Methylprednisolone Pulses Plus Tacrolimus in Addition to Standard of Care vs. Standard of Care Alone in Patients With Severe COVID-19. A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Introduction: Severe lung injury is triggered by both the SARS-CoV-2 infection and the subsequent host-immune response in some COVID-19 patients. Methods: We conducted a randomized, single-center, open-label, phase II trial with the aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone pulses and tacrolimus plus standard of care (SoC) vs. SoC alone, in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. The primary outcome was time to clinical stability within 56 days after randomization. Results: From April 1 to May 2, 2020, 55 patients were prospectively included for subsequent randomization; 27 were assigned to the experimental group and 28 to the control group. The experimental treatment was not associated with a difference in time to clinical stability (hazard ratio 0.73 [95% CI 0.39-1.37]) nor most secondary outcomes. Median methylprednisolone cumulative doses were significantly lower (360 mg [IQR 360-842] vs. 870 mg [IQR 364-1451]; p = 0.007), and administered for a shorter time (median of 4.00 days [3.00-17.5] vs. 18.5 days [3.00-53.2]; p = 0.011) in the experimental group than in the control group. Although not statistically significant, those receiving the experimental therapy showed a numerically lower all-cause mortality than those receiving SoC, especially at day 10 [2 (7.41%) vs. 5 (17.9%); OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.05-2.1); p = 0.282]. The total number of non-serious adverse events was 42 in each the two groups. Those receiving experimental treatment had a numerically higher rate of non-serious infectious adverse events [16 (38%) vs. 10 (24%)] and serious infectious adverse events [7 (35%) vs. 3 (23%)] than those receiving SoC. Conclusions: The combined use of methylprednisolone pulses plus tacrolimus, in addition to the SoC, did not significantly improve the time to clinical stability or other secondary outcomes compared with the SoC alone in severe COVID-19. Although not statistically significant, patients receiving the experimental therapy had numerically lower all-cause mortality than those receiving SoC, supporting recent non-randomized studies with calcineurin inhibitors. It is noteworthy that the present trial had a limited sample size and several other limitations. Therefore, further RCTs should be done to assess the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus to tackle the inflammatory stages of COVID-19. Clinical Trial Registration: Identifier [NCT04341038/EudraCT: 2020-001445-39].

Beneficial effect of corticosteroids in preventing mortality in patients receiving tocilizumab to treat severe COVID-19 illness.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the characteristics and risk factors for mortality in patients with severe coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) treated with tocilizumab (TCZ), alone or in combination with corticosteroids (CS). METHODS: From March 17 to April 7, 2020, a real-world observational retrospective analysis of consecutive hospitalized adult patients receiving TCZ to treat severe COVID-19 was conducted at our 750-bed university hospital. The main outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1,092 patients with COVID-19 were admitted during the study period. Of them, 186 (17%) were treated with TCZ, of which 129 (87.8%) in combination with CS. Of the total 186 patients, 155 (83.3 %) patients were receiving noninvasive ventilation when TCZ was initiated. Mean time from symptoms onset and hospital admission to TCZ use was 12 (±4.3) and 4.3 days (±3.4), respectively. Overall, 147 (79%) survived and 39 (21%) died. By multivariate analysis, mortality was associated with older age (HR = 1.09, p < 0.001), chronic heart failure (HR = 4.4, p = 0.003), and chronic liver disease (HR = 4.69, p = 0.004). The use of CS, in combination with TCZ, was identified as a protective factor against mortality (HR = 0.26, p < 0.001) in such severe COVID-19 patients receiving TCZ. No serious superinfections were observed after a 30-day follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe COVID-19 receiving TCZ due to systemic host-immune inflammatory response syndrome, the use of CS in addition to TCZ therapy, showed a beneficial effect in preventing in-hospital mortality.

Predictors of Infliximab Trough Concentrations in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients Using a Repeated-Measures Design.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Treating patients based on a treat-to-trough approach has been shown to be a cost-effective strategy for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients who have become unresponsive to infliximab (IFX). However, the documented evidence for this is limited, and some controversy remains regarding the use of routine proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). To support routine TDM of IFX and regimen optimization in IBD patients, more in-depth knowledge of the covariates that affect the pharmacokinetic (PK) variability of IFX is needed. The aim of this study was to identify the characteristics of the patient, disease, and treatments that influence IFX PK and exposure in our cohort of IBD patients using a repeated-measures design. METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study of adult IBD patients who received IFX between July 2013 and March 2017. We obtained repeated IFX trough concentration (Cmin) measurements and implemented a previously described population pharmacokinetic model to estimate individual clearance (CL). From the individual primary parameters, the area under the curve (AUC), half-life (t1/2), and central elimination rate constant (K10) were estimated. We performed a repeated-measures analysis to evaluate whether patient characteristics, disease status, concomitant immunosuppressive therapy, and immunogenicity are associated with IFX Cmin and PK parameters. RESULTS: We collected 429 Cmin measurements from 112 patients. The median of the Cmin values was 3.62 mg/L (1.47-6.02). Antibodies to IFX (ATI) were detected in 14 patients. The predicted median AUC was 28,421 mg/h/L (22,336-36,903). The median individual predicted CL, K10, and t1/2 values were 4.77 mL/kg/day (3.88-5.90), 0.09 days (0.08-0.12), and 12.22 days (9.49-14.87), respectively. IFX Cmin, AUC, CL, and K10 were significantly influenced by ATI and serum albumin concentrations. Moreover, body weight was significantly associated with AUC, CL, and K10. Patients receiving concurrent immunosuppressive therapy had higher Cmin and AUC values and lower CL and K10 values than those treated with IFX monotherapy. We also observed high intrapatient variability in Cmin values during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: In this repeated-measures study in a population of IBD patients, we observed significant associations between ATI, serum albumin concentration, concomitant immunosuppressive therapy, body weight and gender, and IFX Cmin, and CL. The high PK variability observed in this study supports the need for proactive TDM to optimize the use of IFX as early as possible in IBD patients.

External Evaluation of Population Pharmacokinetic Models of Infliximab in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND: Infliximab (IFX) trough levels vary markedly between patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), which is important for clinical response. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of previously developed population pharmacokinetic models in patients with IBD for dose individualization for Crohn disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis in our clinical setting. METHODS: The authors collected 370 trough levels prospectively from 100 adult patients with IBD who were undergoing IFX treatment between July 2013 and August 2016. The external evaluation included prediction- and simulation-based diagnostics [prediction-corrected visual predictive check, prediction- and variability-corrected visual predictive check, and normalized prediction distribution error tests]. RESULTS: In prediction-based diagnostics, the authors observed a nonsignificant overall mean relative bias of -6.87% and an acceptable imprecision of 8.45%. Approximately 100% of the prediction error was within ±30%, indicating satisfactory predictability. Simulation-based diagnostics indicated model misspecification; thus, the model may not be appropriate for simulation-based applications. CONCLUSIONS: While simulation-based diagnostics provided unsatisfactory results, the prediction-based diagnostics demonstrate that the population pharmacokinetic model developed by Fasanmade et al for CD can be used to predict and design individualized IFX dose regimens that meet the individual needs of patients with CD and ulcerative colitis.