Background
Tocilizumab blocks pro-inflammatory activity of interleukin-6 (IL-6), involved in pathogenesis of pneumonia the most frequent cause of death in COVID-19 patients.
Methods
A multicenter, single-arm, hypothesis-driven trial was planned, according to a phase 2 design, to study the effect of tocilizumab on lethality rates at 14 and 30 days (co-primary endpoints, a priori expected rates being 20 and 35%, respectively). A further prospective cohort of patients, consecutively enrolled after the first cohort was accomplished, was used as a secondary validation dataset. The two cohorts were evaluated jointly in an exploratory multivariable logistic regression model to assess prognostic variables on survival.
Results
In the primary intention-to-treat (ITT) phase 2 population, 180/301 (59.8%) subjects received tocilizumab, and 67 deaths were observed overall. Lethality rates were equal to 18.4% (97.5% CI: 13.6–24.0, P = 0.52) and 22.4% (97.5% CI: 17.2–28.3, P < 0.001) at 14 and 30 days, respectively. Lethality rates were lower in the validation dataset, that included 920 patients. No signal of specific drug toxicity was reported. In the exploratory multivariable logistic regression analysis, older age and lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio negatively affected survival, while the concurrent use of steroids was associated with greater survival. A statistically significant interaction was found between tocilizumab and respiratory support, suggesting that tocilizumab might be more effective in patients not requiring mechanical respiratory support at baseline.
Conclusions
Tocilizumab reduced lethality rate at 30 days compared with null hypothesis, without significant toxicity. Possibly, this effect could be limited to patients not requiring mechanical respiratory support at baseline.
Registration EudraCT (2020-001110-38); clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04317092).
Objectives: To assess whether high doses of Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH) (i.e. Enoxaparin 70 IU/kg twice daily) compared to standard prophylactic dose (i.e., Enoxaparin 4000 IU once day), in hospitalized patients with COVID19 not requiring Invasive Mechanical Ventilation [IMV], are: a) more effective in preventing clinical worsening, defined as the occurrence of at least one of the following events, whichever comes first: 1. Death 2. Acute Myocardial Infarction [AMI] 3. Objectively confirmed, symptomatic arterial or venous thromboembolism [TE] 4. Need of either: a. Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (Cpap) or Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV) or b. IMV in patients who at randomisation were receiving standard oxygen therapy
Objectives: To assess the hypothesis that an adjunctive therapy with methylprednisolone and unfractionated heparin (UFH) or with methylprednisolone and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) are more effective in reducing any-cause mortality in critically-ill ventilated patients with pneumonia from SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to LMWH alone. Trial design: The study is designed as a multi-centre, interventional, parallel group, superiority, randomized, investigator sponsored, three arms study. Patients, who satisfy all inclusion criteria and no exclusion criteria, will be randomly assigned to one of the three treatment groups in a ratio 1:1:1. Participants: Inpatients will be recruited from 8 Italian Academic and non-Academic Intensive Care Units Inclusion Criteria (all required): 1. Positive SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic (on pharyngeal swab of deep airways material) 2. Positive pressure ventilation (either non-invasive or invasive) from > 24 hours 3. Invasive mechanical ventilation from < 96 hours 4. PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio lower than 150 mmHg 5. D-dimer level > 6 times the upper limit of normal reference range
Everolimus appears to be safe in mRCC patients with renal impairment or end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis. Larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.