The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is threatening billions of people worldwide. Tocilizumab has shown promising results in retrospective studies in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia with a good safety profile. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of early tocilizumab administration vs standard therapy in preventing clinical worsening in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial that randomized patients hospitalized between March 31 and June 11, 2020, with COVID-19 pneumonia to receive tocilizumab or standard of care in 24 hospitals in Italy. Cases of COVID-19 were confirmed by polymerase chain reaction method with nasopharyngeal swab. Eligibility criteria included COVID-19 pneumonia documented by radiologic imaging, partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO 2 /FIO 2) ratio between 200 and 300 mm Hg, and an inflammatory phenotype defined by fever and elevated C-reactive protein. INTERVENTIONS Patients in the experimental arm received intravenous tocilizumab within 8 hours from randomization (8 mg/kg up to a maximum of 800 mg), followed by a second dose after 12 hours. Patients in the control arm received supportive care following the protocols of each clinical center until clinical worsening and then could receive tocilizumab as a rescue therapy. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES The primary composite outcome was defined as entry into the intensive care unit with invasive mechanical ventilation, death from all causes, or clinical aggravation documented by the finding of a PaO 2 /FIO 2 ratio less than 150 mm Hg, whichever came first. RESULTS A total of 126 patients were randomized (60 to the tocilizumab group; 66 to the control group). The median (interquartile range) age was 60.0 (53.0-72.0) years, and the majority of patients were male (77 of 126, 61.1%). Three patients withdrew from the study, leaving 123 patients available for the intention-to-treat analyses. Seventeen patients of 60 (28.3%) in the tocilizumab arm and 17 of 63 (27.0%) in the standard care group showed clinical worsening within 14 days since randomization (rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.59-1.86). Two patients in the experimental group and 1 in the control group died before 30 days from randomization, and 6 and 5 patients were intubated in the 2 groups, respectively. The trial was prematurely interrupted after an interim analysis for futility. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this randomized clinical trial of hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and PaO 2 /FIO 2 ratio between 200 and 300 mm Hg who received tocilizumab, no benefit on disease progression was observed compared with standard care. Further blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm the results and to evaluate possible applications of tocilizumab in different stages of the disease.

The psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and its utility as a screening instrument for anxiety and depression in a non-psychiatric setting were evaluated. The questionnaire was administered twice to 197 breast cancer patients randomised in a phase III adjuvant clinical trial: before the start of chemotherapy and at the first follow-up visit. The presence of psychiatric disorders was evaluated at the follow-up visit using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R in 132 patients. Factor analyses identified two strictly correlated factors. Crohnbach's alpha for the anxiety and depression scales ranged between 0.80 and 0.85. At follow-up, 50 patients (38%) were assigned a current DSM-III-R diagnosis, in most cases adjustment disorders (24%) or major depressive disorder (10%). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was used to test the discriminant validity for both anxiety and depressive disorders. The comparison of the areas under the curve (AUC) between the two scales did not show any difference in identifying either anxiety (P = 0.855) or depressive disorders (P = 0.357). The 14-item total scale showed a high internal consistency (alpha = 0.89 and 0.88) and a high discriminating power for all the psychiatric disorders (AUC = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.83-0.94). The cut-off point that maximised sensitivity (84%) and specificity (79%) was 10. These results suggest that the total score is a valid measure of emotional distress, so that the Italian version of HADS can be used as a screening questionnaire for psychiatric disorders. The use of the two subscales as a 'case identifier' or as an outcome measure should be considered with caution.

There are commonalities in the prevalence of problems across cancer and non-cancer patients, highlighting the need for palliative care to be provided irrespective of diagnosis. The methodological heterogeneity across the studies and the lack of non-cancer studies need to be addressed in future research.

No abstract