ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trials comparing tocilizumab and baricitinib in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed. This was an open-label, randomized controlled trial aiming to address this unmet need. METHODS: To determine whether baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab, we assessed whether the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR) did not exceed 1.50. The primary outcome was mechanical ventilation or death by day 28. Secondary outcomes included time to hospital discharge by day 28 and change in WHO progression scale at day 10. RESULTS: We assigned 251 patients with COVID-19 and a PaO2/FiO2 ratio of <200 to receive either tocilizumab (n = 126) or baricitinib (n = 125) plus standard of care. Baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab for the primary composite outcome of mechanical ventilation or death by day 28 (mechanical ventilation or death for patients who received baricitinib, 39.2% [n = 49/125]; mechanical ventilation or death for patients who received tocilizumab, 44.4% [n = 56/126]; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.56-1.21; p 0.001 for non-inferiority). Baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab for the time to hospital discharge within 28 days (patients who received baricitinib- discharged alive: 58.4% [n = 73/125] vs. patients who received tocilizumab- discharged alive: 52.4% [n = 66/126]; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.61-1.18; p < 0.001 for non-inferiority). There was no significant difference between the baricitinib and tocilizumab arms in the change in WHO scale at day 10 (0.0 [95% CI, 0.0-0.0] vs. 0.0 [95% CI, 0.0-1.0]; p 0.83). DISCUSSION: In the setting of this trial, baricitinib was non-inferior to tocilizumab with regards to the composite outcome of mechanical ventilation or death by day 28 and the time to discharge by day 28 in patients with severe COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Data on the safety and efficacy profile of tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19 needs to be enriched. METHODS: In this open label, prospective study, we evaluated clinical outcomes in consecutive patients with COVID-19 and PaO2/FiO2 < 200 receiving tocilizumab plus usual care versus usual care alone. Tocilizumab was administered at the time point that PaO2/FiO2 < 200 was observed. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included time to discharge, change in PaO2/FiO2 at day 5 and change in WHO progression scale at day 10. FINDINGS: Overall, 114 patients were included in the analysis (tocilizumab plus usual care: 56, usual care: 58). Allocation to usual care was associated with significant increase in 28-day mortality compared to tocilizumab plus usual care [Cox proportional-hazards model: HR: 3.34, (95% CI: 1.21-9.30), (p = 0.02)]. There was not a statistically significant difference with regards to hospital discharge over the 28 day period for patients receiving tocilizumab compared to usual care [11.0 days (95% CI: 9.0 to 16.0) vs 14.0 days (95% CI: 10.0-24.0), HR: 1.32 (95% CI: 0.84-2.08), p = 0.21]. ΔPaO2/FiO2 at day 5 was significantly higher in the tocilizumab group compared to the usual care group [42.0 (95% CI: 23.0-84.7) vs 15.8 (95% CI: - 19.4-50.3), p = 0.03]. ΔWHO scale at day 10 was significantly lower in the tocilizumab group compared to the usual care group (-0.5 ± 2.1 vs 0.6 ± 2.6, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Administration of tocilizumab, at the time point that PaO2/FiO2 < 200 was observed, improved survival and other clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 irrespective of systemic inflammatory markers levels.