Efficacy and Safety of Anakinra Plus Standard of Care for Patients With Severe COVID-19: A Randomized Phase 2/3 Clinical Trial.

Importance: COVID-19 pneumonia is often associated with hyperinflammation. The efficacy and safety of anakinra in treating patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation are still unclear. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of anakinra vs standard of care alone for patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Clinical Trial of the Use of Anakinra in Cytokine Storm Syndrome Secondary to COVID-19 (ANA-COVID-GEAS) was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, 2-group, phase 2/3 clinical trial conducted at 12 hospitals in Spain between May 8, 2020, and March 1, 2021, with a follow-up of 1 month. Participants were adult patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation. Hyperinflammation was defined as interleukin-6 greater than 40 pg/mL, ferritin greater than 500 ng/mL, C-reactive protein greater than 3 mg/dL (rationale, ≥5 upper normal limit), and/or lactate dehydrogenase greater than 300 U/L. Severe pneumonia was considered if at least 1 of the following conditions was met: ambient air oxygen saturation 94% or less measured with a pulse oximeter, ratio of partial pressure O2 to fraction of inspired O2 of 300 or less, and/or a ratio of O2 saturation measured with pulse oximeter to fraction of inspired O2 of 350 or less. Data analysis was performed from April to October 2021. Interventions: Usual standard of care plus anakinra (anakinra group) or usual standard of care alone (SoC group). Anakinra was given at a dose of 100 mg 4 times a day intravenously. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients not requiring mechanical ventilation up to 15 days after treatment initiation, assessed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: A total of 179 patients (123 men [69.9%]; mean [SD] age, 60.5 [11.5] years) were randomly assigned to the anakinra group (92 patients) or to the SoC group (87 patients). The proportion of patients not requiring mechanical ventilation up to day 15 was not significantly different between groups (64 of 83 patients [77.1%] in the anakinra group vs 67 of 78 patients [85.9%] in the SoC group; risk ratio [RR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.77-1.04; P = .16). Anakinra did not result in any difference in time to mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio, 1.72; 95% CI, 0.82-3.62; P = .14). There was no significant difference between groups in the proportion of patients not requiring invasive mechanical ventilation up to day 15 (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.88-1.11; P > .99). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, anakinra did not prevent the need for mechanical ventilation or reduce mortality risk compared with standard of care alone among hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04443881.

Quality of life of early-stage breast-cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in the first three waves of the epidemic treated in the Spanish region of Navarre.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the Quality of Life (QOL) of breast-cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and analyse its evolution, compare the QOL of these patients according to the COVID-19 wave in which they were diagnosed, and examine the clinical and demographic determinants of QOL. METHODS: A total of 260 patients with breast cancer (90.8% I-III stages) and COVID-19 (85% light/moderate) were included (February-September 2021) in this study. Most patients were receiving anticancer treatment (mainly hormonotherapy). Patients were grouped according to the date of COVID-19 diagnosis: first wave (March-May 2020, 85 patients), second wave (June-December 2020, 107 patients) and third wave (January-September 2021, 68 patients). Quality of Life was assessed 10 months, 7 months, and 2 weeks after these dates, respectively. Patients completed QLQ-C30, QLQ-BR45, and Oslo COVID-19 QLQ-PW80 twice over four months. Patients ≥65 also completed QLQ-ELD14. The QOL of each group and changes in QOL for the whole sample were compared (non-parametric tests). Multivariate logistic regression identified patient characteristics related to (1) low global QOL and (2) changes in Global QOL between assessments. RESULTS: Moderate limitations (>30 points) appeared in the first assessment in Global QOL, sexual scales, three QLQ-ELD14 scales, and 13 symptoms and emotional COVID-19 areas. Differences between the COVID-19 groups appeared in two QLQ-C30 areas and four QLQ-BR45 areas. Quality of Life improvements between assessments appeared in six QLQ-C30, four QLQ-BR45 and 18 COVID-19 questionnaire areas. The best multivariate model to explain global QOL combined emotional functioning, fatigue, endocrine treatment, gastrointestinal symptoms, and targeted therapy (R2  = 0.393). The best model to explain changes in global QOL combined physical and emotional functioning, malaise, and sore eyes (R2  = 0.575). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with breast cancer and COVID-19 adapted well to illness. The few differences between wave-based groups (differences in follow-up notwithstanding) may have arisen because the second and third waves saw fewer COVID restrictions, more positive COVID information, and more vaccinated patients.