Comparative Efficacy of Tocilizumab and Baricitinib Administration in COVID-19 Treatment: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Tocilizumab Versus Baricitinib for the Treatment of COVID-19 in Patients With Obesity

Background: Tocilizumab and baricitinib have emerged as potential treatments for patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) following the findings of the Recovery Group and the results of the COV-BARRIER study. Unfortunately, there is a lack of guidance regarding the use of these agents in high-risk patients, such as those with obesity. Objective: To compare the outcomes of tocilizumab and baricitinib as potential treatments for obese patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Methods: This was a multi-center retrospective analysis comparing outcomes of obese patients who received the standard of care plus tocilizumab or baricitinib for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. Included patients had a BMI >30 kg/m2, needed ICU level care, and required non-invasive or invasive ventilatory support. Results: This study included 64 patients who received tocilizumab and 69 patients who received baricitinib. When examining the primary outcome, patients who received tocilizumab had a shorter duration of ventilatory support (10.0 vs 15.0 days, P = .016) than patients who received baricitinib. Our secondary outcome of in-hospital mortality was lower in the tocilizumab group as well (23.4% vs 53.6%, P < .001). Tocilizumab was also associated with a non-significant reduction in new positive blood cultures (13.0% vs 3.1%, P = .056) and new invasive fungal infection (7.3% vs 1.6%, P = .210). Conclusions: This retrospective review showed a reduced duration of ventilatory support in obese patients who received tocilizumab vs baricitinib. In the future, additional studies should be conducted to further examine and confirm these results.

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

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

Baricitinib versus tocilizumab in critically ill COVID-19 patients: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

The immunomodulators tocilizumab and baricitinib improve outcomes in severely ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, comparative analyses of clinical outcomes related to these agents are lacking. A tocilizumab national shortage shifted treatment to baricitinib in critically ill patients, allowing for an outcome comparison in a similar population. The purpose of this study is to compare clinical outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients who received tocilizumab and those who received baricitinib.

DESIGN

Retrospective, observational cohort study using generalized estimating equation models, accounting for clustering by hospital and known confounders, to estimate the proportional odds of the ordinal World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) score at day 14, the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included WHO-CPS score at day 7.

SETTING

Multiple hospitals within the Cleveland Clinic Health System.

PATIENTS

Adult patients admitted for COVID-19 between January 2021 and November 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Receipt of tocilizumab, before its shortage, or baricitinib, during shortage.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

In total, 507 patients were included; 217 received tocilizumab and 290 received baricitinib. Over 96% of patients required ICU admission and 98% received concomitant dexamethasone. Tocilizumab recipients had higher (worse) baseline WHO-CPS scores. After adjustment, tocilizumab use was associated with higher odds of a worse day 14 WHO-CPS score compared with baricitinib (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.65 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-2.48]). Similarly, after adjustment, tocilizumab use was associated with higher odds of a worse day 7 WHO-CPS score (adjusted OR 1.65 [95% CI 1.22-2.24]).

CONCLUSIONS

Baricitinib use was associated with better WHO-CPS scores at day 14 and day 7 compared with tocilizumab in a cohort of critically ill patients with COVID-19. The odds of having a one unit increase in WHO-CPS score at day 14 was 71% higher with tocilizumab than baricitinib. No difference in mortality or adverse effects was noted.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Tocilizumab vs. baricitinib in hospitalized severe COVID-19 patients: results from a real-world cohort

BACKGROUND

Tocilizumab and baricitinib are recommended treatment options for hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen support. Literature about its efficacy and safety in a head-to-head comparison is scarce.

METHODS

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen were treated with tocilizumab or baricitinib additionally to dexamethasone. Tocilizumab was available from February till the 19th of September 2021 and baricitinib from 21st of September. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcome parameters were progression to mechanical ventilation (MV), length-of-stay (LOS) and potential side effects.

RESULTS

159 patients (tocilizumab 68, baricitinib 91) with a mean age of 60.5 years, 64% male were included in the study. Tocilizumab patients were admitted 1 day earlier, were in a higher WHO category at the time of inclusion and had a higher CRP level on admission and treatment initiation. Patients receiving Tocilizumab were treated with remdesivir more often and only patients in the baricitinib group were treated with monoclonal antibodies. Other characteristics did not differ significantly. In-hospital mortality (18% vs. 11%, p = 0.229), progression to MV (19% vs. 11%, p = 0.173) and LOS (13 vs. 12 days, p = 0.114) did not differ between groups. Side effects were equally distributed between groups, except ALAT elevation which was significantly more often observed in the tocilizumab group (43% vs. 25%, p = 0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

In-hospital mortality, progression to MV and LOS were not significantly different in patients treated with tocilizumab or baricitinib additionally to standard of care. Both drugs seem equally effective but further head-to-head trials are needed.

Baricitinib Versus Tocilizumab for the Treatment of Moderate to Severe COVID-19

BACKGROUND

To date, minimal data directly compare tocilizumab with baricitinib for treatment in moderate to severe COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the rates of in-hospital mortality with progression to mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19 who received either tocilizumab or baricitinib.

METHODS

The authors conducted a single-centered, institutional review board-approved, retrospective cohort study. Patients who were 18 years or older who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and who received tocilizumab or baricitinib were included. The primary end point is a composite outcome of progression to mechanical ventilation or in-hospital mortality. Secondary end points include components of the composite outcome and progression to higher level of care, duration of mechanical ventilation, and hospital and intensive care length of stay. Safety end points include the incidence of infections and thrombosis.

RESULTS

A total of 176 patients were included, of whom 61 (34.7%) received tocilizumab and 115 (65.3%) received baricitinib. In the primary outcome, there was no difference between the groups (52.5% tocilizumab vs 44.3% baricitinib, P = 0.305). For safety outcomes, there was a higher instance of thrombosis (11.5% tocilizumab vs 3.5% baricitinib, P = 0.042) and rates of antibiotic use after initiation of therapy (55.7% tocilizumab vs 38.3% baricitinib, P = 0.026) in the tocilizumab group.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

There was no significant difference in the composite outcome in patients who received tocilizumab or baricitinib for the treatment of COVID-19. However, there was an increase in rates of thrombosis in those receiving tocilizumab compared with baricitinib. These results need to be confirmed in larger prospective, randomized trials.

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

OBJECTIVES

The National Institutes of Health and Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines recommend tocilizumab or baricitinib in the management of severe COVID-19. Despite clinical trials on the individual agents, there are no large-scale studies comparing the two agents to guide the selection of one versus the other. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes and adverse effects of baricitinib versus tocilizumab in the management of severe COVID-19.

DESIGN

Retrospective, observational cohort study.

SETTING

Eleven acute care hospitals in a large health system in Georgia.

PATIENTS

Adult patients with severe COVID-19 who received at least one dose of either baricitinib or tocilizumab between June 2021 and October 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The key secondary outcome was occurrence rate of adverse effects. A total of 956 patients were identified. The median age was 57 years, and 53% were of male sex. The median body mass index was 33.5, and more than 94% of the population was unvaccinated. Propensity score matching by baseline characteristics resulted in a total of 582 patients, 291 in each group. There was no difference in mortality between the two groups; however, the occurrence rate of adverse effects was significantly higher in the tocilizumab group compared with baricitinib: secondary infections (32% vs 22%; p < 0.01); thrombotic events (24% vs 16%; p < 0.01); and acute liver injury (8% vs 3%; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our propensity score-matched, retrospective, observational study in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 showed no difference in mortality but significantly fewer adverse effects with baricitinib compared with tocilizumab. Our data suggest that baricitinib may be a better choice when treating patients with severe COVID-19, but additional prospective, randomized trials are needed to help clinicians choose the most optimal drug.

A Clinical Update on SARS-CoV-2: Pathology and Development of Potential Inhibitors

SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome) is highly infectious and causes severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (SARD), immune suppression, and multi-organ failure. For SARS-CoV-2, only supportive treatment options are available, such as oxygen supportive therapy, ventilator support, antibiotics for secondary infections, mineral and fluid treatment, and a significant subset of repurposed effective drugs. Viral targeted inhibitors are the most suitable molecules, such as ACE2 (angiotensin-converting enzyme-2) and RBD (receptor-binding domain) protein-based inhibitors, inhibitors of host proteases, inhibitors of viral proteases 3CLpro (3C-like proteinase) and PLpro (papain-like protease), inhibitors of replicative enzymes, inhibitors of viral attachment of SARS-CoV-2 to the ACE2 receptor and TMPRSS2 (transmembrane serine proteinase 2), inhibitors of HR1 (Heptad Repeat 1)-HR2 (Heptad Repeat 2) interaction at the S2 protein of the coronavirus, etc. Targeting the cathepsin L proteinase, peptide analogues, monoclonal antibodies, and protein chimaeras as RBD inhibitors interferes with the spike protein's ability to fuse to the membrane. Targeting the cathepsin L proteinase, peptide analogues, monoclonal antibodies, and protein chimaeras as RBD inhibitors interferes with the spike protein's ability to fuse to the membrane. Even with the tremendous progress made, creating effective drugs remains difficult. To develop COVID-19 treatment alternatives, clinical studies are examining a variety of therapy categories, including antibodies, antivirals, cell-based therapy, repurposed diagnostic medicines, and more. In this article, we discuss recent clinical updates on SARS-CoV-2 infection, clinical characteristics, diagnosis, immunopathology, the new emergence of variant, SARS-CoV-2, various approaches to drug development and treatment options. The development of therapies has been complicated by the global occurrence of many SARS-CoV-2 mutations. Discussion of this manuscript will provide new insight into drug pathophysiology and drug development.

Shared genetics and causal associations between COVID-19 and multiple sclerosis

Neuroinflammation caused by COVID-19 negatively impacts brain metabolism and function, while pre-existing brain pathology may contribute to individuals' vulnerability to the adverse consequences of COVID-19. We used summary statistics from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to perform Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses, thus assessing potential associations between multiple sclerosis (MS) and two COVID-19 outcomes (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2] infection and COVID-19 hospitalization). Genome-wide risk genes were compared between the GWAS datasets on hospitalized COVID-19 and MS. Literature-based analysis was conducted to construct molecular pathways connecting MS and COVID-19. We found that genetic liability to MS confers a causal effect on hospitalized COVID-19 (odd ratio [OR]: 1.09, 95% confidence interval: 1.03-1.16) but not on SARS-CoV-2 infection (1.03, 1.00-1.05). Genetic liability to hospitalized COVID-19 confers a causal effect on MS (1.15, 1.02-1.30). Hospitalized COVID-19 and MS share five risk genes within two loci, including TNFAIP8, HSD17B4, CDC37, PDE4A, and KEAP1. Pathway analysis identified a panel of immunity-related genes that may mediate the links between MS and COVID-19. Our study suggests that MS was associated with a 9% increased risk for COVID-19 hospitalization, while hospitalized COVID-19 was associated with a 15% increased risk for MS. Immunity-related pathways may underlie the link between MS on COVID-19.

Baricitinib vs tocilizumab treatment for hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19 and associated cytokine storm: a prospective, investigational, real-world study

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to compare outcomes of hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19 and cytokine storm treated with tocilizumab or baricitinib.

METHODS

A prospective, investigational, real-world study was performed from April 2020 to April 2021 at our center. COVID-19 severity was classified by World Health Organization criteria, and cytokine storm was documented along predefined criteria. Eligible patients were enrolled at diagnosis if they fulfilled a priori inclusion criteria and received standard-of-care plus tocilizumab or baricitinib for >48 hours. Patients were followed per protocol for 28 days post-diagnosis. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were invasive mechanical ventilation and major infectious complications.

RESULTS

Of 463 patients, 102/463 (22.1%) received tocilizumab, and 361/463 (77.9%) baricitinib. Baseline characteristics were balanced. At 28 days, there was no difference in all-cause mortality (22/102, 21.6% vs 64/361, 17.7%; P-value = 0.38). Requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation was more frequent after tocilizumab (52/102, 50.9% vs 96/361, 26.6%; P <0.01), rate of major infectious complications was similar (32/102, 31.4% vs 96/361, 26.6%; P-value = 0.34). In logistic regression, the immunomodulatory drug was not retained as a predictor of all-cause mortality. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed statistically similar survival distributions.

CONCLUSION

All-cause mortality was similar between adults treated with baricitinib or tocilizumab for severe COVID-19 with cytokine storm.

Janus kinases inhibitors for coronavirus disease-2019: A pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background

JAK (Janus kinases) inhibitors have been proposed as a promising treatment option for the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). However, the benefits of JAK inhibitors and the optimum thereof for COVID-19 have not been adequately defined.

Methods

Databases were searched from their inception dates to 17 June 2022. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Extracted data were analyzed by pairwise and network meta-analysis. The primary outcome was the coefficient of mortality.

Results

Twenty-eight studies of 8,206 patients were included and assessed qualitatively (modified Jadad and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale scores). A pairwise meta-analysis revealed that JAK inhibitors effectively reduced the mortality (OR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.46-0.63; P < 0.00001; I 2 = 32%) without increasing the risk of adverse events (OR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.88-1.18; P = 0.79; I 2 = 12%). In a network meta-analysis, clinical efficacy benefits were seen among different types of JAK inhibitors (baricitinib, ruxolitinib, and tofacitinib) without the observation of a declined incidence of adverse events. The assessment of rank probabilities indicated that ruxolitinib presented the greatest likelihood of benefits regarding mortality and adverse events.

Conclusion

JAK inhibitors appear to be a promising treatment for COVID-19 concerning reducing mortality, and they do not increase the risk of adverse events vs. standard of care. A network meta-analysis suggests that mortality benefits are associated with specific JAK inhibitors, and among these, ruxolitinib presents the greatest likelihood of having benefits for mortality and adverse events.

Systematic review registration

[www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero], identifier [CRD42022343338].

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib and tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A comparison using systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: This review was performed to compare the efficacy and safety among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received baricitinib and those who received tocilizumab independently with placebo or the standard of care (SOC). Methods: Relevant databases were searched for randomized controlled trials which evaluated the effect of baricitinib or tocilizumab as compared to placebo or the SOC in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The primary endpoint was the comparison of the 28-day mortality. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences were compared and pooled for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. A two-staged exploratory network meta-analysis using a multivariate meta-analysis was also performed. All analyses were performed in Stata version 16.0. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the generated evidence (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022323363). Results: Treatment with baricitinib [RR, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.50-0.94), p = 0.02, i2 = 64.86%] but not with tocilizumab [RR, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.71-1.07), p = 0.19, i2 = 24.41%] led to a significant improvement in the 28-day mortality as compared to that with the SOC. Treatment with baricitinib or tocilizumab, both independently led to a significant reduction in the duration of hospitalization [baricitinib: mean difference, -1.13 days (95% CI, -1.51 to -0.76), p < 0.001, i2 = 0.00%; tocilizumab: mean difference, -2.80 days (95% CI, -4.17 to -1.43), p < 0.001, i2 = 55.47%] and a significant improvement in the proportion of patients recovering clinically by day 28 [baricitinib: RR, 1.24 (95% CI, 1.03-1.48), p = 0.02, i2 = 27.20%; tocilizumab: RR, 1.41 (95% CI, 1.12-1.78), p < 0.001, i2 = 34.59%] as compared to those with the SOC. From the safety point of view, both these drugs showed similar results. There were fewer patients who experienced any serious adverse event following treatment with barictinib and tocilizumab as compared to those following treatment with the SOC [baricitinib: RR, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.62-0.92), p = 0.01, i2 = 12.63%; tocilizumab: RR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.72-1.01), p = 0.07, i2 = 0.00%]. Conclusion: As baricitinib and tocilizumab are recommended interchangeably by various guidelines for the management of COVID-19, considering the better 28-day mortality data and other comparable efficacy and safety outcomes, baricitinib may be favored over tocilizumab considering its ease of administration, shorter half-life, and lower cost of treatment.

Therapeutic Approaches to the Neurologic Manifestations of COVID-19

As of May 2022, there have been more than 527 million infections with severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and over 6.2 million deaths from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide. COVID-19 is a multisystem illness with important neurologic consequences that impact long-term morbidity and mortality. In the acutely ill, the neurologic manifestations of COVID-19 can include distressing but relatively benign symptoms such as headache, myalgias, and anosmia; however, entities such as encephalopathy, stroke, seizures, encephalitis, and Guillain-Barre Syndrome can cause neurologic injury and resulting disability that persists long after the acute pulmonary illness. Furthermore, as many as one-third of patients may experience persistent neurologic symptoms as part of a Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Neuro-PASC) syndrome. This Neuro-PASC syndrome can affect patients who required hospitalization for COVID-19 or patients who did not require hospitalization and who may have had minor or no pulmonary symptoms. Given the large number of individuals affected and the ability of neurologic complications to impair quality of life and productivity, the neurologic manifestations of COVID-19 are likely to have major and long-lasting personal, public health, and economic consequences. While knowledge of disease mechanisms and therapies acquired prior to the pandemic can inform us on how to manage patients with the neurologic manifestations of COVID-19, there is a critical need for improved understanding of specific COVID-19 disease mechanisms and development of therapies that target the neurologic morbidities of COVID-19. This current perspective reviews evidence for proposed disease mechanisms as they inform the neurologic management of COVID-19 in adult patients while also identifying areas in need of further research.

Tocilizumab Versus Baricitinib in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia and Hypoxemia: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

In patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia, both tocilizumab and baricitinib have been shown to have clinical benefit compared with placebo. To date, there are few data comparing the two treatments, and their relative benefits and harms are unknown. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of tocilizumab versus baricitinib in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia and hypoxemia.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Seven inpatient acute-care hospitals in Wisconsin.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients hospitalized with COVID-19, hypoxemia, and Pao2-to-Fio2 ratio less than or equal to 300 mm Hg, who received either tocilizumab or baricitinib.

INTERVENTIONS

Electronic chart review.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Patients were divided into tocilizumab and baricitinib cohorts based on actual medication received. The primary outcome was hospital discharge alive and free from mechanical ventilation within 60 days, assessed by logistic regression. Three hundred eighty-two patients were included: 194 in the tocilizumab cohort and 188 in the baricitinib cohort. Most baseline characteristics in the two cohorts were similar. All patients received dexamethasone. Two patients were lost to follow-up. In the remaining 380 patients, probability of successful discharge in the two cohorts was quantitatively similar in unadjusted, multivariate-adjusted, and propensity score-matched analyses. Hospital length of stay, rates of thromboembolic events, and rates of hospital-acquired infections were all similar in the two cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia and hypoxemia who receive dexamethasone, treatment with tocilizumab or baricitinib appears to result in similar outcomes.