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.

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: Interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors are administered to treat patients hospitalized with COVID-19. 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 patients with COVID-19, treated with IL-6 inhibitors, were included in this natural experiment study. Sixty-day survival, hospital- and intensive care unit (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: A total of 5485 patients from 49 hospitals were included. After correction for confounding, increased hazard ratios (HRs) for 60-day mortality were observed for fixed-dose tocilizumab (HR 1.20, 95% confidence interval [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 of 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

How Finnish firm is handling pandemic

Nokia has 103,000 employees in more than 100 countries, so how the organisation is managing and supporting its staff with regards to the Covid-19 coronavirus was a key question posed by journalists. "The third question we ask people is, would it be a problem for you if you were quarantined somewhere for 14 days? Because if you were travelling to China or Singapore, if you're travelling back from there, then there is a fair likelihood that will happen." [...]basic social responsibility - if you've got something that resembles a cough or a cold, don't go into the office. Managing perception Davies added that during the swine flu epidemic in 2009, many companies didn't have the capacity for mass remote working - "VPN networks would grind to halt" - but now we can.

Tackling the challenges of nanomedicines: are we ready?

PURPOSE: This review provides an overview of the proceedings of the symposium "Tackling the Challenges of Nanomedicines: Are We Ready?" organized by the International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) Hospital Pharmacy Section and Non-Biological Complex Drugs (NBCDs) Working Group at the 2019 FIP World Congress of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. Debate centered on reasons underlying the current complex regulatory landscape for nanomedicines and their follow-on products (referred to as nanosimilars) and the pivotal role of hospital pharmacists in selecting, handling, and guiding usage of nanomedicines and nanosimilars. SUMMARY: The evaluation and use of nanomedicines are recognized among scientific, pharmaceutical, and regulatory bodies as complex. Interchangeability and substitutability of nanomedicines and nanosimilars are confounded by a lack of pharmaceutical and pharmacological equivalence, reflecting the inherent complex nature of these drug products and manufacturing processes. Consequences include implications for clinical safety and efficacy and, ultimately, comparability. Local regulatory approvals of some nanomedicines have occurred, but there is no standard to ensure streamlined evaluation and use of consistent measures of therapeutic equivalence of reference products and their nanosimilars. Hospital pharmacists are expected to be experts in the selection, handling, and substitution of nanomedicines and familiarize themselves with the limitations of current methods of assessing pharmaceutical and clinical equivalence of nanosimilars in order to ensure informed formulary decision-making and eventual patient benefit. CONCLUSION: Supportive guidance for pharmacists focusing on the substitutability and/or interchangeability of nanomedicines and their nanosimilars is needed. Current FIP guidance for pharmacists on therapeutic interchange and substitution should be extended to include nanomedicines and nanosimilars.