The WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group IMPORTANCE Clinical trials assessing the efficacy of IL-6 antagonists in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 have variously reported benefit, no effect, and harm.OBJECTIVE To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes.DATA SOURCES Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts.STUDY SELECTION Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESISIn this prospective meta-analysis, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I 2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days.RESULTS A total of 10 930 patients (median age, 61 years [range of medians, 52-68 years]; 3560 [33%] were women) participating in 27 trials were included. By 28 days, there were 1407 deaths among 6449 patients randomized to IL-6 antagonists and 1158 deaths among 4481 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.95]; P = .003 based on a fixed-effects meta-analysis). This corresponds to an absolute mortality risk of 22% for IL-6 antagonists compared with an assumed mortality risk of 25% for usual care or placebo. The corresponding summary ORs were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92; P < .001) for tocilizumab and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.86-1.36; P = .52) for sarilumab. The summary ORs for the association with mortality compared with usual care or placebo in those receiving corticosteroids were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.68-0.87) for tocilizumab and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.61-1.38) for sarilumab. The ORs for the association with progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, compared with usual care or placebo, were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.70-0.85) for all IL-6 antagonists, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.82) for tocilizumab, and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.74-1.34) for sarilumab. Secondary infections by 28 days occurred in 21.9% of patients treated with IL-6 antagonists vs 17.6% of patients treated with usual care or placebo (OR accounting for trial sample sizes, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85-1.16). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of patients hosp...

Objectives To analyse the characteristics and predictors of death in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Spain. Methods A retrospective observational study was performed of the first consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 confirmed by real-time PCR assay in 127 Spanish centres until 17 March 2020. The follow-up censoring date was 17 April 2020. We collected demographic, clinical, laboratory, treatment and complications data. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with death. Results Of the 4035 patients, male subjects accounted for 2433 (61.0%) of 3987, the median age was 70 years and 2539 (73.8%) of 3439 had one or more comorbidity. The most common symptoms were a history of fever, cough, malaise and dyspnoea. During hospitalization, 1255 (31.5%) of 3979 patients developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, 736 (18.5%) of 3988 were admitted to intensive care units and 619 (15.5%) of 3992 underwent mechanical ventilation. Virus- or host-targeted medications included lopinavir/ritonavir (2820/4005, 70.4%), hydroxychloroquine (2618/3995, 65.5%), interferon beta (1153/3950, 29.2%), corticosteroids (1109/3965, 28.0%) and tocilizumab (373/3951, 9.4%). Overall, 1131 (28%) of 4035 patients died. Mortality increased with age (85.6% occurring in older than 65 years). Seventeen factors were independently associated with an increased hazard of death, the strongest among them including advanced age, liver cirrhosis, low age-adjusted oxygen saturation, higher concentrations of C-reactive protein and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate. Conclusions Our findings provide comprehensive information about characteristics and complications of severe COVID-19, and may help clinicians identify patients at a higher risk of death.

Background: Passive immunotherapy with convalescent plasma (CP) is a potential treatment for COVID-19 for which evidence from controlled clinical trials is lacking. Methods: We conducted a multi-center, randomized clinical trial in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. All patients received standard of care treatment, including off-label use of marketed medicines, and were randomized 1:1 to receive one dose (250-300 mL) of CP from donors with IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients in categories 5, 6 or 7 of the COVID-19 ordinal scale at day 15. Results: The trial was stopped after first interim analysis due to the fall in recruitment related to pandemic control. With 81 patients randomized, there were no patients progressing to mechanical ventilation or death among the 38 patients assigned to receive plasma (0%) versus 6 out of 43 patients (14%) progressing in control arm. Mortality rates were 0% vs 9.3% at days 15 and 29 for the active and control groups, respectively. No significant differences were found in secondary endpoints. At inclusion, patients had a median time of 8 days (IQR, 6-9) of symptoms and 49,4% of them were positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. Conclusions: Convalescent plasma could be superior to standard of care in avoiding progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The strong dependence of results on a limited number of events in the control group prevents drawing firm conclusions about CP efficacy from this trial. (Funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III; NCT04345523).

No abstract

Background: Evidence to support the use of steroids in COVID-19 pneumonia is lacking. We aim to determine the impact of steroid use in COVID-19 pneumonia in-hospital mortality. Patients and Methods: We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study in a University hospital in Madrid, Spain, during March 2020. To determine the role of steroids in in-hospital mortality, patients admitted with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and treated with steroids were compared to patients not treated with steroids, adjusting by a propensity-score for steroid treatment. Survival times were compared using log-rank test. Different steroid regimens were compared, and adjusted with a second propensity score. Results: During the study period, 463 out of 848 hospitalized patients with COVID19 pneumonia fulfilled inclusion criteria. Among them, 396 (46.7%) patients were treated with steroids and 67 patients were not. Global mortality was 15.1%. Median time to steroid treatment from symptom onset was 10 days (IQR 8-13). In-hospital mortality was lower in patients treated with steroids than in controls (13.9% [55/396] versus 23.9% [16/67], HR 0.51 [0.27-0.96], p= 0.044). Steroid treatment reduced mortality by 41.8% relative to no steroid treatment (RRR 0,42 [0.048- 0.65). Initial treatment with 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone versus steroid pulses was not associated with in-hospital mortality (13.5% [42/310] versus 15.1% [13/86], OR 0.880 [0.449-1.726], p=0.710). Conclusions: Our results show that survival of patients with SARS-CoV2 pneumonia is higher in patients treated with glucocorticoids than in those not treated. In-hospital mortality was not different between initial regimens of 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone and glucocorticoid pulses.

for the ConPlas-19 Study Group* *Complete list of the ConPlas-19 study group provided in the Supplement.

Antifungal stewardship (AFS) programmes are needed in tertiary-care hospitals. Our aim is to describe a bedside non-restrictive AFS programme, and to evaluate its economic impact. During the first year of the AFS a bundle of non-interventional measures were implemented. During the second year an infectious diseases specialist visited 453 patients receiving candins, liposomal amphotericin B, voriconazole or posaconazole. Monthly costs were studied with an interrupted time series (ITS) analysis. The main prescribing departments were haematology (35%), medical departments (23%), and intensive care units (20%). Reasons to start antifungal therapy were: targeted therapy (36%), prophylaxis (32%), empirical therapy (20%) and pre-emptive therapy (12%). At the initial visit, diagnostic advice was provided in 40% of cases. The most common therapeutic recommendations were to de-escalate the antifungal drug (17%) or to suspend it (7%). Annual total antifungal expenditure was reduced from US$3.8 million to US$2.9 million over the first 2 years, generating net savings of US$407,663 and US$824,458 per year after considering the cost of additional staff required. The ITS analyses showed a significant economic impact after the first 12 months of the intervention (p 0.042 at month 13), which was enhanced in the following 24 months (p 0.006 at month 35). The number of defined daily doses decreased from 66.4 to 54.8 per 1000 patient-days. Incidence of candidaemia was reduced from 1.49 to 1.14 (p 0.08) and related mortality was reduced from 28% to 16% (p 0.1). A collaborative and non-compulsory AFS program based on bedside intervention is an efficacious and cost-effective approach that optimizes the use of AF drugs.

Background The clinical presentation of COVID-19 in patients admitted to hospital is heterogeneous. We aimed to determine whether clinical phenotypes of patients with COVID-19 can be derived from clinical data, to assess the reproducibility of these phenotypes and correlation with prognosis, and to derive and validate a simplified probabilistic model for phenotype assignment. Phenotype identification was not primarily intended as a predictive tool for mortality. MethodsIn this study, we used data from two cohorts: the COVID-19@Spain cohort, a retrospective cohort including 4035 consecutive adult patients admitted to 127 hospitals in Spain with COVID-19 between Feb 2 and March 17, 2020, and the COVID-19@HULP cohort, including 2226 consecutive adult patients admitted to a teaching hospital in Madrid between Feb 25 and April 19, 2020. The COVID-19@Spain cohort was divided into a derivation cohort, comprising 2667 randomly selected patients, and an internal validation cohort, comprising the remaining 1368 patients. The COVID-19@HULP cohort was used as an external validation cohort. A probabilistic model for phenotype assignment was derived in the derivation cohort using multinomial logistic regression and validated in the internal validation cohort. The model was also applied to the external validation cohort. 30-day mortality and other prognostic variables were assessed in the derived phenotypes and in the phenotypes assigned by the probabilistic model. Findings Three distinct phenotypes were derived in the derivation cohort (n=2667)-phenotype A (516 [19%] patients), phenotype B (1955 [73%]) and phenotype C (196 [7%])-and reproduced in the internal validation cohort (n=1368)phenotype A (233 [17%] patients), phenotype B (1019 [74%]), and phenotype C (116 [8%]). Patients with phenotype A were younger, were less frequently male, had mild viral symptoms, and had normal inflammatory parameters. Patients with phenotype B included more patients with obesity, lymphocytopenia, and moderately elevated inflammatory parameters. Patients with phenotype C included older patients with more comorbidities and even higher inflammatory parameters than phenotype B. We developed a simplified probabilistic model (validated in the internal validation cohort) for phenotype assignment, including 16 variables. In the derivation cohort, 30-day mortality rates were 2•5% (95% CI 1•4-4•3) for patients with phenotype A, 30•5% (28•5-32•6) for patients with phenotype B, and 60•7% (53•7-67•2) for patients with phenotype C (log-rank test p<0•0001). The predicted phenotypes in the internal validation cohort and external validation cohort showed similar mortality rates to the assigned phenotypes (internal validation cohort: 5•3% [95% CI 3•4-8•1] for phenotype A, 31•3% [28•5-34•2] for phenotype B, and 59•5% [48•8-69•3] for phenotype C; external validation cohort: 3•7% [2•0-6•4] for phenotype A, 23•7% [21•8-25•7] for phenotype B, and 51•4% [41•9-60•7] for phenotype C).Interpretation Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 can be classified into three...