Tocilizumab versus anakinra in COVID-19: results from propensity score matching.

Background: Tocilizumab and anakinra are anti-interleukin drugs to treat severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) refractory to corticosteroids. However, no studies compared the efficacy of tocilizumab versus anakinra to guide the choice of the therapy in clinical practice. We aimed to compare the outcomes of COVID-19 patients treated with tocilizumab or anakinra. Methods: Our retrospective study was conducted in three French university hospitals between February 2021 and February 2022 and included all the consecutive hospitalized patients with a laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection assessed by RT-PCR who were treated with tocilizumab or anakinra. A propensity score matching was performed to minimize confounding effects due to the non-random allocation. Results: Among 235 patients (mean age, 72 years; 60.9% of male patients), the 28-day mortality (29.4% vs. 31.2%, p = 0.76), the in-hospital mortality (31.7% vs. 33.0%, p = 0.83), the high-flow oxygen requirement (17.5% vs. 18.3%, p = 0.86), the intensive care unit admission rate (30.8% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.30), and the mechanical ventilation rate (15.4% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.50) were similar in patients receiving tocilizumab and those receiving anakinra. After propensity score matching, the 28-day mortality (29.1% vs. 30.4%, p = 1) and the rate of high-flow oxygen requirement (10.1% vs. 21.5%, p = 0.081) did not differ between patients receiving tocilizumab or anakinra. Secondary infection rates were similar between the tocilizumab and anakinra groups (6.3% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.44). Conclusion: Our study showed comparable efficacy and safety profiles of tocilizumab and anakinra to treat severe COVID-19.

Functional status in a geriatric oncology setting: A review.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA), is used in older patients with cancer to identify frailties, which can interfere with specialized treatment, and to help with therapeutic care. Functional Status (FS) is a domain of CGA in which Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) are evaluation tools. OBJECTIVE: Our study reviewed the data available on the most frequently used tools to assess ADL and IADL in a geriatric oncology setting and their predictive values on overall survival (OS), toxicity, treatment feasibility or decision and postoperative complications. DESIGN: This review was based on a systematic search of the MEDLINE® database for articles published in English and French between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017. In the final analysis, 40 out of 4061 studies were included. RESULTS: The most common ADL and IADL scales used are the Katz ADL (KL-ADL) in 25 studies and the Lawton IADL (IADL8) in 22 studies. FS is predictive of OS in 11 out of 24 studies, chemotoxicity in 2 out of 7 studies, treatment feasibility in 2 out of 5 studies, treatment decisions in 2 out of 3 studies, and postoperative complications in 4 out of 6 studies. CONCLUSION: FS is of prognostic value in a geriatric oncology setting despite heterogeneous methodology and inclusion criteria, in the studies included. Additional research is needed to explore more precisely the prognostic value of FS in overall survival, toxicity, treatment feasibility or decision and postoperative complications, in older cancer patients.

Transfusion practices in geriatric short stay unit before and after the French national health authority guidelines of 2014.

Anemia is the most common hematological pathology in geriatrics. Its prevalence increases with age. It is considered as a fragility factor because leading to loss of autonomy and other complications. Transfusion is a common practice in geriatrics. In 2014, the French national health authority guidelines recommended hemoglobin concentration rates for transfusion on the elderly over 80 years-old. The objective of this study is to compare transfusion practices in geriatric short-stay units, before and after these guidelines were edited. METHODS: Retrospective descriptive study in two geriatric short stay units, including patients aged 80 years-old or over, transfused in 2012 and 2015. RESULTS: 103 patients were included. More than 30% patients had a chronic heart failure, and there was no significant difference on general characteristics between the groups in the two years. Compared to 2012, the transfused population in 2015 was more fragile with a higher Charlson comorbidity index (p=0.005). The main symptoms of anemia bad tolerance were cardiovascular symptoms. The average pre-transfusion hemoglobin concentration was 7.9 g/dL in 2015, 8 g/dL in 2012 (p=0.63). By 2015, 72.3% transfusions respected the hemoglobin thresholds recommended in guidelines, compared to 50% in 2012 (p=0.023). Transfusion thresholds in our study were lower than those recommended; 13 adverse reactions were identified, 12 of them were heart failure. There was no significant difference in transfusion benefit between the two years. CONCLUSION: This study helped describe profile of elderly transfused patients, their geriatric characteristics and the transfusion data, without showing any changes in transfusion practices following the guidelines, despite a more fragile population in 2015. It seems difficult, because of the diversity in the geriatric population, to have a single threshold of hemoglobin recommended, only non-specific symptoms of intolerance and to consider only the cardiovascular comorbidities to decide whether or not to provide a transfusion.

Bias in the measure of the effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination among diabetics.

BACKGROUND: The influenza virus is an important cause of morbidity and mortality for diabetics. The seasonal influenza vaccine's immunologic effectiveness is proven within the type 1 and type 2 diabetic populations, but the level of evidence is low. This article presents a systematic review for the bias in the measure of the effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination among diabetics. METHODS: Using systematic review methods, we searched three electronic databases for published literature (MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) and two grey literature (SIGLE and NHS EED) databases, to identify studies published between 1997 and 2013, examining the effect of seasonal influenza vaccination, among diabetics, on any measure for influenza morbidity or mortality. RESULTS: 725 records were identified from the three databases and screening, short-listing was undertaken independently by two reviewers. After de-duplication, all records were screened by title and then abstract, and 34 short-listed records were reviewed in full, with 7 studies included: 4 cohort studies and 3 case-control studies, conducted in 7 countries. The most common outcome of interest in studies (n=4) was all-cause mortality among elderly diabetics (>65 years), with individual studies reporting reductions in risk of between 33% [95%CI: 4%-54%] and 68% [95%CI: 58%-75%]. We found only two studies for working-age adult diabetics: one reporting that vaccination prevented hospitalizations due to pneumonia or influenza (vaccine effectiveness [VE] 43%, [95%CI: 28%-54%]) and all-cause hospitalizations (VE: 28% [95%CI: 24%-32%]); and, another reporting no significant decrease in all-cause mortality for working-age adult diabetics. We have identified three major biases: the use of indirect health outcomes, a risk of selection bias (health-seeking bias), and no adjustment for participant pneumococcal vaccination status. The most recent included article finds that morbimortality is still lower during off-season influenza in both vaccinated and non-vaccinated diabetics, indicating important residual confounding. CONCLUSION: To date, the strength of evidence supporting the routine use of seasonal influenza vaccination is low for diabetics older than 65, and very low for working-age diabetics.