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...

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.

Background We aimed to determine the impact of tocilizumab use on severe COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 19) pneumonia mortality. Methods We performed a multicentre retrospective cohort study in 18 tertiary hospitals in Spain from March to April 2020. Consecutive patients admitted with severe COVID-19 treated with tocilizumab were compared to patients not treated with tocilizumab, adjusting by inverse probability of the treatment weights (IPTW). Tocilizumab's effect in patients receiving steroids during the 48 h following inclusion was analysed. Results During the study period, 506 patients with severe COVID-19 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Among them, 268 were treated with tocilizumab and 238 patients were not. Median time to tocilizumab treatment from onset of symptoms was 11 days [interquartile range (IQR) 8–14]. Global mortality was 23.7%. Mortality was lower in patients treated with tocilizumab than in controls: 16.8% versus 31.5%, hazard ratio (HR) 0.514 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.355–0.744], p < 0.001; weighted HR 0.741 (95% CI 0.619–0.887), p = 0.001. Tocilizumab treatment reduced mortality by 14.7% relative to no tocilizumab treatment [relative risk reduction (RRR) 46.7%]. We calculated a number necessary to treat of 7. Among patients treated with steroids, mortality was lower in those treated with tocilizumab than in those treated with steroids alone [10.9% versus 40.2%, HR 0.511 (95% CI 0.352–0.741), p = 0.036; weighted HR 0.6 (95% CI 0.449–0.804), p < 0.001] (interaction p = 0.094). Conclusions These results show that survival of patients with severe COVID-19 is higher in those treated with tocilizumab than in those not treated and that tocilizumab's effect adds to that of steroids administered to non-intubated patients with COVID-19 during the first 48 h of presenting with respiratory failure despite oxygen therapy. Randomised controlled studies are needed to confirm these results. Trial registration European Union electronic Register of Post-Authorization Studies (EU PAS Register) identifier, EUPAS34415 Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40121-020-00373-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background In the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the hypothesis that angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) increased the risk and/or severity of the disease was widely spread. Consequently, in many hospitals, these drugs were discontinued as a “precautionary measure”. We aimed to assess whether the in-hospital discontinuation of ARBs or ACEIs, in real-life conditions, was associated with a reduced risk of death as compared to their continuation and also to compare head-to-head the continuation of ARBs with the continuation of ACEIs. Methods Adult patients with a PCR-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 requiring admission during March 2020 were consecutively selected from 7 hospitals in Madrid, Spain. Among them, we identified outpatient users of ACEIs/ARBs and divided them in two cohorts depending on treatment discontinuation/continuation at admission. Then, they were followed-up until discharge or in-hospital death. An intention-to-treat survival analysis was carried out and hazard ratios (HRs), and their 95%CIs were computed through a Cox regression model adjusted for propensity scores of discontinuation and controlled by potential mediators. Results Out of 625 ACEI/ARB users, 340 (54.4%) discontinued treatment. The in-hospital mortality rates were 27.6% and 27.7% in discontinuation and continuation cohorts, respectively (HR=1.01; 95%CI 0.70–1.46). No difference in mortality was observed between ARB and ACEI discontinuation (28.6% vs. 27.1%, respectively), while a significantly lower mortality rate was found among patients who continued with ARBs (20.8%, N=125) as compared to those who continued with ACEIs (33.1%, N=136; p=0.03). The head-to-head comparison (ARB vs. ACEI continuation) yielded an adjusted HR of 0.52 (95%CI 0.29–0.93), being especially notorious among males (HR=0.34; 95%CI 0.12–0.93), subjects older than 74 years (HR=0.46; 95%CI 0.25–0.85), and patients with obesity (HR=0.22; 95%CI 0.05–0.94), diabetes (HR=0.36; 95%CI 0.13–0.97), and heart failure (HR=0.12; 95%CI 0.03–0.97). Conclusions The discontinuation of ACEIs/ARBs at admission did not improve the in-hospital survival. On the contrary, the continuation with ARBs was associated with a trend to a reduced mortality as compared to their discontinuation and to a significantly lower mortality risk as compared to the continuation with ACEIs, particularly in high-risk patients.

Introduction SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia is often associated with hyper-inflammation. The cytokine-storm-like is one of the targets of current therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). High Interleukin-6 (IL6) blood levels have been identified in severe COVID-19 disease, but there are still uncertainties regarding the actual role of anti-IL6 antagonists in COVID-19 management. Our hypothesis was that the use of sarilumab plus corticosteroids at an early stage of the hyper-inflammatory syndrome would be beneficial and prevent progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods We randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) COVID-19 pneumonia hospitalized patients under standard oxygen therapy and laboratory evidence of hyper-inflammation to receive sarilumab plus usual care (experimental group) or usual care alone (control group). Corticosteroids were given to all patients at a 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone for at least 3 days. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients progressing to severe respiratory failure (defined as a score in the Brescia-COVID19 scale ≥ 3) up to day 15. Results A total of 201 patients underwent randomization: 99 patients in the sarilumab group and 102 patients in the control group. The rate of patients progressing to severe respiratory failure (Brescia-COVID scale score ≥ 3) up to day 15 was 16.16% in the Sarilumab group versus 15.69% in the control group (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.48–2.20). No relevant safety issues were identified. Conclusions In hospitalized patients with Covid-19 pneumonia, who were under standard oxygen therapy and who presented analytical inflammatory parameters, an early therapeutic intervention with sarilumab plus standard of care (including corticosteroids) was not shown to be more effective than current standard of care alone. The study was registered at EudraCT with number: 2020-002037-15. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-021-00543-2.

No abstract

BackgroundMinocycline is an old tetracycline antibiotic that has shown antiinflammatory and antiapoptotic properties in different neurological disease mouse models. Previous single arm study in humans demonstrated benefits in individuals with Angelman Syndrome (AS); however, its efficacy in patients with Angelman Syndrome has not been assessed in a controlled trial.This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial in individuals with AS, aged 6 years to 30 years (n = 32, mean age 12 [SD 6·29] years). Participants were randomized to minocycline or placebo for 8 weeks and then switched to the other treatment (a subset of 22 patients) or to receive minocycline for up to 16 weeks (10 patients). After week 16, all patients entered a wash-out 8-week follow-up period.ResultsThirty-six subjects were screened and 34 were randomized. Thirty two subjects (94·1%) completed at least the first period and all of them completed the full trial. Intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated the lack of significantly greater improvements in the primary outcome, mean changes in age equivalent of the development index of the Merrill-Palmer Revised Scale after minocycline compared with placebo (1·90 ± 3·16 and 2·00 ± 3·28, respectively, p = 0·937). Longer treatment duration up to 16 weeks did not result in better treatment outcomes (1·86 ± 3·35 for 8 weeks treatment vs 1·20 ± 5·53 for 16 weeks treatment, p = 0·667). Side effects were not significantly different during minocycline and placebo treatments. No serious adverse events occurred on minocycline.ConclusionsMinocycline treatment for up to 16 weeks in children and young adults with AS resulted in lack of significant improvements in development indexes compared to placebo treatment. Treatment with minocycline appears safe and well tolerated; even if it cannot be completely ruled out that longer trials might be required for a potential minocycline effect to be expressed, available results and lack of knowledge on the actual mechanism of action do not support this hypothesis.Trial registrationEuropean Clinical Trial database (EudraCT 2013-002154-67), registered 16th September 2013; US Clinical trials database (NCT02056665), registered 6th February 2014.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13023-018-0891-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Red blood cell distribution width (RDW) could reflect interleukin-6 (IL-6) systemic activity since anisocytosis represents the inhibition of erythropoiesis, leaded by the hyperinflammatory background.Our objective was to analyze RDW performance to predict outcome in coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).Methods: Retrospective observational study including 173 patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS.Data was analyzed at hospital admission, inclusion in the TOCICOV Study (day 0), days 1, 3, 7 and 15 postinclusion.Results: Overall, 57% patients received tocilizumab. Overall mortality was 20.8%. RDW was higher in non-survivors compared to survivors at admission (13.53% vs. 14.35, P=0.0016), day 0 (13.60% vs. 14.42, P=0.026), day 3 (13.43% vs. 14.36, P<0.001) and day 7 (13.41% vs. 14.31, P=0.046), presenting better discrimination ability for mortality than other prognostic markers [area under the curve-receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC) =0.668 for admission RDW, 0.680 for day 0 RDW, 0.695 for day 3 RDW and 0.666 for day 7 RDW]. RDW values did not vary significantly according to tocilizumab treatment. When adjusted by hemoglobin and tocilizumab treatment, only RDW at admission, day 0, day 3 and C reactive protein (CRP) at day 0 and day 1 were associated with mortality (P<0.05). Only in non-tocilizumab treated patients, IL-6 levels at day 0 were correlated with day 3 RDW (r=0.733, P=0.004) and with day 3 CRP (r=0.727, P=0.022). Both parameters showed significant statistical correlation (r=0.255 for day 1 RDW and CRP in the overall cohort and r=0.358 for day 3 RDW and CRP in patients not treated with tocilizumab, P<0.015).Conclusions: RDW predicts COVID-19-associated ARDS mortality and reflects the hyperinflammatory background and the effects of cytokines such as IL-6, irrespective of tocilizumab treatment.