)	316 (13,44 %)	7 (6,86 %)	
Hematologic disorders	No	1963 (79,99 %)	1880 (79,93 %)	83 (81,37 %)	0.921076008801307	
Yes	490 (19,97 %)	471 (20,03 %)	19 (18,63 %)	
Renal dysfunction	No	2221 (90,51 %)	2127 (90,43 %)	94 (92,16 %)	0.819751541039117	
Yes	231 (9,41 %)	223 (9,48 %)	8 (7,84 %)	
Liver dysfunction	No	2190 (89,24 %)	2106 (89,54 %)	84 (82,35 %)	0.0640516683547692	
Yes	262 (10,68 %)	244 (10,37 %)	18 (17,65 %)	

Table 2 Characteristics in after-propensity matching(Ratio 1:1).

Table 2		Total (N = 204)	Non-Siv (N = 102)	Sivelestat (N = 102)	pvalue	
Age	mean ± sd	73,08 ± 12,42	72,88 ± 12,23	73,27 ± 12,66	0.8222	
min	28	28	28	
max	96	96	96	
median	75,00 (63,00, 84,00)	75,00 (63,00, 83,00)	75,00 (63,00, 84,00)	
Sex	Male	126 (61,76 %)	64 (62,75 %)	62 (60,78 %)	0.885442848627866	
Female	78 (38,24 %)	38 (37,25 %)	40 (39,22 %)	
Smoking	No	159 (77,94 %)	74 (72,55 %)	85 (83,33 %)	0.0913084289068644	
Yes	45 (22,06 %)	28 (27,45 %)	17 (16,67 %)	
Diseases severity	Moderate	28 (13,73 %)	15 (14,71 %)	13 (12,75 %)	0.8621	
Sever	150 (73,53 %)	75 (73,53 %)	75 (73,53 %)	
More than sever	26 (12,75 %)	12 (11,76 %)	14 (13,73 %)	
ILD	No	198 (97,06 %)	101 (99,02 %)	97 (95,10 %)	0.213807729542997	
Yes	6 (2,94 %)	1 (0,98 %)	5 (4,90 %)	
COPD	No	188 (92,16 %)	90 (88,24 %)	98 (96,08 %)	0.0683113132443061	
Yes	16 (7,84 %)	12 (11,76 %)	4 (3,92 %)	
ARDS	No	199 (97,55 %)	102 (100,00 %)	97 (95,10 %)	0.0701117534576819	
Yes	5 (2,45 %)	0 (0,00 %)	5 (4,90 %)	
Hypertension	No	125 (61,27 %)	57 (55,88 %)	68 (66,67 %)	0.196906626251612	
Yes	78 (38,24 %)	44 (43,14 %)	34 (33,33 %)	
CHD	No	186 (91,18 %)	92 (90,20 %)	94 (92,16 %)	0.582652425626489	
Yes	17 (8,33 %)	9 (8,82 %)	8 (7,84 %)	
Stroke	No	164 (80,39 %)	81 (79,41 %)	83 (81,37 %)	0.533882374191182	
Yes	39 (19,12 %)	21 (20,59 %)	18 (17,65 %)	
DM	No	145 (71,08 %)	70 (68,63 %)	75 (73,53 %)	0.536784864740017	
Yes	59 (28,92 %)	32 (31,37 %)	27 (26,47 %)	
Malignant tumors	No	185 (90,69 %)	90 (88,24 %)	95 (93,14 %)	0.335229125597609	
Yes	19 (9,31 %)	12 (11,76 %)	7 (6,86 %)	
Hematologic disorders	No	160 (78,43 %)	77 (75,49 %)	83 (81,37 %)	0.405271658738583	
Yes	43 (21,08 %)	24 (23,53 %)	19 (18,63 %)	
Renal dysfunction	No	180 (88,24 %)	86 (84,31 %)	94 (92,16 %)	0.128222894999772	
Yes	24 (11,76 %)	16 (15,69 %)	8 (7,84 %)	
Liver dysfunction	No	172 (84,31 %)	88 (86,27 %)	84 (82,35 %)	0.563561202900117	
Yes	32 (15,69 %)	14 (13,73 %)	18 (17,65 %)	

Table 3 Characteristics in after-propensity matching(Ratio 1:3).

Table 3		Total (N = 408)	Non-Siv (N = 306)	Sivelestat (N = 102)	pvalue	
Age	mean ± sd	72,88 ± 12,71	72,75 ± 12,75	73,27 ± 12,66	0.7204	
min	28	28	28	
max	96	96	96	
median	75,00 (63,00, 83,25)	75,50 (63,00, 83,00)	75,00 (63,00, 84,00)	
Sex	Male	260 (63,73 %)	198 (64,71 %)	62 (60,78 %)	0.552177684126288	
Female	148 (36,27 %)	108 (35,29 %)	40 (39,22 %)	
Smoking	No	317 (77,70 %)	232 (75,82 %)	85 (83,33 %)	0.215304054357068	
Yes	88 (21,57 %)	71 (23,20 %)	17 (16,67 %)	
Diseases severity	Moderate	59 (14,46 %)	46 (15,03 %)	13 (12,75 %)	0.8006	
Sever	298 (73,04 %)	223 (72,88 %)	75 (73,53 %)	
More than sever	51 (12,50 %)	37 (12,09 %)	14 (13,73 %)	
ILD	No	399 (97,79 %)	302 (98,69 %)	97 (95,10 %)	0.0798639029693502	
Yes	9 (2,21 %)	4 (1,31 %)	5 (4,90 %)	
COPD	No	380 (93,14 %)	282 (92,16 %)	98 (96,08 %)	0.25823482340595	
Yes	28 (6,86 %)	24 (7,84 %)	4 (3,92 %)	
ARDS	No	401 (98,28 %)	304 (99,35 %)	97 (95,10 %)	0.0154669277030268	
Yes	7 (1,72 %)	2 (0,65 %)	5 (4,90 %)	
Hypertension	No	247 (60,54 %)	179 (58,50 %)	68 (66,67 %)	0.30471021704024	
Yes	160 (39,22 %)	126 (41,18 %)	34 (33,33 %)	
CHD	No	378 (92,65 %)	284 (92,81 %)	94 (92,16 %)	0.802394840028027	
Yes	29 (7,11 %)	21 (6,86 %)	8 (7,84 %)	
Stroke	No	321 (78,68 %)	238 (77,78 %)	83 (81,37 %)	0.143320848249861	
Yes	86 (21,08 %)	68 (22,22 %)	18 (17,65 %)	
DM	No	295 (72,30 %)	220 (71,90 %)	75 (73,53 %)	0.84803999836173	
Yes	113 (27,70 %)	86 (28,10 %)	27 (26,47 %)	
Malignant tumors	No	360 (88,24 %)	265 (86,60 %)	95 (93,14 %)	0.110294255244555	
Yes	48 (11,76 %)	41 (13,40 %)	7 (6,86 %)	
Hematologic disorders	No	321 (78,68 %)	238 (77,78 %)	83 (81,37 %)	0.654888934725812	
Yes	86 (21,08 %)	67 (21,90 %)	19 (18,63 %)	
Renal dysfunction	No	364 (89,22 %)	270 (88,24 %)	94 (92,16 %)	0.495794882734941	
Yes	43 (10,54 %)	35 (11,44 %)	8 (7,84 %)	
Liver dysfunction	No	352 (86,27 %)	268 (87,58 %)	84 (82,35 %)	0.244881188235494	
Yes	56 (13,73 %)	38 (12,42 %)	18 (17,65 %)	

3.2 Laboratory results and treatment of COVID-19 patients

Table 4 summarizes the results of neutrophil, lymphocyte, and D-dimer levels, which are key indicators in this study. Key treatments administered to the cohort during the study period included glucocorticoid therapy in 63.65 % (1562 patients), antiviral therapy in 53.10 % (1303 patients), and oxygen therapy in 80.89 % (1985 patients) as detailed in Table 5, Table 6.Table 4 All Results of laboratory tests and therapeutic regimens.

Table 4		Total (N = 2454)	Non-Siv(N = 2352)	Sivelestat (N = 102)	Pvalue	
Neutrophil	mean ± sd	5,14 ± 4,20	5,06 ± 4,11	6,85 ± 5,71	9.62E-177	
min	0	0	0.67	
max	78.66	78.66	38.85	
median (IQR)	4,18 (2,83, 6,34)	4,16 (2,80, 6,27)	5,53 (3,49, 7,91)	
Lymphocyte	mean ± sd	1,11 ± 1,89	1,13 ± 1,93	0,83 ± 0,74	5.67E-53	
min	0	0	0.04	
max	63.32	63.32	5.92	
median (IQR)	0,90 (0,55, 1,38)	0,92 (0,56, 1,39)	0,62 (0,37, 1,07)	
Oxygen_saturation	mean ± sd	92,77 ± 7,44	92,77 ± 7,49	92,72 ± 6,25	4.74E-34	
min	26.3	26.3	55.4	
max	101.7	101.7	99	
median (IQR)	94,50 (91,50, 96,60)	94,50 (91,50, 96,62)	94,30 (91,03, 96,60)	
D_Dimer	mean ± sd	802,05 ± 2,361,24	800,44 ± 2,393,51	841,78 ± 1,347,19	1.32E-164	
min	9	9	77	
max	65353	65353	7860	
median (IQR)	303,00 (151,00, 691,00)	297,50 (147,75, 691,00)	412,00 (253,75, 710,25)	
Anti_virus	No	1098 (44,74 %)	1070 (45,49 %)	28 (27,45 %)	0.00159861653134677	
Yes	1303 (53,10 %)	1232 (52,38 %)	71 (69,61 %)	
Glucocorticoids	No	892 (36,35 %)	887 (37,71 %)	5 (4,90 %)	3.15E-11	
Yes	1562 (63,65 %)	1465 (62,29 %)	97 (95,10 %)	
Oxygen_therapy	No	468 (19,07 %)	447 (19,01 %)	21 (20,59 %)	0.904597473111583	
Yes	1985 (80,89 %)	1904 (80,95 %)	81 (79,41 %)	

Table 5 Laboratory tests and therapeutic regimens(PSM matched ratio 1:1).

Table 5		Total (N = 204)	Non-Siv (N = 102)	Sivelestat (N = 102)	pvalue	
Neutrophil	mean ± sd	6,24 ± 4,90	5,63 ± 3,87	6,85 ± 5,71	2.87E-59	
min	0.01	0.01	0.67	
max	38.85	28.02	38.85	
median (IQR)	5,09 (3,24, 7,51)	4,67 (3,12, 6,60)	5,53 (3,49, 7,91)	
Lymphocyte	mean ± sd	1,16 ± 4,43	1,49 ± 6,22	0,83 ± 0,74	6.65E-38	
min	0.04	0.07	0.04	
max	63.32	63.32	5.92	
median (IQR)	0,67 (0,40, 1,13)	0,71 (0,42, 1,15)	0,62 (0,37, 1,07)	
Oxygen_saturation	mean ± sd	179; 92,19 ± 6,91	97; 91,74 ± 7,43	92,72 ± 6,25	1.79E-36	
min	47.1	47.1	55.4	
max	99.2	99.2	99	
median (IQR)	179; 93,50 (90,50, 95,80)	97; 93,20 (90,30, 95,50)	94,30 (91,03, 96,60)	
D_Dimer	mean ± sd	183; 922,52 ± 2,302,99	97; 994,11 ± 2,904,66	841,78 ± 1,347,19	1.74E-52	
min	45	45	77	
max	25300	25300	7860	
median (IQR)	183; 378,00 (211,50, 709,00)	97; 335,00 (159,00, 694,00)	412,00 (253,75, 710,25)	
Anti_virus	No	60 (29,41\%)	32 (31,37\%)	28 (27,45 %)	0.597090685861612	
Yes	136 (66,67\%)	65 (63,73\%)	71 (69,61 %)	
Glucocorticoids	No	8 (3,92\%)	3 (2,94\%)	5 (4,90 %)	0.718326262969495	
Yes	196 (96,08\%)	99 (97,06\%)	97 (95,10 %)	
Oxygen_therapy	No	28 (13,73\%)	7 (6,86\%)	21 (20,59 %)	0.00816947251470263	
Yes	176 (86,27\%)	95 (93,14\%)	81 (79,41 %)	

Table 6 Laboratory tests and therapeutic regimens(PSM matched ratio 1:3).

Table 6		Total (N = 204)	Non-Siv (N = 102)	Sivelestat (N = 102)	Pvalue	
Neutrophil	mean ± sd	6,24 ± 4,90	5,63 ± 3,87	6,85 ± 5,71	2.87E-59	
min	0.01	0.01	0.67	
max	38.85	28.02	38.85	
median (IQR)	5,09 (3,24, 7,51)	4,67 (3,12, 6,60)	5,53 (3,49, 7,91)	
Lymphocyte	mean ± sd	1,16 ± 4,43	1,49 ± 6,22	0,83 ± 0,74	6.65E-38	
min	0.04	0.07	0.04	
max	63.32	63.32	5.92	
median (IQR)	0,67 (0,40, 1,13)	0,71 (0,42, 1,15)	0,62 (0,37, 1,07)	
Oxygen_saturation	mean ± sd	179; 92,19 ± 6,91	97; 91,74 ± 7,43	92,72 ± 6,25	1.79E-36	
min	47.1	47.1	55.4	
max	99.2	99.2	99	
median (IQR)	179; 93,50 (90,50, 95,80)	97; 93,20 (90,30, 95,50)	94,30 (91,03, 96,60)	
D_Dimer	mean ± sd	183; 922,52 ± 2,302,99	97; 994,11 ± 2,904,66	841,78 ± 1,347,19	1.74E-52	
min	45	45	77	
max	25300	25300	7860	
median (IQR)	183; 378,00 (211,50, 709,00)	97; 335,00 (159,00, 694,00)	412,00 (253,75, 710,25)	
Anti_virus	No	60 (29,41\%)	32 (31,37\%)	28 (27,45 %)	0.597090685861612	
Yes	136 (66,67\%)	65 (63,73\%)	71 (69,61 %)	
Glucocorticoids	No	8 (3,92\%)	3 (2,94\%)	5 (4,90 %)	0.718326262969495	
Yes	196 (96,08\%)	99 (97,06\%)	97 (95,10 %)	
Oxygen_therapy	No	28 (13,73\%)	7 (6,86\%)	21 (20,59 %)	0.00816947251470263	
Yes	176 (86,27\%)	95 (93,14\%)	81 (79,41 %)	

3.3 Comparison between sivelestat group and control group

Compared to the non-sivelestat subgroup, the sivelestat subgroup was significantly older (median 75.0 vs. 69.0, P < 0.001) and had a higher proportion of severe/critical COVID-19 patients (87.26 % vs. 51.02 %, P < 0.001). Additionally, the sivelestat subgroup had a higher prevalence of ARDS patients (4.9 % vs. 0.43 %, P < 0.001) and interstitial lung disease (ILD) patients (4.9 % vs. 1.49 %, P < 0.05), but a lower prevalence of stroke (17.65 % vs. 19.86 %, P < 0.001). The sivelestat group also received more glucocorticoid therapy (95.1 % vs. 62.29 %, P < 0.001) and anti-virus therapy (69.61 % vs. 52.38 %, P = 0.0016), while oxygen therapy usage was similar between the two groups (79.41 % vs. 80.95 %, P = 0.9). Neutrophil counts and D-dimer levels were higher in the sivelestat group compared to the non-sivelestat group. Conversely, lymphocyte counts were lower in the sivelestat group. Clinical outcomes appeared comparable between both subgroups (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4).

3.4 The primary outcome-Sivelestat reduce the overall mortality

To facilitate a comprehensive comparison, propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was employed to pair both subgroups 1:1 based on age, gender, disease severity, various comorbidities, diverse therapeutic interventions, and other relevant variables. This approach led to the selection of 204 patients (102 pairs) for evaluating the efficacy of sivelestat treatment. The majority of patients in both matched subgroups presented with severe/critical disease. Significantly fewer patients in the matched sivelestat subgroup experienced mortality by the study endpoint (6 deaths) compared to the matched non-sivelestat subgroup (17 deaths; 5.88 % vs. 16.67 %, P = 0.0017). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a reduction in the hazard ratio (HR) to 0.25 (95 % CI 0.095–0.63, P = 0.0017) with sivelestat treatment (Fig. 2A). Regarding the recovery rate, no discernible differences were observed between the matched subgroups.For a more detailed analysis, PSM was also conducted using a 1:3 matched ratio, revealing 42 deaths in the matched non-sivelestat subgroup. The corresponding HR was estimated at 0.28 (95 % CI 0.12–0.66, P = 0.002) (Fig. 2B). In summary, sivelestat treatment resulted in an 88.45 % relative risk reduction in mortality (95 % CI 81.23 %–93.21 %) among severe/critical COVID-19 patients.Fig. 2 Kaplan-Meier Plot of overall survival of sivelestat treatment. (A, B) PSM matched ratio 1:1 and 1:3 between sivelestat and non-sivelestat subgroups.

Fig. 2

Applying the same statistical methods, after excluding patients who did not undergo oxygen therapy, the overall survival rate did not show significant differences (Fig. 3A: HR 0.362, 95 % CI 0.115–1.139, P = 0.068). However, propensity score matching (PSM) with a 1:3 ratio analysis demonstrated that the survival rate in the sivelestat group remained superior to that in the control group (Fig. 3B: HR 0.182, 95 % CI 0.056–0.595, P = 0.0015).Fig. 3 Kaplan-Meier Plot of overall survival of patients receiving oxygen therapy. (A, B) PSM matched ratio 1:1 and 1:3 between sivelestat and non-sivelestat subgroups.

Fig. 3

3.5 Sivelestat reduce the mortality of ARDS patients

In this study, all ARDS patients were included among the severe and critical COVID-19 cases. We conducted a survival rate comparison among moderate, severe, and critical COVID-19 patients and found no statistically significant difference in survival rates for moderate COVID-19 patients after using Sivelestat(Fig. 4A) However, for severe and critical patients, the survival rate in the Sivelestat group was significantly higher than in the control group(Fig. 4B, P = 0.0014).Therefore, we speculate that the use of Sivelestat is effective for ARDS.Fig. 4 Kaplan-Meier Plot of survival of patients with different severity levels. (A, B) A illustrates the comparison of survival rates among patients with moderate COVID-19; Figure B presents the comparison of survival rates among patients with severe and critical COVID-19.

Fig. 4

3.6 Optimized survival with high-flow/standard oxygenation in sivelestat group

In this study, the methods of oxygen therapy primarily included the use of invasive ventilators, non-invasive ventilators, standard oxygenation(nasal cannula/mask), and High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). We conducted an analysis of the different oxygen therapy modalities beweent sivelestat group and control group.There was no statistically significant difference in survival rates using invasive ventilation and non-invasive ventilators(Fig. 5A/B).In the Sivelestat group, the mortality rate was significantly reduced with standard oxygenation (Fig. 5C, P = 0.0038) and HFNC therapy(Fig. 5D, P = 0.0044)Fig. 5 Kaplan-Meier Plot of survival of patients with different Different oxygen treatments.Figure A represents patients treated with invasive ventilators; Figure B with non-invasive ventilators; Figure C with nasal cannula/mask oxygenation; Figure D with high-flow oxygen therapy.

(Note: Duration in Fig A and B is reduced due to classification based on the highest level of respiratory support.).

Fig. 5

3.7 Sivelestat improve PaO2/FiO2 and alleviate the IFNα、IL-1β and IL-2 levels

Compared to the non-sivelestat group, the sivelestat group showed significant reductions in cytokine levels of IFNα, IL-1β, and IL-2 (p < 0.05), indicating a potential modulation of inflammatory responses. Additionally, sivelestat treatment was associated with improved levels of PaO2/FiO2, suggesting enhanced oxygenation efficiency in these patients.However, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in cytokines such as IL-8, IL-10, IL-17A, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-12, and TNF-a (Fig. 6/6A/6B). These findings suggest that while sivelestat may effectively target specific cytokines and improve oxygenation parameters, its impact on other inflammatory markers remains inconclusive in this study cohort.Fig. 6 Barplot of all samples. Clinical and laboratory parameters'comparison between Treatment and Control group. Here, one can observe that some cytokines such as IFNα、IL-1β and IL-2 decreased significantly in sivelestat group than that in Control group, whereas Others cytokine did not differ significantly between both groups.(*P < 0.05,**P < 0.01,***P < 0.001).Fig. 6A. Barplots of matched samples by ratio 1:1

Fig. 6B. Barplots of matched samples by ratio 1:3.

Fig. 6

3.8 Factors affecting mortality in COVID-19 patients: multivariate analysis

Multivariate Cox regression analysis highlighted several critical factors associated with mortality in the cohort of COVID-19 patients. Advanced age, elevated D-dimer levels (≥1500 ng/ml), reduced lymphocyte counts (≤0.8*109/L), increased neutrophil counts (>7*109/L), severe/critical disease status, and the presence of ARDS emerged as significant predictors of mortality. Importantly, the absence of sivelestat treatment was also identified as a contributing factor to mortality, underscoring its potential protective role in COVID-19 patients with ARDS(Table 7, Table 8).Table 7 Univariant. COX analysis.

Table 7	Total	Ratio 1:1	Ratio 1:3	
HR	HR.confint.lower	HR.confint.upper	P.value	HR	HR.confint.lower	HR.confint.upper	P.value	HR	HR.confint.lower	HR.confint.upper	P.value	
Sivelestat	0.59	0.26	1.3	0.21	0.25	0.095	0.63	0.0035	0.28	0.12	0.66	0.0037	
Diseases_severity	22	9.7	50	1.3E-13	3.7	0.48	29	0.21	7.4	1	54	0.049	
Sex	1.6	1.1	2.2	0.01	1.3	0.51	3.1	0.61	0.99	0.54	1.8	0.98	
Age_group	2.1	1.5	2.9	0.0000056	1.6	0.67	3.7	0.3	1.7	0.96	3	0.071	
Smoking	1.3	0.89	1.8	0.19	1.8	0.72	4.5	0.21	1.5	0.8	2.8	0.2	
ILD	3.1	1.5	6.3	0.002	0.00000011	0	inf	1	1.3	0.17	9.3	0.81	
COPD	1.5	0.72	3.3	0.26	0.65	0.087	4.9	0.67	0.55	0.13	2.3	0.41	
ARDS	5.7	2.7	12	0.0000081	1.8	0.23	13	0.58	1.3	0.31	5.6	0.71	
Hypertension	1.1	0.77	1.5	0.67	1.1	0.44	2.6	0.87	0.95	0.52	1.7	0.87	
Stroke	1.4	1	2	0.051	2.6	1.1	6.4	0.038	2.2	1.2	4	0.013	
DM	0.92	0.65	1.3	0.67	0.83	0.32	2.1	0.71	1.1	0.6	2.1	0.73	
Malignant_tumors	0.95	0.62	1.5	0.83	0.49	0.11	2.2	0.35	1.2	0.57	2.7	0.58	
Hematologic_disorders	1.2	0.87	1.8	0.24	0.75	0.27	2.1	0.58	0.88	0.44	1.7	0.71	
Renal_dysfunction	1.9	1.3	2.9	0.0022	1.6	0.53	4.7	0.42	1.6	0.73	3.4	0.25	
Liver_dysfunction	1.4	0.92	2.1	0.12	1.1	0.39	3	0.87	1.2	0.61	2.5	0.55	
CHD	1.2	0.64	2.2	0.59	0.23	0.029	1.8	0.17	0.83	0.29	2.4	0.74	
Anti_virus	1.2	0.89	1.7	0.21	1.2	0.49	2.9	0.69	1.1	0.55	2	0.88	
Glucocorticoids	1.7	1.2	2.5	0.006	1	0.22	5	0.96	0.78	0.22	2.7	0.7	
Oxygen_therapy	1.5	0.94	2.4	0.087	1.6	0.45	5.5	0.47	1	0.45	2.3	0.98	
D_Dimer_group	3.1	2.1	4.5	0.0000000023	1.4	0.39	4.8	0.62	2.4	1.2	4.9	0.012	
Lym_group	0.3	0.21	0.43	3.7E-11	0.58	0.24	1.4	0.23	0.57	0.31	1.1	0.079	
Neu_group	3.3	2.4	4.5	5.6E-13	1.9	0.83	4.5	0.13	2	1.1	3.5	0.022	

Table 8 Multivariant. COX analysis.

Table 8

3.9 No increased side effects in the sivelestat group

Sivelestat treatment may potentially lead to certain adverse effects, primarily manifesting as liver function abnormalities indicated by elevated levels of AST, ALT, ALP, and Bilirubin. It can also sporadically cause kidney-related concerns such as increased urea and creatinine levels or the presence of protein in urine. Specifically, levels exceeding the upper limit of normal(AST>40 IU/L, ALT> 40 IU/L, ALP >135 U/L,bilirubin >21 μmol/L,Urea>7.1 mmol/L, Creatinine>96 mmol/L)are considered abnormal.Hematological issues, including decreased blood cell counts with white blood cells below 4 × 109/L and platelets below 100 × 109/L,have also been observed. Symptomatic therapies are available for managing these side effects, and discontinuation of the medication is considered if necessary.

The incidence of adverse effects observed during and after the treatment course was comparable between the sivelestat and non-sivelestat subgroups (Table 9). Among the sivelestat subgroup, the most frequently reported events included liver injury (33.3 %, compared to 30.9 % in the control subgroup, P = 0.587), kidney injury (27.5 % vs. 25.6 %, P = 0.729), thrombocytopenia (20.6 % vs. 14.8 %, P = 0.120), and leukopenia (10.8 % vs. 10.4 %, P = 0.868). There was one reported death in the sivelestat subgroup and 31 deaths in the entire control subgroup (0.70 % vs. 1.34 %, P = 0.516). No significant differences were observed in adverse events affecting other organs between the two subgroups.The adverse effects/events reported in this cohort were generally not considered specifically related to sivelestat treatment by the site investigators. The severity of these adverse effects/events was not distinctly differentiated during the study, as most were self-resolving and required specific treatment in only a few cases. Furthermore, no adverse effect/event led to discontinuation of treatment in this study.Table 9 Adverse events in the current cohort.

Table 9Treatment-emergent adverse effect	Control (n = 2352)	Sivletestat treatment (n = 102)	P-value	
N(%)	N(%)	
Liver-injury	727 (30.9)	34 (33.3)	0.587	
Kidney-injury	603 (25.6)	28 (27.5)	0.729	
Urine protein	143 (6.1)	6 (5.9)	1	
Leukocytopenia	244 (10.4)	11 (10.8)	0.868	
Thrombopenia	349 (14.8)	21 (20.6)	0.12	

3.10 Multiple studies of ALI presented sivelestat can improve clicinal outcome

In our study, only 102 patients received sivelestat treatment, reflecting its limited usage. Given the current lack of clarity regarding the clinical efficacy of sivelestat in ALI and ARDS caused by COVID-19, we conducted a literature review to explore its effectiveness.A systematic search using keywords ‘sivelestat’, ‘acute lung injury','ARDS' and ‘randomized controlled trial (RCT)' on PubMed identified 10 eligible RCTs reporting on sivelestat.Among these, 7 RCTs were centered on post-surgery settings, where sivelestat was linked with improved PaO2/FiO2 ratios at 24 h, reduced duration of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), and lower concentrations of polymorphonuclear elastase. However, findings regarding IL-6/IL-8 levels in these studies were inconsistent, and there was no consistent association observed with in-hospital mortality.Additionally, 2 RCTs explored sivelestat in cases of ALI associated with SIRS, demonstrating improved weaning rates from mechanical ventilation in the ICU. These collective findings underscore sivelestat's potential to enhance clinical outcomes. Nevertheless, further research is needed due to its limited application and the small sample sizes in reported studies.Detailed characteristics of these RCTs are summarized in Supplementary Table。

4 Discussion

Results from this retrospective cohort study demonstrated the efficacy of sivelestat administration in hospitalized patients with pneumonia induced by COVID-19. The clinical outcomes showed significant efficacy of sivelestat treatment, with an 88.45 % reduction in the risk of death from any cause, particularly among patients who progressed to ARDS. This efficacy was assessed through multiple PSM analyses with ratios of 1:1 and 1:3, which effectively minimized the confounding effects of clinical variables including age, gender, comorbidities, disease stage, combined therapies, and other factors. The majority of patients in the PSM groups exhibited severe/critical COVID-19 conditions. Furthermore, sivelestat treatment was observed to reduce the release of inflammatory cytokines and improve oxygenation status in these patients.

ARDS caused by COVID-19 represents a severe inflammatory response, significantly increasing both morbidity and mortality [3,4]. Upon viral invasion, neutrophils typically mount aggressive responses, migrating rapidly to affected tissues, particularly the lungs, where they release neutrophil extracellular traps and generate reactive oxygen species (ROS) through oxidative bursts [19]. Neutrophil activation plays a pivotal role in this process.In light of these mechanisms, Sahebnasagh and colleagues [20] have suggested that sivelestat, a neutrophil elastase inhibitor, holds promise as a therapeutic option for managing ALI/ARDS in COVID-19. Sivelestat is known to effectively mitigate lung tissue damage and suppress the production of inflammatory mediators in ARDS. Studies have demonstrated its protective effects against lung injury in animal models [21]. However, clinical research on sivelestat's application in COVID-19-induced ARDS remains limited.Among those hospitalized with COVID-19, 15–30 % will progress to COVID-19-associated ARDS [22].Severe COVID-19 pneumonia, as characterized by the National Institutes of Health (NIH),1 exhibits substantial overlap with the clinical manifestations of “typical” ARDS [23].Our study identified that all patients meeting ARDS criteria were exclusively present in the severe and critical categories of COVID-19. Notably, the survival rate among severe and critical patients treated with Sivelestat was significantly higher than that of the control group. These results indicate that Sivelestat administration significantly improves survival in ALI/ARDS patients following COVID-19, particularly when treatment is initiated early. The findings position Sivelestat as a potential therapeutic intervention for protecting lung function and treating inflammatory lung injury in COVID-19, warranting further clinical investigation.

Activated neutrophils can migrate back into the bloodstream via neutrophil reverse transendothelial migration [24], potentially contributing to multiorgan failure by causing distant organ damage. Moreover, activated neutrophils release cytokines, elastase, and superoxide [25,26], which increase vascular permeability, leading to interstitial lung edema [27,28].In our study, patients treated with sivelestat showed reduced levels of cytokines such as IFNα, IL-1β, and IL-2, consistent with previous findings [7,8,25]. The sivelestat group also exhibited lower plasma IL-6 levels, suggesting an anti-inflammatory effect. However, the impact on IL-6 levels was not consistently significant across 1:1 and 1:3 propensity score matches, possibly due to the time-dependent nature of IL-6 response to treatment. The relationship between IL-6 and neutrophil elastase inhibitors remains debated [29].Furthermore, our findings indicated an improvement in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio in sivelestat-treated patients, indicating enhanced oxygenation and improved prognosis. Interestingly, a separate study involving 167 septic patients with ARDS demonstrated that sivelestat improved lung injury scores, PaO2/FiO2 ratios, DIC scores, ICU length of stay, and survival rates [30]. Similarly, studies on ALI/ARDS post-surgery reported favorable outcomes with sivelestat, including reduced pneumonia incidence, shorter mechanical ventilation duration, decreased bilateral pulmonary infiltrates, improved oxygenation index, and lower IL-6 levels [31,32].While supplemental oxygen therapy is crucial for ARDS, especially in COVID-19-related cases where HFNC is widely favored clinically, our study similarly found higher survival rates with HFNC use [33]. However, due to limited ventilator availability during the pandemic and the retrospective nature of our study, details regarding invasive and noninvasive respiratory support are unclear. Consequently, caution is needed when interpreting our findings, which show no statistically significant differences in respiratory support types among these patients. Severe respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients can be heterogeneous, with some patients developing bacterial pneumonia and others thrombotic coagulopathy. SARS-CoV-2 mutations also lead to different pulmonary symptoms.These factors complicate predicting sivelestat's treatment effects from broad-syndrome trials [34].Despite these promising observations, robust evidence supporting the widespread use of neutrophil elastase inhibitors in COVID-19-induced ARDS remains insufficient. While our study suggests potential benefits of sivelestat in improving outcomes for COVID-19-related ARDS patients, rigorous randomized prospective trials are essential to validate these findings and establish clear treatment guidelines in the future.

During the study period, no serious adverse effects or events necessitating discontinuation of treatment were reported. The most commonly observed adverse effects were organ damage, although these were deemed by the site investigators to be unrelated to sivelestat treatment. Notably, patients with COVID-19-induced ALI/ARDS frequently experience compromised immune function, potentially leading to secondary infections [35] or disturbances in venous circulation [36]. Therefore, our findings suggest that sivelestat may offer a safe treatment option for ARDS induced by COVID-19.These observations are particularly significant given the context of ARDS in COVID-19 patients, where the immune system's response is often dysregulated. The ability of sivelestat to manage inflammatory responses without significant adverse effects is promising. Future studies should continue to monitor for any potential adverse effects comprehensively and explore sivelestat's safety profile in larger cohorts to validate its suitability as a therapeutic intervention for COVID-19-related ARDS.

5 Study limitation

The present study has several limitations that warrant consideration. Firstly, it is based on data from a single center, which may restrict the generalizability of our findings due to the relatively modest sample size, despite employing propensity score matching to mitigate selection bias. Secondly, a majority of severe/critical COVID-19 cases in our study were associated with the emerging Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Whether sivelestat's efficacy in treating ALI/ARDS extends to other SARS-CoV-2 variants or different viruses like Influenza remains uncertain.Thirdly, owing to the retrospective design, specific details such as the treatment duration and timelines for administering sivelestat and Oxygen therapy following ARDS diagnosis are unclear and should be interpreted cautiously. Fourthly, the geographic homogeneity of our patient cohort suggests caution in extrapolating these findings globally. Large-scale international studies are needed to validate our study outcomes. Lastly, our study did not delve into the detailed molecular mechanisms underlying sivelestat's inhibition of virus intrusion or replication. Further research is necessary to elucidate these mechanisms comprehensively.

6 Conclusion

ALI/ARDS induced by various viruses presents a persistent clinical challenge. The administration of neutrophil elastase inhibitors, such as sivelestat, represents a potential avenue to enhance clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients with ALI/ARDS. Our findings suggest that sivelestat could be a viable treatment option for mitigating pulmonary inflammatory injury caused by SARS-CoV-2. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and explore sivelestat's broader applications and underlying mechanisms in managing viral-induced respiratory distress.

Data availability

Data included in article.

Ethics statement

This study was approved by the ethical committee of Shanxi Bethune Hospital (number: 2022-102-01).The ethics committee had provide a waiver for informed consent due to the retrospective study.

Funding

This project was supported by 2023 COVID-19 Emergency Project of Shanxi province Health Commission (No.2023XG001 to Xiansheng Liu,No.2023XG005 to Shuang Wei).Four“batches”innovation project of invigorating medical through science and technology of shanxi province China (2023XM003 to Xiansheng Liu)

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Ruiying Wang: Writing – original draft, Formal analysis. Junping Yin: Formal analysis, Data curation. Jian Li: Investigation, Formal analysis. Xueli Bai: Investigation. Hu Liu: Investigation. Mengyu Cheng: Methodology, Data curation. Lei Wang: Investigation. Yuan Chen: Visualization, Supervision. Shuang Wei: Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition. Xiansheng Liu: Project administration, Funding acquisition.

Declaration of competing interest

All authors declare no conflict of interest related to the present study.

Abbreviations in alphabetical order

ALI Acute Lung Injury

ALP Alkaline Phosphatase

ALT Alanine Aminotrans ferase

ARDS Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

AST Aspartate Aminotransferase

CHD Coronary Heart Disease

COPD Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019

DIC Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation

DM Diabetes Mellitus

FiO2 Fraction of Inspired Oxygen

IFNα Interferon Alpha

IL-1β Interleukin 1 Beta

IL-2 Interleukin 2

IL-4 Interleukin 4

IL-5 Interleukin 5

IL-6 Interleukin 6

IL-8 Interleukin 8

IL-10 Interleukin 10

IL-12 Interleukin 12

IL-17A Interleukin 17A

NF-κB Nuclear Factor Kappa B

PaO2 Partial Pressure of Oxygen

PaO2/FiO2 Ratio of Partial Pressure of Oxygen to Fraction of Inspired Oxygen

PEEP Positive End-Expiratory Pressure

ROS Reactive Oxygen Species

SARS-CoV-2 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2

SIRS Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome

Appendix A Supplementary data

The following is the Supplementary data to this article.Multimedia component 1

Multimedia component 1

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank Professor Guan Weijie from the State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University for his invaluable contributions and insightful revisions to this article.

Appendix A Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36337.
==== Refs
References

1 Gorman E.A. O'kane C.M. Mcauley D.F. Acute respiratory distress syndrome in adults: diagnosis, outcomes, long-term sequelae, and management Lancet 400 10358 2022 1157 1170 10.1016/s0140-6736(22)01439-8 36070788
2 Bellani G. Laffey J.G. Pham T. Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries JAMA 315 8 2016 788 800 10.1001/jama.2016.0291 26903337
3 Meyer N.J. Gattinoni L. Calfee C.S. Acute respiratory distress syndrome Lancet 398 10300 2021 622 637 10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00439-6 34217425
4 Wu C. Chen X. Cai Y. Risk factors associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome and death in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia in wuhan, China JAMA Intern. Med. 180 7 2020 934 943 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0994 32167524
5 Miyoshi S. Hamada H. Ito R. Usefulness of a selective neutrophil elastase inhibitor, sivelestat, in acute lung injury patients with sepsis Drug Des. Dev. Ther. 7 2013 305 316 10.2147/dddt.S42004
6 Pu S. Wang D. Liu D. Effect of sivelestat sodium in patients with acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials BMC Pulm. Med. 17 1 2017 148 10.1186/s12890-017-0498-z 29162066
7 Haga Y. Ogawa M. Neutrophil elastase inhibitor (ONO-5046.Na) decreases production of proinflammatory cytokines by lipopolysaccharide-stimulated human monocytes Res. Commun. Mol. Pathol. Pharmacol. 98 3 1997 243 248 9485518
8 Suda K. Takeuchi H. Hagiwara T. Neutrophil elastase inhibitor improves survival of rats with clinically relevant sepsis Shock 33 5 2010 526 531 10.1097/SHK.0b013e3181cc064b 19953005
9 Yamazaki T. Ooshima H. Usui A. Protective effects of ONO-5046*Na, a specific neutrophil elastase inhibitor, on postperfusion lung injury Ann. Thorac. Surg. 68 6 1999 2141 2146 10.1016/s0003-4975(99)00831-0 10616991
10 Zeiher B.G. Matsuoka S. Kawabata K. Neutrophil elastase and acute lung injury: prospects for sivelestat and other neutrophil elastase inhibitors as therapeutics Crit. Care Med. 30 5 Suppl 2002 S281 S287 10.1097/00003246-200205001-00018 12004249
11 Mohamed M.M.A. El-Shimy I.A. Hadi M.A. Neutrophil Elastase Inhibitors: a potential prophylactic treatment option for SARS-CoV-2-induced respiratory complications? Crit. Care 24 1 2020 311 10.1186/s13054-020-03023-0 32513225
12 Hamerman J.A. Pottle J. Ni M. Negative regulation of TLR signaling in myeloid cells--implications for autoimmune diseases Immunol. Rev. 269 1 2016 212 227 10.1111/imr.12381 26683155
13 Busca A. Saxena M. Iqbal S. PI3K/Akt regulates survival during differentiation of human macrophages by maintaining NF-κB-dependent expression of antiapoptotic Bcl-xL J. Leukoc. Biol. 96 6 2014 1011 1022 10.1189/jlb.1A0414-212R 25225677
14 He Z. Zhu Y. Jiang H. Inhibiting toll-like receptor 4 signaling ameliorates pulmonary fibrosis during acute lung injury induced by lipopolysaccharide: an experimental study Respir. Res. 10 1 2009 126 10.1186/1465-9921-10-126 20017955
15 Ding Q. Wang Y. Yang C. Clinical utility of the sivelestat for the treatment of ALI/ARDS: moving on in the controversy? Intensive Care Res 3 1 2023 12 17 10.1007/s44231-022-00012-5 36911225
16 Raoult D. Zumla A. Locatelli F. Coronavirus infections: epidemiological, clinical and immunological features and hypotheses Cell Stress 4 4 2020 66 75 10.15698/cst2020.04.216 32292881
17 Umakanthan S. Sahu P. Ranade A.V. Origin, transmission, diagnosis and management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Postgrad. Med. 96 1142 2020 753 758 10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-138234
18 Ranieri V.M. Rubenfeld G.D. Thompson B.T. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin Definition JAMA 307 23 2012 2526 2533 10.1001/jama.2012.5669 22797452
19 Laforge M. Elbim C. Frère C. Tissue damage from neutrophil-induced oxidative stress in COVID-19 Nat. Rev. Immunol. 20 9 2020 515 516 10.1038/s41577-020-0407-1 32728221
20 Sahebnasagh A. Saghafi F. Safdari M. Neutrophil elastase inhibitor (sivelestat) may be a promising therapeutic option for management of acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome or disseminated intravascular coagulation in COVID-19 J. Clin. Pharm. Therapeut. 45 6 2020 1515 1519 10.1111/jcpt.13251
21 Iba T. Kidokoro A. Fukunaga M. Pretreatment of sivelestat sodium hydrate improves the lung microcirculation and alveolar damage in lipopolysaccharide-induced acute lung inflammation in hamsters Shock 26 1 2006 95 98 10.1097/01.shk.0000223126.34017.d9 16783204
22 Attaway A.H. Scheraga R.G. Bhimraj A. Severe covid-19 pneumonia: pathogenesis and clinical management BMJ 372 2021 Mar 10 n436 10.1136/bmj.n436
23 National Institutes of Health. NIH covid-19 treatment guidelines Clinical spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 infection https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/overview/clinical-spectrum 2020
24 De Oliveira S. Rosowski E.E. Huttenlocher A. Neutrophil migration in infection and wound repair: going forward in reverse Nat. Rev. Immunol. 16 6 2016 378 391 10.1038/nri.2016.49 27231052
25 Tamiya T. Yamasaki M. Maeo Y. Complement activation in cardiopulmonary bypass, with special reference to anaphylatoxin production in membrane and bubble oxygenators Ann. Thorac. Surg. 46 1 1988 47 57 10.1016/s0003-4975(10)65851-1 3382287
26 Dreyer W.J. Michael L.H. Millman E.E. Neutrophil activation and adhesion molecule expression in a canine model of open heart surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass Cardiovasc. Res. 29 6 1995 775 781 7544688
27 Ohwada S. Tomizawa N. Takahashi T. Effects of a specific neutrophil elastase inhibitor (ONO-5046 Na) and neutrophil depletion using a G-1 column on lung reperfusion injury in dogs Transplant. Proc. 28 3 1996 1826 1827 8658902
28 Ng C.S. Wan S. Yim A.P. Pulmonary dysfunction after cardiac surgery Chest 121 4 2002 1269 1277 10.1378/chest.121.4.1269 11948063
29 Bank U. Reinhold D. Kunz D. Effects of interleukin-6 (IL-6) and transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta) on neutrophil elastase release Inflammation 19 1 1995 83 99 10.1007/bf01534383 7705889
30 Hayakawa M. Katabami K. Wada T. Sivelestat (selective neutrophil elastase inhibitor) improves the mortality rate of sepsis associated with both acute respiratory distress syndrome and disseminated intravascular coagulation patients Shock 33 1 2010 14 18 10.1097/SHK.0b013e3181aa95c4 19487982
31 Toyama S. Hatori F. Shimizu A. A neutrophil elastase inhibitor, sivelestat, improved respiratory and cardiac function in pediatric cardiovascular surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass J. Anesth. 22 4 2008 341 346 10.1007/s00540-008-0645-z 19011770
32 Pan T. Tuoerxun T. Chen X. The neutrophil elastase inhibitor, sivelestat, attenuates acute lung injury in patients with cardiopulmonary bypass Front. Immunol. 14 2023 1082830 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1082830
33 Crimi C. Pierucci P. Renda T. High-flow nasal cannula and COVID-19: a clinical review Respir. Care 67 2 2022 Feb 227 240 10.4187/respcare.09056 34521762
34 Angus D.C. Seymour C.W. Bibbins-Domingo K. Caring for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: summary of the 2023 ESICM practice guidelines JAMA 330 4 2023 Jul 25 368 371 10.1001/jama.2023.6812 37329332
35 Swets M.C. Russell C.D. Harrison E.M. SARS-CoV-2 co-infection with influenza viruses, respiratory syncytial virus, or adenoviruses Lancet 399 10334 2022 1463 1464 10.1016/s0140-6736(22)00383-x 35344735
36 Perico L. Benigni A. Casiraghi F. Immunity, endothelial injury and complement-induced coagulopathy in COVID-19 Nat. Rev. Nephrol. 17 1 2021 46 64 10.1038/s41581-020-00357-4 33077917
