Effect of tocilizumab on clinical outcomes at 15 days in patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019: randomised controlled trial

Investigating the impact of Tocilizumab, Sarilumab, and Anakinra on clinical outcomes in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are currently under investigation as a potential therapeutic option for COVID-19. Clinical trials are examining their efficacy in lowering mortality rates and the requirement for mechanical ventilation (MV). It is necessary to conduct a thorough examination of current randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in order to provide more definitive evidence on their effectiveness for COVID-19 patients. This meta-analysis aims to analyze RCT results on the impact of three mAbs (Anakinra, Sarilumab, Tocilizumab) on COVID-19 patient outcomes.

Method

The meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Eligible RCTs were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of three mAbs in treating patients with COVID-19. These trials were identified by searching various databases up to April 1, 2024. In total, this meta-analysis incorporated 19 trials with a total of 8097 patients. Pooled relative risk and studies' heterogeneity were assessed by statistical analysis, which involved the use of fixed effects models and subgroup analysis.

Result

The administration of mAbs (Tocilizumab, Sarilumab, and Anakinra) showed various results in the management of COVID-19 patients. While the overall pooled data did not reveal a significant reduction in the need for MV, the study found that the use of mAbs was associated with a decreased risk of clinical worsening (pooled relative risk: 0.75, 95 % CI [0.59, 0.94], p = 0.01) and an increased probability of discharging COVID-19 patients by day 28 or 29 (pooled relative risk: 1.17, 95 % CI [1.10, 1.26]). Notably, the subgroup analysis revealed that Tocilizumab had a significant effect in reducing the risk of clinical worsening compared to Sarilumab. Additionally, the analysis of mortality outcomes indicated that the administration of mAbs had the potential to decrease the overall risk of mortality over time (pooled RR: 0.90, 95 % CI [0.83, 0.97], p = 0.01).

Conclusion

In summary, our meta-analysis suggests that mAbs, particularly Tocilizumab, may play a valuable role in managing COVID-19 by reducing the risk of clinical worsening, improving hospital discharge rates, and decreasing mortality.

How international guidelines recommend treating children who have severe COVID-19 or risk disease progression

AIM

This study reviewed the current knowledge and guidelines on managing COVID-19 in children and proposed a practical approach to drug treatment.

METHODS

We analysed international guidelines from four prominent scientific bodies on treating COVID-19 in children. These were the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the American National Institutes of Health, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Australian National Clinical Evidence Taskforce COVID-19.

RESULTS

Most paediatric patients with COVID-19 only require symptomatic treatment. There was limited evidence on treatment recommendations for children with severe COVID-19 or at risk of disease progression. However, several drugs are available for children and we have summarised the guidelines, in order to provide a concise, practical format for clinicians. All the guidelines agree that nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir or remdesivir can be used as prophylaxis for severe COVID-19 in high-risk patients. Remdesivir can also be used for severe COVID-19 cases. Glucocorticosteroids are recommended, particularly in patients requiring oxygen therapy. Tocilizumab or baricitinib should be reserved for patients with progressive disease and/or signs of systemic inflammation.

CONCLUSION

The guidelines provide useful advice and a degree of consensus on specific drug treatment for children with severe COVID-19 or at risk of progression.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients With COVID-19 (September 2022)

There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials. The objective was to develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Based on the most recent search conducted on 31 May 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 32 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and postexposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, and hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines. At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were conducted that provided much-needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved, which we hope future trials can answer.

COVID-19 therapeutics

SUMMARYSince the emergence of COVID-19 in 2020, an unprecedented range of therapeutic options has been studied and deployed. Healthcare providers have multiple treatment approaches to choose from, but efficacy of those approaches often remains controversial or compromised by viral evolution. Uncertainties still persist regarding the best therapies for high-risk patients, and the drug pipeline is suffering fatigue and shortage of funding. In this article, we review the antiviral activity, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, and safety of COVID-19 antiviral therapies. Additionally, we summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials on efficacy and safety of the various COVID-19 antivirals and discuss unmet needs which should be addressed.

Nonclinical Investigation of Cytokine Mitigation Strategies for T-cell-Engaging Bispecifics in the Cynomolgus Macaque

SUMMARY

T-cell-directed cancer therapies such as T-cell-engaging bispecifics (TCBs) are commonly associated with cytokine release syndrome and associated clinical signs that can limit their tolerability and therapeutic benefit. Strategies for reducing cytokine release are therefore needed. Here, we report on studies performed in cynomolgus monkeys to test different approaches for mitigating cytokine release with TCBs. A "priming dose" as well as subcutaneous dosing reduced cytokine release compared with intravenous dosing but did not affect the intended T-cell response to the bispecific. As another strategy, cytokines or cytokine responses were blocked with an anti-IL-6 antibody, dexamethasone, or a JAK1/TYK2-selective inhibitor, and the effects on toxicity as well as T-cell responses to a TCB were evaluated. The JAK1/TYK2 inhibitor and dexamethasone prevented CRS-associated clinical signs on the day of TCB administration, but the anti-IL-6 had little effect. All interventions allowed for functional T-cell responses and expected damage to target-bearing tissues, but the JAK1/TYK2 inhibitor prevented the upregulation of activation markers on T cells, suggesting the potential for suppression of T-cell responses. Our results suggest that short-term prophylactic dexamethasone treatment may be an effective option for blocking cytokine responses without affecting desired T-cell responses to TCBs.

Adverse drug reactions associated with COVID-19 management

The emergence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak, which causes COVID-19, had a devastating impact on both people's lives and the global economy. During the course of the pandemic, the lack of specific drugs or treatments tailored for COVID-19 led to extensive repurposing of existing drugs in the pursuit of effective treatments. Some drug molecules demonstrated efficacy, while others proved ineffective. In this context, the approach of drug repurposing emerged as a novel strategy for combating COVID-19. Repurposed drugs and biologics have shown effectiveness, leading to improved clinical outcomes among patients with COVID-19. Similarly, It is equally important to assess the risk-benefit ratio associated with drugs and biologics adapted for COVID-19 treatment. Herein, we primarily focus on evaluating adverse drug events linked to repurposed COVID-19 medications, repurposed biologics, and COVID-specific drug molecules.

Statistical analyses of ordinal outcomes in randomised controlled trials: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aim to estimate the causal effect of one or more interventions relative to a control. One type of outcome that can be of interest in an RCT is an ordinal outcome, which is useful to answer clinical questions regarding complex and evolving patient states. The target parameter of interest for an ordinal outcome depends on the research question and the assumptions the analyst is willing to make. This review aimed to provide an overview of how ordinal outcomes have been used and analysed in RCTs.

METHODS

The review included RCTs with an ordinal primary or secondary outcome published between 2017 and 2022 in four highly ranked medical journals (the British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, and the Journal of the American Medical Association) identified through PubMed. Details regarding the study setting, design, the target parameter, and statistical methods used to analyse the ordinal outcome were extracted.

RESULTS

The search identified 309 studies, of which 144 were eligible for inclusion. The most used target parameter was an odds ratio, reported in 78 (54%) studies. The ordinal outcome was dichotomised for analysis in 47 ( 33 % ) studies, and the most common statistical model used to analyse the ordinal outcome on the full ordinal scale was the proportional odds model (64 [ 44 % ] studies). Notably, 86 (60%) studies did not explicitly check or describe the robustness of the assumptions for the statistical method(s) used.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review indicate that in RCTs that use an ordinal outcome, there is variation in the target parameter and the analytical approaches used, with many dichotomising the ordinal outcome. Few studies provided assurance regarding the appropriateness of the assumptions and methods used to analyse the ordinal outcome. More guidance is needed to improve the transparent reporting of the analysis of ordinal outcomes in future trials.

Dosing and Administration Strategies of Tocilizumab in Patients With COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

Tocilizumab may reduce the risk of death, length of stay, and time of mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Limited data are available evaluating low-dose subcutaneous administration of tocilizumab in this setting.

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes of 2 tocilizumab dosing and administration strategies in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational cohort study was conducted to compare clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving tocilizumab 400 mg intravenously (400 mg IV) or 162 mg subcutaneously (162 mg SC). Hospitalized patients receiving a single dose of tocilizumab were eligible for inclusion and grouped by dosing and administration strategy. The primary endpoint was ventilator-free days at day 28. Secondary endpoints included length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, mechanical ventilation required after dose, 28-day readmission, 28-day mortality, and change in inflammatory markers.

RESULTS

A total of 303 patients were included, with 147 who received tocilizumab 400 mg IV and 156 who received 162 mg SC. There was no significant difference in average ventilator-free days at day 28 in patients receiving 400 mg IV compared with 162 mg SC (26.4 ± 5.3 vs 25.6 ± 6.8 days, respectively; P = 0.812). There was also no difference in LOS (10.4 ± 12.6 vs 10.5 ± 14.0 days; P = 0.637), ICU LOS (3.9 ± 9.0 vs 3.5 ± 8.3 days; P = 0.679), mechanical ventilation after dose (15.6% vs 19.2%; P = 0.412), 28-day readmission (6.1% vs 9.6%; P = 0.268), or 28-day mortality (23.1% vs 25.6%; P = 0.611). Finally, there was no difference regarding change in inflammatory markers at 48 hours (P > 0.05 for all interactions).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

In this retrospective study involving hospitalized patients with COVID-19, there was no difference between tocilizumab 162 mg SC and 400 mg IV in terms of efficacy. The 162 mg SC dose may be a reasonable alternative to traditional doses.

PMI-controlled mannose metabolism and glycosylation determines tissue tolerance and virus fitness

Host survival depends on the elimination of virus and mitigation of tissue damage. Herein, we report the modulation of D-mannose flux rewires the virus-triggered immunometabolic response cascade and reduces tissue damage. Safe and inexpensive D-mannose can compete with glucose for the same transporter and hexokinase. Such competitions suppress glycolysis, reduce mitochondrial reactive-oxygen-species and succinate-mediated hypoxia-inducible factor-1α, and thus reduce virus-induced proinflammatory cytokine production. The combinatorial treatment by D-mannose and antiviral monotherapy exhibits in vivo synergy despite delayed antiviral treatment in mouse model of virus infections. Phosphomannose isomerase (PMI) knockout cells are viable, whereas addition of D-mannose to the PMI knockout cells blocks cell proliferation, indicating that PMI activity determines the beneficial effect of D-mannose. PMI inhibition suppress a panel of virus replication via affecting host and viral surface protein glycosylation. However, D-mannose does not suppress PMI activity or virus fitness. Taken together, PMI-centered therapeutic strategy clears virus infection while D-mannose treatment reprograms glycolysis for control of collateral damage.

Immunomodulators for immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Although immunomodulators have established benefit against the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in general, it is uncertain whether such agents improve outcomes without increasing the risk of secondary infections in the specific subgroup of previously immunocompromised patients. We assessed the effect of immunomodulators on outcomes of immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

Methods

The protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022335397). MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and references of relevant articles were searched up to 01-06-2022. Authors of potentially eligible randomized controlled trials were contacted to provide data on immunocompromised patients randomized to immunomodulators vs control (i.e., placebo or standard-of-care).

Findings

Eleven randomized controlled trials involving 397 immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were included. Ten trials had low risk of bias. There was no difference between immunocompromised patients randomized to immunomodulators vs control regarding mortality [30/182 (16.5%) vs 41/215 (19.1%); RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61-1.41; p = 0.74], secondary infections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.64-1.58; p = 0.99) and change in World Health Organization ordinal scale from baseline to day 15 (weighed mean difference 0.27, 95% CI -0.09-0.63; p = 0.15). In subgroup analyses including only patients with hematologic malignancy, only trials with low risk of bias, only trials administering IL-6 inhibitors, or only trials administering immunosuppressants, there was no difference between comparators regarding mortality.

Interpretation

Immunomodulators, compared to control, were not associated with harmful or beneficial outcomes, including mortality, secondary infections, and change in ordinal scale, when administered to immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

Funding

Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation.

Novel subtypes of severe COVID-19 respiratory failure based on biological heterogeneity: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence associating inflammatory biomarkers with worse outcomes in hospitalized adults with COVID-19, trials of immunomodulatory therapies have met with mixed results, likely due in part to biological heterogeneity of participants. Latent class analysis (LCA) of clinical and protein biomarker data has identified two subtypes of non-COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with different clinical outcomes and treatment responses. We studied biological heterogeneity and clinical outcomes in a multi-institutional platform randomized controlled trial of adults with severe COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure (I-SPY COVID).

METHODS

Clinical and plasma protein biomarker data were analyzed from 400 trial participants enrolled from September 2020 until October 2021 with severe COVID-19 requiring ≥ 6 L/min supplemental oxygen. Seventeen hypothesis-directed protein biomarkers were measured at enrollment using multiplex Luminex panels or single analyte enzyme linked immunoassay methods (ELISA). Biomarkers and clinical variables were used to test for latent subtypes and longitudinal biomarker changes by subtype were explored. A validated parsimonious model using interleukin-8, bicarbonate, and protein C was used for comparison with non-COVID hyper- and hypo-inflammatory ARDS subtypes.

RESULTS

Average participant age was 60 ± 14 years; 67% were male, and 28-day mortality was 25%. At trial enrollment, 85% of participants required high flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, and 97% were receiving dexamethasone. Several biomarkers of inflammation (IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, sTNFR-1, TREM-1), epithelial injury (sRAGE), and endothelial injury (Ang-1, thrombomodulin) were associated with 28- and 60-day mortality. Two latent subtypes were identified. Subtype 2 (27% of participants) was characterized by persistent derangements in biomarkers of inflammation, endothelial and epithelial injury, and disordered coagulation and had twice the mortality rate compared with Subtype 1. Only one person was classified as hyper-inflammatory using the previously validated non-COVID ARDS model.

CONCLUSIONS

We discovered evidence of two novel biological subtypes of severe COVID-19 with significantly different clinical outcomes. These subtypes differed from previously established hyper- and hypo-inflammatory non-COVID subtypes of ARDS. Biological heterogeneity may explain inconsistent findings from trials of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and guide treatment approaches.

CCR5/CXCR3 antagonist TAK-779 prevents diffuse alveolar damage of the lung in the murine model of the acute respiratory distress syndrome

Introduction: The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), secondary to viral pneumonitis, is one of the main causes of high mortality in patients with COVID-19 (novel coronavirus disease 2019)-ongoing SARS-CoV-2 infection- reached more than 0.7 billion registered cases. Methods: Recently, we elaborated a non-surgical and reproducible method of the unilateral total diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) of the left lung in ICR mice-a publicly available imitation of the ARDS caused by SARS-CoV-2. Our data read that two C-C chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5) ligands, macrophage inflammatory proteins (MIPs) MIP-1α/CCL3 and MIP-1β/CCL4, are upregulated in this DAD model up to three orders of magnitude compared to the background level. Results: Here, we showed that a nonpeptide compound TAK-779, an antagonist of CCR5/CXCR3, readily prevents DAD in the lung with a single injection of 2.5 mg/kg. Histological analysis revealed reduced peribronchial and perivascular mononuclear infiltration in the lung and mononuclear infiltration of the wall and lumen of the alveoli in the TAK-779-treated animals. Administration of TAK-779 decreased the 3-5-fold level of serum cytokines and chemokines in animals with DAD, including CCR5 ligands MIP-1α/β, MCP-1, and CCL5. Computed tomography revealed rapid recovery of the density and volume of the affected lung in TAK-779-treated animals. Discussion: Our pre-clinical data suggest that TAK-779 is more effective than the administration of dexamethasone or the anti-IL6R therapeutic antibody tocilizumab, which brings novel therapeutic modality to TAK-779 and other CCR5 inhibitors for the treatment of virus-induced hyperinflammation syndromes, including COVID-19.

The Risk of Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Receiving Tocilizumab: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Tocilizumab has demonstrated optimal efficacy and safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from clinical trials. However, the risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) in these patients remains uncertain because patients with underlying HBV have been excluded in phase III studies.

METHODS

Systematical reviews were conducted on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 21 February 2023. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate the pooled incidence of HBV reactivation.

RESULTS

We included 0 clinical trials and 11 observational studies with a total of 25 HBsAg+ and 322 HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ RA patients. Among the HBsAg+ patients without antiviral prophylaxis, the pooled rate was 69.4% (95% CI, 32.9-91.3), with a median time of 4 months (range, 1-8 months) from tocilizumab initiated. Half of these patients with HBVr experienced hepatitis flare-up but no deaths. HBVr was eliminated with prophylaxis in this population. Among HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ patients, the pooled incidence of reactivation was 3.3% (95% CI, 1.6-6.7), with a median time of 10 months (range, 2-43 months) from tocilizumab initiated. HBVr was not associated with hepatitis flare-up and death. HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ patients without anti-HBs antibodies had a significantly higher risk of HBVr (Odds ratio, 12.20; 95% CI, 1.16-128.06).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review indicated that the risk of HBVr in RA patients with anti-HBs-, HBsAg+, or HBsAg-/anti-HBc+ cannot be ignored but may be avoided. Clinicians should consider implementing appropriate antiviral prophylaxis and monitoring policies for RA patients to avoid unnecessary hepatic side effects from tocilizumab treatment.

Interleukin 6 Antagonists in Severe COVID-19 Disease: Cardiovascular and Respiratory Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Inhibitors of interleukin 6 [IL-6] have been utilized to treat severe COVID-19 disease. Their immunosuppressive or immunomodulating impact may be beneficial in COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To discuss the role of IL-6 inhibitors and assess various trials conducted to evaluate the efficacy of IL-6 inhibitors in COVID-19 disease.

SUMMARY

Two of the most common causes of mortality in COVID-19-infected critically ill individuals are acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and multiorgan failure. Increased levels of inflammatory cytokines suggest that a cytokine storm, also known as cytokine release syndrome (CRS), is involved in the etiology of COVID-19. Most tissue damage, sepsis, and pulmonary and cardiovascular problems are caused mainly by the host defense system. Therefore, regulating this inflammatory cascade using immunomodulators is a prudent strategy. Although corticosteroids, as immunomodulators, are routinely used in COVID-19 management, interleukin (IL) inhibitors, especially IL-6 inhibitors, are also tested in many trials. Many studies have demonstrated that IL-6 inhibitors improve disease outcomes and decrease mortality, whereas others have shown that they are ineffective. In this paper, we briefly examined the role of IL-6 in COVID-19 pathogenesis and trials that support or refute the use of IL-6 inhibitors in treating COVID-19 disease.

RESULTS

Though mixed results are coming from trials regarding the adjuvant use of IL-6 inhibitors and standard anti-viral therapy with dexamethasone, a consensus favors using IL-6 inhibitors in severely ill COVID-19 patients regardless of the outcome.

Potential Signals of COVID-19 as an Effect Modifier of Adverse Drug Reactions

PURPOSE

COVID-19 infection may interact with patients' medical conditions or medications. The objective of this study was to identify potential signals of effect modification of adverse drug reactions by statistical reporting interactions with COVID-19 infection (SRIsCOVID-19) in a large spontaneous reporting database.

METHODS

Data from the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System through the second quarter of 2020 were used. Three-dimensional disproportionality analyses were conducted to identify drug-event-event (DEE) combinations, for which 1 of the events was COVID-19 infection, that were disproportionately reported. Effect size was quantified by an interaction signal score (INTSS) when COVID-19 was coreported as an adverse event or an indication (INTSSCOVID-19). An SRICOVID-19 exists when the calculated INTSSCOVID-19 is >2. The analyses focused on pandemic-emergent SRIsCOVID-19. Screening for extreme duplication of cases was applied. To assess possible reporting artifacts during the early pandemic as an alternative explanation for pandemic-emergent SRICOVID-19, we repeated the analyses with an additional year of data to gauge temporal stability of our findings.

FINDINGS

When examining DEE interactions, 193 emergent SRIsCOVID-19 were identified, involving 44 drugs and 88 events, in addition to COVID-19 infection. Of the 44 drugs recorded, most were immunosuppressant or modulatory drugs, followed by antivirals. Seven drugs (eg, azithromycin) were identified in emergent SRIsCOVID-19 with preferred terms representing off-label use for prevention or treatment of COVID-19 infection. These drugs were in fact repurposed for COVID-19 treatment, supporting assay sensitivity of our procedure. Infections and infestations were the most frequently observed system organ class, followed by the general disorders and respiratory disorders. The psychiatric system organ class had only a few emergent SRIsCOVID-19 but contained the largest INTSSs. Less commonly reported manifestations of COVID-19 (e.g., skin events) were also identified. After excluding DEE combinations that were highly suggestive of extreme duplication, there remained a more robust set of emergent SRIsCOVID-19, which were supported by biological plausibility considerations. Our findings indicate a relative temporal stability, with >90% of SRIsCOVID-19 persisting after updating the analysis with an additional year of data.

IMPLICATIONS

The signals identified in the analyses could be critical in refining our understanding of the causality of spontaneously reported adverse drug events and thus informing the ongoing care of patients with COVID-19. Our findings also underscore the importance of undetected report duplication as a distorting influence on disproportionality analysis.

Clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for SARS-CoV-2 published in leading medical journals report adherence but not how it was assessed

AIMS

Adherence to pharmacological interventions in clinical trials is crucial for accurate identification of beneficial and adverse outcomes. The ways in which adherence to interventions should be reported in trial publications are described in the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR), a 12-item extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials reporting guidelines. The objective of this study was to assess compliance with TIDieR Items 11 and 12 of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions in SARS-CoV-2 infection published in 5 selected journals during 2021.

METHODS

We assessed pharmacological interventions for SARS-CoV-2 infection reported in RCTs published in 2021 in the Annals of Internal Medicine, The BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet and The New England Journal for Medicine for compliance with TIDieR items addressing intervention adherence (Items 11 and 12). We calculated proportional adherence for pharmacological and comparator interventions where available.

RESULTS

We found 75 eligible RCTs. Twenty-eight (37%) reported results of SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations. Compliance with Items 11 and 12 could be assessed in 71 of these 75. Of the 71 RCTs, 37 (52%) reported how adherence was assessed (Item 11), and 70 reported adherence rates (Item 12). Only 1 of the 71 RCTs (1.4%, 0-7.6%) fully complied with TIDieR Items 11 and 12.

CONCLUSION

Half of RCTs of SARS-CoV-2 pharmacological interventions published in leading medical journals in 2021 complied with reporting of how adherence assessments were made and almost none complied with both TIDieR Items 11 and 12. The implications for interpretation, application and replication of findings based on these publications warrant consideration.

Effectiveness of tocilizumab in hospitalized moderate-to-severe COVID-19 patients: a real-life study

BACKGROUND

To assess the clinical effectiveness of Tocilizumab (TCZ) in moderate-to-severe hospitalized COVID-19 patients and factors associated with clinical response.

METHODS

Five hundred eight inpatients with moderate-to-severe SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled. TCZ effect in addition to standard medical therapy was evaluated in terms of death during hospital stay. Unadjusted and adjusted risk of mortality for TCZ treated patients versus TCZ untreated ones was estimated using robust Cox regression model. We considered the combination of TCZ and ICU as time-dependent exposure and created a model using duplication method to assess the TCZ effect in very severe COVID-19 patients.

RESULTS

TCZ reduced death during hospital stay in the unadjusted model (HR 0.54, 95%CI 0.33-0.88) and also in the adjusted model, although with loss of statistical significance (HR 0.72, 0.43-1.20). Better effectiveness was observed in patients with low SpO2/FiO2 ratio (HR 0.35, 0.21-0.61 vs. 1.61, 0.54-4.82, P<0.05), and, without statistical significance, in patients with high CRP (HR 0.51, 0.30-0.87 vs. 0.41, 0.12-1.37, P=NS) and high IL-6 (HR 0.49, 0.29-0.82 vs. 1.00, 0.28-3.55, P=NS). TCZ was effective in patients not admitted to ICU, both in the unadjusted (HR 0.33, 0.14-0.74) and in the adjusted (HR 0.39, 0.17-0.91) model but no benefit was observed in critical ICU-admitted patients both in the unadjusted (HR 0.66, 0.37-1.15) and in the adjusted model (HR 0.95, 0.54-1.68).

CONCLUSIONS

Our real-life study suggests clinical efficacy of TCZ in moderate-to-severe COVID-19 patients but not in end-stage disease. Thus, to enhance TCZ effectiveness, patients should be selected before grave compromise of clinical conditions.

Cytokine storm and translating IL-6 biology into effective treatments for COVID-19

As of May 3, 2023, the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in more than 760 million confirmed cases and over 6.9 million deaths. Several patients have developed pneumonia, which can deteriorate into acute respiratory distress syndrome. The primary etiology may be attributed to cytokine storm, which is triggered by the excessive release of proinflammatory cytokines and subsequently leads to immune dysregulation. Considering that high levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) have been detected in several highly pathogenic coronavirus-infected diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome in 2002, the Middle East respiratory syndrome in 2012, and COVID-19, the IL-6 pathway has emerged as a key in the pathogenesis of this hyperinflammatory state. Thus, we review the history of cytokine storm and the process of targeting IL-6 signaling to elucidate the pivotal role played by tocilizumab in combating COVID-19.

Cumulative steroid dose in hospitalized patients and COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis

BACKGROUND

Severe COVID-19 elicits a hyperimmune response frequently amenable to steroids, which in turn increase the risk for opportunistic infections. COVID-19 associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) is a complication known to be associated with immunomodulatory treatment. The role of cumulative steroid dose in the development of CAPA is unclear. This study evaluates the relationship between cumulative steroid dose in hospitalized individuals with COVID-19 pneumonia and the risk for CAPA.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study includes 135 hospitalized patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia at a tertiary centre in north Mexico. Patients who developed CAPA were matched by age and gender to two controls with COVID-19 pneumonia who did not develop CAPA defined and classified as possible, probable, or proven according to 2020 ECMM/ISHAM criteria. Cumulative steroid dose in dexamethasone equivalents was obtained from admission until death, discharge, or diagnosis of CAPA (whichever occurred first). The risk of CAPA by the continuous cumulative steroid dose was assessed using a logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients were diagnosed with CAPA and matched to 90 controls. Mean age was 61 ± 14 years, and 72% were male. Mean cumulative steroid dose was 66 ± 75 mg in patients without CAPA vs 195 ± 226 mg in patients with CAPA (P<0.001). The risk for CAPA increased with higher cumulative dose of steroids (OR 1.0075, 95% CI: 1.0033-1.0116).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who developed CAPA had a history of higher cumulative steroid dose during hospitalization. The risk for CAPA increases ∼8% for every 10 mg of dexamethasone used.

Placebo effects on all-cause mortality of patients with COVID-19 in randomized controlled trials of interleukin 6 antagonists: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIM

Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the use of interleukin 6 antagonists for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), yielding inconsistent results. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to identify the source of these inconsistent results by reassessing whether participants treated with standard of care (SoC) plus placebo have different all-cause mortality from those treated with SoC alone and to reevaluate the efficacy of interleukin 6 antagonists in the treatment of COVID-19.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search for relevant RCTs from the inception of electronic databases through 1 September 2022. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were the incidences of major medical events, secondary infections, all-cause discontinuation, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

The results of NMA of 33 RCTs showed that patients with COVID-19 treated with SoC plus placebo had lower odds of all-cause mortality than those who received SoC alone (OR, 0.75 [95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.97]). This finding remained consistent after excluding studies with no incident deaths. In addition, when we consider the impact of the widely promoted COVID-19 vaccination and newly developed antiviral treatment strategy, the results from the analysis of the RCT published in 2021 and 2022 remained similar.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest the potential influence of placebo effects on the treatment outcomes of COVID-19 in RCTs. When evaluating the efficacy of treatment strategies for COVID-19, it is crucial to consider the use of placebo in the design of clinical trials.

What did we learn about tocilizumab use against COVID-19? A single-center observational study from an intensive care unit in Serbia

Background

Selection of effective and safe therapy for management of patients with coronavirus disease is challenging. Tocilizumab (TZB) has emerged as a potential treatment option for COVID-19. Several aspects regarding Tocilizumab treatment remain uncertain, such as the optimal timing for its administration and the safety profile, including the potential risk of infections. The aim of the study is to present the clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 following the application of Tocilizumab.

Methods

This is a retrospective analysis of 121 patients with severe forms of COVID-19 previously treated with Tocilizumab was conducted. All patients were admitted to intensive care units (ICUs).

Results

Of 121 patients, the majority were men 72 (59.5%) with a median age at presentation of 65 ± 13 years. Only 9 (7.43%) patients were without comorbidities, while the other 112 (92.55%) had two or more comorbidities. Almost all of the 120 patients (99.2%) needed oxygen therapy, such as nasal cannulas in 110 (90.9%) patients, high flow nasal catheter (HFNC) in 4 (3.3%) patients, and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in 5 (4.1%) patients while 1 patient was intubated at the time of hospital admission. The average time from Tocilizumab application to admission to the ICU was 3 days. During clinical deterioration, almost half 57 (47.1%) of the patients were intubated, and 52 (82.5%) of these intubated patients (p < 0.001) had lethal outcomes. The most significant predictors for a lethal outcome according to multivariate analysis were diabetes mellitus (p < 0.001) followed by a subsequent elevation in C-reactive protein levels (CRP; p < 0.002) and ferritin (p < 0.013) after Tocilizumab application. Bloodstream infections were found in 20 (16.5%) patients, most frequently with Gram-negative pathogens like Acinetobacter spp. as in 12 (18.6%) patients, Klebsiella spp. in 6 (8%) patients, and Pseudomonas spp. in 2 (3.2%) patients. Urine culture isolates were found in 9 (7.43%) patients, with Candida spp. being most frequently isolated in 7 (5.8%) patients, followed by Klebsiella spp. and Pseudomonas spp. in 1 patient each (0.8%). Significantly lower survival was seen in patients with proven infection.

Conclusion

The benefit of tocilizumab was not found in our study. The high mortality rate among intubated patients after Tocilizumab use suggests appropriate patient selection and monitoring and emphasizes the risk of superinfections. Diabetes mellitus, increased levels of CRP, and ferritin were identified as the most significant predictors of poor outcomes in contrast to increased levels of IL-6.

Real-World Evidence to Supplement Randomized Clinical Trials: Tocilizumab for Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia vs. a Cohort Receiving Standard of Care

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remain the gold standard for evaluating treatment efficacy, but real-world evidence can supplement RCT results. Tocilizumab was not found to reduce 28-day mortality in a phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (COVACTA) among hospitalized patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. We created a real-world external comparator arm mirroring the COVACTA trial to confirm findings and assess the feasibility of using an external comparator arm to supplement an RCT. Eligible COVACTA participants in both the tocilizumab treatment and placebo arms were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching to persons without tocilizumab exposure in an external comparator arm. Adjusted Cox proportional hazard models estimated differences in 28-day mortality comparing COVACTA participants to matched external comparator arm participants. Patients in the COVACTA tocilizumab treatment arm had a similar risk of death compared with patients in the external comparator arm (hazard ratio (HR): 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64-1.84) with similar estimated 28-day mortality in the COVACTA tocilizumab treatment arm compared with the external comparator arm (18%, 95% CI: 13-24 vs. 19%, 95% CI: 13-24, P > 0.9). COVACTA placebo treatment arm participants had a similar risk of mortality (adjusted HR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.32-1.46) compared with the external comparator arm. Using an external comparator arm has the potential to supplement RCT data and support results of primary RCT analyses.

What are the current anti-COVID-19 drugs? From traditional to smart molecular mechanisms

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, a highly infectious member of the coronavirus family, which emerged in December 2019 in "Wuhan, China". It induces respiratory illness ranging from mild symptoms to severe disease. It was declared a "pandemic" by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2020. Since then, a vast number of clinical and experimental studies have been conducted to identify effective approaches for its prevention and treatment.

MAIN BODY

The pathophysiology of COVID-19 represents an unprecedented challenge; it triggers a strong immune response, which may be exacerbated by "a cytokine storm syndrome". It also induces thrombogenesis and may trigger multi-organ injury. Therefore, different drug classes have been proposed for its treatment and prevention, such as antivirals, anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody agents (monoclonal antibodies, convalescent plasma, and immunoglobulins), anti-inflammatory drugs, immunomodulators, and anticoagulant drugs. To the best of our knowledge, this review is the first to present, discuss, and summarize the current knowledge about the different drug classes used for the treatment of COVID-19, with special emphasis on their targets, mechanisms of action, and important adverse effects and drug interactions. Additionally, we spotlight the latest "October 2023" important guidelines (NIH, IDSA, and NICE) and FDA approval or authorization regarding the use of these agents in the management of COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

Despite the wide array of therapeutic strategies introduced for the treatment of COVID-19, one of the most prominent therapeutic challenges is SARS-CoV-2 mutations and emerging new variants and subvariants. Currently, the anti-COVID-19 drug pipeline is continuously affording novel treatments to face this growing challenge.

The use of Tocilizumab in COVID-19 critically ill patients with renal impairment: a multicenter, cohort study

Tocilizumab (TCZ) is recommended in patients with COVID-19 who require oxygen therapy or ventilatory support. Despite the wide use of TCZ, little is known about its safety and effectiveness in patients with COVID-19 and renal impairment. Therefore, this study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of TCZ in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and renal impairment. A multicenter retrospective cohort study included all adult COVID-19 patients with renal impairment (eGFR˂60 mL/min) admitted to the ICUs between March 2020 and July 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups based on TCZ use (Control vs. TCZ). The primary endpoint was the development of acute kidney injury (AKI) during ICU stay. We screened 1599 patients for eligibility; 394 patients were eligible, and 225 patients were included after PS matching (1:2 ratio); there were 75 TCZ-treated subjects and 150 controls. The rate of AKI was higher in the TCZ group compared with the control group (72.2% versus 57.4%; p = 0.03; OR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.01, 3.34; p = 0.04). Additionally, the ICU length of stay was significantly longer in patients who received TCZ (17.5 days versus 12.5 days; p = 0.006, Beta coefficient: 0.30 days, 95% CI: 0.09, 0.50; p = 0.005). On the other hand, the 30-day and in-hospital mortality were lower in patients who received TCZ compared to the control group (HR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.27, 0.73; p = 0.01 and HR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.96; p = 0.03, respectively). The use of TCZ in this population was associated with a statistically significantly higher rate of AKI while improving the overall survival on the other hand. Further research is needed to assess the risks and benefits of TCZ treatment in critically ill COVID-19 patients with renal impairment.

Effect of anti-inflammatory drugs on the storm of inflammatory factors in respiratory tract infection caused by SARS-CoV-2: an updated meta-analysis

Background

New reports suggest that anti-inflammatory drugs are widely used to treat respiratory tract infections caused by SARS-CoV-2. Anti-inflammatory drugs were the most frequently used treatment for the COVID-19-related cytokine storm in China. However, the efficacy of anti-inflammatory drugs has yet to be systematically analyzed, and clinicians are often uncertain which class of anti-inflammatory drug is the most effective in treating patients with respiratory tract infections caused by SARS-CoV-2, especially those with severe disease.

Methods

From 1 October 2022, relevant studies were searched in the PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. A total of 16,268 publications were retrieved and collated according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and sensitivity analyses were performed using STATA 14 software. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's test. Study quality was assessed using the PEDro scale, and the combined advantage ratio was expressed as a 95% confidence interval (CI). In total, 19 randomized controlled trials were included in the study. STATA 14 software was used for all random effects model analyses, and the results are expressed as relative risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI.

Results

Quantitative analyses were performed on 14,514 patients from 19 relevant randomized controlled clinical trials. Pooled estimates (RR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.44-0.80) revealed that the use of anti-inflammatory drugs resulted in a significant reduction in mortality in patients with respiratory tract infection caused by SARS-CoV-2 compared with controls, and methylprednisolone (RR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.56) was more effective than other anti-inflammatory drugs. Anti-inflammatory drugs were effective in reducing mortality in critically ill patients (RR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.45-0.98) compared with non-critically ill patients (RR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.34-0.76); however, more clinical evidence is needed to confirm these findings.

Conclusion

The use of anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with respiratory infections caused by SARS-CoV-2 reduces patient mortality, especially in severe cases. In individual studies, methylprednisolone was more effective than other drugs.

Differential expression patterns of purinergic ectoenzymes and the antioxidative role of IL-6 in hospitalized COVID-19 patient recovery

Introduction

We have acquired significant knowledge regarding the pathogenesis of severe acute respiratory syndrome caused by coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, the underlying mechanisms responsible for disease recovery still need to be fully understood.

Methods

To gain insights into critical immune markers involved in COVID-19 etiopathogenesis, we studied the evolution of the immune profile of peripheral blood samples from patients who had recovered from COVID-19 and compared them to subjects with severe acute respiratory illness but negative for SARS-CoV-2 detection (controls). In addition, linear and clustered correlations between different parameters were determined.

Results

The data obtained revealed a significant reduction in the frequency of inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) at hospital discharge vs. admission. Remarkably, nitric oxide (NO) production by the monocyte compartment was significantly reduced at discharge. Furthermore, interleukin (IL)-6 plasma levels were negatively correlated with the frequency of NO+CD14+CD16+ monocytes at hospital admission. However, at the time of hospital release, circulating IL-6 directly correlated with the NO production rate by monocytes. In line with these observations, we found that concomitant with NO diminution, the level of nitrotyrosine (NT) on CD8 T-cells significantly diminished at the time of hospital release. Considering that purinergic signaling constitutes another regulatory system, we analyzed the kinetics of CD39 and CD73 ectoenzyme expression in CD8 T-cells. We found that the frequency of CD39+CD8+ T-cells significantly diminished while the percentage of CD73+ cells increased at hospital discharge. In vitro, IL-6 stimulation of PBMCs from COVID-19 patients diminished the NT levels on CD8 T-cells. A clear differential expression pattern of CD39 and CD73 was observed in the NT+ vs. NT-CD8+ T-cell populations.

Discussion

The results suggest that early after infection, IL-6 controls the production of NO, which regulates the levels of NT on CD8 T-cells modifying their effector functions. Intriguingly, in this cytotoxic cell population, the expression of purinergic ectoenzymes is tightly associated with the presence of nitrated surface molecules. Overall, the data obtained contribute to a better understanding of pathogenic mechanisms associated with COVID-19 outcomes.

Quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs: systematic review

Objective

To assess the quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) harms extension and according to clinical trial design, and to examine reporting of serious adverse events in drug trials published on PubMed versus clinical trial summaries on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov registries were searched from 1 December 2019 to 17 February 2022.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Randomised clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat covid-19 disease in participants of all ages with suspected, probable, or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Clinical trials were screened on title, abstract, and text by two authors independently. Only articles published in French and English were selected. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used to assess risk of bias.

Results

The search strategy identified 1962 randomised clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat covid-19, published in the PubMed database; 1906 articles were excluded after screening and 56 clinical trials were included in the review. Among the 56 clinical trials, no study had a high score for quality of reporting of adverse events, 60.7% had a moderate score, 33.9% had a low score, and 5.4% had a very low score. All clinical trials with a very low score for quality of reporting of adverse events were randomised open label trials. For reporting of serious adverse events, journal articles published on PubMed under-reported 51% of serious adverse events compared with clinical trial summaries published on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Conclusions

In one in three published clinical trials on covid-19 drugs, the quality of reporting of adverse events was low or very low. Differences were found in the number of serious adverse events reported in journal articles versus clinical trial summaries. During the covid-19 pandemic, risk assessment of drugs in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs did not comply with good practice recommendations for publication of results.

Systematic review registration

European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP) EUPAS45959.

Tocilizumab Is Associated with Increased Risk of Fungal Infections among Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 and Acute Renal Failure: An Observational Cohort Study

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does treatment with tocilizumab increase the risk of a fungal infection in critically ill patients with coronavirus-19?

BACKGROUND

Numerous therapies have been evaluated as possible treatments for coronavirus-2019 caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2. Tocilizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against the interleukin-6 receptor that has found a role as a therapy for patients with severe coronavirus-19 pneumonia. The immunomodulatory effects of tocilizumab may have the unintended consequence of predisposing recipients to secondary infections. We sought to assess the risk of invasive fungal disease and the therapeutic impact of tocilizumab on the hospital length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and intensive-care-unit length of stay in critically ill patients with severe coronavirus-19 pneumonia.

METHODS

Records of critically ill patients with coronavirus-2019 admitted from March to September 2020 at our institution were reviewed. The risk for fungal infections, intensive-care-unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation in those that received tocilizumab in addition to standard coronavirus-2019 treatments was assessed.

RESULTS

Fifty-six critically ill patients treated with dexamethasone and remdesivir for coronavirus-2019 were included, of which 16 patients also received tocilizumab. The majority of the cohort was African American, Asian, or of other ethnic minorities (53.6%). Invasive fungal infections occurred in 10.7% of all patients, and infection rates were significantly higher in the tocilizumab group than in the control group (31.2% vs. 2.5%, risk difference [RD] = 28.8%, p < 0.01). The increased risk in the tocilizumab group was strongly associated with renal replacement therapy. There was a dose-response relationship between the risk of fungal infection and number of tocilizumab doses received, with 2.5% of infections occurring with zero doses, 20% with a single dose (RD = 17.5%), and 50% with two doses (RD = 47.5%) (trend test p < 0.001). In addition, ICU LOS (23.4 days vs. 9.0 days, p < 0.01), the duration of mechanical ventilation (18.9 vs. 3.5 days, p = 0.01), and hospital length of stay (LOS) (29.1 vs. 15.5, p < 0.01) were increased in patients that received tocilizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

Repurposed immunomodulator therapies, such as tocilizumab, are now recommended treatments for severe coronavirus-2019 pneumonia, but safety concerns remain. In this early pandemic cohort, the addition of tocilizumab to dexamethasone was associated with an increased risk of fungal infection in those that were critically ill and received renal replacement therapy. Tocilizumab use was also associated with increased ICU and hospital LOSs and duration of mechanical ventilation.

Pan-American Guidelines for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19: a joint evidence-based guideline of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI) and the Pan-American Association of Infectious Diseases (API)

BACKGROUND

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, therapeutic options for treating COVID-19 have been investigated at different stages of clinical manifestations. Considering the particular impact of COVID-19 in the Americas, this document aims to present recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of COVID-19 specific to this population.

METHODS

Fifteen experts, members of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI) and the Pan-American Association of Infectious Diseases (API) make up the panel responsible for developing this guideline. Questions were formulated regarding prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings. The outcomes considered in decision-making were mortality, hospitalisation, need for mechanical ventilation, symptomatic COVID-19 episodes, and adverse events. In addition, a systematic review of randomised controlled trials was conducted. The quality of evidence assessment and guideline development process followed the GRADE system.

RESULTS

Nine technologies were evaluated, and ten recommendations were made, including the use of tixagevimab + cilgavimab in the prophylaxis of COVID-19, tixagevimab + cilgavimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir + ritonavir, and remdesivir in the treatment of outpatients, and remdesivir, baricitinib, and tocilizumab in the treatment of hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19. The use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine and ivermectin was discouraged.

CONCLUSION

This guideline provides recommendations for treating patients in the Americas following the principles of evidence-based medicine. The recommendations present a set of drugs that have proven effective in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19, emphasising the strong recommendation for the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in outpatients as the lack of benefit from the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

Cost-effectiveness of therapeutics for COVID-19 patients: a rapid review and economic analysis

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019. Over six million deaths worldwide have been associated with coronavirus disease 2019.

Objective

To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatments used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 in hospital or used in the community in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 at high risk of hospitalisation.

Setting

Treatments provided in United Kingdom hospital and community settings.

Methods

Clinical effectiveness estimates were taken from the coronavirus disease-network meta-analyses initiative and the metaEvidence initiative. A mathematical model was constructed to explore how the interventions impacted on patient health, measured in quality-adjusted life-years gained. The costs associated with treatment, including those of hospital care, were also estimated and used to form a cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained value which was compared with thresholds published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Estimates of cost-effectiveness compared against current standard of care were produced in both the hospital and community settings at three different levels of efficacy: mean, low and high. Public list prices were used for interventions with neither confidential patient access schemes nor confidential list prices considered. Results incorporating confidential pricing data were provided to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisal committee.

Results

The treatments were estimated to be clinically effective although not all reached statistical significance. All treatments in the hospital setting, or community, were estimated to plausibly have a cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained value below National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds when compared with standard of care. However, almost all drugs could plausibly have cost per quality-adjusted life-years above National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds. However, there is considerable uncertainty in the results as the prevalent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant, vaccination status, history of being infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and standard of care have all evolved since the pivotal studies were conducted which could have significant impact on the efficacy of each drug. For drugs used in high-risk patients in the community setting, the proportion of people at high risk who need hospital admission was a large driver of the cost per quality-adjusted life-year.

Limitations

No studies were identified that were conducted in current conditions. This may be a large limitation as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant changes. No head-to-head studies of interventions were identified.

Conclusions

The results produced could be informative to decision-makers, although conclusions regarding the most clinical - and cost-effectiveness of each intervention should be tentative due to the evolving nature of the decision problem and, in this report, the use of list prices only. Comparisons between interventions should also be treated with caution due to potentially large heterogeneity between studies.

Future work

Research assessing the relative clinical effectiveness of interventions within head-to-head studies in current conditions would be beneficial. Contemporary information related to the probability of hospital admission and death for patients at high risk in the community would improve the precision of the estimates generated.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR135564) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Penn Medicine COVID-19 Therapeutics Committee-Reflections on a Model for Rapid Evidence Review and Dynamic Practice Recommendations During a Public Health Emergency

The Penn Medicine COVID-19 Therapeutics Committee-an interspecialty, clinician-pharmacist, and specialist-front line primary care collaboration-has served as a forum for rapid evidence review and the production of dynamic practice recommendations during the 3-year coronavirus disease 2019 public health emergency. We describe the process by which the committee went about its work and how it navigated specific challenging scenarios. Our target audiences are clinicians, hospital leaders, public health officials, and researchers invested in preparedness for inevitable future threats. Our objectives are to discuss the logistics and challenges of forming an effective committee, undertaking a rapid evidence review process, aligning evidence-based guidelines with operational realities, and iteratively revising recommendations in response to changing pandemic data. We specifically discuss the arc of evidence for corticosteroids; the noble beginnings and dangerous misinformation end of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin; monoclonal antibodies and emerging viral variants; and patient screening and safety processes for tocilizumab, baricitinib, and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

Advances in attractive therapeutic approach for macrophage activation syndrome in COVID-19

Nowadays, people have relaxed their vigilance against COVID-19 due to its declining infection numbers and attenuated virulence. However, COVID-19 still needs to be concern due to its emerging variants, the relaxation of restrictions as well as breakthrough infections. During the period of the COVID-19 infection, the imbalanced and hyper-responsive immune system plays a critical role in its pathogenesis. Macrophage Activation Syndrome (MAS) is a fatal complication of immune system disease, which is caused by the excessive activation and proliferation of macrophages and cytotoxic T cells (CTL). COVID-19-related hyperinflammation shares common clinical features with the above MAS symptoms, such as hypercytokinemia, hyperferritinemia, and coagulopathy. In MAS, immune exhaustion or defective anti-viral responses leads to the inadequate cytolytic capacity of CTL which contributes to prolonged interaction between CTL, APCs and macrophages. It is possible that the same process also occurred in COVID-19 patients, and further led to a cytokine storm confined to the lungs. It is associated with the poor prognosis of severe patients such as multiple organ failure and even death. The main difference of cytokine storm is that in COVID-19 pneumonia is mainly the specific damage of the lung, while in MAS is easy to develop into a systemic. The attractive therapeutic approach to prevent MAS in COVID-19 mainly includes antiviral, antibiotics, convalescent plasma (CP) therapy and hemadsorption, extensive immunosuppressive agents, and cytokine-targeted therapies. Here, we discuss the role of the therapeutic approaches mentioned above in the two diseases. And we found that the treatment effect of the same therapeutic approach is different.

Tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the repurposing of medicines has been pursued to find interventions effective in preventing fatal outcome of the disease. One of these drugs was tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 inhibiting monoclonal antibody, previously used to treat several immune-related disorders.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, we present the results of the initial observational studies and subsequent randomized clinical trials on the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in the treatment of COVID-19. Despite conflicting results, possibly due to the heterogeneity of the studied populations, large studies have ultimately proven that preventing IL-6 from attaching to its receptors can effectively reverse the fatal course of the disease. We also discuss the meta-analyses, which mostly supported the validity of tocilizumab therapy. We show how tocilizumab found its place in the most important recommendations on COVID-19 treatment and obtained authorization from the major regulatory authorities.

EXPERT OPINION

The criteria for optimizing tocilizumab therapy in COVID-19 still need to be established. They are also important considering the existing risks of future zoonotic spillovers and epidemics that may trigger hyperinflammation that could be efficiently blocked. The experience gained with tocilizumab shall be perceived as preparedness for future challenges.

Biomarkers to guide immunomodulatory treatment: where do we stand?

INTRODUCTION

This review summarizes current progress in the development of biomarkers to guide immunotherapy in oncology, rheumatology, and critical illness.

AREAS COVERED

An extensive literature search was performed about biomarkers classifying patients' immune responses to guide immunotherapy in oncology, rheumatology, and critical illness. Surface markers, such as programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), genetic biomarkers, such as tumor mutation load, and circulating tumor DNA are biomarkers associated with the effectiveness of immunotherapy in oncology. Genomics, metabolomics, and proteomics play a crucial role in selecting the most suitable therapeutic options for rheumatologic patients. Phenotypes and endotypes are a promising approach to detect critically ill patients with hyper- or hypo-inflammation. Sepsis trials using biomarkers such as ferritin, lymphopenia, HLA-DR expression on monocytes and PD-L1 to guide immunotherapy have been already conducted or are currently ongoing. Immunotherapy in COVID-19 pneumonia, guided by C-reactive protein and soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) has improved patient outcomes globally. More research is needed into immunotherapy in other critical conditions.

EXPERT OPINION

Targeted immunotherapy has improved outcomes in oncology and rheumatology, paving the way for precision medicine in the critically ill. Transcriptomics will play a crucial role in detecting the most suitable candidates for immunomodulation.

Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

It has been reported that people with COVID-19 and pre-existing autoantibodies against type I interferons are likely to develop an inflammatory cytokine storm responsible for severe respiratory symptoms. Since interleukin 6 (IL-6) is one of the cytokines released during this inflammatory process, IL-6 blocking agents have been used for treating people with severe COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To update the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to a placebo for people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) platform, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify studies on 7 June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of researchers independently conducted study selection, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for all critical and important outcomes. In this update we amended our protocol to update the methods used for grading evidence by establishing minimal important differences for the critical outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 22 additional trials, for a total of 32 trials including 12,160 randomized participants all hospitalized for COVID-19 disease. We identified a further 17 registered RCTs evaluating IL-6 blocking agents without results available as of 7 June 2022.  The mean age range varied from 56 to 75 years; 66.2% (8051/12,160) of enrolled participants were men. One-third (11/32) of included trials were placebo-controlled. Twenty-two were published in peer-reviewed journals, three were reported as preprints, two trials had results posted only on registries, and results from five trials were retrieved from another meta-analysis. Eight were funded by pharmaceutical companies.  Twenty-six included studies were multicenter trials; four were multinational and 22 took place in single countries. Recruitment of participants occurred between February 2020 and June 2021, with a mean enrollment duration of 21 weeks (range 1 to 54 weeks). Nineteen trials (60%) had a follow-up of 60 days or more. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The proportion of participants who were intubated at study inclusion also varied from 5% to 95%. Only six trials reported vaccination status; there were no vaccinated participants included in these trials, and 17 trials were conducted before vaccination was rolled out. We assessed a total of six treatments, each compared to placebo or standard care. Twenty trials assessed tocilizumab, nine assessed sarilumab, and two assessed clazakizumab. Only one trial was included for each of the other IL-6 blocking agents (siltuximab, olokizumab, and levilimab). Two trials assessed more than one treatment. Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 At day (D) 28, tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement (tocilizumab: risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.11; 15 RCTs, 6116 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; sarilumab: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 2425 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For clinical improvement at ≥ D60, the certainty of evidence is very low for both tocilizumab (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.48; 1 RCT, 97 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and sarilumab (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.63; 2 RCTs, 239 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score (WHO-CPS) of level 7 or above remains uncertain at D28 (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 13 RCTs, 2117 participants; low-certainty evidence) and that for sarilumab very uncertain (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.33; 5 RCTs, 886 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab reduces all cause-mortality at D28 compared to standard care/placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; 18 RCTs, 7428 participants; high-certainty evidence). The evidence about the effect of sarilumab on this outcome is very uncertain (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; 9 RCTs, 3305 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain for all cause-mortality at ≥ D60 for tocilizumab (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04; 9 RCTs, 2775 participants; low-certainty evidence) and very uncertain for sarilumab (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; 6 RCTs, 3379 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab probably results in little to no difference in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 9 RCTs, 1811 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence about adverse events for sarilumab is uncertain (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28; 4 RCT, 860 participants; low-certainty evidence).  The evidence about serious adverse events is very uncertain for tocilizumab (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; 16 RCTs; 2974 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and uncertain for sarilumab (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21; 6 RCTs; 2936 participants; low-certainty evidence). Efficacy and safety of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab and levilimab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 The evidence about the effects of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab, and levilimab comes from only one or two studies for each blocking agent, and is uncertain or very uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalized people with COVID-19, results show a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on all-cause mortality in the short term and probably little or no difference in the risk of adverse events compared to standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, both tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab and the other IL-6 blocking agents on critical outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. Most of the trials included in our review were done before the waves of different variants of concern and before vaccination was rolled out on a large scale. An additional 17 RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents are currently registered with no results yet reported. The number of pending studies and the number of participants planned is low. Consequently, we will not publish further updates of this review.

Treatment options for patients with severe COVID-19

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected the world for over 3 years. Treatment options have improved substantially during this period, including antiviral drugs, antibody drugs, immune-based agents, and vaccination. While these improvements have reduced mortality rates in patients with COVID-19, some patients still develop severe illness. In this review, we aimed to provide an overview of treatments for patients with severe COVID-19 from study reports and clinical experience. We discussed the treatments from two perspectives: respiratory care and drug treatments. In the respiratory care section, we discussed the usefulness of high-flow nasal cannula therapy and non-invasive ventilation as an alternative to invasive ventilation. In the drug treatments section, we focused on three classes for severe COVID-19 treatment: antiviral drugs, immune-based agents, and anticoagulation therapy. We did not discuss antibody drugs and vaccination, as they are not used for severe COVID-19 treatment.

Cancer and COVID-19: unravelling the immunological interplay with a review of promising therapies against severe SARS-CoV-2 for cancer patients

Cancer patients, due to their immunocompromised status, are at an increased risk for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Since severe SARS-CoV-2 infection causes multiple organ damage through IL-6-mediated inflammation while stimulating hypoxia, and malignancy promotes hypoxia-induced cellular metabolic alterations leading to cell death, we propose a mechanistic interplay between both conditions that results in an upregulation of IL-6 secretion resulting in enhanced cytokine production and systemic injury. Hypoxia mediated by both conditions results in cell necrosis, dysregulation of oxidative phosphorylation, and mitochondrial dysfunction. This produces free radicals and cytokines that result in systemic inflammatory injury. Hypoxia also catalyzes the breakdown of COX-1 and 2 resulting in bronchoconstriction and pulmonary edema, which further exacerbates tissue hypoxia. Given this disease model, therapeutic options are currently being studied against severe SARS-COV-2. In this study, we review several promising therapies against severe disease supported by clinical trial evidence-including Allocetra, monoclonal antibodies (Tixagevimab-Cilgavimab), peginterferon lambda, Baricitinib, Remdesivir, Sarilumab, Tocilizumab, Anakinra, Bevacizumab, exosomes, and mesenchymal stem cells. Due to the virus's rapid adaptive evolution and diverse symptomatic manifestation, the use of combination therapies offers a promising approach to decrease systemic injury. By investing in such targeted interventions, cases of severe SARS-CoV-2 should decrease along with its associated long-term sequelae and thereby allow cancer patients to resume their treatments.

COVID-19 in Adult Patients with Hematological Malignancies-Lessons Learned after Three Years of Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic is undoubtedly the most difficult health challenge of the 21st century with more than 600 million laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and over 6.5 million deaths worldwide. The coronavirus pandemic contributed to rapid development of mRNA vaccines, which, along with new antiviral drugs, have been the subject of extensive research for many decades. Nevertheless, elderly, multi-morbid and immunocompromised patients continue to face a more severe clinical course and a higher risk of death from COVID-19, even now that the risk of COVID-19 in the general population is significantly reduced due to the introduction of global vaccination strategies. In this paper, we present the mechanisms of increased susceptibility to infectious complications and the evolution of the clinical course of COVID-19 in patients with hematological malignancies, taking into account the mutation of the virus and the introduction of vaccines and new antiviral drugs. We also present current recommendations for prophylactic and therapeutic management in patients with hematological malignancies.

SARS-CoV-2-Induced Myocarditis: A State-of-the-Art Review

In this review, we investigated whether severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can directly cause myocarditis with severe myocardial damage induced by viral particles. A review of the major data published from 2020 to 2022 was performed by consulting the major databases alongside first-hand experiences that emerged from the cardiac biopsies and autopsy examinations of patients who died of SARS-CoV-2 infections. From this study, a significantly large amount of data suggests that the Dallas criteria were met in a residual percentage of patients, demonstrating that SARS-CoV-2 myocarditis was a rare clinical and pathological entity that occurred in a small percentage of subjects. All cases described here were highly selected and subjected to autopsies or endomyocardial biopsies (EMBs). The most important discovery, through the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 genome using the polymerase chain reaction, consisted in the presence of the viral genome in the lung tissue of most of the patients who died from COVID-19. However, the discovery of the SARS-CoV-2 viral genome was a rare event in cardiac tissue from autopsy findings of patients who died of myocarditis It is important to emphasize that myocardial inflammation alone, as promoted by macrophages and T cell infiltrations, can be observed in noninfectious deaths and COVID-19 cases, but the extent of each cause is varied, and in neither case have such findings been reported to support clinically relevant myocarditis. Therefore, in the different infected vs. non-infected samples examined, none of our findings provide a definitive histochemical assessment for the diagnosis of myocarditis in the majority of cases evaluated. We report evidence suggesting an extremely low frequency of viral myocarditis that has also been associated with unclear therapeutic implications. These two key factors strongly point towards the use of an endomyocardial biopsy to irrefutably reach a diagnosis of viral myocarditis in the context of COVID-19.

Risk factors for hypercoagulability after laparoscopic hepatic haemangioma resection

Background

Laparoscopic hepatectomy with a small incision, light abdominal wall trauma and rapid postoperative recovery has been widely used in the surgical treatment of benign liver diseases. However, the occurrence of complications, such as deep-vein thrombosis, associated with laparoscopic techniques has raised concerns. This study aimed to investigate the factors influencing the development of a hypercoagulable state in patients following laparoscopic hepatic haemangioma resection.

Materials and Methods

Between 2017 and 2019, 78 patients to be treated by laparoscopic hepatic haemangioma resection were selected prospectively for the study. The differences in relevant clinical factors between patients with and without blood hypercoagulability at 24 h after surgery were compared, and the factors influencing the development of blood hypercoagulability after surgery were analysed.

Results

The study included 78 patients, split into the hypercoagulable group (n = 27) and nonhypercoagulable group (n = 51). Compared with patients who did not develop blood hypercoagulability, patients who did had significantly higher preoperative levels of fibrinogen (Fib), D-dimer (D-Di), fibrinogen degradation products (FDP), platelet count (PLT), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and history of hyperlipidaemia whereas high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels were significantly lower (P < 0.05.) in hypercoagulable group. Univariate and multifactorial logistic regression analyses showed that a history of hyperlipidaemia, Fib ≥3.83 g/L, D-Di ≥9.12 μg/ml, FDP ≥14.64 μg/ml, PLT ≥292 × 109/L, HDL-C ≥1.25 mmol/L and LDL-C ≥2.03 mmol/L was the most common independent risk factors for the development of a hypercoagulable state of blood in patients after laparoscopic hepatic haemangioma resection (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

For patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatic haemangioma resection, attention should be paid to the development of a hypercoagulable state in those with the risk factors described in this study.

K-medoids clustering of hospital admission characteristics to classify severity of influenza virus infection

Background

Patients are admitted to the hospital for respiratory illness at different stages of their disease course. It is important to appropriately analyse this heterogeneity in surveillance data to accurately measure disease severity among those hospitalized. The purpose of this study was to determine if unique baseline clusters of influenza patients exist and to examine the association between cluster membership and in-hospital outcomes.

Methods

Patients hospitalized with influenza at two hospitals in Southeast Michigan during the 2017/2018 (n = 242) and 2018/2019 (n = 115) influenza seasons were included. Physiologic and laboratory variables were collected for the first 24 h of the hospital stay. K-medoids clustering was used to determine groups of individuals based on these values. Multivariable linear regression or Firth's logistic regression were used to examine the association between cluster membership and clinical outcomes.

Results

Three clusters were selected for 2017/2018, mainly differentiated by blood glucose level. After adjustment, those in C171 had 5.6 times the odds of mechanical ventilator use than those in C172 (95% CI: 1.49, 21.1) and a significantly longer mean hospital length of stay than those in both C172 (mean 1.5 days longer, 95% CI: 0.2, 2.7) and C173 (mean 1.4 days longer, 95% CI: 0.3, 2.5). Similar results were seen between the two clusters selected for 2018/2019.

Conclusion

In this study of hospitalized influenza patients, we show that distinct clusters with higher disease acuity can be identified and could be targeted for evaluations of vaccine and influenza antiviral effectiveness against disease attenuation. The association of higher disease acuity with glucose level merits evaluation.

Tocilizumab versus baricitinib in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19: an open label, randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Randomized controlled trials comparing tocilizumab and baricitinib in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed. This was an open-label, randomized controlled trial aiming to address this unmet need.

METHODS

To determine whether baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab, we assessed whether the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR) did not exceed 1.50. The primary outcome was mechanical ventilation or death by day 28. Secondary outcomes included time to hospital discharge by day 28 and change in WHO progression scale at day 10.

RESULTS

We assigned 251 patients with COVID-19 and a PaO_2/FiO₂ ratio of <200 to receive either tocilizumab (n = 126) or baricitinib (n = 125) plus standard of care. Baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab for the primary composite outcome of mechanical ventilation or death by day 28 (mechanical ventilation or death for patients who received baricitinib, 39.2% [n = 49/125]; mechanical ventilation or death for patients who received tocilizumab, 44.4% [n = 56/126]; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.56-1.21; p 0.001 for non-inferiority). Baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab for the time to hospital discharge within 28 days (patients who received baricitinib- discharged alive: 58.4% [n = 73/125] vs. patients who received tocilizumab- discharged alive: 52.4% [n = 66/126]; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.61-1.18; p < 0.001 for non-inferiority). There was no significant difference between the baricitinib and tocilizumab arms in the change in WHO scale at day 10 (0.0 [95% CI, 0.0-0.0] vs. 0.0 [95% CI, 0.0-1.0]; p 0.83).

DISCUSSION

In the setting of this trial, baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab with regards to the composite outcome of mechanical ventilation or death by day 28 and the time to discharge by day 28 in patients with severe COVID-19.

Association between acute disease severity and one-year quality of life among post-hospitalisation COVID-19 patients: Coalition VII prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

To assess the association between acute disease severity and 1-year quality of life in patients discharged after hospitalisation due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study nested in 5 randomised clinical trials between March 2020 and March 2022 at 84 sites in Brazil. Adult post-hospitalisation COVID-19 patients were followed for 1 year. The primary outcome was the utility score of EuroQol five-dimension three-level (EQ-5D-3L). Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, and new disabilities in instrumental activities of daily living. Adjusted generalised estimating equations were used to assess the association between outcomes and acute disease severity according to the highest level on a modified ordinal scale during hospital stay (2: no oxygen therapy; 3: oxygen by mask or nasal prongs; 4: high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy or non-invasive ventilation; 5: mechanical ventilation).

RESULTS

1508 COVID-19 survivors were enrolled. Primary outcome data were available for 1156 participants. At 1 year, compared with severity score 2, severity score 5 was associated with lower EQ-5D-3L utility scores (0.7 vs 0.84; adjusted difference, - 0.1 [95% CI - 0.15 to - 0.06]); and worse results for all-cause mortality (7.9% vs 1.2%; adjusted difference, 7.1% [95% CI 2.5%-11.8%]), major cardiovascular events (5.6% vs 2.3%; adjusted difference, 2.6% [95% CI 0.6%-4.6%]), and new disabilities (40.4% vs 23.5%; adjusted difference, 15.5% [95% CI 8.5%-22.5]). Severity scores 3 and 4 did not differ consistently from score 2.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 patients who needed mechanical ventilation during hospitalisation have lower 1-year quality of life than COVID-19 patients who did not need mechanical ventilation during hospitalisation.

Efficacy and safety of antimicrobial stewardship prospective audit and feedback in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (COVASP): a pragmatic, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with increased antimicrobial use despite low rates of bacterial co-infection. Prospective audit and feedback is recommended to optimise antibiotic prescribing, but high-quality evidence supporting its use for COVID-19 is absent. We aimed to study the efficacy and safety of prospective audit and feedback in patients admitted to hospital for the treatment of COVID-19.

METHODS

COVASP was a prospective, pragmatic, non-inferiority, small-unit, cluster-randomised trial comparing prospective audit and feedback plus standard of care with standard of care alone in adults admitted to three hospitals in Edmonton, AB, Canada, with COVID-19 pneumonia. All patients aged at least 18 years who were admitted from the community to a designated study bed with microbiologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in the preceding 14 days were included if they had an oxygen saturation of 94% or lower on room air, required supplemental oxygen, or had chest-imaging findings compatible with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients were excluded if they were transferred in from another acute care centre, enrolled in another clinical trial that involved antibiotic therapy, expected to progress to palliative care or death within 48 h of hospital admission, or managed by any member of the research team within 30 days of enrolment. COVID-19 unit and critical care unit beds were stratified and randomly assigned (1:1) to the prospective audit and feedback plus standard of care group or the standard of care group. Patients were masked to their bed assignment but the attending physician and study team were not. The primary outcome was clinical status on postadmission day 15, measured using a seven-point ordinal scale. We used a non-inferiority margin of 0·5. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04896866, and is now closed.

FINDINGS

Between March 1 and Oct 29, 2021, 1411 patients were screened and 886 were enrolled: 457 into the prospective audit and feedback plus standard of care group, of whom 429 completed the study, and 429 into the standard of care group, of whom 404 completed the study. Baseline characteristics were similar for both groups, with an overall mean age of 56·7 years (SD 17·3) and a median baseline ordinal scale of 4·0 (IQR 4·0-5·0). 301 audit and feedback events were recorded in the intervention group and 215 recommendations were made, of which 181 (84%) were accepted. Despite lower antibiotic use in the intervention group than in the control group (length of therapy 364·9 vs 384·2 days per 1000 patient days), clinical status at postadmission day 15 was non-inferior (median ordinal score 2·0 [IQR 2·0-3·0] vs 2·0 [IQR 2·0-4·0]; p=0·37, Mann-Whitney U test). Neutropenia was uncommon in both the intervention group (13 [3%] of 420 patients) and the control group (20 [5%] of 396 patients), and acute kidney injury occurred at a similar rate in both groups (74 [18%] of 421 patients in the intervention group and 76 [19%] of 399 patients in the control group). No intervention-related deaths were recorded.

INTERPRETATION

This cluster-randomised clinical trial shows that prospective audit and feedback is safe and effective in optimising and reducing antibiotic use in adults admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Despite many competing priorities during the COVID-19 pandemic, antimicrobial stewardship should remain a priority to mitigate the overuse of antibiotics in this population.

FUNDING

None.

Evaluation of Early Tocilizumab Effect on Multiorgan Dysfunction in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

Background: Tocilizumab (TCZ) has been proposed as potential rescue therapy for severe COVID-19. No previous study has primarily assessed the role of TCZ in preventing severe COVID-19-related multiorgan dysfunction. Hence, this multicenter cohort study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of TCZ early use versus standard of care in preventing severe COVID-19-related multiorgan dysfunction in COVID-19 critically ill patients during intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICUs. Patients were categorized into two groups, the treatment group includes patients who received early TCZ therapy within 24 hours of ICU admission and the control group includes patients who received standard of care. The primary outcome was the multiorgan dysfunction on day three of the ICU admission. The secondary outcomes were 30-day, and in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days, hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, and ICU-related complications. Results: After propensity score matching, 300 patients were included in the analysis based on predefined criteria with a ratio of 1:2. Patients who received TCZ had lower multiorgan dysfunction score on day three of ICU admission compared to the control group (beta coefficient: -0.13, 95% CI: -0.26, -0.01, P-value = 0.04). Moreover, respiratory failure requiring MV was statistically significantly lower in patients who received early TCZ compared to the control group (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.31, 0.91, P-value = 0.02). The 30-day and in-hospital mortality were significantly lower in patients who received TCZ than those who did not (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.37, 0.85, P-value = 0 .006 and HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.36, 0.82, P-value = 0.003, respectively). Conclusion: In addition to the mortality benefits associated with early TCZ use within 24 hours of ICU admission, the use of TCZ was associated with a significantly lower multiorgan dysfunction score on day three of ICU admission in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Adverse Effects of Pfizer (BioNTech), Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 CoV-19), and Moderna COVID-19 Vaccines among the Adult Population in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak has caused massive damage to the global healthcare system and economy. To compete with the SARS-COV-2 pandemic, several vaccines have been proposed to immunize the population. The present study aimed to investigate the adverse effects following the three doses of COVID-19 vaccination, Pfizer (BioNTech), (Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 CoV-19), and Moderna among the adult population in the Eastern province of Saudi Arabia. In this study, the total number of participants were 426, among them 277 (65%) were females and 149 (35%) were males. An online survey using Google forms in the English language and translated into the Arabic language was used to record the information. The questionnaire was distributed to participants who received either Pfizer-BioNTech, Oxford-AstraZeneca or Moderna vaccines. The general characteristics of participants were obtained, alongside an evaluation of the vaccination's adverse effects. The results revealed that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines caused significantly less adverse effects than Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and Moderna (p < 0.001), and females experienced more adverse effects after vaccination compared to males. Injection site pain was the most common adverse event among the participants (60.6%), followed by fatigue, headache, and pain (43.9%), muscle and joint pain (32.4%), increased body temperature and shivering (24.2%). In addition, the group of individuals under the age of sixty was more likely to experience side effects than the participants with other age groups. All three vaccines, Pfizer-BioNTech, Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 CoV-19) and Moderna, cause post-vaccinal adverse effects; however, Moderna and Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) causes adverse effects more frequently than the Pfizer-BioNTech.

Effect of Tocilizumab on "Ventilator Free Days" Composite Outcome in SARS-CoV-2 Patients: A Retrospective Competing Risk Analysis

Background

SARS-CoV-2 infection demonstrates a wide range of severity. More severe cases demonstrate a cytokine storm with elevated serum interleukin-6, hence IL-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab was tried for the management of severe cases.

Aims

Effect of tocilizumab on ventilator-free days among critically ill SARS-CoV-2 patients.

Method

Retrospective propensity score matching study, comparing mechanically ventilated patients who received tocilizumab to a control group.

Results

29 patients in the intervention group were compared to 29 controls. Matched groups were similar. Ventilator-free days were more numerous in the intervention group (SHR 2.7, 95% CI: 1.2 - 6.3; p = 0.02), ICU mortality rate was not different (37.9% versus 62%, p = 0.1), actual ventilator-free periods were significantly longer in tocilizumab group (mean difference 4.7 days; p = 0.02). Sensitivity analysis showed a significantly lower hazard ratio of death in tocilizumab group (HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.25 - 0.97; p = 0.04). There was no difference in positive cultures among groups (55.2% in tocilizumab group versus 34.5% in the control; p = 0.1).

Conclusion

Tocilizumab may improve the composite outcome of ventilator-free days at day 28 among mechanically ventilated SARS-CoV-2 patients; it is associated with significantly longer actual ventilator-free periods, and insignificantly lower mortality and higher superinfection.

[Should we interfere with the interleukin-6 receptor during COVID-19: What do we know?]

COVID-19 is a viral infection with predominant respiratory tropism. In its most severe forms, the initial viral aggression leads to acute respiratory failure due to damage secondary to an exacerbated inflammatory response provoked by the activation of innate, followed by adaptive immunity. The inflammatory response may entail respiratory distress syndrome, if not multivisceral failure and death. IL-6 receptor inhibitors (Tocilizumab and Sarilumab) have been proposed as treatments. Numerous studies have provided new information, which remains heterogeneous and difficult to interpret. This review is aimed at clarifying the potential role of IL-6 receptor inhibitors in severe forms of COVID-19.

Immune-Based Therapy for Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 and Risk of Secondary Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Immune-based therapies are standard-of-care treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients requiring hospitalization. However, safety concerns related to the potential risk of secondary infections may limit their use.

Methods

We searched OVID Medline, Ovid EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, and PROSPERO in October 2020 and updated the search in November 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Pairs of reviewers screened abstracts and full studies and extracted data in an independent manner. We used RevMan to conduct a meta-analysis using random-effects models to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI for the incidence of infection. Statistical heterogeneity was determined using the I 2 statistic. We assessed risk of bias for all studies and rated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. We conducted a meta-regression using the R package to meta-explore whether age, sex, and invasive mechanical ventilation modified risk of infection with immune-based therapies. The protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021229406).

Results

This was a meta-analysis of 37 RCTs including 32 621 participants (mean age, 60 years; 64% male). The use of immune-based therapy for COVID-19 conferred mild protection for the occurrence of secondary infections (711/15 721, 4.5%, vs 616/16 900, 3.6%; RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.95; P = .008; I 2 = 28%). A subgroup analysis did not identify any subgroup effect by type of immune-based therapies (P = .85). A meta-regression revealed no impact of age, sex, or mechanical ventilation on the effect of immune-based therapies on risk of infection.

Conclusions

We identified moderate-certainty evidence that the use of immune-based therapies in COVID-19 requiring hospitalization does not increase the risk of secondary infections.