Systematic review and meta-analysis of tocilizumab in persons with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19)

The JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib in patients with COVID-19 triggered hyperinflammation: the RuxCoFlam trial

Dysregulated hyperinflammatory response is key in the pathogenesis in patients with severe COVID-19 leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiorgan failure. Whilst immunosuppression has been proven to be effective, potential biological targets and optimal timing of treatment are still conflicting. We sought to evaluate efficacy and safety of the Janus Kinase 1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib, employing the previously developed COVID-19 Inflammation Score (CIS) in a prospective multicenter open label phase II trial (NCT04338958). Primary objective was reversal of hyperinflammation (CIS reduction of ≥25% at day 7 in ≥20% of patients). In 184 patients with a CIS of ≥10 (median 12) ruxolitinib was commenced at an initial dose of 10 mg twice daily and applied over a median of 14 days (range, 2-31). On day 7, median CIS declined to 6 (range, 1-13); 71% of patients (CI 64-77%) achieved a ≥25% CIS reduction accompanied by a reduction of markers of inflammation. Median cumulative dose was 272.5 mg/d. Treatment was well tolerated without any grade 3-5 adverse events related to ruxolitinib. Forty-four patients (23.9%) died, all without reported association to study drug. In conclusion, ruxolitinib proved to be safe and effective in a cohort of COVID-19 patients with defined hyperinflammation.

COVID-19 Therapeutics: Use, Mechanism of Action, and Toxicity (Vaccines, Monoclonal Antibodies, and Immunotherapeutics)

SARS-CoV-2 emerged in December 2019 and led to the COVID-19 pandemic. Efforts to develop therapeutics have led to innovations such as mRNA vaccines and oral antivirals. Here we provide a narrative review of the biologic therapeutics used or proposed to treat COVID-19 during the last 3 years. This paper, along with its companion that covers xenobiotics and alternative remedies, is an update to our 2020 paper. Monoclonal antibodies prevent progression to severe disease, are not equally effective across variants, and are associated with minimal and self-limited reactions. Convalescent plasma has side effects like monoclonal antibodies, but with more infusion reactions and less efficacy. Vaccines prevent progression for a larger part of the population. DNA and mRNA vaccines are more effective than protein or inactivated virus vaccines. After mRNA vaccines, young men are more likely to have myocarditis in the subsequent 7 days. After DNA vaccines, those aged 30-50 are very slightly more likely to have thrombotic disease. To all vaccines we discuss, women are slightly more likely to have an anaphylactic reaction than men, but the absolute risk is small.

Should We Interfere with the Interleukin-6 Receptor During COVID-19: What Do We Know So Far?

Severe manifestations of COVID-19 consist of acute respiratory distress syndrome due to an initially local reaction leading to a systemic inflammatory response that results in hypoxia. Many therapeutic approaches have been attempted to reduce the clinical consequences of an excessive immune response to viral infection. To date, systemic corticosteroid therapy is still the most effective intervention. More recently, new hope has emerged with the use of interleukin (IL)-6 receptor inhibitors (tocilizumab and sarilumab). However, the great heterogeneity of the methodology and results of published studies obfuscate the true value of this treatment, leading to a confusing synthesis in recent meta-analyses, and the persistence of doubts in terms of patient groups and the appropriate time to treat. Moreover, their effects on the anti-infectious or pro-healing response are still poorly studied. This review aims to clarify the potential role of IL-6 receptor inhibitors in the treatment of severe forms of COVID-19.

Efficacy of tocilizumab in the treatment of COVID-19: An umbrella review

Tocilizumab is an interleukin (IL)‐6 receptor inhibitor that has been proposed as a therapeutic agent for treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). The aim of this umbrella review was to determine the efficacy of tocilizumab in treating COVID‐19, and to provide an overview of all systematic reviews on this topic. We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, the Web of Science collection, the Cochrane library, Epistemonikos, and Google Scholar, as well as the medRxiv preprint server. These databases were searched up to 30 September 2021, using the following keywords: ‘SARS‐CoV‐2’, ‘COVID‐19’, ‘tocilizumab’, ‘RHPM‐1’, ‘systematic review’, and ‘meta‐analysis’. Studies were included if they were systematic reviews (with or without meta‐analysis) investigating the efficacy or safety of tocilizumab in confirmed COVID‐19 patients. The AMSTAR 2 checklist was used to assess quality of the included articles, while publication bias was examined using Egger's test. A total of 50 eligible systematic reviews were included. The pooled estimates showed significant reductions in clinical failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.61–0.93), deaths (RR 0.78; 95%CI, 0.71–0.85) and the need for mechanical ventilation (RR 0.77; 95%CI, 0.64–0.92) for those receiving tocilizumab compared with the control group. Also, an emerging survival benefit was demonstrated for those who received tocilizumab, over those in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.52; 95%CI, 0.43–0.63). In addition, tocilizumab substantially increased the number of ventilator‐free days, compared with the control treatments (weighted mean difference (WMD) 3.38; 95%CI, 0.51–6.25). Furthermore, lymphocyte count (WMD 0.26 × 10⁹/L; 95%CI, 0.14–0.37), IL‐6 (WMD 176.99 pg/mL; 95%CI, 76.34–277.64) and D‐dimer (WMD 741.08 ng/mL; 95%CI, 109.42–1372.75) were all significantly elevated in those receiving tocilizumab. However, the level of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (WMD −30.88 U/L; 95%CI, −51.52, −10.24) and C‐reactive protein (CRP) (WMD ‐104.83 mg/L; 95%CI, −133.21, −76.46) were both significantly lower after treatment with tocilizumab. Tocilizumab treatment reduced the risk of intubation, mortality and the length of hospital stay, without increasing the risk of superimposed infections in COVID‐19 patients. Therefore, tocilizumab can be considered an effective therapeutic agent for treating patients with COVID‐19.

Tocilizumab effectiveness in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (T-MVC-19 Study): a multicenter real-world evidence

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of tocilizumab in mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This retrospective multicenter study included adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from nasopharyngeal swab, and requiring invasive mechanical ventilation during admission. Survival analyses with inverse propensity score treatment weighting (IPTW) and propensity score matching (PSM) were conducted. To account for immortal bias, we used Cox proportional modeling with time-dependent covariance. Competing risk analysis was performed for the extubation endpoint.

RESULTS

A total of 556 (tocilizumab = 193, control = 363) patients were included. Males constituted the majority of the participants (69.2% in tocilizumab arm,74.1% in control arm). Tocilizumab was not associated with a reduction in mortality with hazard ratio [(HR) = 0.82,95% confidence interval (95%CI): 0.62-1.10] in the Inverse propensity score weighting (IPTW) analysis and (HR = 0.86,95% CI: 0.64-1.16) in the PSM analysis. However, tocilizumab was associated with an increased rate of extubation (33.6%) compared to the control arm (11.9%); subdistributional hazards (SHR) = 3.1, 95% CI: 1.86-5.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Although tocilizumab was not found to be effective in reducing mortality, extubation rate while on mechanical ventilation was higher among tocilizumab treated group.

Initiation of Tocilizumab or Baricitinib Were Associated With Comparable Clinical Outcomes Among Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 and Treated With Dexamethasone

Objectives: This retrospective cohort study aims to explore head-to-head clinical outcomes and complications associated with tocilizumab or baricitinib initiation among hospitalized COVID-19 patients receiving dexamethasone.

Methods: Among 10,445 COVID-19 patients hospitalized between January 21st 2020 and January 31st 2021 in Hong Kong, patients who had received tocilizumab (n = 165) or baricitinib (n = 76) while on dexamethasone were included. Primary study outcome was time to clinical improvement (at least one score reduction on WHO clinical progression scale). Secondary outcomes were disease progression, viral dynamics, in-hospital death, hyperinflammatory syndrome, and COVID-19/treatment-related complications. Hazard ratios (HR) of event outcomes were estimated using Cox regression models.

Results: The initiation of tocilizumab or baricitinib had no significant differences in time to clinical improvement (HR = 0.86, 95%CI 0.57-1.29, p = 0.459), hospital discharge (HR = 0.85, 95%CI 0.57-1.27, p = 0.418), recovery without the need for oxygen therapy (HR = 1.04, 95%CI 0.64-1.67, p = 0.883), low viral load (HR = 1.49, 95%CI 0.85-2.60, p = 0.162), and positive IgG antibody (HR = 0.97, 95%CI 0.61-1.54, p = 0.909). Time to viral clearance (HR = 1.94, 95%CI 1.01-3.73, p = 0.048) was shorter in the tocilizumab group with marginal significance, compared to that of baricitinib. Meanwhile, the two treatment modalities were not significantly different in their associated risks of in-hospital death (HR = 0.63, 95%CI 0.29-1.35, p = 0.233), severe liver injury (HR = 1.15, 95%CI 0.43-3.08, p = 0.778), acute renal failure (HR = 2.33, 95%CI 0.61-8.82, p = 0.213), hyperinflammatory syndrome (HR = 2.32, 95%CI 0.87-6.25, p = 0.091), thrombotic and bleeding events (HR = 1.39, 95%CI 0.32-6.00, p = 0.658), and secondary infection (HR = 2.97, 95%CI 0.62-14.31, p = 0.173).

Conclusion: Among hospitalized patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 on background dexamethasone, the initiation of tocilizumab or baricitinib had generally comparable effects on time to clinical improvement, hospital discharge, recovery, low viral load, and positive IgG antibody; risks of in-hospital death, hepatic and renal complications, hyperinflammatory syndrome, thrombotic and bleeding events, and secondary infection. On the other hand, tocilizumab users might achieve viral clearance slightly faster than baricitinib users. Further studies and clinical trials are needed to confirm our findings regarding the evaluation of tocilizumab and baricitinib in COVID-19 patients with different disease severities, at varying stages or timing of drug initiation, and considering the concomitant use of other therapeutics.

The Pathogenetic Dilemma of Post-COVID-19 Mucormycosis in India

There has been a surge of mucormycosis cases in India in the wake of the second wave of COVID-19 with more than 40000 cases reported. Mucormycosis in patients of COVID-19 in India is at variance to other countries where Aspergillus, Pneumocystis, and Candida have been reported to be the major secondary fungal pathogens. We discuss the probable causes of the mucormycosis epidemic in India. Whereas dysglycaemia and inappropriate steroid use have been widely suggested as tentative reasons, we explore other biological, iatrogenic, and environmental factors. The likelihood of a two-hit pathogenesis remains strong. We propose that COVID-19 itself provides the predisposition to invasive mucormycosis (first hit), through upregulation of GRP78 and downregulation of spleen tyrosine kinase involved in anti-fungal defense, as also through inhibition of CD8+ T-cell mediated immunity. The other iatrogenic and environmental factors may provide the second hit which may have resulted in the surge.

Outcomes associated with tocilizumab with or without corticosteroid versus dexamethasone for treatment of patients with severe to critical COVID-19 pneumonia

Introduction

Immunomodulators, including dexamethasone (DEX), have been recommended by the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) to treat moderate, severe, and critical COVID-19. Tocilizumab (TCZ) was added to the treatment recommendations based on recent data from two large randomized controlled trials and its potential synergistic effect with DEX.

Method

We included adult patients admitted from June until October 2020 with a PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. 135 patients with severe to critical COVID-19 and received TCZ and/or corticosteroid or DEX were retrospectively evaluated and followed until hospital discharge or death.

Results

The cohort was divided into two different groups of patients; TCZ group received TCZ ± corticosteroid, N = 100 and DEX group received DEX, N = 35. Groups were analyzed for hospital mortality. The rate of hospital mortality was 36% in TCZ and 37% in the DEX group, p = 0.91. Age of 60 years and above was associated with higher mortality rate with OR = 1.030 and 95% CI = (1.004, 1.057). More than 50% of patients required MV in both groups. Development of bacterial or fungal infection post immunomodulator were similar in TCZ and DEX groups, 29% vs. 31.4%.

Conclusion

Our study revealed that age of 60 years and above is the only factor associated with higher mortality rate regardless of the type of immunomodulator therapy. Findings of this study also revealed the lack of synergistic effect between TCZ and DEX on the hospital mortality.

High-Dose Dexamethasone Versus Tocilizumab in Moderate to Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background and objectives

Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have indicated potential therapeutic benefits with high-dose dexamethasone (HDD) or tocilizumab (TCZ) plus standard care in moderate to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). No study has compared these two against each other. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of HDD against TCZ in moderate to severe COVID-ARDS.

Methods

Patients admitted with moderate to severe COVID-19 ARDS with clinical worsening within 48 hours of standard care were randomly assigned to receive either HDD or TCZ plus standard care. The primary outcome was ventilator-free days (VFDs) at 28 days. The main secondary outcomes were 28-day all-cause mortality and the incidence of adverse events. Our initial plan was to perform an interim analysis of the first 42 patients.

Results

VFDs were significantly lower in the HDD arm (median difference: 28 days; 95% confidence interval (CI): 19.35-36.65; Cohen’s d = 1.14;p < 0.001). We stopped the trial at the first interim analysis due to high 28-day mortality in the HDD arm (relative risk (RR) of death: 6.5; p = 0.007; NNT (harm) = 1.91). The incidence of secondary infections was also significantly high in the HDD arm (RR: 5.5; p = 0.015; NNT (harm) = 2.33).

Conclusions

In our study population, HDD was associated with a very high rate of mortality and adverse events. We would not recommend HDD to mitigate the cytokine storm in moderate to severe COVID-19 ARDS. TCZ appears to be a much better and safer alternative.

Impact of the Addition of Baricitinib to Standard of Care Including Tocilizumab and Corticosteroids on Mortality and Safety in Severe COVID-19

Background: Baricitinib is a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor with a broader anti-inflammatory activity than tocilizumab and an antiviral potential although no head-to-head trials are available. The benefits of adding baricitinib to patients with COVID-19 experiencing clinical progression despite the standard of care (SOC), including corticosteroids and tocilizumab, are also unknown. Methods: A cohort study included microbiologically confirmed COVID-19 hospitalizations. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were 60- and 90-day mortality, the composite outcome "28-day invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death" and the safety of the combination. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to identify the association between baricitinib use and the outcomes of interest. Results: Of 1,709 admissions, 994 patients received corticosteroids and tocilizumab and 110 of them received baricitinib after tocilizumab. PS matched 190 (95:95) patients with baricitinib + SOC vs. SOC, of whom 69.5% received remdesivir. No significant effect of baricitinib was observed on 28-day [39 events; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 0.76; 95% CI, 0.31-1.86], 60-day (49 events, aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.55-2.52), or 90-day mortality (49 events; aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.53-2.47), or on the composite outcome 28-day IMV/death (aHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.45-1.72). Secondary infections during hospitalization were not different between groups (17.9 vs. 10.5%, respectively; p = 0.212) and thromboembolic events were higher with baricitinib (11.6% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.048), but differences vanished after the adjustment [aHR 1.89 (0.31-11.57), p = 0.490]. Conclusion: The addition of baricitinib did not substantially reduce mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 having clinical progression despite the therapy with tocilizumab and corticosteroids. The combination of baricitinib and tocilizumab was not associated with an increased risk of secondary infections or thromboembolic events.

An Integrated View of Virus-Triggered Cellular Plasticity Using Boolean Networks

Virus-related mortality and morbidity are due to cell/tissue damage caused by replicative pressure and resource exhaustion, e.g., HBV or HIV; exaggerated immune responses, e.g., SARS-CoV-2; and cancer, e.g., EBV or HPV. In this context, oncogenic and other types of viruses drive genetic and epigenetic changes that expand the tumorigenic program, including modifications to the ability of cancer cells to migrate. The best-characterized group of changes is collectively known as the epithelial–mesenchymal transition, or EMT. This is a complex phenomenon classically described using biochemistry, cell biology and genetics. However, these methods require enormous, often slow, efforts to identify and validate novel therapeutic targets. Systems biology can complement and accelerate discoveries in this field. One example of such an approach is Boolean networks, which make complex biological problems tractable by modeling data (“nodes”) connected by logical operators. Here, we focus on virus-induced cellular plasticity and cell reprogramming in mammals, and how Boolean networks could provide novel insights into the ability of some viruses to trigger uncontrolled cell proliferation and EMT, two key hallmarks of cancer.

Effect of Tocilizumab in Reducing the Mortality Rate in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Data supporting the use of Tocilizumab (TCZ) in COVID-19 are contrasting and inconclusive. This meta-analysis aimed to assess TCZ effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients. PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, WILEY, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to evaluate observational studies and RCTs. The outcome was the mortality rate. Forty observational studies and seven RCTs, involving 9640 and 5556 subjects treated with Standard Therapy (ST) + TCZ or ST alone, respectively, were included. In patients treated with ST+TCZ, a higher survival (Log odds ratio = −0.41; 95% CI: −0.68 −0.14; p < 0.001) was found. Subgroups analyses were performed to better identify the possible interference of some parameters in modifying the efficacy of TCZ therapy on COVID-19 mortality. Separating observational from RCTs, no statistically significant (p = 0.70) TCZ-related reduction of mortality regarding RCTs was found, while a significant reduction (Log odds ratio = −0.52; 95% CI: −0.82 −0.22, p < 0.001) was achieved regarding the observational studies. Stratifying for the use of Invasive Mechanic Ventilation (IMV), a higher survival was found in patients treated with TCZ in the No-IMV and IMV groups (both p < 0.001), but not in the No-IMV/IMV group. Meta-regression analyses were also performed. The meta-analysis of observational studies reveals that TCZ is associated with reducing the mortality rate in both severe and critically ill patients. Although the largest RCT, RECOVERY, is in line with this result, the meta-analysis of RCTs failed to found any difference between ST + TCZ and ST. It is crucial to personalize the therapy considering the patients’ characteristics.