Dataset Information

Tocilizumab and remdesivir in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: a randomized clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Trials 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.

Methods

This 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.

Results

Among 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.

Conclusions

Tocilizumab 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.

SUBMITTER: Rosas IO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8490137 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.).

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.).

Project description:IntroductionThe effectiveness of umifenovir against COVID-19 is controversial; therefore, clinical trials are crucial to evaluate its efficacy.MethodsThe study was conducted as a single-center, randomized, open-label clinical trial. Eligible moderate-severe hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-Cov-2 infection were randomly segregated into intervention and control groups. The intervention group were treated with lopinavir/ritonavir (400 mg/100 mg bid for 10-14 days) + hydroxychloroquine (400 mg single dose) + interferon-β1a (Subcutaneous injections of 44 µg (12,000 IU) on days 1, 3, 5) + umifenovir (200 mg trice daily for 10 days), and the control group received lopinavir/ritonavir (same dose) + hydroxychloroquine (same dose) + interferon-β1a (same dose).ResultsOf 1180 patients with positive RT-PCRs and positive chest CT scans, 101 patients were finally included in the trial; 50 were assigned to receive IFNβ1a + hydroxychloroquine + lopinavir/ritonavir group and 51 were managed to treat with IFNβ1a + hydroxychloroquine + lopinavir/ritonavir + umifenovir. Since all patients received the intended treatment as scheduled, the analysis just included as the ITT population. Time to clinical improvement (TTCI) did not hold a statistically significant difference between intervention and control groups (median, 9 days for intervention group versus 7 days for the control group; P: 0.22). Besides, Hazard Ratio for TTCI in the Cox regression model was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.45-1.23, P:0.25) which also confirmed that there was no statistically significant difference between the treatment group and the control group. The mortality was not statistically significant between the two groups (38% in controls vs 33.3% treatment group).ConclusionsOur findings shed new lights on the facts that additional umifenovir has not been found to be effective in shortening the duration of SARS-CoV-2 in severe patients and improving the prognosis in non-ICU patients and mortality.Trial registrationThe trial was confirmed by the Ethics in Medical Research Committee of the Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. signed informed consents were obtained from all the participants or their legally authorized representatives. This trial has been registered as ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04350684.

Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of the best combination between different antiviral and anti-inflammatory drugs stills an interest in the treatment of COVID19 infection.Patients and methodsA prospective randomized cohort study comprised 108 adult patients with confirmed PCR COVID 19 infection with systemic hyper inflammation state, divided into two groups according to the treatment regimen, 56 in the tocilizumab- hydroxychloroquine (TCZ-HCQ) treatment, and 52 in the tocilizumab-remdesivir (TCZ-RMV) treatment. The first group received a combination of I.V. TCZ (400-800 mg every 24 h for only two doses) and HCQ (400 mg twice in the first day then 200 mg twice for 5 days) while the second group of patients received I.V. RMV of 200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg once daily infused over 60 min for 5 days with the same TCZ regimen used in the first group. All clinical parameters and laboratory investigations were assessed before and after treatment.ResultsThe CRP was significantly decreased while PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) ratio post-treatment was significantly improved in both treatment groups. TCZ-HCQ group showed a significant decrease in the ferritin, LDH, and D. Dimer levels. The median days of hospitalization with interquartile range (IQR) were 10 (6-16) and 8 (5-12) for TCZ-HCQ and TCZ-RMV groups, respectively. The numbers of mechanically ventilated patients were 25 and 43 for TCZ-HCQ and TCZ-RMV groups, respectively. Therapeutic failure was about 26.8% in the TCZ-HCQ group and 30.8% in the TCZ-RMV group but there was no significant difference between both groups. Some complications were recognized only in TCZ-RMV following treatment including secondary bacterial infections (42.3%), myocarditis (15.4%), and finally pulmonary embolism (7.7%).ConclusionEfficacy of both TCZ-RMV and TCZ-HCQ combinations are observed in the treatment of severe COVID-19 patients; however the increased need for ICU or mechanical ventilation in the TCZ-RMV arm contributed to the appearance of cardiac and thrombotic events. The study was registered at the Clinical Trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT04779047).

Project description:BackgroundNafamostat, a serine protease inhibitor, has been used for the treatment of disseminated intravascular coagulation and pancreatitis. In vitro studies and clinical reports suggest its beneficial effect in the treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsThis phase 2 open-label, randomised, multicentre, controlled trial evaluated nafamostat (4.8 mg/kg/day) plus standard-of-care (SOC) in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (i.e., those requiring nasal high-flow oxygen therapy and/or non-invasive mechanical ventilation). The primary outcome was the time to clinical improvement. Key secondary outcomes included the time to recovery, rates of recovery and National Early Warning Score (NEWS). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04623021.FindingsA total of 104 patients, mean age 58.6 years were enrolled in 13 clinical centres in Russia between 25/9/2020 and 14/11/2020 and randomised to nafamostat plus SOC (n=53) or SOC alone (n=51). There was no significant difference in time to clinical improvement (primary endpoint) between the nafamostat and SOC groups (median 11 [interquartile range (IQR) 9 to 14) vs 11 [IQR 9 to 14] days; Rate Ratio [RR; the ratio for clinical improvement], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.57; p=0.953). In 36 patients with baseline NEWS ≥7, nafamostat was superior to SOC alone in median time to clinical improvement (11 vs 14 days; RR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.17 to 7.14; p=0.012). Patients receiving nafamostat in this subgroup had a significantly higher recovery rate compared with SOC alone (61.1% (11/18) vs 11.1 % (2/18) by Day 11, p=0.002). The 28-day mortality was 1.9% (1/52) for nafamostat and 8.0% (4/50) for SOC (95% CI, -17.0 to 3.4; p=0.155). No case of COVID-19 related serious adverse events leading to death was recorded in the patients receiving nafamostat.InterpretationOur study found no significant difference in time to clinical improvement between the nafamostat and SOC groups, but a shorter median time to clinical improvement in a small group of high-risk COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen treatment. To assess the efficacy further, a larger Phase 3 clinical trial is warranted.FundingKorea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology [2020M3A9H5108928] and Chong Kun Dang (CKD) Pharm (Seoul, Korea).

Project description:BACKGROUND:High levels of serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) correlate with disease severity in COVID-19. We hypothesized that tocilizumab (a recombinant humanized anti-IL-6 receptor) could improve outcomes in selected patients with severe worsening COVID-19 pneumonia and high inflammatory parameters. METHODS:The TOCICOVID study included a prospective cohort of patients aged 16-80 years with severe (requiring >?6 L/min of oxygen therapy to obtain Sp02?>?94%) rapidly deteriorating (increase by ??3 L/min of oxygen flow within the previous 12 h) COVID-19 pneumonia with ??5 days of symptoms and C-reactive protein levels >?40 mg/L. They entered a compassionate use program of treatment with intravenous tocilizumab (8 mg/kg with a maximum of 800 mg per infusion; and if needed a second infusion 24 to 72 h later). A control group was retrospectively selected with the same inclusion criteria. Outcomes were assessed at D28 using inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) methodology. RESULTS:Among the 96 patients included (81% male, mean (SD) age: 60 (12.5) years), underlying conditions, baseline disease severity, and concomitant medications were broadly similar between the tocilizumab (n?=?49) and the control (n?=?47) groups. In the IPTW analysis, treatment with tocilizumab was associated with a reduced need for overall ventilatory support (49 vs. 89%, wHR: 0.39 [0.25-0.56]; p?<?0.001). Albeit lacking statistical significance, there was a substantial trend towards a reduction of mechanical ventilation (31% vs. 45%; wHR: 0.58 [0.36-0.94]; p?=?0.026). However, tocilizumab did not improve overall survival (wHR?=?0.68 [0.31-1.748], p?=?0.338). Among the 85 (89%) patients still alive at D28, patients treated with tocilizumab had a higher rate of oxygen withdrawal (82% vs. 73.5%, wHR?=?1.66 [1.17-2.37], p?=?0.005), with a shorter delay before being weaned of oxygen therapy (mean 11 vs. 16 days; p?<?0.001). At D28, the rate of patients discharged from hospital was higher in the tocilizumab group (70% vs. 40%, wHR?=?1.82 [1.22-2.75]; p?=?0.003). The levels of CRP and fibrinogen post therapy (p?<?0.001 for both variables) were significantly lower in the tocilizumab group (interaction test, mixed model). Rates of neutropenia (35% vs. 0%; p?<?0.001) were higher in the tocilizumab group, yet rates of infections (22% vs. 38%, p?=?0.089) including ventilator-acquired pneumonia (8% vs. 26%, p?=?0.022) were higher in the control group. CONCLUSION:These data could be helpful for the design of future trials aiming to counter COVID-19-induced inflammation, especially before patients require admission to the intensive care unit.