Comparison of anakinra and tocilizumab in management of severe COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background/aim

Studies regarding effectiveness of anakinra and tocilizumab treatments in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have contradictory results. Furthermore, there is scarce comparative data regarding superiority of any agent. To further elucidate any superiority between these two agents, we retrospectively investigated and compared outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients of our inpatient cohort who received anakinra or tocilizumab.

Materials and methods

This study was designed as a single-center, retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study. Hospitalized patients with confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who had Brescia-COVID respiratory severity scale score ≥3 and hyperinflammation (defined as elevation of C reactive protein ≥50 g/L or ferritin ≥700 ng/mL) and received anakinra or tocilizumab in addition to standard care were enrolled in the study. Length of hospital stay after initiation of antiinflammatory treatment, need for mechanical ventilation, need for intensive care unit admission, mortality were set as primary outcomes and compared between tocilizumab and anakinra recipients after propensity score matching.

Results

One hundred and six patients were placed in each group after propensity score matching. In the anakinra group, relative risk reduction for intensive care unit admission was 50% when compared to the tocilizumab group and the number needed to treat to avert an intensive care unit admission was 3 (95% CI, 2–5). In terms of mortality, a 52% relative risk reduction was observed with anakinra treatment and the number needed to treat to avert an intensive care unit admission was 8 (95% CI, 4–50). Significantly more patients were observed to receive glucocorticoids in the anakinra group.

Conclusion

Anakinra administration in severe COVID-19 patients was significantly associated with better survival and greater clinical improvement compared to the tocilizumab administration in our study. Increased rate of glucocorticoid use in the anakinra group might have contributed to better outcomes.

Related collections

Most cited references 39

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China

Chaolin Huang, Yeming Wang, Xingwang Li … (2020)

Summary Background A recent cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China, was caused by a novel betacoronavirus, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). We report the epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics and treatment and clinical outcomes of these patients. Methods All patients with suspected 2019-nCoV were admitted to a designated hospital in Wuhan. We prospectively collected and analysed data on patients with laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection by real-time RT-PCR and next-generation sequencing. Data were obtained with standardised data collection forms shared by WHO and the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium from electronic medical records. Researchers also directly communicated with patients or their families to ascertain epidemiological and symptom data. Outcomes were also compared between patients who had been admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and those who had not. Findings By Jan 2, 2020, 41 admitted hospital patients had been identified as having laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection. Most of the infected patients were men (30 [73%] of 41); less than half had underlying diseases (13 [32%]), including diabetes (eight [20%]), hypertension (six [15%]), and cardiovascular disease (six [15%]). Median age was 49·0 years (IQR 41·0–58·0). 27 (66%) of 41 patients had been exposed to Huanan seafood market. One family cluster was found. Common symptoms at onset of illness were fever (40 [98%] of 41 patients), cough (31 [76%]), and myalgia or fatigue (18 [44%]); less common symptoms were sputum production (11 [28%] of 39), headache (three [8%] of 38), haemoptysis (two [5%] of 39), and diarrhoea (one [3%] of 38). Dyspnoea developed in 22 (55%) of 40 patients (median time from illness onset to dyspnoea 8·0 days [IQR 5·0–13·0]). 26 (63%) of 41 patients had lymphopenia. All 41 patients had pneumonia with abnormal findings on chest CT. Complications included acute respiratory distress syndrome (12 [29%]), RNAaemia (six [15%]), acute cardiac injury (five [12%]) and secondary infection (four [10%]). 13 (32%) patients were admitted to an ICU and six (15%) died. Compared with non-ICU patients, ICU patients had higher plasma levels of IL2, IL7, IL10, GSCF, IP10, MCP1, MIP1A, and TNFα. Interpretation The 2019-nCoV infection caused clusters of severe respiratory illness similar to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and was associated with ICU admission and high mortality. Major gaps in our knowledge of the origin, epidemiology, duration of human transmission, and clinical spectrum of disease need fulfilment by future studies. Funding Ministry of Science and Technology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China, and Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission.

0 comments Cited 22232 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Clinical Characteristics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China

Wei-jie Guan, Zheng-yi Ni, Yu Hu … (2020)

Abstract Background Since December 2019, when coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) emerged in Wuhan city and rapidly spread throughout China, data have been needed on the clinical characteristics of the affected patients. Methods We extracted data regarding 1099 patients with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 from 552 hospitals in 30 provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities in mainland China through January 29, 2020. The primary composite end point was admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), the use of mechanical ventilation, or death. Results The median age of the patients was 47 years; 41.9% of the patients were female. The primary composite end point occurred in 67 patients (6.1%), including 5.0% who were admitted to the ICU, 2.3% who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation, and 1.4% who died. Only 1.9% of the patients had a history of direct contact with wildlife. Among nonresidents of Wuhan, 72.3% had contact with residents of Wuhan, including 31.3% who had visited the city. The most common symptoms were fever (43.8% on admission and 88.7% during hospitalization) and cough (67.8%). Diarrhea was uncommon (3.8%). The median incubation period was 4 days (interquartile range, 2 to 7). On admission, ground-glass opacity was the most common radiologic finding on chest computed tomography (CT) (56.4%). No radiographic or CT abnormality was found in 157 of 877 patients (17.9%) with nonsevere disease and in 5 of 173 patients (2.9%) with severe disease. Lymphocytopenia was present in 83.2% of the patients on admission. Conclusions During the first 2 months of the current outbreak, Covid-19 spread rapidly throughout China and caused varying degrees of illness. Patients often presented without fever, and many did not have abnormal radiologic findings. (Funded by the National Health Commission of China and others.)

0 comments Cited 13780 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19 — Preliminary Report

Mark Peters (2021)

Abstract Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and thereby reduce progression to respiratory failure and death. Methods In this controlled, open-label trial comparing a range of possible treatments in patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned patients to receive oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days or to receive usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Here, we report the preliminary results of this comparison. Results A total of 2104 patients were assigned to receive dexamethasone and 4321 to receive usual care. Overall, 482 patients (22.9%) in the dexamethasone group and 1110 patients (25.7%) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomization (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P<0.001). The proportional and absolute between-group differences in mortality varied considerably according to the level of respiratory support that the patients were receiving at the time of randomization. In the dexamethasone group, the incidence of death was lower than that in the usual care group among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.3% vs. 41.4%; rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.81) and among those receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (23.3% vs. 26.2%; rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94) but not among those who were receiving no respiratory support at randomization (17.8% vs. 14.0%; rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.55). Conclusions In patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936; ISRCTN number, 50189673.)

0 comments Cited 4982 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Turk J Med Sci

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Turk J Med Sci

Title: Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences

Publisher: Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK)

ISSN (Print): 1300-0144

ISSN (Electronic): 1303-6165

Publication date (Electronic, collection): 2022

Publication date (Electronic, pub): 26 June 2022

Volume: 52

Issue: 5

Pages: 1486-1494

Affiliations

[1 ]Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turkey

[2 ]Clinic of Rheumatology, Ministry of Health Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

[3 ]Clinic of Internal Medicine, Ministry of Health Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

[4 ]Clinic of Intensive Care Unit, Ministry of Health Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

[5 ]Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation-Critical Care, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turkey

[6 ]Clinic of Anesthesia and Resuscitation, Ministry of Health Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

[7 ]Clinic of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Ministry of Health Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

[8 ]Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Health Sciences University, Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

[9 ]Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turkey

[10 ]Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Health Sciences University, Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

[11 ]Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Health Sciences University, Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey