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.

Propensity score based weighting approaches provide an alternative to propensity score matching and are especially useful when preserving a large majority of the study sample is needed to maximise precision Propensity score based weighting approaches can target treatment effect estimation in specific populations including the average treatment effect in the whole population, average treatment effect among the treated population, or average treatment effect in a subpopulation with clinical equipoise Principles outlined in this report are intended to help investigators in identifying the most suitable propensity score based weighting approach for their analysis and provide a framework for transparent reporting on 4 September 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright.

Background There is controversy regarding whether the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and other antidepressants in pregnancy is associated with increased risks for congenital cardiac defects. In particular, concerns exist about a possible association between paroxetine and right ventricular outflow tract obstruction (RVOTO), and between sertraline and ventricular septal defects (VSD). Methods We performed a cohort study nested in the 2000–2007 nationwide Medicaid Analytic eXtract. The study included 949,504 pregnant women enrolled in Medicaid from three months before conception through one month post delivery, and their live-born infants. We compared the risk of major cardiac defects in women with antidepressant medication use during the first trimester versus no use, restricting the cohort to women with depression and using propensity score adjustment to control for depression severity and other potential confounders. Results 64,389 women (6.8%) used antidepressants during the first trimester. Overall, 6,403 infants not exposed to antidepressants were born with a cardiac defect (72.3 per 10,000), compared with 580 infants exposed (90.1 per 10,000). Associations between antidepressant use and cardiac defects were attenuated with increasing levels of adjustment for confounding. For SSRIs, relative risks for any cardiac defect were 1.25 (95%CI, 1.13–1.38) unadjusted, 1.12 (1.00–1.26) depression-restricted, and 1.06 (0.93–1.22) depression-restricted and fully-adjusted. We found no significant associations between the use of paroxetine and RVOTO (1.07, 0.59–1.93), or the use of sertraline and VSD (1.04, 0.76–1.41). Conclusions Results of this large population-based cohort study suggest no substantial increased risk of cardiac malformations attributable to SSRIs.

Regulators consider randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as the gold standard for evaluating the safety and effectiveness of medications, but their costs, duration, and limited generalizability have caused some to look for alternatives. Real world evidence based on data collected outside of RCTs, such as registries and longitudinal healthcare databases, can sometimes substitute for RCTs, but concerns about validity have limited their impact. Greater reliance on such real world data (RWD) in regulatory decision making requires understanding why some studies fail while others succeed in producing results similar to RCTs. Key questions when considering whether RWD analyses can substitute for RCTs for regulatory decision making are WHEN one can study drug effects without randomization and HOW to implement a valid RWD analysis if one has decided to pursue that option. The WHEN is primarily driven by externalities not controlled by investigators, whereas the HOW is focused on avoiding known mistakes in RWD analyses.