Background
In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation.
Methods
This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and
ClinicalTrials.gov
(
NCT04381936
).
Findings
Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57%
vs
50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35%
vs
42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p<0·0001).
Interpretation
In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids.
Funding
UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.
Objective
Randomized comparisons of acceptance-based treatments with traditional cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for anxiety disorders are lacking. To address this research gap, we compared acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) to CBT for heterogeneous anxiety disorders.
Method
One hundred twenty eight individuals (52% female, mean age = 38, 33% minority) with one or more DSM-IV anxiety disorders began treatment following randomization to 12 sessions of CBT or ACT; both treatments included behavioral exposure. Assessments at pre-treatment, post-treatment, 6-month, and 12-month follow-up measured anxiety specific (principal disorder Clinical Severity Ratings [CSR], Anxiety Sensitivity Index, Penn State Worry Questionnaire, Fear Questionnaire avoidance) and non-anxiety specific (Quality of Life Index [QOLI], Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-16 [AAQ]) outcomes. Treatment adherence and therapist competency ratings, treatment credibility, and co-occurring mood and anxiety disorders were investigated.
Results
CBT and ACT improved similarly across all outcomes from pre- to post-treatment. During follow-up, ACT showed steeper CSR improvements than CBT (p < .05, d = 1.33) and at 12-month follow-up, ACT showed lower CSRs than CBT among completers (p < .05, d = 1.05). At 12-month follow-up, ACT reported higher AAQ than CBT (p = .08, d = .42; Completers: p < .05, d = .59) whereas CBT reported higher QOLI than ACT (p < .05, d = .43). Attrition and comorbidity improvements were similar, although ACT utilized more non-study psychotherapy at 6-month follow-up. Therapist adherence and competency were good; treatment credibility was higher in CBT.
Conclusions
Overall improvement was similar between ACT and CBT, indicating that ACT is a highly viable treatment for anxiety disorders.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.