Tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study.
Journal
The Lancet. Rheumatology
ISSN: 2665-9913
Titre abrégé: Lancet Rheumatol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101765308
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2020
Aug 2020
Historique:
entrez:
25
8
2020
pubmed:
25
8
2020
medline:
25
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
No therapy is approved for COVID-19 pneumonia. The aim of this study was to assess the role of tocilizumab in reducing the risk of invasive mechanical ventilation and death in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia who received standard of care treatment. This retrospective, observational cohort study included adults (≥18 years) with severe COVID-19 pneumonia who were admitted to tertiary care centres in Bologna and Reggio Emilia, Italy, between Feb 21 and March 24, 2020, and a tertiary care centre in Modena, Italy, between Feb 21 and April 30, 2020. All patients were treated with the standard of care (ie, supplemental oxygen, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, antiretrovirals, and low molecular weight heparin), and a non-randomly selected subset of patients also received tocilizumab. Tocilizumab was given either intravenously at 8 mg/kg bodyweight (up to a maximum of 800 mg) in two infusions, 12 h apart, or subcutaneously at 162 mg administered in two simultaneous doses, one in each thigh (ie, 324 mg in total), when the intravenous formulation was unavailable. The primary endpoint was a composite of invasive mechanical ventilation or death. Treatment groups were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression analysis after adjusting for sex, age, recruiting centre, duration of symptoms, and baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. Of 1351 patients admitted, 544 (40%) had severe COVID-19 pneumonia and were included in the study. 57 (16%) of 365 patients in the standard care group needed mechanical ventilation, compared with 33 (18%) of 179 patients treated with tocilizumab (p=0·41; 16 [18%] of 88 patients treated intravenously and 17 [19%] of 91 patients treated subcutaneously). 73 (20%) patients in the standard care group died, compared with 13 (7%; p<0·0001) patients treated with tocilizumab (six [7%] treated intravenously and seven [8%] treated subcutaneously). After adjustment for sex, age, recruiting centre, duration of symptoms, and SOFA score, tocilizumab treatment was associated with a reduced risk of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (adjusted hazard ratio 0·61, 95% CI 0·40-0·92; p=0·020). 24 (13%) of 179 patients treated with tocilizumab were diagnosed with new infections, versus 14 (4%) of 365 patients treated with standard of care alone (p<0·0001). Treatment with tocilizumab, whether administered intravenously or subcutaneously, might reduce the risk of invasive mechanical ventilation or death in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. None.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
No therapy is approved for COVID-19 pneumonia. The aim of this study was to assess the role of tocilizumab in reducing the risk of invasive mechanical ventilation and death in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia who received standard of care treatment.
METHODS
METHODS
This retrospective, observational cohort study included adults (≥18 years) with severe COVID-19 pneumonia who were admitted to tertiary care centres in Bologna and Reggio Emilia, Italy, between Feb 21 and March 24, 2020, and a tertiary care centre in Modena, Italy, between Feb 21 and April 30, 2020. All patients were treated with the standard of care (ie, supplemental oxygen, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, antiretrovirals, and low molecular weight heparin), and a non-randomly selected subset of patients also received tocilizumab. Tocilizumab was given either intravenously at 8 mg/kg bodyweight (up to a maximum of 800 mg) in two infusions, 12 h apart, or subcutaneously at 162 mg administered in two simultaneous doses, one in each thigh (ie, 324 mg in total), when the intravenous formulation was unavailable. The primary endpoint was a composite of invasive mechanical ventilation or death. Treatment groups were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression analysis after adjusting for sex, age, recruiting centre, duration of symptoms, and baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score.
FINDINGS
RESULTS
Of 1351 patients admitted, 544 (40%) had severe COVID-19 pneumonia and were included in the study. 57 (16%) of 365 patients in the standard care group needed mechanical ventilation, compared with 33 (18%) of 179 patients treated with tocilizumab (p=0·41; 16 [18%] of 88 patients treated intravenously and 17 [19%] of 91 patients treated subcutaneously). 73 (20%) patients in the standard care group died, compared with 13 (7%; p<0·0001) patients treated with tocilizumab (six [7%] treated intravenously and seven [8%] treated subcutaneously). After adjustment for sex, age, recruiting centre, duration of symptoms, and SOFA score, tocilizumab treatment was associated with a reduced risk of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (adjusted hazard ratio 0·61, 95% CI 0·40-0·92; p=0·020). 24 (13%) of 179 patients treated with tocilizumab were diagnosed with new infections, versus 14 (4%) of 365 patients treated with standard of care alone (p<0·0001).
INTERPRETATION
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment with tocilizumab, whether administered intravenously or subcutaneously, might reduce the risk of invasive mechanical ventilation or death in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.
FUNDING
BACKGROUND
None.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32835257
doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(20)30173-9
pii: S2665-9913(20)30173-9
pmc: PMC7314456
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e474-e484Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 7;382(19):1787-1799
pubmed: 32187464
JAMA. 2020 Mar 23;:
pubmed: 32203977
Clin Pharmacokinet. 2016 Jul;55(7):789-805
pubmed: 26818483
Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395(10229):1054-1062
pubmed: 32171076
Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2019 Aug;15(8):813-822
pubmed: 31219357
Euro Surveill. 2020 Mar;25(11):
pubmed: 32209164
J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83
pubmed: 3558716
Drugs. 2017 Nov;77(17):1865-1879
pubmed: 29094311
PLoS Pathog. 2020 Apr 28;16(4):e1008520
pubmed: 32343745
JAMA. 2020 Feb 24;:
pubmed: 32091533
J Clin Invest. 2020 May 1;130(5):2202-2205
pubmed: 32217834
Thorax. 2016 Apr;71 Suppl 2:ii1-35
pubmed: 26976648
Br J Anaesth. 2018 Feb;120(2):323-352
pubmed: 29406182
Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):497-506
pubmed: 31986264
Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):473-475
pubmed: 32043983
Lancet. 2012 Mar 31;379(9822):1214-24
pubmed: 22421340
J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2016 Jul-Sep;32(3):364-8
pubmed: 27625487
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2020 May;39(5):405-407
pubmed: 32362390
Med Mal Infect. 2020 Aug;50(5):397-400
pubmed: 32387320
Nat Med. 2018 Jun;24(6):739-748
pubmed: 29808007
Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2008 Aug;4(4):767-75
pubmed: 19209259
Autoimmun Rev. 2020 Jul;19(7):102568
pubmed: 32376398
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jul 28;71(15):732-739
pubmed: 32150618
Lancet. 2020 Feb 29;395(10225):683-684
pubmed: 32122468
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 30;382(18):1708-1720
pubmed: 32109013
Oncologist. 2018 Aug;23(8):943-947
pubmed: 29622697
J Med Virol. 2020 Jul;92(7):814-818
pubmed: 32253759
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jul 27;377(4):317-328
pubmed: 28745999
JAMA. 2020 Apr 6;:
pubmed: 32250385
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2020 May-Jun;38(3):529-532
pubmed: 32359035
Am J Epidemiol. 2019 Aug 1;188(8):1569-1577
pubmed: 31063192
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Apr;20(4):400-402
pubmed: 32113509
Chest. 2020 Jul;158(1):e15-e19
pubmed: 32343968
Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013 Jun;51(6):443-55
pubmed: 23547848
Clin Pharmacokinet. 2013 Feb;52(2):83-124
pubmed: 23299465
Lancet Rheumatol. 2020 Jun;2(6):e325-e331
pubmed: 32501454