Background Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. Methods We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04327388 ; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. Findings Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference −1·7 [−9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [−6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI −7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 1...

LA PJIs have a high failure rate. Treatment strategies should be individualized according to patients' age, comorbidity, clinical presentation and microorganism causing the infection.

Background Surgical débridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) is currently recommended by international guidelines for both early acute (postsurgical) and late acute (hematogenous) periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). However, due to a different pathogenesis of infection, a different treatment strategy may be needed. Questions/purposes (1) Compared with early acute PJIs, are late acute PJIs associated with a higher risk of DAIR failure? (2) When stratified by microorganism, is the higher risk of failure in late acute PJI associated with Staphylocococcus aureus infection? (3) When analyzing patients with S. aureus infection, what factors are independently associated with DAIR failure? Methods In this multicenter observational study, early acute and late acute PJIs treated with DAIR were retrospectively evaluated and matched according to treating center, year of diagnosis, and infection-causing microorganism. If multiple matches were available, the early acute PJI diagnosed closest to the late acute PJI was selected. A total of 132 pairs were included. Treatment success was defined as a retained implant during follow-up without the need for antibiotic suppressive therapy. Results Late acute PJIs had a lower treatment success (46% [60 of 132]) compared with early acute PJIs (76% [100 of 132]), OR 3.9 [95% CI 2.3 to 6.6]; p < 0.001), but the lower treatment success of late acute PJIs was only observed when caused by Staphylococcus spp (S. aureus: 34% versus 75%; p < 0.001; coagulase-negative staphylococci: 46% versus 88%; p = 0.013, respectively). On multivariable analysis, late acute PJI was the only independent factor associated with an unsuccessful DAIR when caused by S. aureus (OR 4.52 [95% CI 1.79 to 11.41]; p < 0.001). Conclusions Although DAIR seems to be a successful therapeutic strategy in the management of early acute PJI, its use in late acute PJI should be reconsidered when caused by Staphylococcus spp. Our results advocate the importance of isolating the causative microorganism before surgery. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.