Sarilumab in adults hospitalised with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia (CORIMUNO-SARI-1): An open-label randomised controlled trial

Background

Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia can have increased inflammation and elevated cytokines, including interleukin (IL)-6, which might be deleterious. Thus, sarilumab, a high-affinity anti-IL-6 receptor antibody, might improve the outcome of patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Methods

We did a multicentric, open-label, Bayesian randomised, adaptive, phase 2/3 clinical trial, nested within the CORIMUNO-19 cohort, to test a superiority hypothesis. Patients 18 years or older hospitalised with COVID-19 in six French centres, requiring at least 3L/min of oxygen but without ventilation assistance and a WHO Clinical Progression Scale [CPS] score of 5 were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a web-based system, according to a randomisation list stratified on centre and with blocks randomly selected among 2 and 4, to receive usual care plus 400 mg of sarilumab intravenously on day 1 and on day 3 if clinically indicated (sarilumab group) or usual care alone (usual care group). Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with WHO-CPS scores greater than 5 on the 10-point scale on day 4 and survival without invasive or non-invasive ventilation at day 14. This completed trial is closed to new participants and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324073.

Findings

165 patients were recruited from March 27 to April 6, 2020, and 148 patients were randomised (68 patients to the sarilumab group and 80 to the usual care group) and followed up for 90 days. Median age was 61·7 years [IQR 53·0–71·1] in the sarilumab group and 62·8 years [56·0–71·7] in the usual care group. In the sarilumab group 49 (72%) of 68 were men and in the usual care group 59 (78%) of 76 were men. Four patients in the usual care group withdrew consent and were not analysed. 18 (26%) of 68 patients in the sarilumab group had a WHO-CPS score greater than 5 at day 4 versus 20 (26%) of 76 in the usual care group (median posterior absolute risk difference 0·2%; 90% credible interval [CrI] −11·7 to 12·2), with a posterior probability of absolute risk difference greater than 0 of 48·9%. At day 14, 25 (37%) patients in the sarilumab and 26 (34%) patients in the usual care group needed ventilation or died, (median posterior hazard ratio [HR] 1·10; 90% CrI 0·69–1·74) with a posterior probability HR greater than 1 of 37·4%. Serious adverse events occurred in 27 (40%) patients in the sarilumab group and 28 (37%) patients in the usual care group (p=0·73).

Interpretation

Sarilumab treatment did not improve early outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the effect of sarilumab on long-term survival.

Funding

Assistance publique—Hôpitaux de Paris

The social and clinical impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on the Strasbourg lung transplant cohort: A single-center retrospective cohort study

The clinical and social impacts of the COVID-19 epidemic on lung transplant (LTx) recipients remain poorly known. We aimed to evaluate its social, clinical, and behavioral consequences on the LTx patients followed in Strasbourg university hospital. A questionnaire was used to collect details concerning patients' lifestyles, their protection methods used to avoid COVID-19 contamination, and clinical infection-related information for March 2020. A specific score was created to quantify patients' contacts and the associated risk of infectious contagion. Data were collected from 322 patients (91.2%). A majority reported a higher application than usual of social distancing and barrier measures. 43.8% described infectious-related symptoms and 15.8% needed an anti-infective treatment. There was no difference in symptom onset according to age, native lung disease, diabetes, or obesity. Nineteen patients were tested for COVID-19, and four were diagnosed positive, all with a favorable outcome. The infection risk contact score was higher for symptomatic patients (p: 0.007), those needing extra-medical appointments (p < .001), and those receiving anti-infective treatments (p = .02). LTx patients reported a careful lifestyle and did not seem at higher risk for COVID-19. Our score showed encouraging preliminary results and could become a useful tool for the usual infection-related follow-up of the LTx patients.

Effect of one-year lumacaftor-ivacaftor treatment on glucose tolerance abnormalities in cystic fibrosis patients

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of 1-year lumacaftor-ivacaftor treatment on abnormalities in glucose tolerance (AGT) in Phe508del homozygous cystic fibrosis (CF) patients.

METHODS

Untreated CF patients with glucose intolerance or newly diagnosed diabetes were included in a prospective, observational study. After 1-year lumacaftor-ivacaftor treatment, AGT were evaluated by using oral glucose tolerance test.

RESULTS

Forty patients participated. 78% of patients had glucose intolerance and 22% diabetes at baseline. After one-year treatment, 50% of patients had normal glucose tolerance, 40% glucose intolerance, and 10% diabetes (p <0.001). The two-hour OGTT glycemia decreased from 171 (153-197) to 139 (117-162) mg/dL (p <0.001). 57.5% (n = 23) of patients improved their glucose tolerance with a significant decrease in both 1-hour (p<0.01) and 2-hour (p<0.001) OGTT glycemia.

CONCLUSION

Improvements in AGT were observed following 1-year lumacaftor-ivacaftor treatment. Larger studies are needed to comprehensively assess CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulators.

[Prolonged response with paclitaxel after immunotherapy by pembrolizumab in lung cancer]

INTRODUCTION

Pembrolizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody IgG4 anti-PD-1, having offered promising results in patients suffering from non-small cell lung cancer metastatic and heavily pretreated.

OBSERVATION

We report here the case of an unexpected good response after pembrolizumab failure obtained with paclitaxel in a 68-year-old patient with stage IV lung adenocarcinoma. Moreover, the response duration with paclitaxel was more than fourteen months.

CONCLUSION

Our case suggests a mutual potentiation of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, and raises the issue of the treatment sequence to favor.