Outcomes and Adverse Effects of Baricitinib Versus Tocilizumab in the Management of Severe COVID-19

Clinical Outcomes among Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients Who Received Baricitinib or Tocilizumab in Addition to Standard of Care

COVID-19 infection is caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SAR-CoV-2). This novel virus has transformed into different resistant variants (e.g., omicron; delta; alpha; epsilon) since its first emergence in 2019. The National Institutes of Health and Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines currently recommend adding either baricitinib or tocilizumab to the standard of care for severe COVID-19 treatment. An outcome comparison between baricitinib and tocilizumab is needed to determine which agent is more appropriate and safer in clinical practice when deciding treatment. We aimed to compare mortality and clinical outcomes between tocilizumab and baricitinib in the management of severe COVID-19 infection. A total of 5638 adult patients from 16 acute care hospitals in a large healthcare system in Texas were included in this multicentered retrospective cohort study. The median age of the patients was 56 years and 46.67% of them were female. Severe COVID-19 patients were treated with standard of care and either tocilizumab or baricitinib. The primary outcome of hospital admission mortality rates was found to be higher with tocilizumab (odd ratio (OR) of 1.56; p = 0.001; 95% CI 1.19 to 2.008) compared to that with baricitinib (OR 0.65; p = 0.001; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.84). For one of the secondary outcomes, patients who received tocilizumab were 3.75 times more likely to be admitted to the ICU than those receiving baricitinib (p = 0.001; 95% CI 2.89 to 4.85). Among the 1199 COVID-19 patients who were admitted to the ICU, the ICU length of stay was shorter among patients receiving baricitinib with a mean difference of 4.42 days and a median difference of 2.54 days, compared to those receiving tocilizumab (p < 0.0001; 95% CI -5.97 to -2.62) as another secondary outcome. Our large retrospective observational study showed that baricitinib reduced mortality; the likelihood of ICU admission; and the ICU length of stay compared to tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19 infection.

Agranulocytosis and secondary infection related to JAK inhibitors and IL-6 receptor blockers: a disproportionality analysis using the US Food and drug administration adverse event reporting system

Background: Given that the fight against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is not over, we aimed to explore the occurrence of agranulocytosis and infectious complications in patients with and without COVID-19 following immunoregulatory therapy based on real-world data. Methods: This was a retrospective disproportionality analysis based on the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). All cases reported between the first quarter of 2004 and the fourth quarter of 2022 about Janus kinase inhibitors (baricitinib, tofacitinib, ruxolitinib) and interleukin-6 receptor blockers (tocilizumab, sarilumab) were collected. Disproportionality analyses were conducted by reporting odds ratio (ROR) and information component (IC). Results: A total of 211,363 cases were recognized from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System database. Data analysis showed that tocilizumab (reporting odds ratio: 3.18, 95% CI: 3.18-3.29; information component: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.31-1.42), sarilumab (ROR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.55-1.73; IC: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.43-0.79), baricitinib (ROR: 3.42, 95% CI: 3.19-3.67; IC: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.21-1.65), tofacitinib (ROR: 2.53, 95% CI: 2.49-2.57; IC: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.05-1.16), and ruxolitinib (ROR: 1.87, 95% CI: 1.83-1.91; IC: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.70-0.84) were all associated with secondary infection. The association in the combination group was higher than that in the monotherapy group (ROR: 4.69, 95% CI: 4.53-4.86; IC: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.62-1.84). As for agranulocytosis, tocilizumab (ROR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.53-1.69; IC: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.50-0.84) and ruxolitinib (ROR: 2.32, 95% CI: 2.21-2.43; IC: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.02-1.33) showed the significant signals. The association was higher in the combination group than in the monotherapy group (ROR: 2.36, 95% CI: 2.15-2.58; IC: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.90-1.51). Secondary infection after treatment with tofacitinib (ROR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.02-1.84), tocilizumab (ROR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.01-2.09), and sarilumab (ROR: 2.46, 95% CI: 1.10-5.50) was reported more frequently in COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients. Conclusion: Both Janus kinase inhibitors and interleukin-6 receptor blockers are significantly associated with secondary infection and agranulocytosis, and the combined treatment further increases the association. The correlation with secondary infection in patients treated with tofacitinib, tocilizumab, and sarilumab is higher in COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients.

Comparison of Tocilizumab vs Baricitinib in Clinical Outcomes Among Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: Experience From a Public Hospital System in New York City

Background

Tocilizumab and baricitinib are immunomodulators that have been repurposed for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Whether one medication should be preferred over the other has not been established.

Methods

This multicenter retrospective cohort study comprised hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received either tocilizumab or baricitinib. The primary outcome was improvement in respiratory status (at least 1-point reduction on the respiratory ordinal scale) at day 7 and up to day 28. Secondary outcomes included mortality, disposition, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or positive blood culture. Outcomes were stratified by baseline respiratory status and variant-predominating periods. Results were reported for the overall and propensity-matched cohorts.

Results

A total of 921 patients received tocilizumab and 638 received baricitinib. The propensity-matched cohort included 597 patients in each group. At day 7 in the overall and propensity-matched cohorts, significantly more patients had improvement in respiratory status in the baricitinib group. These improvements were seen in patients requiring supplemental oxygen and noninvasive ventilation/high-flow oxygen but not in patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Favorable outcomes with baricitinib were observed during the Alpha and Omicron periods. By day 28, there were no differences in the changes of respiratory status for the treatment groups in either cohort. Also, no differences were seen in mortality, disposition, development of deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism, or bloodstream infections.

Conclusions

Baricitinib treatment was associated with more favorable respiratory improvement at day 7 when compared with tocilizumab, but no differences were observed up to day 28.