A comparison of the effectiveness of different doses of tocilizumab and sarilumab in the treatment of severe COVID-19: a natural experiment due to drug shortages

Objectives IL-6 inhibitors are administered to treat hospitalized COVID-19 patients. In 2021, due to shortages, different dosing regimens of tocilizumab, and a switch to sarilumab, were consecutively implemented. Using real world data, we compare the effectiveness of these IL-6 inhibitors. Methods Hospitalized COVID-19 patients, treated with IL-6 inhibitors, were included in this natural-experiment study. Sixty-day survival, hospital- and ICU length of stay and progression to ICU or death were compared between 8 mg/kg tocilizumab, fixed dose tocilizumab, low dose tocilizumab and fixed dose sarilumab treatment groups. Results 5485 patients from 49 hospitals were included. After correction for confounding, increased hazard ratios for 60-day mortality were observed for fixed dose tocilizumab (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.04-1.39), low dose tocilizumab (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97-1.31) and sarilumab (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.08-1.42), all relative to 8 mg/kg. The 8 mg/kg dosing regimen had lower odds for progression to ICU or death. Both hospital- and ICU length of stay were shorter for low dose tocilizumab than for the 8 mg/kg group. Conclusions We found differences in the probability of 60-day survival and the incidence of the combined outcome of mortality or ICU admission, mostly favoring 8 mg/kg tocilizumab. Because of potential time associated residual confounding, further clinical studies are warranted.

Some Patients Are More Equal Than Others: Variation in Ventilator Settings for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: As coronavirus disease 2019 is a novel disease, treatment strategies continue to be debated. This provides the intensive care community with a unique opportunity as the population of coronavirus disease 2019 patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation is relatively homogeneous compared with other ICU populations. We hypothesize that the novelty of coronavirus disease 2019 and the uncertainty over its similarity with noncoronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome resulted in substantial practice variation between hospitals during the first and second waves of coronavirus disease 2019 patients. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Twenty-five hospitals in the Netherlands from February 2020 to July 2020, and 14 hospitals from August 2020 to December 2020. PATIENTS: One thousand two hundred ninety-four critically ill intubated adult ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019 were selected from the Dutch Data Warehouse. Patients intubated for less than 24 hours, transferred patients, and patients still admitted at the time of data extraction were excluded. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We aimed to estimate between-ICU practice variation in selected ventilation parameters (positive end-expiratory pressure, Fio2, set respiratory rate, tidal volume, minute volume, and percentage of time spent in a prone position) on days 1, 2, 3, and 7 of intubation, adjusted for patient characteristics as well as severity of illness based on Pao2/Fio2 ratio, pH, ventilatory ratio, and dynamic respiratory system compliance during controlled ventilation. Using multilevel linear mixed-effects modeling, we found significant (p ≤ 0.001) variation between ICUs in all ventilation parameters on days 1, 2, 3, and 7 of intubation for both waves. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to clearly demonstrate significant practice variation between ICUs related to mechanical ventilation parameters that are under direct control by intensivists. Their effect on clinical outcomes for both coronavirus disease 2019 and other critically ill mechanically ventilated patients could have widespread implications for the practice of intensive care medicine and should be investigated further by causal inference models and clinical trials.

Predicting mortality of individual patients with COVID-19: a multicentre Dutch cohort.

OBJECTIVE: Develop and validate models that predict mortality of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 admitted to the hospital. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A multicentre cohort across 10 Dutch hospitals including patients from 27 February to 8 June 2020. PARTICIPANTS: SARS-CoV-2 positive patients (age ≥18) admitted to the hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 21-day all-cause mortality evaluated by the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. The predictive value of age was explored by comparison with age-based rules used in practice and by excluding age from the analysis. RESULTS: 2273 patients were included, of whom 516 had died or discharged to palliative care within 21 days after admission. Five feature sets, including premorbid, clinical presentation and laboratory and radiology values, were derived from 80 features. Additionally, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)-based data-driven feature selection selected the 10 features with the highest F values: age, number of home medications, urea nitrogen, lactate dehydrogenase, albumin, oxygen saturation (%), oxygen saturation is measured on room air, oxygen saturation is measured on oxygen therapy, blood gas pH and history of chronic cardiac disease. A linear logistic regression and non-linear tree-based gradient boosting algorithm fitted the data with an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.85) and 0.82 (0.79 to 0.85), respectively, using the 10 selected features. Both models outperformed age-based decision rules used in practice (AUC of 0.69, 0.65 to 0.74 for age >70). Furthermore, performance remained stable when excluding age as predictor (AUC of 0.78, 0.75 to 0.81). CONCLUSION: Both models showed good performance and had better test characteristics than age-based decision rules, using 10 admission features readily available in Dutch hospitals. The models hold promise to aid decision-making during a hospital bed shortage.

Can predicting COVID-19 mortality in a European cohort using only demographic and comorbidity data surpass age-based prediction: An externally validated study.

OBJECTIVE: To establish whether one can build a mortality prediction model for COVID-19 patients based solely on demographics and comorbidity data that outperforms age alone. Such a model could be a precursor to implementing smart lockdowns and vaccine distribution strategies. METHODS: The training cohort comprised 2337 COVID-19 inpatients from nine hospitals in The Netherlands. The clinical outcome was death within 21 days of being discharged. The features were derived from electronic health records collected during admission. Three feature selection methods were used: LASSO, univariate using a novel metric, and pairwise (age being half of each pair). 478 patients from Belgium were used to test the model. All modeling attempts were compared against an age-only model. RESULTS: In the training cohort, the mortality group's median age was 77 years (interquartile range = 70-83), higher than the non-mortality group (median = 65, IQR = 55-75). The incidence of former/active smokers, male gender, hypertension, diabetes, dementia, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic cardiac disease, chronic neurological disease, and chronic kidney disease was higher in the mortality group. All stated differences were statistically significant after Bonferroni correction. LASSO selected eight features, novel univariate chose five, and pairwise chose none. No model was able to surpass an age-only model in the external validation set, where age had an AUC of 0.85 and a balanced accuracy of 0.77. CONCLUSION: When applied to an external validation set, we found that an age-only mortality model outperformed all modeling attempts (curated on www.covid19risk.ai) using three feature selection methods on 22 demographic and comorbid features.

Outcomes of persons with coronavirus disease 2019 in hospitals with and without standard treatment with (hydroxy)chloroquine.

OBJECTIVE: To compare survival of individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treated in hospitals that either did or did not routinely treat patients with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine. METHODS: We analysed data of COVID-19 patients treated in nine hospitals in the Netherlands. Inclusion dates ranged from 27 February to 15 May 2020, when the Dutch national guidelines no longer supported the use of (hydroxy)chloroquine. Seven hospitals routinely treated patients with (hydroxy)chloroquine, two hospitals did not. Primary outcome was 21-day all-cause mortality. We performed a survival analysis using log-rank test and Cox regression with adjustment for age, sex and covariates based on premorbid health, disease severity and the use of steroids for adult respiratory distress syndrome, including dexamethasone. RESULTS: Among 1949 individuals, 21-day mortality was 21.5% in 1596 patients treated in hospitals that routinely prescribed (hydroxy)chloroquine, and 15.0% in 353 patients treated in hospitals that did not. In the adjusted Cox regression models this difference disappeared, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% CI 0.81-1.47). When stratified by treatment actually received in individual patients, the use of (hydroxy)chloroquine was associated with an increased 21-day mortality (HR 1.58; 95% CI 1.24-2.02) in the full model. CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment for confounders, mortality was not significantly different in hospitals that routinely treated patients with (hydroxy)chloroquine compared with hospitals that did not. We compared outcomes of hospital strategies rather than outcomes of individual patients to reduce the chance of indication bias. This study adds evidence against the use of (hydroxy)chloroquine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.