Background Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. Methods We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04327388 ; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. Findings Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference −1·7 [−9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [−6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI −7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 1...

The success of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy with impressive response rates in hematologic malignancies but also promising data in solid tumors came along with the cognition of unexpected, potentially life-threatening immune-mediated toxicities, namely the cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity recently referred to as “immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome” (ICANS). These toxicities require urgent diagnostic and therapeutic interventions and targeted modulation of key cytokine pathways represents the mainstay of CRS treatment. However, as the underlying mechanisms of ICANS are not well understood, treatment options remain limited and further investigation is warranted.Importantly, after the recent market approval of 2 CAR-T cell constructs, the application of CAR-T cells will expand to nonacademic centers with limited experience in the management of CAR-T cell-associated toxicities.Here, we review the current evidence of CRS and ICANS pathophysiology, diagnostics, and treatment.

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

Background With Sepsis-3, the increase in sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) as a clinical score for the identification of patients with sepsis and quickSOFA (qSOFA) for the identification of patients at risk of sepsis outside the intensive care unit (ICU) were introduced in 2016. However, their validity has been questioned, and their applicability in different settings and subgroups, such as hematological cancer patients, remains unclear. We therefore assessed the validity of SOFA, qSOFA, and the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria regarding the diagnosis of sepsis and the prediction of in-hospital mortality in a multicenter cohort of hematological cancer patients treated on ICU and non-ICU settings. Methods We retrospectively calculated SIRS, SOFA, and qSOFA scores in our cohort and applied the definition of sepsis as “life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by dysregulated host response to infection” as reference. Discriminatory capacity was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Results Among 450 patients with hematological cancer (median age 58 years, 274 males [61%]), 180 (40%) had sepsis of which 101 (56%) were treated on ICU. For the diagnosis of sepsis, sensitivity was 86%, 64%, and 42% for SIRS, SOFA, and qSOFA, respectively. However, the AUROCs of SOFA and qSOFA indicated better discrimination for sepsis than SIRS (SOFA, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.64–0.73] p < 0.001; qSOFA, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.62–0.71] p < 0.001; SIRS, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.53–0.61] p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was 40% and 14% in patients with and without sepsis, respectively ( p < 0.001). Regarding patients with sepsis, mortality was similar in patients with positive and negative SIRS scores (39% vs. 40% ( p = 0.899), respectively). For patients with qSOFA ≥ 2, mortality was 49% compared to 33% for those with qSOFA < 2 ( p = 0.056), and for SOFA 56% vs. 11% ( p < 0.001), respectively. SOFA allowed significantly better discrimination for in-hospital mortality (AUROC 0.74 [95% CI, 0.69–0.79] p < 0.001) than qSOFA (AUROC 0.65 [95% CI, 0.60–0.71] p < 0.001) or SIRS (AUROC 0.49 [95% CI, 0.44–0.54] p < 0.001). Conclusions An increase in SOFA score of ≥ 2 had better prognostic accuracy for both diagnosis of sepsis and in-hospital mortality in this setting, and especially on ICU, we observed limited validity of SIRS criteria and qSOFA in identifying hematological patients with sepsis and at high risk of death. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s40560-019-0396-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. ...

The prognosis of allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) has improved over the last decades. However, data focusing on patients treated in the ICU during the peri-transplant period are scarce. We therefore conducted an analysis comprising 70 patients who had allogeneic stem cell transplantation at the University Hospital Cologne between 2014 and 2020 and were admitted to the ICU between the initiation of conditioning therapy and day 30 after transplantation. The median age was 59 years (range: 18 − 72 years). 50% of patients were female. Sepsis was the most common cause for ICU admission (49%). Mechanical ventilation (MV) was required in 56% of patients, 27% had renal replacement therapy (RRT), and 64% needed vasopressors. The ICU, hospital, 90-day, and 1-year survival rates were 48.6%, 38.6%, 35.7%, and 16.2%, respectively. MV and/or RRT during the ICU stay were associated with an impaired survival (p < 0.0001). The same was true for the use of vasopressors (p < 0.0001). In contrast, baseline characteristics did not impact the outcome. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was performed in 17% of patients. None of the patients undergoing CPR was alive at 1 year. Among patients who died after discharge from the ICU (n = 23), sepsis and other infectious complications represented the major causes of death (48%). Taken together, the present analysis indicates unfavorable outcomes for allogeneic stem cell transplant recipients admitted to the ICU during the peri-transplant period. The data may help to make informed decisions with patients and their families.