Back

Tocilizumab efficacy in COVID-19 patients is associated with respiratory severity-based stages

Alvarez-Mon, M.; Asunsolo, A.; Sanz, J.; Munoz, B.; Arranz-Caso, J. A.; Novella Mena, M.; Hernandez-Gutierrez, C.; Navarro, J.; Lozano Duran, M. C.; Arevalo Serrano, J.; Heche Sanchez, R.; Bravo Quiroga, L.; Flores Segovia, J.; Garcia Sanchez, M.; Gutierrez Garcia, A.; Perez, A.; Herrero, M.; Plana, N.; Troncoso, D.; Rackov, G.; Martinez-A, C.; Balomenos, D.

2021-03-09 infectious diseases
10.1101/2021.03.04.21252167 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundTocilizumab treatment is investigated, and effectiveness in ICU-admitted COVID-19 patients has been reported. Although controversy exists regarding the efficacy of tocilizumab treatment, it has been suggested that tocilizumab might show positive results depending on patient severity status. We examined an association between tocilizumab and distinct disease severity stages. Methods and FindingsFrom March 3 to March 23 2020, 494 consecutively admitted COVID-19 patients received tocilizumab or standard treatment alone. Data were obtained retrospectively. Clinical respiratory severity (CRS) stages were defined by patient oxygenation status and were also associated to scores of WHO clinical progression scale. We categorized patients in three stages, mild/moderate CRS1 (FiSpO2<0.35; WHO score 5), moderate/severe CRS2 (FiO2=0.5/high flow mask; WHO score 6) and severe/critical CRS3 (FiO2<80%/high flow/prone position or mechanical ventilation; score>6). The primary outcome was the composite of death or ICU admission in patients of stages CRS1, CRS2, and CRS3, as well as in total patients. We also addressed mortality alone in total patients. Kaplan-Maier curves, Cox proportional regression and inverse probability weighting marginal structural models were used. We conducted the study from March 3 to April 7 2020 with broad-ranged severity patients; 167 tocilizumab-treated and 327 untreated. CRS1 patients showed no apparent benefit after treatment, while the risk of the primary outcome was greatly reduced in CRS2 treated participants ((HR=0.22; 95% CI (0.16-0.44)). Moreover, tocilizumab treatment was associated with significantly decreased CRS2 patient proportion that reached the outcome compared to non-treated controls (27.8.0% vs. 65.4%; p<0.001). Severe/critical CRS3 patients, also showed benefit after treatment (HR=0.38; 95% CI (0.16-90)), although not as robust as was that of CRS2 treated individuals. Tocilizumab was associated with reduced outcome risk in total patients (HR=0.42; 95% CI (0.26-0.66)) after CRS adjustment, but not if CRS classification was not accounted as confounding factor (HR=1.19; 95% CI (0.84-1.69)). The outcome of mortality alone upon tocilizumab treatment was significant (HR=0.58; 95% CI (0.35-0.96)) after accounting for CRS classification. ConclusionsTocilizumab treatment is associated with reduced COVID-19 escalation in CRS2 patients, suggesting efficacy in moderate/severe non-ICU-admitted patients. CRS classification could represent an essential confounding factor in evaluating tocilizumab in studies of broad-ranged severity patients.

Matching journals

The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
9.1%
2
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
3
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.3%
4
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.3%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 32%
4.8%
6
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.9%
7
Infectious Diseases and Therapy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.6%
9
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.0%
10
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.3%
11
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
50% of probability mass above
12
New England Journal of Medicine
50 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
13
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
14
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
15
Journal of Clinical Investigation
164 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
16
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
17
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
18
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
19
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.6%
20
The Lancet Rheumatology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
21
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
39 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
22
International Immunopharmacology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
23
Journal of Internal Medicine
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
24
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
25
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
26
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
167 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
27
Critical Care Explorations
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
28
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
29
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
30
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%