Daily tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine and hydroxychloroquine for pre-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19: a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial in healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) as pre-exposure prophylaxis on COVID-19 risk. METHODS: EPICOS is a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted in Spain, Bolivia, and Venezuela. Healthcare workers with negative SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG test were randomly assigned to the following: daily TDF/FTC plus HCQ for 12 weeks, TDF/FTC plus HCQ placebo, HCQ plus TDF/FTC placebo, and TDF/FTC placebo plus HCQ placebo. Randomization was performed in groups of four. Primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19. We also studied any (symptomatic or asymptomatic) COVID-19. We compared group-specific 14-week risks via differences and ratios with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Of 1002 individuals screened, 926 (92.4%) were eligible and there were 14 cases of symptomatic COVID-19: 220 were assigned to the TDF/FTC plus HCQ group (3 cases), 231 to the TDF/FTC placebo plus HCQ group (3 cases), 233 to the TDF/FTC plus HCQ placebo group (3 cases), and 223 to the double placebo group (5 cases). Compared with the double placebo group, 14-week risk ratios (95% CI) of symptomatic COVID-19 were 0.39 (0.00-1.98) for TDF + HCQ, 0.34 (0.00-2.06) for TDF, and 0.49 (0.00-2.29) for HCQ. Corresponding risk ratios of any COVID-19 were 0.51 (0.21-1.00) for TDF + HCQ, 0.81 (0.44-1.49) for TDF, and 0.73 (0.41-1.38) for HCQ. Adverse events were generally mild. DISCUSSION: The target sample size was not met. Our findings are compatible with both benefit and harm of pre-exposure prophylaxis with TDF/FTC and HCQ, alone or in combination, compared with placebo.

No changes in hemostasis after COVID-19-heterologous vaccination schedule: A subanalysis of the phase 2 CombiVacS study.

Background: Several cases of unusual thrombotic events and thrombocytopenia were described after vaccination with recombinant adenoviral vectors encoding the spike protein antigen of SARS-CoV-2. Objectives: The objective of this study was to elucidate the impact of a COVID-19 heterologous vaccination schedule, including priming with adenovirus vaccine, on hemostasis profiles. Methods: The present study is a subanalysis of the CombiVacS clinical trial initiated in April 2021 that included adult participants previously vaccinated with a single dose of ChAdOx1-S. Between 8 and 12 weeks after vaccination, they were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either BNT162b2 vaccine (intervention group, n = 99) or continue observation (control group, n = 50). Samples drawn before and 28 days after a vaccination with BNT162b2 were analyzed for platelet count and markers of hemostasis (D-dimer, anti-PF4 antibodies, cfDNA, PAI-1, thrombin generation, and serum capacity to activate platelets). Results: Platelet count from all participants after receiving BNT162b2 was within the normal range. Anti-PF4 antibodies were present in 26% and 18% of the subjects from the control and intervention groups, respectively, at day 28. In most cases, the levels of anti-PF4 antibodies were high before receiving BNT162b2. Serum from these participants did not activate platelets from healthy controls. There were no differences between the groups in PAI-1 and cfDNA plasma levels. According to the D-dimer plasma concentration, the thrombin generation test showed that none of the participants had a procoagulant profile. Conclusion: Our data suggest that the heterologous vaccination against COVID-19 with ChAdOx1-S and a second dose with BNT162b2 might be safe in terms of haemostasis.

Incidence and Severity of COVID-19 in HIV-Positive Persons Receiving Antiretroviral Therapy : A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The incidence and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among HIV-positive persons receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) have not been characterized in large populations. OBJECTIVE: To describe the incidence and severity of COVID-19 by nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) use among HIV-positive persons receiving ART. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: HIV clinics in 60 Spanish hospitals between 1 February and 15 April 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 77 590 HIV-positive persons receiving ART. MEASUREMENTS: Estimated risks (cumulative incidences) per 10 000 persons and 95% CIs for polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death. Risk and 95% CIs for COVID-19 diagnosis and hospital admission by use of the NRTIs tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC), tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/FTC, abacavir (ABC)/lamivudine (3TC), and others were estimated through Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Of 77 590 HIV-positive persons receiving ART, 236 were diagnosed with COVID-19, 151 were hospitalized, 15 were admitted to the ICU, and 20 died. The risks for COVID-19 diagnosis and hospitalization were greater in men and persons older than 70 years. The risk for COVID-19 hospitalization was 20.3 (95% CI, 15.2 to 26.7) among patients receiving TAF/FTC, 10.5 (CI, 5.6 to 17.9) among those receiving TDF/FTC, 23.4 (CI, 17.2 to 31.1) among those receiving ABC/3TC, and 20.0 (CI, 14.2 to 27.3) for those receiving other regimens. The corresponding risks for COVID-19 diagnosis were 39.1 (CI, 31.8 to 47.6), 16.9 (CI, 10.5 to 25.9), 28.3 (CI, 21.5 to 36.7), and 29.7 (CI, 22.6 to 38.4), respectively. No patient receiving TDF/FTC was admitted to the ICU or died. LIMITATION: Residual confounding by comorbid conditions cannot be completely excluded. CONCLUSION: HIV-positive patients receiving TDF/FTC have a lower risk for COVID-19 and related hospitalization than those receiving other therapies. These findings warrant further investigation in HIV preexposure prophylaxis studies and randomized trials in persons without HIV. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Instituto de Salud Carlos III and National Institutes of Health.

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 in people with HIV infection.

BACKGROUND: Effective, safe, and affordable antivirals are needed for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Several lines of research suggest that tenofovir may be effective against COVID-19, but no large-scale human studies with appropriate adjustment for comorbidities have been conducted. METHODS: We studied HIV-positive individuals on antiretroviral therapy (ART) in 2020 at 69 HIV clinics in Spain. We collected data on sociodemographics, ART, CD4+ cell count, HIV-RNA viral-load, comorbidities and the following outcomes: laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, COVID-19 hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death. We compared the 48-week risks for individuals receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC), tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/FTC, abacavir (ABC)/lamivudine (3TC), and other regimes. All estimates were adjusted for clinical and sociodemographic characteristics via inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: Of 51 558 eligible individuals, 39.6% were on TAF/FTC, 11.9% on TDF/FTC, 26.6% on ABC/3TC, 21.8% on other regimes. There were 2402 documented SARS-CoV-2 infections (425 hospitalizations, 45 ICU admissions, 37 deaths). Compared with TAF/FTC, the estimated risk ratios (RR) (95% confidence interval) of hospitalization were 0.66 (0.43, 0.91) for TDF/FTC and 1.29 (1.02, 1.58) for ABC/3TC, the RRs of ICU admission were 0.28 (0.11, 0.90) for TDF/FTC and 1.39 (0.70, 2.80) for ABC/3TC, and the RRs of death were 0.37 (0.23, 1.90) for TDF/FTC and 2.02 (0.88-6.12) for ABC/3TC. The corresponding RRs of hospitalization for TDF/FTC were 0.49 (0.24, 0.81) in individuals ≥50 years and 1.15 (0.59, 1.93) in younger individuals. DISCUSSION: Compared with other antiretrovirals, TDF/FTC lowers COVID-19 severity among HIV-positive individuals with virological control. This protective effect may be restricted to individuals aged 50 years and older.

Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 booster in ChAdOx1-S-primed participants (CombiVacS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: To date, no immunological data on COVID-19 heterologous vaccination schedules in humans have been reported. We assessed the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, BioNTech, Mainz, Germany) administered as second dose in participants primed with ChAdOx1-S (Vaxzevria, AstraZeneca, Oxford, UK). METHODS: We did a phase 2, open-label, randomised, controlled trial on adults aged 18-60 years, vaccinated with a single dose of ChAdOx1-S 8-12 weeks before screening, and no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either BNT162b2 (0·3 mL) via a single intramuscular injection (intervention group) or continue observation (control group). The primary outcome was 14-day immunogenicity, measured by immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 trimeric spike protein and receptor binding domain (RBD). Antibody functionality was assessed using a pseudovirus neutralisation assay, and cellular immune response using an interferon-γ immunoassay. The safety outcome was 7-day reactogenicity, measured as solicited local and systemic adverse events. The primary analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of BNT162b2 and who had at least one efficacy evaluation after baseline. The safety analysis included all participants who received BNT162b2. This study is registered with EudraCT (2021-001978-37) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04860739), and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between April 24 and 30, 2021, 676 individuals were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n=450) or control group (n=226) at five university hospitals in Spain (mean age 44 years [SD 9]; 382 [57%] women and 294 [43%] men). 663 (98%) participants (n=441 intervention, n=222 control) completed the study up to day 14. In the intervention group, geometric mean titres of RBD antibodies increased from 71·46 BAU/mL (95% CI 59·84-85·33) at baseline to 7756·68 BAU/mL (7371·53-8161·96) at day 14 (p<0·0001). IgG against trimeric spike protein increased from 98·40 BAU/mL (95% CI 85·69-112·99) to 3684·87 BAU/mL (3429·87-3958·83). The interventional:control ratio was 77·69 (95% CI 59·57-101·32) for RBD protein and 36·41 (29·31-45·23) for trimeric spike protein IgG. Reactions were mild (n=1210 [68%]) or moderate (n=530 [30%]), with injection site pain (n=395 [88%]), induration (n=159 [35%]), headache (n=199 [44%]), and myalgia (n=194 [43%]) the most commonly reported adverse events. No serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: BNT162b2 given as a second dose in individuals prime vaccinated with ChAdOx1-S induced a robust immune response, with an acceptable and manageable reactogenicity profile. FUNDING: Instituto de Salud Carlos III. TRANSLATIONS: For the French and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Immunogenic dynamics and SARS-CoV-2 variant neutralisation of the heterologous ChAdOx1-S/BNT162b2 vaccination: Secondary analysis of the randomised CombiVacS study.

Background: The CombiVacS study was designed to assess immunogenicity and reactogenicity of the heterologous ChAdOx1-S/BNT162b2 combination, and 14-day results showed a strong immune response. The present secondary analysis addresses the evolution of humoral and cellular response up to day 180. Methods: Between April 24 and 30, 2021, 676 adults primed with ChAdOx1-S were enrolled in five hospitals in Spain, and randomised to receive BNT162b2 as second dose (interventional group [IG]) or no vaccine (control group [CG]). Individuals from CG received BNT162b2 as second dose and also on day 28, as planned based on favourable results on day 14. Humoral immunogenicity, measured by immunoassay for SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD), antibody functionality using pseudovirus neutralisation assays for the reference (G614), Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants, as well as cellular immune response using interferon-γ and IL-2 immunoassays were assessed at day 28 after BNT162b2 in both groups, at day 90 (planned only in the interventional group) and at day 180 (laboratory data cut-off on Nov 19, 2021). This study was registered with EudraCT (2021-001978-37) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04860739). Findings: In this secondary analysis, 664 individuals (441 from IG and 223 from CG) were included. At day 28 post vaccine, geometric mean titres (GMT) of RBD antibodies were 5616·91 BAU/mL (95% CI 5296·49-5956·71) in the IG and 7298·22 BAU/mL (6739·41-7903·37) in the CG (p < 0·0001). RBD antibodies titres decreased at day 180 (1142·0 BAU/mL [1048·69-1243·62] and 1836·4 BAU/mL [1621·62-2079·62] in the IG and CG, respectively; p < 0·0001). Neutralising antibodies also waned from day 28 to day 180 in both the IG (1429·01 [1220·37-1673·33] and 198·72 [161·54-244·47], respectively) and the CG (1503·28 [1210·71-1866·54] and 295·57 [209·84-416·33], respectively). The lowest variant-specific response was observed against Omicron-and Beta variants, with low proportion of individuals exhibiting specific neutralising antibody titres (NT50) >1:100 at day 180 (19% and 22%, respectively). Interpretation: Titres of RBD antibodies decay over time, similar to homologous regimes. Our findings suggested that delaying administration of the second dose did not have a detrimental effect after vaccination and may have improved the response obtained. Lower neutralisation was observed against Omicron and Beta variants at day 180. Funding: Funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII).

A Case-Control of Patients with COVID-19 to Explore the Association of Previous Hospitalisation Use of Medication on the Mortality of COVID-19 Disease: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Data from several cohorts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suggest that the most common comorbidities for severe COVID-19 disease are the elderly, high blood pressure, and diabetes; however, it is not currently known whether the previous use of certain drugs help or hinder recovery. This study aims to explore the association of previous hospitalisation use of medication on the mortality of COVID-19 disease. A retrospective case-control from two hospitals in Madrid, Spain, included all patients aged 18 years or above hospitalised with a diagnosis of COVID-19. A Propensity Score matching (PSM) analysis was performed. Confounding variables were considered to be age, sex, and the number of comorbidities. Finally, 3712 patients were included. Of these, 687 (18.5%) patients died (cases). The 22,446 medicine trademarks used previous to admission were classified according to the ATC, obtaining 689 final drugs; all of them were included in PSM analysis. Eleven drugs displayed a reduction in mortality: azithromycin, bemiparine, budesonide-formoterol fumarate, cefuroxime, colchicine, enoxaparin, ipratropium bromide, loratadine, mepyramine theophylline acetate, oral rehydration salts, and salbutamol sulphate. Eight final drugs displayed an increase in mortality: acetylsalicylic acid, digoxin, folic acid, mirtazapine, linagliptin, enalapril, atorvastatin, and allopurinol. Medication associated with survival (anticoagulants, antihistamines, azithromycin, bronchodilators, cefuroxime, colchicine, and inhaled corticosteroids) may be candidates for future clinical trials. Drugs associated with mortality show an interaction with the underlying conditions.

Impact of early interferon-ß treatment on the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 in the first wave: A post hoc analysis from a multicenter cohort.

BACKGROUND: Interferon-ß is an attractive drug for repurposing and use in the treatment of COVID-19, based on its in vitro antiviral activity and the encouraging results from clinical trials. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of early interferon-ß treatment in patients admitted with COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of a COVID-19@Spain multicenter cohort included 3808 consecutive adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from 1 January to 17 March 2020. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality, and the main exposure of interest was subcutaneous administration of interferon-ß, defined as early if started ≤ 3 days from admission. Multivariate logistic and Cox regression analyses were conducted to identify the associations of different variables with receiving early interferon-ß therapy and to assess its impact on 30-day mortality. A propensity score was calculated and used to both control for confounders and perform a matched cohort analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 683 patients (17.9%) received early interferon-ß therapy. These patients were more severely ill. Adjusted HR for mortality with early interferon-ß was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.82-1.30) in the overall cohort, 0.96 (0.82-1.13) in the PS-matched subcohort, and 0.89 (0.60-1.32) when interferon-ß treatment was analyzed as a time-dependent variable. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter cohort of admitted COVID-19 patients, receiving early interferon-ß therapy after hospital admission did not show an association with lower mortality. Whether interferon-ß might be useful in the earlier stages of the disease or specific subgroups of patients requires further research.

Health Care Workers' Reasons for Choosing Between Two Different COVID-19 Prophylaxis Trials in an Acute Pandemic Context: Single-Center Questionnaire Study.

BACKGROUND: In April 2020, two independent clinical trials to assess SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis strategies among health care workers were initiated at our hospital: MeCOVID (melatonin vs placebo) and EPICOS (tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine vs hydroxychloroquine vs combination therapy vs placebo). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the reasons why health care workers chose to participate in the MeCOVID and EPICOS trials, as well as why they chose one over the other. METHODS: Both trials were offered to health care workers through an internal news bulletin. After an initial screening visit, all subjects were asked to respond to a web-based survey. RESULTS: In the first month, 206 health care workers were screened and 160 were randomized. The survey participation was high at 73.3%. Health care workers cited "to contribute to scientific knowledge" (n=80, 53.0%), followed by "to avoid SARS-CoV-2 infection" (n=33, 21.9%) and "the interest to be tested for SARS-CoV-2" (n=28, 18.5%), as their primary reasons to participate in the trials. We observed significant differences in the expected personal benefits across physicians and nurses (P=.01). The vast majority of volunteers (n=202, 98.0%) selected the MeCOVID trial, their primary reason being their concern regarding adverse reactions to treatments in the EPICOS trial (n=102, 69.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Health care workers' reasons to participate in prophylaxis trials in an acute pandemic context appear to be driven largely by their desire to contribute to science and to gain health benefits. Safety outweighed efficacy when choosing between the two clinical trials.

The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among health care workers before the era of vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among health care workers (HCWs) provides information about the spread of COVID-19 within health care facilities, and the risk groups. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe the rate of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and its determinants among HCWs. DATA SOURCES: We used Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, EBSCOhost and Cochrane Library. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included the reports of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence with a sample size of minimum 1000 HCWs. METHODS: The study was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, no. CRD42021230456). We used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. The keywords were "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2", "Coronavirus", "seroprevalence", "health care workers" and "risk factors". RESULTS: In total 4329 reports were retrieved, duplications were removed; after filtering according to the title and abstract, 25 studies were selected. Risk of bias was assessed in 25 studies; it was low in 13 studies, medium in four studies, and high in eight studies. In meta-analysis using the random effect model, the weighted average of seroprevalence was calculated as 8% (95% CI 6-10%). The pooled seroprevalence rates of the selected variables that have a rate above the average were male HCWs with 9% (95% CI 7-11%); HCWs from ethnic minorities with 13% (95% CI 9-17%); high exposure 9% (95% CI 6-13%); exposure to the virus outside the health care setting 22% (95% CI 14-32%). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis indicates a SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rate of 8% among studies that included >1000 HCWs for the year 2020, before vaccinations started. The most common risk factors associated with higher seroprevalence rate were ethnicity, male gender and having a higher number of household contacts. Working as a frontline HCW was inconsistent in its association with higher seroprevalence.

Identification and validation of clinical phenotypes with prognostic implications in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19: a multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The clinical presentation of COVID-19 in patients admitted to hospital is heterogeneous. We aimed to determine whether clinical phenotypes of patients with COVID-19 can be derived from clinical data, to assess the reproducibility of these phenotypes and correlation with prognosis, and to derive and validate a simplified probabilistic model for phenotype assignment. Phenotype identification was not primarily intended as a predictive tool for mortality. METHODS: In this study, we used data from two cohorts: the COVID-19@Spain cohort, a retrospective cohort including 4035 consecutive adult patients admitted to 127 hospitals in Spain with COVID-19 between Feb 2 and March 17, 2020, and the COVID-19@HULP cohort, including 2226 consecutive adult patients admitted to a teaching hospital in Madrid between Feb 25 and April 19, 2020. The COVID-19@Spain cohort was divided into a derivation cohort, comprising 2667 randomly selected patients, and an internal validation cohort, comprising the remaining 1368 patients. The COVID-19@HULP cohort was used as an external validation cohort. A probabilistic model for phenotype assignment was derived in the derivation cohort using multinomial logistic regression and validated in the internal validation cohort. The model was also applied to the external validation cohort. 30-day mortality and other prognostic variables were assessed in the derived phenotypes and in the phenotypes assigned by the probabilistic model. FINDINGS: Three distinct phenotypes were derived in the derivation cohort (n=2667)-phenotype A (516 [19%] patients), phenotype B (1955 [73%]) and phenotype C (196 [7%])-and reproduced in the internal validation cohort (n=1368)-phenotype A (233 [17%] patients), phenotype B (1019 [74%]), and phenotype C (116 [8%]). Patients with phenotype A were younger, were less frequently male, had mild viral symptoms, and had normal inflammatory parameters. Patients with phenotype B included more patients with obesity, lymphocytopenia, and moderately elevated inflammatory parameters. Patients with phenotype C included older patients with more comorbidities and even higher inflammatory parameters than phenotype B. We developed a simplified probabilistic model (validated in the internal validation cohort) for phenotype assignment, including 16 variables. In the derivation cohort, 30-day mortality rates were 2·5% (95% CI 1·4-4·3) for patients with phenotype A, 30·5% (28·5-32·6) for patients with phenotype B, and 60·7% (53·7-67·2) for patients with phenotype C (log-rank test p<0·0001). The predicted phenotypes in the internal validation cohort and external validation cohort showed similar mortality rates to the assigned phenotypes (internal validation cohort: 5·3% [95% CI 3·4-8·1] for phenotype A, 31·3% [28·5-34·2] for phenotype B, and 59·5% [48·8-69·3] for phenotype C; external validation cohort: 3·7% [2·0-6·4] for phenotype A, 23·7% [21·8-25·7] for phenotype B, and 51·4% [41·9-60·7] for phenotype C). INTERPRETATION: Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 can be classified into three phenotypes that correlate with mortality. We developed and validated a simplified tool for the probabilistic assignment of patients into phenotypes. These results might help to better classify patients for clinical management, but the pathophysiological mechanisms of the phenotypes must be investigated. FUNDING: Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, and Fundación SEIMC/GeSIDA.

Treatment with tocilizumab or corticosteroids for COVID-19 patients with hyperinflammatory state: a multicentre cohort study (SAM-COVID-19).

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to estimate the association between tocilizumab or corticosteroids and the risk of intubation or death in patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) with a hyperinflammatory state according to clinical and laboratory parameters. METHODS: A cohort study was performed in 60 Spanish hospitals including 778 patients with COVID-19 and clinical and laboratory data indicative of a hyperinflammatory state. Treatment was mainly with tocilizumab, an intermediate-high dose of corticosteroids (IHDC), a pulse dose of corticosteroids (PDC), combination therapy, or no treatment. Primary outcome was intubation or death; follow-up was 21 days. Propensity score-adjusted estimations using Cox regression (logistic regression if needed) were calculated. Propensity scores were used as confounders, matching variables and for the inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTWs). RESULTS: In all, 88, 117, 78 and 151 patients treated with tocilizumab, IHDC, PDC, and combination therapy, respectively, were compared with 344 untreated patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 10 (11.4%), 27 (23.1%), 12 (15.4%), 40 (25.6%) and 69 (21.1%), respectively. The IPTW-based hazard ratios (odds ratio for combination therapy) for the primary endpoint were 0.32 (95%CI 0.22-0.47; p < 0.001) for tocilizumab, 0.82 (0.71-1.30; p 0.82) for IHDC, 0.61 (0.43-0.86; p 0.006) for PDC, and 1.17 (0.86-1.58; p 0.30) for combination therapy. Other applications of the propensity score provided similar results, but were not significant for PDC. Tocilizumab was also associated with lower hazard of death alone in IPTW analysis (0.07; 0.02-0.17; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab might be useful in COVID-19 patients with a hyperinflammatory state and should be prioritized for randomized trials in this situation.