Tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: Clinical outcomes, inflammatory marker kinetics, and safety.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hill JA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7753799 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pneumonia is often associated with hyperinflammation. Despite the disproportionate incidence of Covid-19 among underserved and racial and ethnic minority populations, the safety and efficacy of the anti-interleukin-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab in patients from these populations who are hospitalized with Covid-19 pneumonia are unclear.MethodsWe randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) patients hospitalized with Covid-19 pneumonia who were not receiving mechanical ventilation to receive standard care plus one or two doses of either tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously) or placebo. Site selection was focused on the inclusion of sites enrolling high-risk and minority populations. The primary outcome was mechanical ventilation or death by day 28.ResultsA total of 389 patients underwent randomization, and the modified intention-to-treat population included 249 patients in the tocilizumab group and 128 patients in the placebo group; 56.0% were Hispanic or Latino, 14.9% were Black, 12.7% were American Indian or Alaska Native, 12.7% were non-Hispanic White, and 3.7% were of other or unknown race or ethnic group. The cumulative percentage of patients who had received mechanical ventilation or who had died by day 28 was 12.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.5 to 16.9) in the tocilizumab group and 19.3% (95% CI, 13.3 to 27.4) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for mechanical ventilation or death, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.97; P?=?0.04 by the log-rank test). Clinical failure as assessed in a time-to-event analysis favored tocilizumab over placebo (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.93). Death from any cause by day 28 occurred in 10.4% of the patients in the tocilizumab group and 8.6% of those in the placebo group (weighted difference, 2.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -?5.2 to 7.8). In the safety population, serious adverse events occurred in 38 of 250 patients (15.2%) in the tocilizumab group and 25 of 127 patients (19.7%) in the placebo group.ConclusionsIn hospitalized patients with Covid-19 pneumonia who were not receiving mechanical ventilation, tocilizumab reduced the likelihood of progression to the composite outcome of mechanical ventilation or death, but it did not improve survival. No new safety signals were identified. (Funded by Genentech; EMPACTA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04372186.).
| S-EPMC7781101 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesPatients with Covid-19 and obesity have worse clinical outcomes which may be driven by increased inflammation. This study aimed to characterize the association between clinical outcomes in patients with obesity and inflammatory markers.MethodsWe analyzed data for patients aged ≥18 years admitted with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. We used multivariate logistic regression to determine the association between BMI and intensive care unit (ICU) transfer and all-cause mortality. Inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein [CRP], lactate dehydrogenase [LDH], ferritin, and D-dimer) were compared between patients with and without obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥30 kg/m2).ResultsOf 791 patients with Covid-19, 361 (45.6%) had obesity. In multivariate analyses, BMI ≥35 was associated with a higher odds of ICU transfer (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.388 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.074-5.310) and hospital mortality (aOR = 4.3, 95% CI: 1.69-10.82). Compared to those with BMI<30, patients with obesity had lower ferritin (444 vs 637 ng/mL; p<0.001) and lower D-dimer (293 vs 350 mcg/mL; p = 0.009), non-significant differences in CRP (72.8 vs 84.1 mg/L, p = 0.099), and higher LDH (375 vs 340, p = 0.009) on the first hospital day.ConclusionsPatients with obesity were more likely to have poor outcomes even without increased inflammation.
| S-EPMC7744045 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInflammatory markers are often elevated in patients with COVID-19. The objective of this study is to assess the prognostic capability of these tests in predicting clinical outcomes.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study including all patients at least 16 years old with COVID-19 who were admitted from one of five Emergency Departments between March 6th and April 4th, 2020. We included 1123 laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19. We analyzed white blood cell count (WBC), absolute lymphocyte count (ALC), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), D-dimer, ferritin, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). We looked at clinical outcomes including death, the need for endotracheal intubation (ETT), the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT), and ICU admission. We report Spearman's ρ2 and statistical significance for each correlation with outcomes. We also report positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios, and negative likelihood ratios.ResultsThe mean age of our patient population was 62 (SD 16). Thirty-seven percent of patients self-reported Spanish/Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, 47% reported their race as Black or African-American, and 10% reported their race as non-Hispanic white. Inter-rater reliability was 96%. There was no laboratory value that had both sensitivity and specificity of at least 0.90, or that had a positive predictive value and negative predictive value of at least 0.90, or that had likelihood ratios that could reliably predict a severe course of disease.ConclusionInflammatory markers drawn within 48 h of arrival, though often correlated with clinical outcomes, are not individually highly predictive of which patients in a predominantly older and minority population will die or require intubation, RRT, or ICU admission.
| S-EPMC7685065 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with immune dysregulation and hyperinflammation, including elevated interleukin-6 levels. The use of tocilizumab, a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 receptor, has resulted in better outcomes in patients with severe Covid-19 pneumonia in case reports and retrospective observational cohort studies. Data are needed from randomized, placebo-controlled trials.MethodsIn this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with severe Covid-19 pneumonia in a 2:1 ratio receive a single intravenous infusion of tocilizumab (at a dose of 8 mg per kilogram of body weight) or placebo. Approximately one quarter of the participants received a second dose of tocilizumab or placebo 8 to 24 hours after the first dose. The primary outcome was clinical status at day 28 on an ordinal scale ranging from 1 (discharged or ready for discharge) to 7 (death) in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all the patients who had received at least one dose of tocilizumab or placebo.ResultsOf the 452 patients who underwent randomization, 438 (294 in the tocilizumab group and 144 in the placebo group) were included in the primary and secondary analyses. The median value for clinical status on the ordinal scale at day 28 was 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0 to 1.0) in the tocilizumab group and 2.0 (non-ICU hospitalization without supplemental oxygen) (95% CI, 1.0 to 4.0) in the placebo group (between-group difference, -1.0; 95% CI, -2.5 to 0; P = 0.31 by the van Elteren test). In the safety population, serious adverse events occurred in 103 of 295 patients (34.9%) in the tocilizumab group and in 55 of 143 patients (38.5%) in the placebo group. Mortality at day 28 was 19.7% in the tocilizumab group and 19.4% in the placebo group (weighted difference, 0.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.6 to 8.2; nominal P = 0.94).ConclusionsIn this randomized trial involving hospitalized patients with severe Covid-19 pneumonia, the use of tocilizumab did not result in significantly better clinical status or lower mortality than placebo at 28 days. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and the Department of Health and Human Services; COVACTA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04320615.).
| S-EPMC7953459 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor blockade in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) who are not receiving mechanical ventilation is unclear.MethodsWe performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, hyperinflammatory states, and at least two of the following signs: fever (body temperature >38°C), pulmonary infiltrates, or the need for supplemental oxygen in order to maintain an oxygen saturation greater than 92%. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive standard care plus a single dose of either tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight) or placebo. The primary outcome was intubation or death, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The secondary efficacy outcomes were clinical worsening and discontinuation of supplemental oxygen among patients who had been receiving it at baseline, both assessed in time-to-event analyses.ResultsWe enrolled 243 patients; 141 (58%) were men, and 102 (42%) were women. The median age was 59.8 years (range, 21.7 to 85.4), and 45% of the patients were Hispanic or Latino. The hazard ratio for intubation or death in the tocilizumab group as compared with the placebo group was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 1.81; P = 0.64), and the hazard ratio for disease worsening was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.59 to 2.10; P = 0.73). At 14 days, 18.0% of the patients in the tocilizumab group and 14.9% of the patients in the placebo group had had worsening of disease. The median time to discontinuation of supplemental oxygen was 5.0 days (95% CI, 3.8 to 7.6) in the tocilizumab group and 4.9 days (95% CI, 3.8 to 7.8) in the placebo group (P = 0.69). At 14 days, 24.6% of the patients in the tocilizumab group and 21.2% of the patients in the placebo group were still receiving supplemental oxygen. Patients who received tocilizumab had fewer serious infections than patients who received placebo.ConclusionsTocilizumab was not effective for preventing intubation or death in moderately ill hospitalized patients with Covid-19. Some benefit or harm cannot be ruled out, however, because the confidence intervals for efficacy comparisons were wide. (Funded by Genentech; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04356937.).
| S-EPMC7646626 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8604568 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives: This retrospective cohort study aims to explore head-to-head clinical outcomes and complications associated with tocilizumab or baricitinib initiation among hospitalized COVID-19 patients receiving dexamethasone. Methods: Among 10,445 COVID-19 patients hospitalized between January 21st 2020 and January 31st 2021 in Hong Kong, patients who had received tocilizumab (n = 165) or baricitinib (n = 76) while on dexamethasone were included. Primary study outcome was time to clinical improvement (at least one score reduction on WHO clinical progression scale). Secondary outcomes were disease progression, viral dynamics, in-hospital death, hyperinflammatory syndrome, and COVID-19/treatment-related complications. Hazard ratios (HR) of event outcomes were estimated using Cox regression models. Results: The initiation of tocilizumab or baricitinib had no significant differences in time to clinical improvement (HR = 0.86, 95%CI 0.57-1.29, p = 0.459), hospital discharge (HR = 0.85, 95%CI 0.57-1.27, p = 0.418), recovery without the need for oxygen therapy (HR = 1.04, 95%CI 0.64-1.67, p = 0.883), low viral load (HR = 1.49, 95%CI 0.85-2.60, p = 0.162), and positive IgG antibody (HR = 0.97, 95%CI 0.61-1.54, p = 0.909). Time to viral clearance (HR = 1.94, 95%CI 1.01-3.73, p = 0.048) was shorter in the tocilizumab group with marginal significance, compared to that of baricitinib. Meanwhile, the two treatment modalities were not significantly different in their associated risks of in-hospital death (HR = 0.63, 95%CI 0.29-1.35, p = 0.233), severe liver injury (HR = 1.15, 95%CI 0.43-3.08, p = 0.778), acute renal failure (HR = 2.33, 95%CI 0.61-8.82, p = 0.213), hyperinflammatory syndrome (HR = 2.32, 95%CI 0.87-6.25, p = 0.091), thrombotic and bleeding events (HR = 1.39, 95%CI 0.32-6.00, p = 0.658), and secondary infection (HR = 2.97, 95%CI 0.62-14.31, p = 0.173). Conclusion: Among hospitalized patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 on background dexamethasone, the initiation of tocilizumab or baricitinib had generally comparable effects on time to clinical improvement, hospital discharge, recovery, low viral load, and positive IgG antibody; risks of in-hospital death, hepatic and renal complications, hyperinflammatory syndrome, thrombotic and bleeding events, and secondary infection. On the other hand, tocilizumab users might achieve viral clearance slightly faster than baricitinib users. Further studies and clinical trials are needed to confirm our findings regarding the evaluation of tocilizumab and baricitinib in COVID-19 patients with different disease severities, at varying stages or timing of drug initiation, and considering the concomitant use of other therapeutics.
| S-EPMC9189358 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTrials of tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia have demonstrated mixed results, and the role of tocilizumab in combination with other treatments is uncertain. Here we evaluated whether tocilizumab plus remdesivir provides greater benefit than remdesivir alone in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsThis randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial included patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring > 6 L/min supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg or placebo intravenously plus ≤ 10 days of remdesivir. The primary outcome was time from randomization to hospital discharge or "ready for discharge" (defined as category 1, assessed by the investigator on a 7-category ordinal scale of clinical status) to day 28. Patients were followed for 60 days.ResultsAmong 649 enrolled patients, 434 were randomly assigned to tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 215 to placebo plus remdesivir. 566 patients (88.2%) received corticosteroids during the trial to day 28. Median time from randomization to hospital discharge or "ready for discharge" was 14 (95% CI 12-15) days with tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 14 (95% CI 11-16) days with placebo plus remdesivir [log-rank P = 0.74; Cox proportional hazards ratio 0.97 (95% CI 0.78-1.19)]. Serious adverse events occurred in 128 (29.8%) tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 72 (33.8%) placebo plus remdesivir patients; 78 (18.2%) and 42 (19.7%) patients, respectively, died by day 28.ConclusionsTocilizumab plus remdesivir did not shorten time to hospital discharge or "ready for discharge" to day 28 compared with placebo plus remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.
| S-EPMC8490137 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of early tocilizumab treatment for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 disease.MethodsOpen-label randomized phase II clinical trial investigating tocilizumab in patients with proven COVID-19 admitted to the general ward and in need of supplemental oxygen. The primary endpoint of the study was 30-day mortality with a prespecified 2-sided significance level of α = 0.10. A post-hoc analysis was performed for a combined endpoint of mechanical ventilation or death at 30 days. Secondary objectives included comparing the duration of hospital stay, ICU admittance and duration of ICU stay and the duration of mechanical ventilation.ResultsA total of 354 patients (67% men; median age 66 years) were enrolled of whom 88% received dexamethasone. Thirty-day mortality was 19% (95% CI 14%-26%) in the standard arm versus 12% (95% CI: 8%-18%) in the tocilizumab arm, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.62 (90% CI 0.39-0.98; p = 0.086). 17% of patients were admitted to the ICU in each arm (p = 0.89). The median stay in the ICU was 14 days (IQR 9-28) in the standard arm versus 9 days (IQR 5-14) in the tocilizumab arm (p = 0.014). Mechanical ventilation or death at thirty days was 31% (95% CI 24%-38%) in the standard arm versus 21% (95% CI 16%-28%) in the tocilizumab arm, HR = 0.65 (95% CI 0.42-0.98; p = 0.042).ConclusionsThis randomized phase II study supports efficacy for tocilizumab when given early in the disease course in hospitalized patients who need oxygen support, especially when concomitantly treated with dexamethasone.Trial registrationhttps://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8504.
| S-EPMC9374226 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Tocilizumab and baricitinib are recommended treatment options for COVID-19 patients with hyperinflammatory response; however, there is a lack of systematic review directly evaluating their efficacy and safety. Objective: This review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab and baricitinib in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods: Relevant databases were searched for studies that compared the effect or safety of baricitinib or tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The mortality was the main outcome. The hospital length of stay or adverse drug reactions were taken into consideration as secondary endpoints. The analyses were performed in Revman 5.3 or Stata 16.0. The protocol and analysis plan were pre-registered in PROSPERO, with the registration number CRD42023408219. Results: In total, 10 studies with 2,517 patients were included. The overall pooled data demonstrated that, there was no statistically significant difference in the 28-day mortality rate and the hospital length of stay between the tocilizumab and baricitinib (OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.80-1.51, p = 0.57; OR = -0.68, 95% CI = -2.24-0.87, p = 0.39). The adverse reactions including secondary infection rate, thrombotic and bleeding events, and acute liver injury of tocilizumab were significantly higher than that of baricitinib. (OR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.18-1.88, p < 0.001,OR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.11-2.08, p = 0.009; OR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.11-2.08, p = 0.009; OR = 2.24, 95% CI = 1.49-3.35, p < 0.001). Conclusion: In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, no discernible difference in therapeutic efficacy was observed between tocilizumab and baricitinib; however, the group treated with baricitinib demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of adverse effects.
| S-EPMC10703388 | biostudies-literature