ABSTRACT
Background Results: from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients. Methods We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions. Results Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively). Conclusions The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
BACKGROUNDSarilumab (anti-interleukin-6 receptor- monoclonal antibody) may attenuate the inflammatory response in Covid-19. METHODSWe performed an adaptive, phase 2/3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous sarilumab 200 mg or 400 mg in adults hospitalized with Covid-19. The phase 3 primary analysis population (cohort 1) was patients with critical Covid-19 receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) randomized to sarilumab 400 mg or placebo. The primary end point for phase 3 was the proportion of patients with [≥]1-point improvement in clinical status from baseline to day 22. RESULTSFour-hundred fifty-seven (457) and 1365 patients were randomized and treated in phases 2 and 3, respectively. Among phase 3 critical patients receiving MV (n=289; 34.3% on corticosteroids), the proportion with [≥]1-point improvement in clinical status (alive not receiving MV) at day 22 was 43.2% in sarilumab 400 mg and 35.5% in placebo (risk difference [RD] +7.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.4 to 21.3; P=0.3261), representing a relative risk improvement of 21.7%. Day 29 all-cause mortality was 36.4% in sarilumab 400 mg versus 41.9% in placebo (RD -5.5%; 95% CI, -20.2 to 8.7; relative risk reduction 13.3%). In post hoc analyses pooling phase 2 and 3 critical patients receiving MV, the hazard ratio (HR) for death in sarilumab 400 mg compared with placebo was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.51 to 1.13) overall, improving to 0.49 (95% CI, 0.25 to 0.94) in patients receiving corticosteroids at baseline. CONCLUSIONIn hospitalized patients with Covid-19 receiving MV, numerical benefits with sarilumab did not achieve statistical significance, but benefit may be greater in patients receiving corticosteroids. A larger study is required to confirm this observed numerical benefit. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04315298)