Tocilizumab plus dexamethasone versus dexamethasone in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia: A randomised clinical trial from the CORIMUNO-19 study group.

Background: In moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia, dexamethasone (DEX) and tocilizumab (TCZ) reduce the occurrence of death and ventilatory support. We investigated the efficacy and safety of DEX+TCZ in an open randomized clinical trial. Methods: From July 24, 2020, through May 18, 2021, patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring oxygen (>3 L/min) were randomly assigned to receive DEX (10 mg/d 5 days tapering up to 10 days) alone or combined with TCZ (8 mg/kg IV) at day 1, possibly repeated with a fixed dose of 400 mg i.v. at day 3. The primary outcome was time from randomization to mechanical ventilation support or death up to day 14, analysed on an intent-to-treat basis using a Bayesian approach. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04476979. Findings: A total of 453 patients were randomized, 3 withdrew consent, 450 were analysed, of whom 226 and 224 patients were assigned to receive DEX or TCZ+DEX, respectively. At day 14, mechanical ventilation or death occurred in 32/226 (14%) and 27/224 (12%) in the DEX and TCZ+DEX arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0·85, 90% credible interval [CrI] 0·55 to 1·31). At day 14, the World health Organization (WHO) clinical progression scale (CPS) was significantly improved in the TCZ+DEX arm (OR 0·69, 95% CrI, 0·49 to 0.97). At day 28, the cumulative incidence of oxygen supply independency was 82% in the TCZ+DEX arms and 72% in the DEX arm (HR 1·36, 95% CI 1·11 to 1·67). On day 90, 24 deaths (11%) were observed in the DEX arm and 18 (8%) in the TCZ+DEX arm (HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·42-1·41). Serious adverse events were observed in 25% and 21% in DEX and TCZ+DEX arms, respectively. Interpretation: Mechanical ventilation need and mortality were not improved with TCZ+DEX compared with DEX alone. The safety of both treatments was similar. However, given the wide confidence intervals for the estimate of effect, definitive interpretation cannot be drawn. Funding: Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique [PHRC COVID-19-20-0151, PHRC COVID-19-20-0029], Fondation de l'Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (Alliance Tous Unis Contre le Virus) and from Fédération pour la Recherche Médicale" (FRM). Tocilizumab was provided by Roche.

No evidence of tocilizumab treatment efficacy for severe to critical SARS-CoV2 infected patients: Results from a retrospective controlled multicenter study.

ABSTRACT: To assess tocilizumab (TCZ) efficacy associated to standard of care (SOC) compared to SOC alone in severe coronavirus associated disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. In a matched case-control study from 3 French Hospital COVID-19 Departments, 27 patients with severe COVID-19 treated with TCZ and SOC were matched for baseline epidemiological and clinical features and compared to 27 severe COVID-19 patients treated with SOC alone. Baseline characteristics of the study population were comparable between groups. Eleven patients (20%) died. TCZ was not associated with clinical improvement as compared to SOC regarding oxygen-free status (44% vs 63%) and death (18.5% vs 22%), despite a higher decrease of the C-reactive protein at Day 7 (10.7 vs 52 mg/L; P < 10-3). Compared to the 43 patients alive at the end-of follow-up, patients who died were older (78 vs 64 years; P < 10-3), with 82% of them older than 72 years vs only 23% of live patients (P < 10-3). Age (OR = 1.15; 95%CI = 1.04-1.3; P = .008) and age over 72 years (OR) = 14.85; 95%CI = 2.7-80; P = .002) were independently associated with mortality. TCZ in addition to SOC for severe COVID-19 patients did not reduce mortality, subsequent need for invasive mechanical ventilation nor did it shorten the time of oxygen support, despite better control of the inflammatory response. More powerful and randomized controlled trials are warranted to determine if TCZ is effective in the management of COVID-19.

White blood count, D-dimers, and ferritin levels as predictive factors of pulmonary embolism suspected upon admission in noncritically ill COVID-19 patients: The French multicenter CLOTVID retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: A high prevalence of pulmonary embolism (PE) has been described during COVID-19. Our aim was to identify predictive factors of PE in non-ICU hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Data and outcomes were collected upon admission during a French multicenter retrospective study, including patients hospitalized for COVID-19, with a CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) performed in the emergency department for suspected PE. Predictive factors significantly associated with PE were identified through a multivariate regression model. RESULTS: A total of 88 patients (median [IQR] age of 68 years [60-78]) were analyzed. Based on CTPA, 47 (53.4%) patients were diagnosed with PE, and 41 were not. D-dimer ≥3000 ng/mL (OR 8.2 [95% CI] 1.3-74.2, sensitivity (Se) 0.84, specificity (Sp) 0.78, P = .03), white blood count (WBC) ≥12.0 G/L (29.5 [2.3-1221.2], Se 0.47, Sp 0.92, P = .02), and ferritin ≥480 µg/L (17.0 [1.7-553.3], Se 0.96, Sp 0.44, P = .03) were independently associated with the PE diagnosis. The presence of the double criterion D-dimer ≥3000 ng/mL and WBC ≥12.0 G/L was greatly associated with PE (OR 21.4 [4.0-397.9], P = .004). CONCLUSION: The white blood count, the D-dimer and ferritin levels could be used as an indication for CTPA to confirm PE on admission in non-ICU COVID-19 patients.

D-Dimer Level and Neutrophils Count as Predictive and Prognostic Factors of Pulmonary Embolism in Severe Non-ICU COVID-19 Patients.

The incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) is high during severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to identify predictive and prognostic factors of PE in non-ICU hospitalized COVID-19 patients. In the retrospective multicenter observational CLOTVID cohort, we enrolled patients with confirmed RT-PCR COVID-19 who were hospitalized in a medicine ward and also underwent a CT pulmonary angiography for a PE suspicion. Baseline data, laboratory biomarkers, treatments, and outcomes were collected. Predictive and prognostics factors of PE were identified by using logistic multivariate and by Cox regression models, respectively. A total of 174 patients were enrolled, among whom 86 (median [IQR] age of 66 years [55-77]) had post-admission PE suspicion, with 30/86 (34.9%) PE being confirmed. PE occurrence was independently associated with the lack of long-term anticoagulation or thromboprophylaxis (OR [95%CI], 72.3 [3.6-4384.8]) D-dimers ≥ 2000 ng/mL (26.3 [4.1-537.8]) and neutrophils ≥ 7.0 G/L (5.8 [1.4-29.5]). The presence of these two biomarkers was associated with a higher risk of PE (p = 0.0002) and death or ICU transfer (HR [95%CI], 12.9 [2.5-67.8], p < 0.01). In hospitalized non-ICU severe COVID-19 patients with clinical PE suspicion, the lack of anticoagulation, D-dimers ≥ 2000 ng/mL, neutrophils ≥ 7.0 G/L, and these two biomarkers combined might be useful predictive markers of PE and prognosis, respectively.

Convalescent plasma therapy for B-cell-depleted patients with protracted COVID-19.

Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies are widely used for the treatment of hematological malignancies or autoimmune disease but may be responsible for a secondary humoral deficiency. In the context of COVID-19 infection, this may prevent the elicitation of a specific SARS-CoV-2 antibody response. We report a series of 17 consecutive patients with profound B-cell lymphopenia and prolonged COVID-19 symptoms, negative immunoglobulin G (IgG)-IgM SARS-CoV-2 serology, and positive RNAemia measured by digital polymerase chain reaction who were treated with 4 units of COVID-19 convalescent plasma. Within 48 hours of transfusion, all but 1 patient experienced an improvement of clinical symptoms. The inflammatory syndrome abated within a week. Only 1 patient who needed mechanical ventilation for severe COVID-19 disease died of bacterial pneumonia. SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia decreased to below the sensitivity threshold in all 9 evaluated patients. In 3 patients, virus-specific T-cell responses were analyzed using T-cell enzyme-linked immunospot assay before convalescent plasma transfusion. All showed a maintained SARS-CoV-2 T-cell response and poor cross-response to other coronaviruses. No adverse event was reported. Convalescent plasma with anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies appears to be a very promising approach in the context of protracted COVID-19 symptoms in patients unable to mount a specific humoral response to SARS-CoV-2.