Search

Summary Background Mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation is high. We aimed to examine whether mavrilimumab, an anti-granulocyte–macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor-α monoclonal antibody, added to standard management, improves clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation. Methods This single-centre prospective cohort study included patients aged 18 years or older who were admitted to San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, Italy) with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, hypoxia, and systemic hyperinflammation. Patients received a single intravenous dose (6 mg/kg) of mavrilimumab added to standard care given by the hospital at the time. The control group consisted of contemporaneous patients with similar baseline characteristics who received standard care at the same hospital. The main outcome was time to clinical improvement (defined as improvement of two or more points on the seven-point ordinal scale of clinical status). Other outcomes included proportion of patients achieving clinical improvement, survival, mechanical ventilation-free survival, and time to fever resolution. Adverse events were monitored daily. Findings Between March 17 and April 15, 2020, 13 non-mechanically ventilated patients (median age 57 years [IQR 52–58], 12 [92%] men) received mavrilimumab and 26 patients (median age 60 [IQR 53–67], 17 [65%] men) in the control group received standard care. During the 28-day follow-up, no patients in the mavrilimumab group died, and seven (27%) patients in the control group died (p=0·086). At day 28, all patients in the mavrilimumab group and 17 (65%) patients in the control group showed clinical improvement (p=0·030), with earlier improvement in the mavrilimumab than in the control group (mean time to improvement 8 days [IQR 5 to 11] vs 19 days [11 to >28], p=0·0001). By day 28, one (8%) patient in the mavrilimumab group progressed to mechanical ventilation compared with nine (35%) patients in the control group who progressed to mechanical ventilation or died (p=0·14). By day 14, fever resolved in ten (91%) of 11 febrile patients in the mavrilimumab group, compared with 11 (61%) of 18 febrile patients in the control group (p=0·18); fever resolution was faster in mavrilimumab recipients versus controls (median time to resolution 1 day [IQR 1 to 2] vs 7 days [3 to >14], p=0·0093). Mavrilimumab was well tolerated, with no infusion reactions. Three (12%) patients in the control group developed infectious complications. Interpretation Mavrilimumab treatment was associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with standard care in non-mechanically ventilated patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation. Treatment was well tolerated. Confirmation of efficacy requires controlled testing. Funding IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute.

Summary Background Mortality of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and systemic inflammation is high. In areas of pandemic outbreak, the number of patients can exceed maximum capacity of intensive care units (ICUs), and, thus, these individuals often receive non-invasive ventilation outside of the ICU. Effective treatments for this population are needed urgently. Anakinra is a recombinant interleukin-1 receptor antagonist that might be beneficial in this patient population. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study at the San Raffaele Hospital in Milan, Italy. We included consecutive patients (aged ≥18 years) with COVID-19, moderate-to-severe ARDS, and hyperinflammation (defined as serum C-reactive protein ≥100 mg/L, ferritin ≥900 ng/mL, or both) who were managed with non-invasive ventilation outside of the ICU and who received standard treatment of 200 mg hydroxychloroquine twice a day orally and 400 mg lopinavir with 100 mg ritonavir twice a day orally. We compared survival, mechanical ventilation-free survival, changes in C-reactive protein, respiratory function, and clinical status in a cohort of patients who received additional treatment with anakinra (either 5 mg/kg twice a day intravenously [high dose] or 100 mg twice a day subcutaneously [low dose]) with a retrospective cohort of patients who did not receive anakinra (referred to as the standard treatment group). All outcomes were assessed at 21 days. This study is part of the COVID-19 Biobank study, which is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04318366 . Findings Between March 17 and March 27, 2020, 29 patients received high-dose intravenous anakinra, non-invasive ventilation, and standard treatment. Between March 10 and March 17, 2020, 16 patients received non-invasive ventilation and standard treatment only and comprised the comparison group for this study. A further seven patients received low-dose subcutaneous anakinra in addition to non-invasive ventilation and standard treatment; however, anakinra treatment was interrupted after 7 days because of a paucity of effects on serum C-reactive protein and clinical status. At 21 days, treatment with high-dose anakinra was associated with reductions in serum C-reactive protein and progressive improvements in respiratory function in 21 (72%) of 29 patients; five (17%) patients were on mechanical ventilation and three (10%) died. In the standard treatment group, eight (50%) of 16 patients showed respiratory improvement at 21 days; one (6%) patient was on mechanical ventilation and seven (44%) died. At 21 days, survival was 90% in the high-dose anakinra group and 56% in the standard treatment group (p=0·009). Mechanical ventilation-free survival was 72% in the anakinra group versus 50% in the standard treatment group (p=0·15). Bacteraemia occurred in four (14%) of 29 patients receiving high-dose anakinra and two (13%) of 16 patients receiving standard treatment. Discontinuation of anakinra was not followed by inflammatory relapses. Interpretation In this retrospective cohort study of patients with COVID-19 and ARDS managed with non-invasive ventilation outside of the ICU, treatment with high-dose anakinra was safe and associated with clinical improvement in 72% of patients. Confirmation of efficacy will require controlled trials. Funding None.

Baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase (JAK) 1-2 inhibitor, is currently used along biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) after the failure of methotrexate (MTX) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We investigated the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in real life.We prospectively enrolled 446 RA patients treated with baricitinib from 11 Italian centres. Patients were evaluated at baseline and after 3, 6, and 12 months. They were arrayed based on previous treatments as bDMARD-naïve and bDMARD-insufficient responders (IR) after the failure or intolerance to bDMARDs. A sub-analysis differentiated the effects of methotrexate (MTX) and the use of oral glucocorticoids (OGC).Our cohort included 150 (34%) bDMARD-naïve and 296 (66%) bDMARD-IR patients, with 217 (49%) using baricitinib as monotherapy. Considering DAS-28-CRP as the primary outcome, at 3 and 6 months, 114/314 (36%) and 149/289 (51.6%) patients achieved remission, while those in low disease activity (LDA) were 62/314 (20%) and 46/289 (15.9%), respectively; finally at 12 months 81/126 (64%) were in remission and 21/126 (17%) in LDA. At all-timepoints up to 12 months, bDMARDs-naïve patients demonstrated a better clinical response, independently of MTX. A significant reduction in the OGC dose was observed at 3 and 12 months in all groups. The serum positivity for both rheumatoid factors (RF) and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) conferred a lower risk of stopping baricitinib due to inefficacy. Fifty-eight (13%) patients discontinued baricitinib due to adverse events, including thrombotic events and herpes zoster reactivation.Real-life data confirm the efficacy and safety profiles of baricitinib in patients with RA and provide evidence that drug survival is higher in bDMARDs-naïve and seropositive patients.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of early treatment with corticosteroids on SARS-CoV-2 clearance in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Retrospective analysis on patients admitted to the San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, Italy) with moderate/severe COVID-19 and availability of at least two nasopharyngeal swabs. The primary outcome was the time to nasopharyngeal swab negativization. A multivariable Cox model was fitted to determine factors associated with nasopharyngeal swab negativization. Of 280 patients included, 59 (21.1%) patients were treated with steroids. Differences observed between steroid users and non-users included the proportion of patients with a baseline PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 200 mmHg (45.8% vs 34.4% in steroids and non-steroids users, respectively; p = 0.023) or ≤ 100 mmHg (16.9% vs 12.7%; p = 0.027), and length of hospitalization (20 vs 14 days; p 2/FiO2 > 200 mmHg, and a lymphocyte count at admission > 1.0 × 109/L. SARS-CoV-2 clearance was not associated with corticosteroid use. Our study shows that delayed SARS-CoV-2 clearance in moderate/severe COVID-19 is associated with older age and a more severe disease, but not with an early use of corticosteroids.

Highlight • This is the first study comparing tocilizumab to standard of care in severe COVID-19 • Tocilizumab in severe COVID-19 patients did influence 28-day clinical outcomes • Tocilizumab safety was safisfactory except for ICU-admitted patients, Background : Tocilizumab (TCZ), a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor, has been proposed for the treatment of COVID-19 patients; however, limited data are available on the safety and efficacy. Methods : We performed a retrospective study on severe COVID-19 patients with hyper-inflammatory features admitted outside intensive care units (ICUs). Patients treated with intravenous TCZ in addition to standard of care were compared to patients treated with standard of care alone. Safety and efficacy were assessed over a 28-day follow-up. Results : 65 patients were included, 32 were of whose treated with TCZ. At baseline, all patients were on high-flow supplemental oxygen and most (78% of TCZ patients and 61% of standard treatment patients) were on non-invasive ventilation. During the 28-day follow-up, 69% of TCZ patients experienced a clinical improvement compared to 61% of standard treatment patients (p = 0.61). Mortality was 15% in the tocilizumab group and 33% in standard treatment group (p = 0.15). In TCZ group, at multivariate analysis, older age was a predictor of death, whereas higher baseline PaO2:FiO2 was a predictor of clinical improvement at day 28. The rate of infection and pulmonary thrombosis was similar between the two groups. Conclusions : At day 28, clinical improvement and mortality were not statistically significant different between tocilizumab and standard treatment patients in our cohort. Bacterial or fungal infections were recorded in 13% of tocilizumab patients and in 12% of standard treatment patients. Confirmation of efficacy and safety will require ongoing controlled trials.

In psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ultrasonography (US) plays a growing role in the differential diagnosis and in monitoring treatment response.1 PsA is a heterogeneous disease with different domains and peculiar sites involved.2 Therefore, a dedicated US composite score is needed to monitor disease activity and to identify structural damage progression. A recently published Systematic Literature Review (SLR) identified only two US scores specifically developed for PsA (ie, 5TPD and PsA-Son) and, although these had a good sensitivity to detect inflammation and a good feasibility, they have not been validated in other series.1 3 4 Recently, the Study Group for US of the Italian Society of Rheumatology promoted the Ultrasound in PSoriatic Arthritis TREAtMent (UPSTREAM) study (registered at ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT03330769). UPSTREAM is a multicentre observational prospective cohort study and it represents the first …

ObjectivesTo assess the safety and efficacy of interleukin (IL)−6 blockade with sarilumab in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation.MethodsWe conducted an open-label study of sarilumab in severe COVID-19 pneumonia (PaO2/FiO2 ResultsTwenty-eight patients were treated with sarilumab and 28 contemporary patients receiving standard of care alone were used as controls. At day 28 of follow-up, 61% of patients treated with sarilumab experienced clinical improvement and 7% died. These findings were not significantly different from the comparison group (clinical improvement 64%, mortality 18%; p=NS). Baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio >100 mm Hg and lung consolidation ConclusionsAt day 28, overall clinical improvement and mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 were not significantly different between sarilumab and standard of care. Sarilumab was associated with faster recovery in a subset of patients showing minor lung consolidation at baseline.

In order to identify rate and stability of remission induced by low-dose prednisone comedication in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA), we evaluated patients with early RA (