Background Tocilizumab blocks pro-inflammatory activity of interleukin-6 (IL-6), involved in pathogenesis of pneumonia the most frequent cause of death in COVID-19 patients. Methods A multicenter, single-arm, hypothesis-driven trial was planned, according to a phase 2 design, to study the effect of tocilizumab on lethality rates at 14 and 30 days (co-primary endpoints, a priori expected rates being 20 and 35%, respectively). A further prospective cohort of patients, consecutively enrolled after the first cohort was accomplished, was used as a secondary validation dataset. The two cohorts were evaluated jointly in an exploratory multivariable logistic regression model to assess prognostic variables on survival. Results In the primary intention-to-treat (ITT) phase 2 population, 180/301 (59.8%) subjects received tocilizumab, and 67 deaths were observed overall. Lethality rates were equal to 18.4% (97.5% CI: 13.6–24.0, P = 0.52) and 22.4% (97.5% CI: 17.2–28.3, P < 0.001) at 14 and 30 days, respectively. Lethality rates were lower in the validation dataset, that included 920 patients. No signal of specific drug toxicity was reported. In the exploratory multivariable logistic regression analysis, older age and lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio negatively affected survival, while the concurrent use of steroids was associated with greater survival. A statistically significant interaction was found between tocilizumab and respiratory support, suggesting that tocilizumab might be more effective in patients not requiring mechanical respiratory support at baseline. Conclusions Tocilizumab reduced lethality rate at 30 days compared with null hypothesis, without significant toxicity. Possibly, this effect could be limited to patients not requiring mechanical respiratory support at baseline. Registration EudraCT (2020-001110-38); clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04317092).

Considerable concern has emerged for the potential harm in the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor inhibitors (ARBs) in COVID-19 patients, given that ACEIs and ARBs may increase the expression of ACE2 receptors that represent the way for coronavirus 2 to entry into the cell and cause severe acute respiratory syndrome. Assess the effect of ACEI/ARBs on outcome in COVID-19 patients. Hospital-based prospective study. A total of 431 patients consecutively presenting at the Emergency Department and found to be affected by COVID-19 were assessed. Relevant clinical and laboratory variables were recorded, focusing on the type of current anti hypertensive treatment. Outcome variables were NO, MILD, SEVERE respiratory distress (RD) operationally defined and DEATH. Hypertension was the single most frequent comorbidity (221/431 = 51%). Distribution of antihypertensive treatment was: ACEIs 77/221 (35%), ARBs 63/221 (28%), OTHER than ACEIs or ARBs 64/221 (29%). In 17/221 (8%) antihypertensive medication was unknown. The proportion of patients taking ACEIs, ARBs or OTHERs who developed MILD or SEVERE RD was 43/77 (56%), 33/53 (52%), 39/64 (61%) and 19/77 (25%), 16/63 (25%) and 16/64 (25%), respectively, with no statistical difference between groups. Despite producing a RR for SEVERE RD of 2.59 (95% CI 1.93-3.49), hypertension was no longer significant in a logistic regression analysis that identified age, CRP and creatinine as the sole independent predictors of SEVERE RD and DEATH. ACEIs and ARBs do not promote a more severe outcome of COVID-19. There is no reason why they should be withheld in affected patients.

This study aims to assess the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor inhibitors (ARBs) on the course of COVID-19. It is a prospective study on 221 (M/F ratio= 143/78, mean age 72±13) consecutive hypertensive patients with COVID-19: 76 (34.4%) treated with ACEIs, 63 (28.5%) with ARBs and 82 (37.1%) with antihypertensives OTHER than ACEIs or ARBs. They were all followed up until discharge or death. BAD outcome was defined as the need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death. The three classes of medication were well balanced for confounding variables. BAD outcome was overall recorded in 63/221 (28%) patients, in 20/76 (26%) of ACEI, in 17/63 (27%) of ARB and in 26/82 (32%) of OTHER users, with no statistically significant difference in any comparison. These findings refute the hypothesis that treatment with ACEIs or ARBs may negatively affect the course of COVID-19.

Following publication of the original article [1] the authors identified that the collaborators of the TOCIVID-19 investigators, Italy were only available in the supplementary file. The original article has been updated so that the collaborators are correctly acknowledged.For clarity, all collaborators are listed in this correction article.