Back

Interleukin-6 Receptor Antagonists in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19 - Preliminary report

The REMAP-CAP Investigators, ; Gordon, A. C.

2021-01-07 intensive care and critical care medicine Community evaluation
10.1101/2021.01.07.21249390 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. MethodsWe evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours of commencing organ support in an intensive care unit, were randomized to receive either tocilizumab (8mg/kg) or sarilumab (400mg) or standard care (control). The primary outcome was an ordinal scale combining in-hospital mortality (assigned -1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with pre-defined triggers to declare superiority, efficacy, equivalence or futility. ResultsTocilizumab and sarilumab both met the pre-defined triggers for efficacy. At the time of full analysis 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab and 402 to control. Median organ support-free days were 10 (interquartile range [IQR] -1, 16), 11 (IQR 0, 16) and 0 (IQR -1, 15) for tocilizumab, sarilumab and control, respectively. Relative to control, median adjusted odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible intervals [CrI] 1.25, 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95%CrI 1.17, 2.91) for sarilumab, yielding >99.9% and 99.5% posterior probabilities of superiority compared with control. Hospital mortality was 28.0% (98/350) for tocilizumab, 22.2% (10/45) for sarilumab and 35.8% (142/397) for control. All secondary outcomes and analyses supported efficacy of these IL-6 receptor antagonists. ConclusionsIn critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in intensive care, treatment with the IL-6 receptor antagonists, tocilizumab and sarilumab, improved outcome, including survival. (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02735707)

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.6%
2
New England Journal of Medicine
50 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.4%
3
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.3%
50% of probability mass above
4
Critical Care Explorations
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
5
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.6%
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 40%
3.6%
7
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.6%
8
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.3%
9
British Journal of Anaesthesia
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.3%
10
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
11
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.1%
12
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
13
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
14
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
15
Journal of Internal Medicine
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
16
The Lancet Healthy Longevity
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.2%
17
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
18
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
19
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
29 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.9%
20
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
21
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 71%
0.9%
22
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
23
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.8%
24
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
25
Critical Care
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%