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.

Treatment with a DPP-4 inhibitor at time of hospital admission for COVID-19 is not associated with improved clinical outcomes: data from the COVID-PREDICT cohort study in The Netherlands.

Purpose: Inhibition of dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP-)4 could reduce coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity by reducing inflammation and enhancing tissue repair beyond glucose lowering. We aimed to assess this in a prospective cohort study. Methods: We studied in 565 patients with type 2 diabetes in the CovidPredict Clinical Course Cohort whether use of a DPP-4 inhibitor prior to hospital admission due to COVID-19 was associated with improved clinical outcomes. Using crude analyses and propensity score matching (on age, sex and BMI), 28 patients using a DPP-4 inhibitor were identified and compared to non-users. Results: No differences were found in the primary outcome mortality (matched-analysis = odds-ratio: 0,94 [95% confidence interval: 0,69 - 1,28], p-value: 0,689) or any of the secondary outcomes (ICU admission, invasive ventilation, thrombotic events or infectious complications). Additional analyses comparing users of DPP-4 inhibitors with subgroups of non-users (subgroup 1: users of metformin and sulphonylurea; subgroup 2: users of any insulin combination), allowing to correct for diabetes severity, did not yield different results. Conclusions: We conclude that outpatient use of a DPP-4 inhibitor does not affect the clinical outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes who are hospitalized because of COVID-19 infection.

Incidence, prognostic factors, and outcomes of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients: data from two prospective cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to describe the prevalence, incidence, prognostic factors, and outcomes of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients receiving contemporary thrombosis prophylaxis. METHODS: We conducted a pooled analysis of two prospective cohort studies. The outcomes of interest were in-hospital pulmonary embolism or lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (PE-LDVT), in-hospital nonleg deep vein thrombosis (NLDVT), and 90-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between predefined baseline prognostic factors and PE-LDVT or NLDVT. Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between PE-LDVT or NLDVT and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 2208 patients were included. The prevalence of any venous thromboembolism during 3 months before ICU admission was 3.6% (95% CI 2.8-4.4%). Out of 2166 patients, 47 (2.2%; 95% CI 1.6-2.9%) developed PE-LDVT and 38 patients (1.8%; 95% CI 1.2-2.4%) developed NLDVT. Renal replacement therapy (OR 3.5 95% CI 1.4-8.6), respiratory failure (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.1-3.8), and previous VTE (OR 3.6; 95% CI 1.7-7.7) were associated with PE-LDVT. Central venous catheters (OR 5.4; 95% CI 1.7-17.8) and infection (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.1-4.3) were associated with NLDVT. Occurrence of PE-LDVT but not NLDVT was associated with increased 90-day mortality (HR 2.7; 95% CI 1.6-4.6, respectively, 0.92; 95% CI 0.41-2.1). CONCLUSION: Thrombotic events are common in critically ill patients, both before and after ICU admittance. Development of PE-LDVT but not NLDVT was associated with increased mortality. Prognostic factors for developing PE-LDVT or NLDVT despite prophylaxis can be identified at ICU admission and may be used to select patients at higher risk in future randomized clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03773939.