ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab and baricitinib are recommended treatment options for hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen support. Literature about its efficacy and safety in a head-to-head comparison is scarce. METHODS: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen were treated with tocilizumab or baricitinib additionally to dexamethasone. Tocilizumab was available from February till the 19th of September 2021 and baricitinib from 21st of September. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcome parameters were progression to mechanical ventilation (MV), length-of-stay (LOS) and potential side effects. RESULTS: 159 patients (tocilizumab 68, baricitinib 91) with a mean age of 60.5 years, 64% male were included in the study. Tocilizumab patients were admitted 1 day earlier, were in a higher WHO category at the time of inclusion and had a higher CRP level on admission and treatment initiation. Patients receiving Tocilizumab were treated with remdesivir more often and only patients in the baricitinib group were treated with monoclonal antibodies. Other characteristics did not differ significantly. In-hospital mortality (18% vs. 11%, p = 0.229), progression to MV (19% vs. 11%, p = 0.173) and LOS (13 vs. 12 days, p = 0.114) did not differ between groups. Side effects were equally distributed between groups, except ALAT elevation which was significantly more often observed in the tocilizumab group (43% vs. 25%, p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital mortality, progression to MV and LOS were not significantly different in patients treated with tocilizumab or baricitinib additionally to standard of care. Both drugs seem equally effective but further head-to-head trials are needed.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is associated with a high mortality. To date no trial comparing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV) has been performed. METHODS: Hospitalized patients ≥18 years old with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were treated with either HCQ or LPV/RTV if they had either respiratory insufficiency (SpO2â¯≤ 93% on room air or the need for oxygen insufflation) or bilateral consolidations on chest Xray and at least 2 comorbidities associated with poor COVID-19 prognosis. Outcomes investigated included in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, length of stay, PCR (polymerase chain reaction) negativity and side effects of treatment. RESULTS: Of 156 patients (41% female) with a median age of 72 years (IQR 55.25-81) admitted to our department, 67 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria (20 received HCQ, 47 LPV/RTV). Groups were comparable regarding most baseline characteristics. Median time from symptom onset to treatment initiation was 8 days and was similar between the groups (pâ¯= 0.727). There was no significant difference (HCQ vs. LPV/RTV) in hospital mortality (15% vs. 8.5%, pâ¯= 0.418), ICU admission rate (20% vs. 12.8%, pâ¯= 0.470) and length of stay (9 days vs. 11 days, pâ¯= 0.340). A PCR negativity from nasopharyngeal swabs was observed in approximately two thirds of patients in both groups. Side effects led to treatment discontinuation in 15% of patients in the LPV/RTV group. CONCLUSION: No statistically significant differences were observed in outcome parameters in patients treated with HCQ or LPV/RTV but patients in the LPV/RTV group showed a numerically lower hospital mortality rate. Additionally, in comparison to other studies we demonstrated a lower mortality in patients treated with LPV/RTV despite having similar patient groups, perhaps due to early initiation of treatment.