Dataset Information

Real-Life Effectiveness and Safety of Baricitinib as Adjunctive to Standard-of-Care Treatment in Hospitalized Patients With Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Therapeutic options for hospitalized patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (sCOVID-19) are limited. Preliminary data have shown promising results with baricitinib, but real-life experience is lacking. We assessed the safety and effectiveness of add-on baricitinib to standard-of-care (SOC) including dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with sCOVID-19.

Methods

This study is a 2-center, observational, retrospective cohort study of patients with sCOVID-19, comparing outcomes and serious events between patients treated with SOC versus those treated with SOC and baricitinib combination.

Results

We included 369 patients with sCOVID-19 (males 66.1%; mean age 65.2 years; median symptom duration 6 days). The SOC was administered in 47.7% and combination in 52.3%. Patients treated with the combination reached the composite outcome (intensive care unit [ICU] admission or death) less frequently compared with SOC (22.3% vs 36.9%, P = .002). Mortality rate was lower with the combination in the total cohort (14.7% vs 26.6%, P = .005), and ICU admission was lower in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (29.7% vs 44.8%, P = .03). By multivariable analysis, age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.36-2.44, per 10-year increase), partial pressure of oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (OR = 0.60, 95% CI = .52-0.68, per 10 units increase), and use of high-flow nasal cannula (OR = 0.34; 95% CI, .16-0.74) were associated with the composite outcome, whereas baricitinib use was marginally not associated with the composite outcome (OR = 0.52; 95% CI, .26-1.03). However, baricitinib use was found to be significant after inverse-probability weighted regression (OR = 0.93; 95% CI, .87-0.99). No difference in serious events was noted between treatment groups.

Conclusions

In real-life settings, addition of baricitinib to SOC in patients hospitalized with sCOVID-19 is associated with decreased mortality without concerning safety signals.

SUBMITTER: Tziolos N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8711791 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundExcessive inflammation contributes to the morbidity and mortality of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. Recombinant human plasma gelsolin (rhu-pGSN) improves disease outcomes in diverse experimental models of infectious and noninfectious inflammation.MethodsIn a blinded, randomized study, 61 subjects with documented COVID-19 pneumonia having a World Health Organization (WHO) Severity Score of 4 to 6 and evidence of a hyperinflammatory state were treated with standard care and either adjunctive rhu-pGSN 12 mg/kg or an equal volume of saline placebo given intravenously at entry, 12 hours, and 36 hours. The prespecified coprimary outcomes were survival without major respiratory, hemodynamic, or renal support on Day 14 and the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) during the 90-day study period.ResultsAll subjects receiving ≥1 dose of study drug were analyzed. Fifty-four of 61 subjects (88.5%) were WHO severity level 4 at entry. The proportions of subjects alive without support on Day 14 were 25 of 30 rhu-pGSN recipients (83.3%) and 27 of 31 placebo recipients (87.1%). Over the duration of the study, WHO Severity Scores improved similarly in both treatment groups. No statistically significant differences were observed between treatment groups at any time point examined. Two subjects died in each group. Numerically fewer subjects in the rhu-pGSN group had SAEs (5 subjects; 16.7%) or ≥ Grade 3 adverse events (5 subjects; 16.7%) than in the placebo group (8 subjects [25.8%] and 9 subjects [29.0%], respectively), mostly involving the lungs. Three rhu-pGSN recipients (10.0%) were intubated compared to 6 placebo recipients (19.4%).ConclusionsOverall, subjects in this study did well irrespective of treatment arm. When added to dexamethasone and remdesivir, no definitive benefit was demonstrated for rhu-pGSN relative to placebo. Safety signals were not identified after the administration of 3 doses of 12 mg/kg rhu-pGSN over 36 hours. The frequencies of SAEs and intubation were numerically fewer in the rhu-pGSN group compared with placebo.

Project description:ObjectivesFour peer-reviewed publications have reported results from randomized controlled trials of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 infection; none were conducted in the United States nor used standard plasma as a comparator. To determine if administration of convalescent plasma to patients with coronavirus disease 2019 increases antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and improves outcome.DesignDouble-blind randomized controlled trial.SettingHospital in New York.PatientsPatients with polymerase chain reaction documented coronavirus disease 2019 infection.InterventionsPatients were randomized (4:1) to receive 2 U of convalescent plasma versus standard plasma. Antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 were measured in plasma units and in trial recipients.Measurements and main resultsEnrollment was terminated after emergency use authorization was granted for convalescent plasma. Seventy-four patients were randomized. At baseline, mean (sd) Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (23.4 [5.6] and 22.5 [6.6]), percent of patients intubated (19% and 20%), and median (interquartile range) days from symptom onset to randomization of 9 (6-18) and 9 (6-15), were similar in the convalescent plasma versus standard plasma arms, respectively. Convalescent plasma had high neutralizing activity (median [interquartile range] titer 1:526 [1:359-1:786]) and its administration increased antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by 14.4%, whereas standard plasma administration led to an 8.6% decrease (p = 0.005). No difference was observed for ventilator-free days through 28 days (primary study endpoint): median (interquartile range) of 28 (2-28) versus 28 (0-28; p = 0.86) for the convalescent plasma and standard plasma groups, respectively. A greater than or equal to 2 point improvement in the World Health Organization scale was achieved by 20% of subjects in both arms (p = 0.99). All-cause mortality through 90 days was numerically lower in the convalescent plasma versus standard plasma groups (27% vs 33%; p = 0.63) but did not achieve statistical significance. A key prespecified subgroup analysis of time to death in patients who were intubated at baseline was statistically significant; however, sample size numbers were small.ConclusionsAdministration of convalescent plasma to hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection increased antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus disease 2 but was not associated with improved outcome.