ABSTRACT
Objectives: Anti-interleukin-6 monoclonal antibody, tocilizumab, has produced mixed results in clinical trials for effectiveness against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare outcomes at 28 days of a cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 treated with tocilizumab and standard care, with those receiving standard care only. Materials and Methods: In this record-based retrospective cohort study, patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were classified into non-severe and severe disease as per institutional protocol. One cohort received tocilizumab with standard care and the second cohort received only standard care. Few patients also received high-dose steroids as ‘pulse’ steroids on initial clinical deterioration. Data were collected for the treatment given including oxygen interface, steroids, antimicrobials, duration of hospital stay in survivors, requirement of mechanical ventilation, and day of intubation from symptom onset. The primary outcome was to compare the all-cause mortality between the two groups. The effect of pulse steroid therapy on all-cause mortality was studied in the secondary outcome. Results: There was statistically significant mortality in the tocilizumab cohort as compared to standard care alone (HR 2.43, 95% CI 1.54–3.89). The need for mechanical ventilation was more in the tocilizumab cohort (85% vs. 18%, P < 0.001). Tocilizumab cohort had a delay in the day of intubation by a mean of 2.29 days from the day of symptom onset (P < 0.05). Pulse steroid administration showed increased all-cause mortality (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.18–3.20) and risk of mechanical ventilation. Conclusion: Tocilizumab cohort showed higher mortality and need for mechanical ventilation in our study which contrasts the result of a few previous trials. Our study warrants the need for future clinical trials on this subject to ensure better treatment strategies in upcoming COVID-19 waves.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to know the spectrum and number of bone and soft tissue (BST) tumors presenting to our institute. We needed to assess the gap between the number of patients seen and infrastructure available, and based on this information, help formulate guidelines for optimum utilization of resources and to provide best possible evidence‑based cancer care. SETTINGS AND DESIGNS: This is a prospective observational study (epidemiological). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included all new patients seen in BST‑disease management group (DMG) in the year 2010. An audit form was devised to capture all the relevant information. A comparison of our data with other national and international studies was also done. RESULTS: Out of total 31,951 new patients registered at our institute, 2007 patients availed BST‑DMG services. Sixty percent were bone tumors and 36% were soft tissue tumors. In bone tumor, 66% were malignant, 15% were benign, and 19% were non-neoplastic. Osteosarcoma (43%) was the most common malignant tumor followed by primitive neuroectodermal tumor/Ewing’s (27%) and chondrosarcoma (11%). Giant cell tumor was the most common benign bone tumor. Eighty‑one percent of all soft tissue lesions were malignant, of which 75% were of mesenchymal origin and 25% were of cutaneous origin. CONCLUSION: This is an attempt to document the epidemiology of musculoskeletal tumors presenting to our institution while guiding the institute to frame and implement disease‑specific protocols and generate further research questions. Continued data collection and follow‑up can provide valuable information on long‑term survival and treatment‑related toxicities. This data (within limitations) may be extrapolated to national level to identify the need for infrastructure and human resources.