Background Mortality of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and systemic inflammation is high. In areas of pandemic outbreak, the number of patients can exceed maximum capacity of intensive care units (ICUs), and, thus, these individuals often receive non-invasive ventilation outside of the ICU. Effective treatments for this population are needed urgently. Anakinra is a recombinant interleukin-1 receptor antagonist that might be beneficial in this patient population. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study at the San Raffaele Hospital in Milan, Italy. We included consecutive patients (aged ≥18 years) with COVID-19, moderate-to-severe ARDS, and hyperinflammation (defined as serum C-reactive protein ≥100 mg/L, ferritin ≥900 ng/mL, or both) who were managed with non-invasive ventilation outside of the ICU and who received standard treatment of 200 mg hydroxychloroquine twice a day orally and 400 mg lopinavir with 100 mg ritonavir twice a day orally. We compared survival, mechanical ventilation-free survival, changes in C-reactive protein, respiratory function, and clinical status in a cohort of patients who received additional treatment with anakinra (either 5 mg/kg twice a day intravenously [high dose] or 100 mg twice a day subcutaneously [low dose]) with a retrospective cohort of patients who did not receive anakinra (referred to as the standard treatment group). All outcomes were assessed at 21 days. This study is part of the COVID-19 Biobank study, which is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04318366. FindingsBetween March 17 and March 27, 2020, 29 patients received high-dose intravenous anakinra, non-invasive venti lation, and standard treatment. Between March 10 and March 17, 2020, 16 patients received non-invasive ventilation and standard treatment only and comprised the comparison group for this study. A further seven patients received low-dose subcutaneous anakinra in addition to non-invasive ventilation and standard treatment; however, anakinra treatment was interrupted after 7 days because of a paucity of effects on serum C-reactive protein and clinical status. At 21 days, treatment with high-dose anakinra was associated with reductions in serum C-reactive protein and progressive improvements in respiratory function in 21 (72%) of 29 patients; five (17%) patients were on mechanical ventilation and three (10%) died. In the standard treatment group, eight (50%) of 16 patients showed respiratory improvement at 21 days; one (6%) patient was on mechanical ventilation and seven (44%) died. At 21 days, survival was 90% in the high-dose anakinra group and 56% in the standard treatment group (p=0•009). Mechanical ventilation-free survival was 72% in the anakinra group versus 50% in the standard treatment group (p=0•15). Bacteraemia occurred in four (14%) of 29 patients receiving high-dose anakinra and two (13%) of 16 patients receiving standard treatment. Discontinuation of anakinra was not followed by inflammatory relapses. Interpretation In ...

Background: Tocilizumab (TCZ), a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor, has been proposed for the treatment of COVID-19 patients; however, limited data are available on the safety and efficacy. Methods: We performed a retrospective study on severe COVID-19 patients with hyper-inflammatory features admitted outside intensive care units (ICUs). Patients treated with intravenous TCZ in addition to standard of care were compared to patients treated with standard of care alone. Safety and efficacy were assessed over a 28day follow-up. Results: 65 patients were included. Among them, 32 were treated with TCZ. At baseline, all patients were on high-flow supplemental oxygen and most (78% of TCZ patients and 61% of standard treatment patients) were on non-invasive ventilation. During the 28-day follow-up, 69% of TCZ patients experienced a clinical improvement compared to 61% of standard treatment patients (p = 0.61). Mortality was 15% in the tocilizumab group and 33% in standard treatment group (p = 0.15). In TCZ group, at multivariate analysis, older age was a predictor of death, whereas higher baseline PaO2:FiO2 was a predictor of clinical improvement at day 28. The rate of infection and pulmonary thrombosis was similar between the two groups. Conclusions: At day 28, clinical improvement and mortality were not statistically different between tocilizumab and standard treatment patients in our cohort. Bacterial or fungal infections were recorded in 13% of tocilizumab patients and in 12% of standard treatment patients. Confirmation of efficacy and safety will require ongoing controlled trials.

Background Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. Methods We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04327388 ; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. Findings Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference −1·7 [−9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [−6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI −7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 1...