Dataset Information

Reduced fixed dose tocilizumab 400 mg IV compared to weight-based dosing in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A before-after cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Interleukin-6 inhibitors reduce mortality in severe COVID-19. British Columbia began using tocilizumab 8 mg/kg (maximum 800 mg) in January 2021 in critically ill patients with COVID-19, but due to drug shortages, decreased dosing to 400 mg IV fixed dose in April 2021. The aims of this study were twofold: to compare physiological responses and clinical outcomes of these two strategies, and examine the cost-effectiveness of treating all patients with 400 mg versus half the patients with 8 mg/kg and the other half without tocilizumab.

Methods

This was a single-centre, before-after cohort study of critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with tocilizumab, and a control cohort treated with dexamethasone only. Physiological responses and clinical outcomes were compared between patients receiving both doses of tocilizumab and those receiving dexamethasone only. We built a decision tree model to examine cost-effectiveness.

Findings

152 patients were included; 40 received tocilizumab 8 mg/kg, 59 received 400 mg and 53 received dexamethasone only. Median CRP fell from 103 mg/L to 5.2 mg/L, 96 mg/L to 6.8 mg/L and from 81.3 mg/L to 48 mg/L in the 8 mg/kg, 400 mg tocilizumab, and dexamethasone only groups, respectively. 28-day mortality was 5% (n=2) vs 8% (n=5) vs 13% (n=7), with no significant difference in all pair-wise comparison. At an assumed willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 Canadian per life-year, utilizing 400 mg for all patients rather than 8 mg/kg for half the patients is cost-effective in 51.6% of 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations.

Interpretation

Both doses of tocilizumab demonstrated comparable reduction of inflammation with similar 28-day mortality. Without consideration of equity, the net monetary benefits of providing 400 mg tocilizumab to all patients are comparable to 8 mg/kg to half the patients. In the context of ongoing drug shortages, fixed-dose 400 mg tocilizumab may be a practical, feasible and economical option.

Funding

This work was supported by a gift donation from Hsu & Taylor Family to the VGH Foundation, and the Yale Bernard G. Forget Scholarship.

SUBMITTER: Stukas S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8941850 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA substantial proportion of critically ill COVID-19 patients develop thromboembolic complications, but it is unclear whether higher doses of thromboprophylaxis are associated with lower mortality rates. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the association between initial dosing strategy of thromboprophylaxis in critically ill COVID-19 patients and the risk of death, thromboembolism, and bleeding.MethodIn this retrospective study, all critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to two intensive care units in March and April 2020 were eligible. Patients were categorized into three groups according to initial daily dose of thromboprophylaxis: low (2500-4500 IU tinzaparin or 2500-5000 IU dalteparin), medium (> 4500 IU but < 175 IU/kilogram, kg, of body weight tinzaparin or > 5000 IU but < 200 IU/kg of body weight dalteparin), and high dose (≥ 175 IU/kg of body weight tinzaparin or ≥ 200 IU/kg of body weight dalteparin). Thromboprophylaxis dosage was based on local standardized recommendations, not on degree of critical illness or risk of thrombosis. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios with corresponding 95% confidence intervals of death within 28 days from ICU admission. Multivariable models were adjusted for sex, age, body mass index, Simplified Acute Physiology Score III, invasive respiratory support, and initial dosing strategy of thromboprophylaxis.ResultsA total of 152 patients were included: 67 received low-, 48 medium-, and 37 high-dose thromboprophylaxis. Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups. For patients who received high-dose prophylaxis, mortality was lower (13.5%) compared to those who received medium dose (25.0%) or low dose (38.8%), p = 0.02. The hazard ratio of death was 0.33 (95% confidence intervals 0.13-0.87) among those who received high dose, and 0.88 (95% confidence intervals 0.43-1.83) among those who received medium dose, as compared to those who received low-dose thromboprophylaxis. There were fewer thromboembolic events in the high (2.7%) vs medium (18.8%) and low-dose thromboprophylaxis (17.9%) groups, p = 0.04.ConclusionsAmong critically ill COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure, high-dose thromboprophylaxis was associated with a lower risk of death and a lower cumulative incidence of thromboembolic events compared with lower doses.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT04412304 June 2, 2020, retrospectively registered.

Project description:Adequate linezolid blood concentrations have been shown to be associated with an improved clinical outcome. Our goal was to assess new predictors of inadequate linezolid concentrations often observed in critically ill patients. Fifty-two critically ill patients with severe infections receiving standard dosing of linezolid participated in this prospective observational study. Serum samples (median, 32 per patient) were taken on four consecutive days, and total linezolid concentrations were quantified. Covariates influencing linezolid pharmacokinetics were identified by multivariate analysis and a population pharmacokinetic model. Target attainment (area under the concentration-time curve over 12 h [AUC12]/MIC ratio of >50; MIC = 2 mg/liter) was calculated for both the study patients and a simulated independent patient group (n = 67,000). Target attainment was observed for only 36% of the population on both days 1 and 4. Independent covariates related to significant decreases of linezolid concentrations included higher weight, creatinine clearance rates, and fibrinogen and antithrombin concentrations, lower concentrations of lactate, and the presence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Linezolid clearance was increased in ARDS patients (by 82%) and in patients with elevated fibrinogen or decreased lactate concentrations. In simulated patients, most covariates, including fibrinogen and lactate concentrations and weight, showed quantitatively minor effects on target attainment (difference of ≤9% between the first and fourth quartiles of the respective parameters). In contrast, the presence of ARDS had the strongest influence, with only ≤6% of simulated patients reaching this target. In conclusion, the presence of ARDS was identified as a new and strong predictor of insufficient linezolid concentrations, which might cause treatment failure. Insufficient concentrations might also be a major problem in patients with combined alterations of other covariate parameters. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration number NCT01793012.).

Project description:Rationale & objectiveClinical practice guidelines recommend delivering a continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) dose of 20 to 25mL/kg/h. However, practice patterns nationwide are highly variable; this inconsistent prescribing may lead to errors in medication dosing and increase rates of electrolyte and acid-base abnormalities. We describe an initiative to standardize CRRT practice patterns and reduce dosing variability.Study designQuality improvement study.Setting & participantsAdult patients treated with CRRT at the University of Colorado Hospital between January 2016 and October 2017.Quality improvement activitiesAn assessment of the magnitude of the variability in CRRT dosing and the following specific interventions were implemented during the course of 1 year: (1) modification of the electronic medical record (EMR) to include calculated average 24-hour dose in real time, (2) modification of the CRRT procedure note to include comments on dosing, (3) modification of the CRRT order set to display calculations, and (4) yearly educational sessions for renal fellows outlining CRRT-specific dosing targets.OutcomesThe primary outcome was weekly percentage of CRRT treatments with an average delivered daily dose of 20 to 25mL/kg/h. Process and balancing outcomes included CRRT flowsheet accuracy, documentation of rates of delivered dose, and nursing satisfaction.Analytical approachRates of weekly CRRT dosing in compliance with national guidelines were determined and used to create run charts showing compliance rates before and after the quality improvement interventions.ResultsAmong 837 treatments before the intervention, 279 (33%) daily CRRT sessions achieved an average dose of 20 to 25mL/kg/h. Following implementation of interventions, 631 of 952 (66%) treatments achieved this goal. Week-to-week variation in dosing was significantly reduced.LimitationsA single-center study generating data that may not be generalizable to institutions with different CRRT nursing models or different EMR systems.ConclusionsChanges to the EMR and documentation templates and education of CRRT providers about dosing were associated with doubling of the rate of appropriate CRRT dosing and reduction in dosing variability.