Subcutaneous sarilumab for the treatment of hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID19 disease: A pragmatic, embedded randomized clinical trial

Immunomodulators for immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Although immunomodulators have established benefit against the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in general, it is uncertain whether such agents improve outcomes without increasing the risk of secondary infections in the specific subgroup of previously immunocompromised patients. We assessed the effect of immunomodulators on outcomes of immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

Methods

The protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022335397). MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and references of relevant articles were searched up to 01-06-2022. Authors of potentially eligible randomized controlled trials were contacted to provide data on immunocompromised patients randomized to immunomodulators vs control (i.e., placebo or standard-of-care).

Findings

Eleven randomized controlled trials involving 397 immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were included. Ten trials had low risk of bias. There was no difference between immunocompromised patients randomized to immunomodulators vs control regarding mortality [30/182 (16.5%) vs 41/215 (19.1%); RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61-1.41; p = 0.74], secondary infections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.64-1.58; p = 0.99) and change in World Health Organization ordinal scale from baseline to day 15 (weighed mean difference 0.27, 95% CI -0.09-0.63; p = 0.15). In subgroup analyses including only patients with hematologic malignancy, only trials with low risk of bias, only trials administering IL-6 inhibitors, or only trials administering immunosuppressants, there was no difference between comparators regarding mortality.

Interpretation

Immunomodulators, compared to control, were not associated with harmful or beneficial outcomes, including mortality, secondary infections, and change in ordinal scale, when administered to immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

Funding

Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation.

Network and covariate adjusted response-adaptive design for binary response

Randomization is a distinguishing feature of clinical trials for unbiased assessment of treatment efficacy. With a growing demand for more flexible and efficient randomization schemes and motivated by the idea of adaptive design, in this article we propose the network and covariate adjusted response-adaptive (NCARA) design that can concurrently manage three challenges: (1) maximizing benefits of a trial by assigning more patients to the superior treatment group randomly; (2) balancing social network ties across treatment arms to eliminate potential network interference; and (3) ensuring balance of important covariates, such as age, gender, and other potential confounders. We conduct simulation with different network structures and a variety of parameter settings. It is observed that the NCARA design outperforms four alternative randomization designs in solving the above-mentioned problems and has comparable power and type I error for detecting true difference between treatment groups. In addition, we conduct real data analysis to implement the new design in two clinical trials. Compared to equal randomization (the original design utilized in the trials), the NCARA design slightly increases power, largely increases the percentage of patients assigned to the better-performing group, and significantly improves network and covariate balances. It is also noted that the advantages of the NCARA design are augmented when the sample size is small and the level of network interference is high. In summary, the proposed NCARA design assists researchers in conducting clinical trials with high-quality and high-efficiency.

Placebo effects on all-cause mortality of patients with COVID-19 in randomized controlled trials of interleukin 6 antagonists: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIM

Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the use of interleukin 6 antagonists for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), yielding inconsistent results. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to identify the source of these inconsistent results by reassessing whether participants treated with standard of care (SoC) plus placebo have different all-cause mortality from those treated with SoC alone and to reevaluate the efficacy of interleukin 6 antagonists in the treatment of COVID-19.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search for relevant RCTs from the inception of electronic databases through 1 September 2022. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were the incidences of major medical events, secondary infections, all-cause discontinuation, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

The results of NMA of 33 RCTs showed that patients with COVID-19 treated with SoC plus placebo had lower odds of all-cause mortality than those who received SoC alone (OR, 0.75 [95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.97]). This finding remained consistent after excluding studies with no incident deaths. In addition, when we consider the impact of the widely promoted COVID-19 vaccination and newly developed antiviral treatment strategy, the results from the analysis of the RCT published in 2021 and 2022 remained similar.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest the potential influence of placebo effects on the treatment outcomes of COVID-19 in RCTs. When evaluating the efficacy of treatment strategies for COVID-19, it is crucial to consider the use of placebo in the design of clinical trials.

Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

It has been reported that people with COVID-19 and pre-existing autoantibodies against type I interferons are likely to develop an inflammatory cytokine storm responsible for severe respiratory symptoms. Since interleukin 6 (IL-6) is one of the cytokines released during this inflammatory process, IL-6 blocking agents have been used for treating people with severe COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To update the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to a placebo for people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) platform, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify studies on 7 June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of researchers independently conducted study selection, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for all critical and important outcomes. In this update we amended our protocol to update the methods used for grading evidence by establishing minimal important differences for the critical outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 22 additional trials, for a total of 32 trials including 12,160 randomized participants all hospitalized for COVID-19 disease. We identified a further 17 registered RCTs evaluating IL-6 blocking agents without results available as of 7 June 2022.  The mean age range varied from 56 to 75 years; 66.2% (8051/12,160) of enrolled participants were men. One-third (11/32) of included trials were placebo-controlled. Twenty-two were published in peer-reviewed journals, three were reported as preprints, two trials had results posted only on registries, and results from five trials were retrieved from another meta-analysis. Eight were funded by pharmaceutical companies.  Twenty-six included studies were multicenter trials; four were multinational and 22 took place in single countries. Recruitment of participants occurred between February 2020 and June 2021, with a mean enrollment duration of 21 weeks (range 1 to 54 weeks). Nineteen trials (60%) had a follow-up of 60 days or more. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The proportion of participants who were intubated at study inclusion also varied from 5% to 95%. Only six trials reported vaccination status; there were no vaccinated participants included in these trials, and 17 trials were conducted before vaccination was rolled out. We assessed a total of six treatments, each compared to placebo or standard care. Twenty trials assessed tocilizumab, nine assessed sarilumab, and two assessed clazakizumab. Only one trial was included for each of the other IL-6 blocking agents (siltuximab, olokizumab, and levilimab). Two trials assessed more than one treatment. Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 At day (D) 28, tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement (tocilizumab: risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.11; 15 RCTs, 6116 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; sarilumab: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 2425 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For clinical improvement at ≥ D60, the certainty of evidence is very low for both tocilizumab (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.48; 1 RCT, 97 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and sarilumab (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.63; 2 RCTs, 239 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score (WHO-CPS) of level 7 or above remains uncertain at D28 (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 13 RCTs, 2117 participants; low-certainty evidence) and that for sarilumab very uncertain (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.33; 5 RCTs, 886 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab reduces all cause-mortality at D28 compared to standard care/placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; 18 RCTs, 7428 participants; high-certainty evidence). The evidence about the effect of sarilumab on this outcome is very uncertain (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; 9 RCTs, 3305 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain for all cause-mortality at ≥ D60 for tocilizumab (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04; 9 RCTs, 2775 participants; low-certainty evidence) and very uncertain for sarilumab (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; 6 RCTs, 3379 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab probably results in little to no difference in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 9 RCTs, 1811 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence about adverse events for sarilumab is uncertain (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28; 4 RCT, 860 participants; low-certainty evidence).  The evidence about serious adverse events is very uncertain for tocilizumab (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; 16 RCTs; 2974 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and uncertain for sarilumab (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21; 6 RCTs; 2936 participants; low-certainty evidence). Efficacy and safety of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab and levilimab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 The evidence about the effects of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab, and levilimab comes from only one or two studies for each blocking agent, and is uncertain or very uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalized people with COVID-19, results show a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on all-cause mortality in the short term and probably little or no difference in the risk of adverse events compared to standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, both tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab and the other IL-6 blocking agents on critical outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. Most of the trials included in our review were done before the waves of different variants of concern and before vaccination was rolled out on a large scale. An additional 17 RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents are currently registered with no results yet reported. The number of pending studies and the number of participants planned is low. Consequently, we will not publish further updates of this review.

Patient- reported reasons for non-participation in a COVID-19 therapeutics clinical trial: Findings from a multi-center investigation

BACKGROUND

Early in the pandemic, there were no evidence-based treatments for SARS-CoV-2, creating an urgent need to identify effective therapeutics. However, public participation in medical research is low; trial enrollment in the US is typically 10-20%. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify common themes underpinning patient reasons to decline participation and evaluate the impact of specific contextual factors.

METHODS

This sub-study was conducted in five VISN-1 Clinical Trials Network participating facilities from 4/10/2020-2/3/2021. The trial evaluated the addition of the IL-6-inhibitor, Sarilumab, to the current standard of care for inpatients with moderate-to-severe SARS-CoV-2. Consent procedures varied by site and included fully in-person and fully remote processes. Reasons for declining enrollment were collected among eligible patients who declined to participate but agreed to answer a short follow-up question. Qualitative data were analyzed using directed content analysis. Enrollment rates were assessed using simple, descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

N = 417 COVID-19 positive inpatients were screened and 53/162 eligible patients enrolled. Enrollment varied across study sites and by study period. Prior to identification of effective treatment, the enrollment rate was 10/11 (91%) versus 43/144 (30%) during the later period of the study. N = 85/102 patients who did not enroll answered the follow-up question. The most commonly reported responses were: concerns about the study drug and participation in clinical research in general, comorbidity concerns, competing priorities, external factors, and external advice and influence from family members and clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying reasons behind declining to enroll may help investigators develop strategies to increase research participation.

Effect of tocilizumab, sarilumab, and baricitinib on mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 treated with corticosteroids: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) established the mortality reduction by tocilizumab (Actemra), baricitinib (Olumiant), and sarilumab (Kevzara) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, uncertainty remains about which treatment performs best in patients receiving corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate probabilities of noninferiority between baricitinib and sarilumab compared to tocilizumab in patients treated with corticosteroids.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and MedRxiv.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Eligible RCTs assigning hospitalized adults with COVID-19 treated with corticosteroids to tocilizumab or baricitinib or sarilumab versus standard of care or placebo (control).

METHODS

Reviewers independently abstracted published data and assessed study quality with the Risk of Bias 2 tool. Unpublished data, if required, were requested from authors of included studies. The outcome of interest was all-cause mortality at 28 days.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-seven RCTs with 13 549 patients were included. Overall, the risk of bias was low. Bayesian pairwise meta-analyses were used to aggregate results of each treatment versus control. The average odds ratio for mortality was 0.78 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.65, 0.94) for tocilizumab; 0.78 (95% CrI: 0.56, 1.03) for baricitinib; and 0.91 (95% CrI: 0.60, 1.40) for sarilumab. The certainty of evidence (GRADE) ranged from moderate to low. Bayesian meta-regressions with multiple priors were used to estimate probabilities of noninferiority (margin of 13% greater effect by tocilizumab). Compared to tocilizumab, there were ≤94% and 90% probabilities of noninferiority with baricitinib and sarilumab, respectively.

RESULTS

All but two studies included data with only indirect evidence for the comparison of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

Among hospitalized COVID-19 treated with corticosteroids, there are high probabilities that both baricitinib and sarilumab are associated with similar mortality reductions in comparison to tocilizumab.

The COVID-19 hospitalization metric in the pre- and postvaccination eras as a measure of pandemic severity: A retrospective, nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalization definitions do not include a disease severity assessment. Thus, we sought to identify a simple and objective mechanism for identifying hospitalized severe cases and to measure the impact of vaccination on trends.

METHODS

All admissions to a Veterans' Affairs (VA) hospital, where routine inpatient screening is recommended, between March 1, 2020, and November 22, 2021, with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were included. Moderate-to-severe COVID-19 was defined as any oxygen supplementation or any oxygen saturation (SpO₂) <94% between 1 day before and 2 weeks after the positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Admissions with moderate-to-severe disease were divided by the total number of admissions, and the proportion of admissions with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 was modelled using a penalized spline in a Poisson regression and stratified by vaccination status. Dexamethasone receipt and its correlation with moderate-to-severe cases was also assessed.

RESULTS

Among 67,025 admissions with SARS-CoV-2, the proportion with hypoxemia or supplemental oxygen fell from 64% prior to vaccine availability to 56% by November 2021, driven in part by lower rates in vaccinated patients (vaccinated, 52% versus unvaccinated, 58%). The proportion of cases of moderate-to-severe disease identified using SpO₂ levels and oxygen supplementation was highly correlated with dexamethasone receipt (correlation coefficient, 0.95), and increased after July 1, 2021, concurrent with δ (delta) variant predominance.

CONCLUSIONS

A simple and objective definition of COVID-19 hospitalizations using SpO₂ levels and oxygen supplementation can be used to track pandemic severity. This metric could be used to identify risk factors for severe breakthrough infections, to guide clinical treatment algorithms, and to detect trends in changes in vaccine effectiveness over time and against new variants.

Failed clinical trials on COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome in hospitalized patients: common oversights and streamlining the development of clinically effective therapeutics

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put a strain on global healthcare systems. Despite admirable efforts to develop rapidly new pharmacotherapies, supportive treatments remain the standard of care. Multiple clinical trials have failed due to design issues, biased patient enrollment, small sample sizes, inadequate control groups, and lack of long-term outcomes monitoring.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review depicts the current situation around failed and success COVID-19 clinical trials and recommendations in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, oversights and streamlining of clinically effective therapeutics. PubMed, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, and WHO and NIH guidelines were searched for relevant literature up to 5 August 2022.

EXPERT OPINION

The WHO, NIH, and IDSA have issued recommendations to better clarify which drugs should be used during the different phases of the disease. Given the biases and high heterogeneity of published studies, interpretation of the current literature is difficult. Future clinical trials should be designed to standardize clinical approaches, with appropriate organization, patient selection, addition of control groups, and careful identification of disease phase to reduce heterogeneity and bias and should rely on the integration of scientific societies to promote a consensus on interpretation of the data and recommendations for optimal COVID-19 therapies.