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.
Background
Intravenous pulse methylprednisolone (MP) is commonly included in the management of severe ANCA associated vasculitis (AAV) despite limited evidence of benefit. We aimed to evaluate outcomes in patients who had, or had not received MP, along with standard therapy for remission induction in severe AAV.
Methods
We retrospectively studied 114 consecutive patients from five centres in Europe and the United States with a new diagnosis of severe AAV (creatinine > 500 μmol/L or dialysis dependency) and that received standard therapy (plasma exchange, cyclophosphamide and high-dose oral corticosteroids) for remission induction with or without pulse MP between 2000 and 2013. We evaluated survival, renal recovery, relapses, and adverse events over the first 12 months.
Results
Fifty-two patients received pulse MP in addition to standard therapy compared to 62 patients that did not. There was no difference in survival, renal recovery or relapses. Treatment with MP associated with higher risk of infection during the first 3 months (hazard ratio (HR) 2.7, 95%CI [1.4–5.3],
p
= 0.004) and higher incidence of diabetes (HR 6.33 [1.94–20.63],
p
= 0.002), after adjustment for confounding factors.
Conclusions
The results of this study suggest that addition of pulse intravenous MP to standard therapy for remission induction in severe AAV may not confer clinical benefit and may be associated with more episodes of infection and higher incidence of diabetes.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (10.1186/s12882-019-1226-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
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.