Background Anti-inflammatory therapies such as IL-6 inhibition have been proposed for COVID-19 in a vacuum of evidence-based treatment. However, abrogating the inflammatory response in infectious diseases may impair a desired host response and predispose to secondary infections. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the medical record of critically ill COVID-19 patients during an 8-week span and compared the prevalence of secondary infection and outcomes in patients who did and did not receive tocilizumab. Additionally, we included representative histopathologic post-mortem findings from several COVID-19 cases that underwent autopsy at our institution. Results 111 patients were identified, of which 48 had received tocilizumab while 63 had not. Receiving tocilizumab was associated with a higher risk of secondary bacterial (50% vs. 28.6%, p=0.021 and fungal (8.3% vs. 0%, p=0.078) infections. Consistent with higher number of infections, patients who received tocilizumab had higher mortality (39.6 vs. 17.4%, p=0.016). Seven cases underwent autopsy. In 3 cases who received tocilizumab, there was evidence of pneumonia on pathology. Of the 4 cases that had not been given tocilizumab, 2 showed evidence of aspiration pneumonia and 2 exhibited diffuse alveolar damage. Conclusions Experimental therapies are currently being applied to COVID-19 outside of clinical trials. Anti-inflammatory therapies such as anti-IL-6 therapy have the potential to impair viral clearance, predispose to secondary infection, and cause harm. We seek to raise physician awareness of these issues and highlight the need to better understand the immune response in COVID-19.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Anti-inflammatory therapies such as IL-6 inhibition have been proposed for COVID-19 in a vacuum of evidence-based treatment. However, abrogating the inflammatory response in infectious diseases may impair a desired host response and pre-dispose to secondary infections. Methods:We retrospectively reviewed the medical record of critically ill COVID-19 patients during an 8-week span and compared the prevalence of secondary infection and outcomes in patients who did and did not receive tocilizumab. Additionally, we included representative histopathologic post-mortem findings from several COVID-19 cases that underwent autopsy at our institution.Results: One hundred eleven patients were identified, of which 54 had received tocilizumab while 57 had not. Receiving tocilizumab was associated with a higher risk of secondary bacterial (48.1 vs. 28.1%; p = 0.029 and fungal (5.6 vs. 0%; p = 0.112) infections. Consistent with higher number of infections, patients who received tocilizumab had higher mortality (35.2 vs. 19.3%; p = 0.020). Seven cases underwent autopsy. In three cases who received tocilizumab, there was evidence of pneumonia on pathology. Of the four cases that had not been given tocilizumab, two showed evidence of aspiration pneumonia and two exhibited diffuse alveolar damage.Conclusions: Experimental therapies are currently being applied to COVID-19 outside of clinical trials. Anti-inflammatory therapies such as anti-IL-6 therapy have the potential to impair viral clearance, pre-dispose to secondary infection, and cause harm. We seek to raise physician awareness of these issues and highlight the need to better understand the immune response in COVID-19.

Background Tocilizumab (TCZ) has been used in the management of COVID‐19‐related cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Concerns exist regarding the risk of infections and drug‐related toxicities. We sought to evaluate the incidence of these TCZ complications among COVID‐19 patients. Methods All adult inpatients with COVID‐19 between March 1 st and April 25 th , 2020 that received TCZ were included. We compared the rate of late‐onset infections (>48 hours following admission) to a control group matched according to intensive care unit admission and mechanical ventilation requirement. Post‐TCZ toxicities evaluated included: elevated liver function tests (LFTs), GI perforation, diverticulitis, neutropenia, hypertension, allergic reactions, and infusion‐related reactions. Results Seventy‐four patients were included in each group. Seven‐teen infections in the TCZ group (23%) and 6 (8%) infections in the control group occurred >48 hours after admission (p=0.013). Most infections were bacterial with pneumonia being the most common manifestation. Among patients receiving TCZ, LFT elevations were observed in 51%, neutropenia in 1.4%, and hypertension in 8%. The mortality rate among those that received TCZ was greater than the control (39% versus 23%, p=0.03). Conclusion Late onset infections were significantly more common among those receiving TCZ. Combining infections and TCZ‐related toxicities, 61% of patients had a possible post‐TCZ complication. While awaiting clinical trial results to establish the efficacy of TCZ for COVID‐19 related CRS, the potential for infections and TCZ related toxicities should be carefully weighed when considering use. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.