Efficacy and Safety of Anakinra Plus Standard of Care for Patients With Severe COVID-19: A Randomized Phase 2/3 Clinical Trial.

Importance: COVID-19 pneumonia is often associated with hyperinflammation. The efficacy and safety of anakinra in treating patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation are still unclear. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of anakinra vs standard of care alone for patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Clinical Trial of the Use of Anakinra in Cytokine Storm Syndrome Secondary to COVID-19 (ANA-COVID-GEAS) was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, 2-group, phase 2/3 clinical trial conducted at 12 hospitals in Spain between May 8, 2020, and March 1, 2021, with a follow-up of 1 month. Participants were adult patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation. Hyperinflammation was defined as interleukin-6 greater than 40 pg/mL, ferritin greater than 500 ng/mL, C-reactive protein greater than 3 mg/dL (rationale, ≥5 upper normal limit), and/or lactate dehydrogenase greater than 300 U/L. Severe pneumonia was considered if at least 1 of the following conditions was met: ambient air oxygen saturation 94% or less measured with a pulse oximeter, ratio of partial pressure O2 to fraction of inspired O2 of 300 or less, and/or a ratio of O2 saturation measured with pulse oximeter to fraction of inspired O2 of 350 or less. Data analysis was performed from April to October 2021. Interventions: Usual standard of care plus anakinra (anakinra group) or usual standard of care alone (SoC group). Anakinra was given at a dose of 100 mg 4 times a day intravenously. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients not requiring mechanical ventilation up to 15 days after treatment initiation, assessed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: A total of 179 patients (123 men [69.9%]; mean [SD] age, 60.5 [11.5] years) were randomly assigned to the anakinra group (92 patients) or to the SoC group (87 patients). The proportion of patients not requiring mechanical ventilation up to day 15 was not significantly different between groups (64 of 83 patients [77.1%] in the anakinra group vs 67 of 78 patients [85.9%] in the SoC group; risk ratio [RR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.77-1.04; P = .16). Anakinra did not result in any difference in time to mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio, 1.72; 95% CI, 0.82-3.62; P = .14). There was no significant difference between groups in the proportion of patients not requiring invasive mechanical ventilation up to day 15 (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.88-1.11; P > .99). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, anakinra did not prevent the need for mechanical ventilation or reduce mortality risk compared with standard of care alone among hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04443881.

Efficacy of short-course colchicine treatment in hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation: a randomized clinical trial.

Some patients with COVID-19 pneumonia develop an associated cytokine storm syndrome that aggravates the pulmonary disease. These patients may benefit of anti-inflammatory treatment. The role of colchicine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and established hyperinflammation remains unexplored. In a prospective, randomized controlled, observer-blinded endpoint, investigator-initiated trial, 240 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and established hyperinflammation were randomly allocated to receive oral colchicine or not. The primary efficacy outcome measure was a composite of non-invasive mechanical ventilation (CPAP or BiPAP), admission to the intensive care unit, invasive mechanical ventilation requirement or death. The composite primary outcome occurred in 19.3% of the total study population. The composite primary outcome was similar in the two arms (17% in colchicine group vs. 20.8% in the control group; p = 0.533) and the same applied to each of its individual components. Most patients received steroids (98%) and heparin (99%), with similar doses in both groups. In this trial, including adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and associated hyperinflammation, no clinical benefit was observed with short-course colchicine treatment beyond standard care regarding the combined outcome measurement of CPAP/BiPAP use, ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation or death (Funded by the Community of Madrid, EudraCT Number: 2020-001841-38; 26/04/2020).

WHO Ordinal Scale and Inflammation Risk Categories in COVID-19. Comparative Study of the Severity Scales.

BACKGROUND: The WHO ordinal severity scale has been used to predict mortality and guide trials in COVID-19. However, it has its limitations. OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to compare three classificatory and predictive models: the WHO ordinal severity scale, the model based on inflammation grades, and the hybrid model. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study with patient data collected and followed up from March 1, 2020, to May 1, 2021, from the nationwide SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. The primary study outcome was in-hospital mortality. As this was a hospital-based study, the patients included corresponded to categories 3 to 7 of the WHO ordinal scale. Categories 6 and 7 were grouped in the same category. KEY RESULTS: A total of 17,225 patients were included in the study. Patients classified as high risk in each of the WHO categories according to the degree of inflammation were as follows: 63.8% vs. 79.9% vs. 90.2% vs. 95.1% (p<0.001). In-hospital mortality for WHO ordinal scale categories 3 to 6/7 was as follows: 0.8% vs. 24.3% vs. 45.3% vs. 34% (p<0.001). In-hospital mortality for the combined categories of ordinal scale 3a to 5b was as follows: 0.4% vs. 1.1% vs. 11.2% vs. 27.5% vs. 35.5% vs. 41.1% (p<0.001). The predictive regression model for in-hospital mortality with our proposed combined ordinal scale reached an AUC=0.871, superior to the two models separately. CONCLUSIONS: The present study proposes a new severity grading scale for COVID-19 hospitalized patients. In our opinion, it is the most informative, representative, and predictive scale in COVID-19 patients to date.

Ethnicity and Clinical Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 in Spain: Results from the Multicenter SEMI-COVID-19 Registry.

(1) Background: This work aims to analyze clinical outcomes according to ethnic groups in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in Spain. (2) Methods: This nationwide, retrospective, multicenter, observational study analyzed hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 in 150 Spanish hospitals (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry) from 1 March 2020 to 31 December 2021. Clinical outcomes were assessed according to ethnicity (Latin Americans, Sub-Saharan Africans, Asians, North Africans, Europeans). The outcomes were in-hospital mortality (IHM), intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and the use of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Associations between ethnic groups and clinical outcomes adjusted for patient characteristics and baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index values and wave were evaluated using logistic regression. (3) Results: Of 23,953 patients (median age 69.5 years, 42.9% women), 7.0% were Latin American, 1.2% were North African, 0.5% were Asian, 0.5% were Sub-Saharan African, and 89.7% were European. Ethnic minority patients were significantly younger than European patients (median (IQR) age 49.1 (40.5-58.9) to 57.1 (44.1-67.1) vs. 71.5 (59.5-81.4) years, p < 0.001). The unadjusted IHM was higher in European (21.6%) versus North African (11.4%), Asian (10.9%), Latin American (7.1%), and Sub-Saharan African (3.2%) patients. After further adjustment, the IHM was lower in Sub-Saharan African (OR 0.28 (0.10-0.79), p = 0.017) versus European patients, while ICU admission rates were higher in Latin American and North African versus European patients (OR (95%CI) 1.37 (1.17-1.60), p < 0.001) and (OR (95%CI) 1.74 (1.26-2.41), p < 0.001). Moreover, Latin American patients were 39% more likely than European patients to use IMV (OR (95%CI) 1.43 (1.21-1.71), p < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: The adjusted IHM was similar in all groups except for Sub-Saharan Africans, who had lower IHM. Latin American patients were admitted to the ICU and required IMV more often.

Use of glucocorticoids megadoses in SARS-CoV-2 infection in a spanish registry: SEMI-COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the impact of different doses of corticosteroids on the evolution of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, based on the potential benefit of the non-genomic mechanism of these drugs at higher doses. METHODS: Observational study using data collected from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. We evaluated the epidemiological, radiological and analytical scenario between patients treated with megadoses therapy of corticosteroids vs low-dose of corticosteroids and the development of complications. The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality according to use of corticosteroids megadoses. RESULTS: Of a total of 14,921 patients, corticosteroids were used in 5,262 (35.3%). Of them, 2,216 (46%) specifically received megadoses. Age was a factor that differed between those who received megadoses therapy versus those who did not in a significant manner (69 years [IQR 59-79] vs 73 years [IQR 61-83]; p < .001). Radiological and analytical findings showed a higher use of megadoses therapy among patients with an interstitial infiltrate and elevated inflammatory markers associated with COVID-19. In the univariate study it appears that steroid use is associated with increased mortality (OR 2.07 95% CI 1.91-2.24 p < .001) and megadose use with increased survival (OR 0.84 95% CI 0.75-0.96, p 0.011), but when adjusting for possible confounding factors, it is observed that the use of megadoses is also associated with higher mortality (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.32-1.80; p < .001). There is no difference between megadoses and low-dose (p .298). Although, there are differences in the use of megadoses versus low-dose in terms of complications, mainly infectious, with fewer pneumonias and sepsis in the megadoses group (OR 0.82 95% CI 0.71-0.95; p < .001 and OR 0.80 95% CI 0.65-0.97; p < .001) respectively. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in mortality with megadoses versus low-dose, but there is a lower incidence of infectious complications with glucocorticoid megadoses.

Gender-Based Differences by Age Range in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19: A Spanish Observational Cohort Study.

There is some evidence that male gender could have a negative impact on the prognosis and severity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The aim of the present study was to compare the characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) between hospitalized men and women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. This multicenter, retrospective, observational study is based on the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. We analyzed the differences between men and women for a wide variety of demographic, clinical, and treatment variables, and the sex distribution of the reported COVID-19 deaths, as well as intensive care unit (ICU) admission by age subgroups. This work analyzed 12,063 patients (56.8% men). The women in our study were older than the men, on average (67.9 vs. 65.7 years; p < 001). Bilateral condensation was more frequent among men than women (31.8% vs. 29.9%; p = 0.007). The men needed non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation more frequently (5.6% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.001, and 7.9% vs. 4.8%, p < 0.001, respectively). The most prevalent complication was acute respiratory distress syndrome, with severe cases in 19.9% of men (p < 0.001). In men, intensive care unit admission was more frequent (10% vs. 6.1%; p < 0.001) and the mortality rate was higher (23.1% vs. 18.9%; p < 0.001). Regarding mortality, the differences by gender were statistically significant in the age groups from 55 years to 89 years of age. A multivariate analysis showed that female sex was significantly and independently associated with a lower risk of mortality in our study. Male sex appears to be related to worse progress in COVID-19 patients and is an independent prognostic factor for mortality. In order to fully understand its prognostic impact, other factors associated with sex must be considered.

Severity Scores in COVID-19 Pneumonia: a Multicenter, Retrospective, Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Identification of patients on admission to hospital with coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia who can develop poor outcomes has not yet been comprehensively assessed. OBJECTIVE: To compare severity scores used for community-acquired pneumonia to identify high-risk patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN: PSI, CURB-65, qSOFA, and MuLBSTA, a new score for viral pneumonia, were calculated on admission to hospital to identify high-risk patients for in-hospital mortality, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), or use of mechanical ventilation. Area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC), sensitivity, and specificity for each score were determined and AUROC was compared among them. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia included in the SEMI-COVID-19 Network. KEY RESULTS: We examined 10,238 patients with COVID-19. Mean age of patients was 66.6 years and 57.9% were males. The most common comorbidities were as follows: hypertension (49.2%), diabetes (18.8%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (12.8%). Acute respiratory distress syndrome (34.7%) and acute kidney injury (13.9%) were the most common complications. In-hospital mortality was 20.9%. PSI and CURB-65 showed the highest AUROC (0.835 and 0.825, respectively). qSOFA and MuLBSTA had a lower AUROC (0.728 and 0.715, respectively). qSOFA was the most specific score (specificity 95.7%) albeit its sensitivity was only 26.2%. PSI had the highest sensitivity (84.1%) and a specificity of 72.2%. CONCLUSIONS: PSI and CURB-65, specific severity scores for pneumonia, were better than qSOFA and MuLBSTA at predicting mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Additionally, qSOFA, the simplest score to perform, was the most specific albeit the least sensitive.

The Prognostic Value of Eosinophil Recovery in COVID-19: A Multicentre, Retrospective Cohort Study on Patients Hospitalised in Spanish Hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: A decrease in blood cell counts, especially lymphocytes and eosinophils, has been described in patients with serious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but there is no knowledge of their potential role of the recovery in these patients' prognosis. This article aims to analyse the effect of blood cell depletion and blood cell recovery on mortality due to COVID-19. DESIGN: This work was a retrospective, multicentre cohort study of 9644 hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19 from the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine's SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. SETTING: This study examined patients hospitalised in 147 hospitals throughout Spain. PARTICIPANTS: This work analysed 9644 patients (57.12% male) out of a cohort of 12,826 patients ≥18 years of age hospitalised with COVID-19 in Spain included in the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry as of 29 May 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure of this work is the effect of blood cell depletion and blood cell recovery on mortality due to COVID-19. Univariate analysis was performed to determine possible predictors of death, and then multivariate analysis was carried out to control for potential confounders. RESULTS: An increase in the eosinophil count on the seventh day of hospitalisation was associated with a better prognosis, including lower mortality rates (5.2% vs. 22.6% in non-recoverers, OR 0.234; 95% CI, 0.154 to 0.354) and lower complication rates, especially regarding the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (8% vs. 20.1%, p = 0.000) and ICU admission (5.4% vs. 10.8%, p = 0.000). Lymphocyte recovery was found to have no effect on prognosis. Treatment with inhaled or systemic glucocorticoids was not found to be a confounding factor. CONCLUSION: Eosinophil recovery in patients with COVID-19 who required hospitalisation had an independent prognostic value for all-cause mortality and a milder course.