Introduction.-No therapy has yet proven effective in COVID-19. Tocilizumab (TCZ) in patients with severe COVID-19 could be an effective treatment. Method.-We conducted a retrospective case-control study in the Nord Franche-Comté Hospital, France. We compared the outcome of patients treated with TCZ and patients without TCZ considering a combined primary endpoint: death and/or ICU admissions. Results.-Patients with TCZ (n = 20) had a higher Charlson comorbidity index (5.3 [±2.4] vs 3.4 [±2.6], P = 0.014), presented with more severe forms (higher level of oxygen therapy at 13 L/min vs 6 L/min, P < 0.001), and had poorer biological findings (severe lymphopenia: 676/mm 3 vs 914/mm 3 , P = 0.037 and higher CRP level: 158 mg/L vs 105 mg/L, P = 0.017) than patients without TCZ (n = 25). However, death and/or ICU admissions were higher in patients without TCZ than in the TCZ group (72% vs 25%, P = 0.002). Conclusion.-Despite the small sample size and retrospective nature of the work, this result strongly suggests that TCZ may reduce the number of ICU admissions and/or mortality in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.

Background Various observations have suggested that the course of COVID-19 might be less favourable in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases receiving rituximab compared with those not receiving rituximab. We aimed to investigate whether treatment with rituximab is associated with severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.Methods In this cohort study, we analysed data from the French RMD COVID-19 cohort, which included patients aged 18 years or older with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases and highly suspected or confirmed COVID-19. The primary endpoint was the severity of COVID-19 in patients treated with rituximab (rituximab group) compared with patients who did not receive rituximab (no rituximab group). Severe disease was defined as that requiring admission to an intensive care unit or leading to death. Secondary objectives were to analyse deaths and duration of hospital stay. The inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score method was used to adjust for potential confounding factors (age, sex, arterial hypertension, diabetes, smoking status, body-mass index, interstitial lung disease, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, corticosteroid use, chronic renal failure, and the underlying disease [rheumatoid arthritis vs others]). Odds ratios and hazard ratios and their 95% CIs were calculated as effect size, by dividing the two population mean differences by their SD. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04353609.

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00780793; EudraCT identifier: 2007-004483-41.

IMPORTANCE One-third of patients with rheumatoid arthritis show inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitors; little guidance on choosing the next treatment exists. OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy of a non-TNF-targeted biologic (non-TNF) vs a second anti-TNF drug for patients with insufficient response to a TNF inhibitor. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A total of 300 patients (conducted between 2009-2012) with rheumatoid arthritis, with persistent disease activity (disease activity score in 28 joints-erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] Ն 3.2 [range, 0-9.3]) and an insufficient response to anti-TNF therapy were included in a 52-week multicenter, pragmatic, open-label randomized clinical trial. The final follow-up date was in August 2013. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a non-TNF-targeted biologic agent or an anti-TNF that differed from their previous treatment. The choice of the biologic prescribed within each randomized group was left to the treating clinician. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with good or moderate response according to the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) scale at week 24. Secondary outcomes included the EULAR response at weeks 12 and 52; at weeks 12, 24, and 52; DAS28ESR, low disease activity (DAS28 Յ3.2), remission (DAS28 Յ2.6); serious adverse events; and serious infections. RESULTS Of the 300 randomized patients (243 [83.2%] women; mean [SD] age, 57.1 [12.2] years; baseline DAS28-ESR, 5.1 [1.1]), 269 (89.7%) completed the study. At week 24, 101 of 146 patients (69%) in the non-TNF group and 76 (52%) in the second anti-TNF group achieved a good or moderate EULAR response (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.37; P = .004, with imputation of missing data; absolute difference, 17.2%; 95% CI, 6.2% to 28.2%). The DAS28-ESR was lower in the non-TNF group than in the second anti-TNF group (mean difference adjusted for baseline differences, −0.43; 95% CI, −0.72 to −0.14; P = .004). At weeks 24 and 52, more patients in the non-TNF group vs the second anti-TNF group showed low disease activity (45% vs 28% at week 24; OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.27 to 3.43; P = .004 and 41% vs 23% at week 52; OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.33 to 3.86; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with rheumatoid arthritis previously treated with anti-TNF drugs but with inadequate primary response, a non-TNF biologic agent was more effective in achieving a good or moderate disease activity response at 24 weeks than was the second anti-TNF medication.

This open-label, phase 3b study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00983073) evaluated the effectiveness, and tolerability of tapentadol for severe, chronic osteoarthritis knee pain that was inadequately managed with World Health Organization (WHO) Step I or II analgesics or co-analgesics, or that was not treated with regular analgesics. Prior to starting study treatment, patients discontinued any WHO Step II analgesics, while Step I analgesics and/or co-analgesics were continued at the same dose. Patients received tapentadol prolonged release (50–250 mg bid) during a 5-week titration period and a 7-week maintenance period. Doses of tapentadol immediate release 50 mg (≤twice/day; ≥4 hours apart) were permitted throughout the study (total daily dose of tapentadol prolonged and immediate release, ≤250 mg bid). The primary endpoint was the change in pain intensity on an 11-point numerical rating scale-3 (NRS-3; recalled average pain intensity [11-point NRS] during the last 3 days) from baseline to Week 6, using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) to impute missing pain intensity scores. The mean (standard deviation) change from baseline to Week 6 (LOCF) in pain intensity was −3.4 (2.10; P < 0.0001) for all patients evaluated for effectiveness (n = 195). Significant decreases in pain intensity were also observed at Weeks 6, 8, and 12 (all P < 0.0001) using observed-case analysis. Corresponding significant improvements from baseline to Weeks 6 and 12 were observed in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index, the EuroQol-5 Dimension health status questionnaire, the Short Form-36 health survey, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (all P ≤ 0.0103). Treatment-emergent adverse events were in line with those observed in previous studies of tapentadol prolonged release. Overall, the results of this study indicate that tapentadol treatment results in significant improvements in pain intensity, health-related quality of life, and function in patients with inadequately managed, severe, chronic osteoarthritis knee pain.