key: cord-0796077-kss9q713
authors: Luis, Buzón-Martín; Miguel, Montero-Baladía; Pedro, Delgado-López; David, Iglesias-Posadilla; Itziar, Astigarraga; Ana, Galacho-Harriero; Enrique, Iglesias-Julián; María, López-Veloso; La Torre-Ferrera Noelia, De; Julio César, Barraza-Bengoechea; Marta, Ubeira- Iglesias; Sebastián Rodrigo, San Llorente-; María, Colazo-Burlato; Andrés, Lorenzo-Martín; Javier, Minguito de la Iglesia; Juan Pablo, García-Muñoz; Gerardo, Hermida-Fernández; Francisco Carolina, Navarro-San; Jorge, Boado-Lama; María, Fernández-Regueras; Fernando, Callejo-Torre; Sergio, Ossa-Echeverri; Lourdes, Fisac-Cuadrado; María, Gero-Escapa; Gregoria, Megías-Lobón; Adolfo, Simón-Rodríguez; José Antonio, Fernández-Ratero
title: Benefits of early aggressive immunomodulatory therapy (tocilizumab and methylprednisolone) in COVID-19: single center cohort study of 685 patients
date: 2021-02-12
journal: J Transl Autoimmun
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtauto.2021.100086
sha: 7d87c47163abb02c84d3f81e7b72cc332f8f962a
doc_id: 796077
cord_uid: kss9q713

A growing evidence suggests that immune dysregulation and thrombotic phenomena are key features in the pathophysiology of COVID-19. Apart from antivirals and respiratory support, anticoagulants, corticoids and immunomodulators are increasingly being prescribed, especially for more severe cases. We describe the clinical outcome of a large cohort of patients preferentially treated with glucocorticoids and interleukin inhibitors. Methods Single center and retrospective case series. Adult patients admitted with COVID-19 related respiratory insufficiency were included.Patients who died within 2 days after admission and those testing positive but asymptomatic were excluded. We defined two study periods: from March 3rd to March 31 st, 2020 (beginning of epidemic until peak of incidence) and April 1 st to May 7 th,2020 (second half of epidemic). The majority of patients received respiratory support,combinations of antimicrobials, anticoagulants, corticoids and interleukin inhibitors.Antivirals were preferentially given in the first period. The clinical outcome (death and ventilator dependency) of both periods was compared. Results From March 3 rd to May 7 th, 685 patients were included for analysis (58.4% males, mean age 68.9 years). Patients in the first period (n=408) were younger (66.6 vs 71.1 years, p=0.003),presented lower mean P a O 2/F i O2 ratio at admission (256.5 vs 270.4 mm Hg,p=0.0563), higher ferritin (1520 vs 1221 ng/ml, p=0.01), higher IL-6 (679 vs 194 pg/ml,p<0.0001) and similar D-dimer levels (3.59 vs 3.39 μg/mL, p=0.65) compared to the second period (n=277). Lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon were preferentially given in the first period (23.8% and 32% vs 1.8% and 11.9%, p<0.0001). Use of corticoids (88.2% vs 87.4%, p=0,74) and tocilizumab (26.29 vs 20.22% p=0.06) were similarly administered in both periods. Patients in the second period needed less mechanical ventilation (4.9% vs 16.9%, p<0.0001), fewer ICU admission (6.1% vs 20.1%,p<0.0001) and showed similar mortality (17.7% vs 15.4%, p=0.43). Infectious and thrombotic complications were comparable in both periods (both around 8%, with no statistical difference). Patients treated with tocilizumab (n=163) had lower mortality rate compared to those untreated under the same indication (7.9% vs 24.2%, p<0.0001).Conclusions In this large retrospective COVID-19 in-hospital cohort, lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon showed no significant impact on survival. Extensive use of corticosteroids and tocilizumab resulted in good overall outcome and showed acceptable complication rates.

COVID-19 pandemic is a worldwide concern affecting all countries with different impact depending on the timing and aggressiveness of implementation of public health measures [1, 2] . Overall mortality rate for moderate and severe cases exceed 15%, with some series reporting over 25% [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] . Among those admitted to intensive care units (ICU) and requiring mechanical ventilation, mortality can reach 50-70% [3, 4, 6, 7] .

A growing evidence suggests that immune dysregulation and thrombotic phenomena are key features in the pathophysiology of moderate and severe SARS-CoV-2 infection [4, [8] [9] [10] [11] . A certain state of systemic hyperinflammation has been observed in many patients that present rapid respiratory impairment and ventilator dependency [9, [11] [12] [13] . A percentage of these may also develop a characteristic massive cytokine release with markedly increased immune inflammatory markers [4, 8, 11] . In this context, a rationale for immunomodulatory therapy has been proposed [8, 10, 11, 14] .

In fact, the use of corticoids and other immunomodulators in COVID-19 has been controversial [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] . Initially most guidelines strongly recommended against the use of glucocorticoids and other immunomodulatory agents outside clinical trials, alluding a theoretical prolonged viral shedding and other complications [19] [20] [21] . However, in the last months, substantial evidence favoring the administration of corticoids [7, [22] [23] [24] [25] and interleukin inhibitors [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] has been published.

According to our particular epidemic scenario, we readily observed that patients under corticoid therapy and those treated with interleukin inhibitors seemed to fare better than those under regular antiviral and antibiotic combination schemes. Additionally, we prescribed prophylactic anticoagulation [32] as part of the treatment protocol early in the course of the epidemic. We hypothesized that therapy based on the combination of anti-inflammatory (mainly corticoid therapy) and anticoagulation would result in fewer ventilation dependency and ICU admission, and lower complication and mortality rates. Therefore, we reviewed the clinical course and outcome of a large cohort of COVID-19 patients admitted to our tertiary center. These patients were preferentially treated with respiratory support and combinations of drugs according to actuarial evidence and international recommendations [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] . Yet, the great majority received methylprednisolone and enoxaparin. Additionally, 163 patients were treated with IL-6 inhibitor tocilizumab. We compared the clinical outcome of patients before and after the peak incidence of the epidemic curve. Antivirals were used only in the first half of the epidemic. In this case series review we aimed to provide evidence on the effectiveness and safety of immunomodulatory therapy regarding the need for mechanical ventilation, requirement of ICU stay, and overall mortality.

We conducted a retrospective case series at the University Hospital of Burgos, Spain, between March 3 and May 7, 2020. Our center is a tertiary hospital with 700 beds (26 ICU beds) for a catchment area of 350,000 people. The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee (CEIm reference number: 2315) and informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Patients were included if they were 18 years or older and were admitted presenting COVID-19 related respiratory insufficiency upon clinical and blood gas parameters. Patients who died within 48 hours of admission and those testing positive but asymptomatic were excluded. Confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection was obtained from nasopharyngeal swabs and PCR analysis A proportion of patients that exhibited clinical and laboratory findings compatible with COVID-19 but failed to test positive, also received treatment and were included in the study.

The primary endpoint was to evaluate the clinical outcome (need for mechanical ventilation or death) of the cohort. Two study periods were defined: from March 3 to March 31, 2020 (beginning of epidemic until peak of incidence) and from April 1 to May 7, 2020 (second half of epidemic). The cutoff was established on April 1st based on the peak incidence and the shift in the treatment protocol.The majority of patients received ventilatory support, combinations of antimicrobials, anticoagulants, corticoids and interleukin inhibitors. Antivirals were preferentially given in the first period. The study was designed and conducted by a multidisciplinary in-hospital group (including physicians belonging to critical care, infectious diseases, internal medicine, pneumology, hematology units and other specialists) specifically created for the COVID-19 epidemic.

Quantitative variables are shown as mean (SD) or median (IQR), and qualitative variables as proportions. Fisher's t-test or Mann-Whitney's U test was used to compare the groups based on the distribution of quantitative variables. Pearson's chi-square ( 2) test or Fisher's exact test was used for the proportion comparison. The primary outcome was defined as a compound of allcause mortality and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients received invasive mechanical ventilation according to PaO2/FiO2 ratio and clinical parameters like tachypnea, altered respiratory function (tachypnea >30 with increased respiratory effort despite oxygen supplement or non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV), and use of ancillary musculature) and/or hemodynamic instability, with or without impairment in the level of consciousness.

A single-time logistic regression test was performed, setting the combined event death or mechanical ventilation as a dependent variable; subsequently, a multiple logistic regression was performed including all variables showing statistical significance (or a tendency to statistical significance with a value of p<0.2) in the univariate analysis. Additionally, a survival analysis was performed using the Cox univariate and multivariate regression method and Kaplan-Meier curves, by comparing the time to the need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death in both groups. The results are expressed as hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval. Comparing tocilizumab, the endpoint was only mortality. The statistical analysis was carried out with the statistical package Stata/IC 16.1 (College Station, TX 77845) and user-written commands. p-value was considered as statistically significant at <0.05.

At the beginning of the COVID-19 epidemic (March 2 nd , 2020), the standard of care in our institution for patients presenting with hypoxemia included respiratory support, lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, enoxaparin, interferon 1-ß and methylprednisolone. Methylprednisolone dosage varied up to the physician in charge: internists preferentially prescribed a 3-day 250 mg bolus scheme followed by tapering dose, while pneumologists tended to prescribe methylprednisolone at 1 mg/Kg of body weight. Ceftriaxone was also prescribed upon physician discretion. By the end of March 2020, LPV/r was abandoned due to the lack of efficacy reported [33] and the presence of troublesome pharmacokinetic interactions, especially among critically ill patients. At that time, IL-6 inhibitor tocilizumab was added to the protocol aimed at patients meeting ARDS criteria [34] and biochemical alterations suggestive of severe systemic inflammation (ferritin levels >1000 ng/ml and/or IL-6 values >50 pg/ml). IL-1 inhibitor anakinra was also used in patients meeting ARDS criteria and biochemical alterations suggesting severe systemic inflammation but with IL-6 levels less than 50 pg/ml and/or 4-fold blood ALT levels over the normal upper limit.

Etoposide was offered to patients that, despite having received boluses of 250 mg of methylprednisolone for three days plus tocilizumab or anakinra, kept on deteriorating their PaO2/FiO2 ratios and PCO2 values [35] . Orotracheal intubation, mechanical ventilation and prone positioning were applied when necessary according to the course of respiratory function. Given that, since the beginning of the study period, there was evidence that severe COVID-19 infection predisposed to thrombosis, the great majority of patients received prophylactic enoxaparin (40 mg per day for 14 days). Therapeutic anticoagulation was initiated when thrombotic complications appeared and/or at the physician's discretion in patients with high risk of thrombosis according to the clinical and laboratory findings.

Within the study period (March 3 rd to May 7 th , 2020) a total of 1,205 patients tested positive for PCR SARS-CoV-2 in our center. After excluding mild and asymptomatic patients and those under 18 years, 685 COVID-19 patients were included in the study (58.4% males, mean age 68.9 ± 16.1 years). The main clinical characteristics of the cohort are detailed in Table 1 . More than 45% of the cohort had a history of hypertension, and 63.5% of patients presented with a PaO2/FiO2 ratio <300. Nearly half of patients showed maximum ferritin levels>1000 ng/ml and IL-6 levels >50 pg/ml. Average D-dimer level was 1.4 μg/mL. For comparison, we subdivided patients in two groups: those admitted before (first period, n=408) and after (second period, n=277) the peak of the local epidemic.

Although our treatment protocol varied throughout the study period, according to emerging evidence and international recommendations, the entire cohort was treated with a relatively homogeneous protocol in both periods, with the exception of lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon, which were abandoned in the second period. Figure 1 depicts the epidemic curve in our center, and the treatment scheme preferentially used in the two periods.

The similarities and differences of the two periods are shown in Table 2 . Patients in the first period were slightly younger (66.5 vs 71.1 years, p=0.003) and presented with higher ferritin levels (1520 vs 1221 ng/ml, p=0.017), more profound lymphopenia (711 vs 909, p<0.0001), and higher IL-6 levels (679 vs 194 pg/ml, p<0.0001). However, PaO2/FiO2 ratio at presentation (256 vs 270 mm Hg, p=0.0563) and D-dimer levels (3.59 vs 3.39 μg/mL, p=0.65) were similar. Noninvasive ventilation was preferentially used in the first period (16.7% vs 6.49%, p=0.0002). Noticeably, treatment modalities were equally distributed in the two periods except for lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon that were used almost exclusively in the first period (23.8% and 32% vs 1.8% and 11.9%, respectively, p<0.0001. Methylprednisolone, either in bolus or mg/Kg dosage, were widely prescribed in both periods (360 patients, 88.1% vs 243 patients, 87.4%, p=0.026). Tocilizumab was administered in 107 patients, 26.3% and 56 patients, 20.2%, respectively. Anakinra (n=9) and etoposide (n=14) were selectively offered to more severe cases, resistant to tocilizumab. Etoposide was used in severely ill patients not responding to interleukin inhibitors that showed laboratory findings similar to that of secondary HLH. The great majority of patients received anticoagulation therapy in both periods (92.7% vs 95.4%, p=0.322). Table 3 shows the clinical outcome of patients in both periods. Interestingly, patients in the second period needed less mechanical ventilation (4.69% vs 16.91%, p<0.0001), and ICU admission (6.1% vs 20.1%, p<0.0001). Yet, mortality rate was similar in both periods (15.4% vs 17.7%, p=0.435), as well as overall infectious and thrombotic complication rates.

A total of 163 patients were treated with tocilizumab plus methylprednisolone. As shown in Table 4 , 66 (40.5%) were admitted to the ICU, 54 required mechanical ventilation (33.13%), and 13 patients died (7.98%).

Overall, there were 83 episodes of infectious complication in 39 patients, 90% of which occurred at the ICU. The survival analysis showed that the hazard risk of death or need for mechanical ventilation was slightly increased in the first period, yet without statistical significance (Figure 2) .

After multiple regression analysis, our model has an AUC= 0.9274. Tocilizumab showed a tendency to be protective for the combined endpoint, with an OR 0.35 without statistical significance (CI95% 0.10-1.20, p=0.11), but when only mortality was analyzed, tocilizumab shows an OR 0.21 (0.0566-0.7535, p=0.017). Even in Cox multiple regression showed HR 0.35 (CI95% 0.14-0.90, p=0.03).

Since the early reports from China, it was clear that throughout the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, ICU admission and mechanical ventilation requirements were key issues to acknowledge and deal with [3, 4] . Subsequent worldwide expansion of the virus led to overwhelming of ICUs in many countries and the need for ICU beds and ventilators dramatically increased in a short period of time [1, 2, 5, 6, 36, 37] . In our center, some operating rooms and post-surgery recovery units had to be rapidly transformed into new ICU facilities by mid-March 2020, when up to 56 ICU beds and ventilators were required. At that point, SARS-CoV-2 positive patients occupied 80% of the remaining hospital beds.

At the beginning of the epidemic, sound evidence on the effectiveness of the various treatment options lacked. However, pathophysiologic research studies suggested that immune dysregulation was a key feature in the clinical course of moderate and severely ill COVID-19 patients [8] [9] [10] [11] . Therefore, we hypothesized that targeting immune dysregulation would result in fewer need for ventilator and lower mortality.

There is growing evidence showing that COVID-19 infection is a biphasic disease [11] . The initial stage, at which pre-symptomatic or pauci-symptomatic patients exhibit a preliminary and reversible state of immune-suppression associated to the viral load, ideally benefits from antivirals. To date, no specific antiviral drugs, including LPV/r and remdesivir, have proven effective for the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19 in terms of reduction of mortality or requirement of mechanical ventilation [33, 38] . The combination of LPV/r, interferon ß-1b and ribavirin was safe and superior to lopinavir-ritonavir alone in alleviating symptoms and shortening the duration of viral shedding and hospital stay, only in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 infection, yet not in severe cases [39] .

Ideally, effective antivirals capable of inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 replication should be effective at the first stage of the disease, and likely thereafter, when the dysregulated immune response predisposes to severe multiorgan damage [9] [10] [11] . Unfortunately, as of August 30th, 2020, we lack highly efficient antivirals against SARS-CoV-2 [33, 38, 39] . In our experience, there was no difference in mortality between the two periods of the first wave, in which the only difference in terms of drug treatment was the use of lopinavir/ritonavir plus interferon 1ß. Etoposide was used in severely ill patients not responding to interleukin inhibitors that showed laboratory findings similar to that of secondary HLH. In fact, when these two agents were abandoned, mortality rate did not change, in line with previous studies reporting unclear in vivo efficacy in severely ill COVID-19 patients [33] .

Hydroxychloroquine was the first drug specifically directed to the virus according to the study by Raoult et al [40] . However, subsequent reports and clinical trials failed to demonstrate a clear benefit, leading to its withdrawal from many ongoing clinical trials [7, 41, 42] . As we used hydroxychloroquine equally in both periods, no statements can be made regarding its impact in our cohort.

Corticosteroid use in COVID-19 patients has been a controversial issue since the beginning of the pandemic. Initially, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended against the routine use of corticosteroids for treatment of viral pneumonia outside clinical trials [2, 19] . Contrarily, the Corticosteroid Guideline Task Force of the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) issued guidelines supporting the use of glucocorticoids in critically ill patients including those with ARDS [20] . They found moderate quality/certainty of evidence for a reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation and improved overall survival [43] . Thus, a rationale for the prolonged use of corticosteroids in COVID-19 related ARDS was initially proposed [23] . Further evidence supported the use of glucocorticoids in moderate and severely ill COVID-19 patients [7, 17, 18, 25] , suggesting that dexamethasone or methylprednisolone would reduce mortality in the more severe cases. The recent publication by Fadel et al [5] , showed that an early short course of methylprednisolone in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 infection reduced the escalation of care and reduced mortality compared to late corticoid administration (34.9% vs. 54.3%, p=0.005). A significant reduction in median hospital stay was also observed in the early corticosteroid group (8 vs. 5 days, p < 0.001). More recently, the preliminary data from the RECOVERY trial demonstrated a statistically significant reduction of mortality at 28 days (21.6% vs 24.6%, p<0.001) in patients allocated to dexamethasone (6 mg per day) versus those treated with standard of care [7] . In fact, at present, dexamethasone is the only drug showing evidence for a reduction in mortality compared with the standard of care according to randomized clinical trials.

Upon previous research [8, 9, 11] , we realized that immune dysregulation and systemic inflammation played a relevant role in promoting multi-organ damage of severe COVID-19. Therefore, we prescribed glucocorticoids on a regular basis to patients with respiratory failure (PaO2 <60 mmHg) and/or bilateral lung infiltrates, rapid imaging progression, and severe inflammatory response. We did not find differences in outcome regarding dosage and both types (bolus and maintenance) resulted beneficial. Further studies are needed to elucidate this point and the impact of other potential confounders. Although we cannot compare the impact of glucocorticoids between the two periods, the mortality rate in our cohort is lower than that of comparable series from other institutions [36, 37] , supporting the idea that early aggressive glucocorticoid therapy is feasible and effective. In fact, the mortality rate in our cohort (16,35%) is significantly lower than that reported by the conductors of the RECOVERY Trial (22,9%) [7] .

Off-label use of tocilizumab was proposed since the beginning of the pandemic upon reports from China and Italy, which suggested a benefit among patients exhibiting severe systemic inflammation (with elevated levels of plasma ferritin and IL-6) and respiratory failure [26, 27] . These preliminary reports were further supported by new evidence from case reports and observational studies [28, 29] . In fact, 64 randomized trials on the efficacy of various tocilizumab schemes are currently ongoing (www.clinicaltrials.gov).

To our knowledge, our series is the largest cohort of patients treated with tocilizumab plus methylprednisolone (n=163). A similar prior experience from Brescia in Italy resulted in an overall mortality rate of 20% over 100 patients treated with tocilizumab plus dexamethasone. However, the optimal dosing schedule remains unclear [27] . At the beginning of April 2020, and due to national shortage, we were forced to treat patients with only one-two doses of 8 mg/Kg, instead of the usual three doses. At our institution, candidates for tocilizumab therapy were selected among severe ill COVID-19 patients upon clinical and laboratory findings. Availability of medication and the presumed potential of benefit for each individual conditioned the indication of treatment, thus not all patients with a priori indication for tocilizumab received treatment (Table 4) . Interestingly, although patients receiving tocilizumab showed significant lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio at admission, higher IL-6 and ferritin levels, and required more NIMV and ICU admission, mortality rate was significantly lower compared to those with theoretical indication who remained untreated (7.89% vs 24.17%, p<0.0001, see figure 3 ). Patients treated with tocilizumab who kept on worsening their respiratory condition and systemic inflammation biochemical parameters, were subsequently treated with anakinra [44] or etoposide [35] . Secondary infections occurred unfrequently among patients hospitalized. Yet, 90% of infections were recorded at the ICU (primarily mechanical ventilation associated pneumonia, catheter related bacteremia, and urinary tract infections). It seems likely that the widespread use of third generation cephalosporins may have decreased the occurrence of nosocomial infection. Additionally, infection rates may have been influenced by the general overwhelming situation of the center, the poor availability of individual protective equipment at some moments, and the need for prone positioning of many patients.

The pathophysiological mechanism behind acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a pulmonary inflammatory process that induces non-hydrostatic protein-rich pulmonary edema, leading to profound hypoxemia, decreased lung compliance, and increased intrapulmonary shunt and dead space, with subsequent increase in ventilation/perfusion mismatch. ARDS criteria, as well as its severity classifications were used [34] . According to these criteria, ARDS is a common finding among severe COVID-19 pneumonia patients. In our experience, over 58% of COVID-19 patients developed ARDS.

According to international guidelines [45] , adult patients presenting with ARDS (PaO2/FiO2 <300) are immediate candidates for orotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation. However, unlike usual ARDS, SARS-CoV-2 related ARDS may present with alarming PaO2/FiO2 ratios (commonly under 150) but relatively preserved ventilatory function (mild dyspnea with or without tachypnea). Additionally, patients commonly show preserved oxygen extraction and adequate organ perfusion without lactic acidosis. Although upon ARDS Berlin criteria, all such patients would be candidates for immediate intubation, this particular ARDS profile allowed avoidance of invasive mechanical ventilation in a significant proportion of our cohort. We hypothesize that SARS-CoV-2 related ARDS distinct pathophysiologic features permit management of many critically ill COVID-19 patients with non-invasive ventilatory support, waiting for the reversal effect of anti-inflammatory therapy.

We observed that severe COVID-19 ARDS patients benefited from adequate oxygenation and correction of ventilation/perfusion mismatch, with alveolar recruitment helped by prone positioning and mild PEEP, which on the one hand, decreases the intrapulmonary shunt, improving arterial oxygenation, and on the other hand, decreases the amount of lung tissue exposed to alveolar opening-closing, thus reducing the risk of ventilator-induced lung injury. Prone positioning is commonly used in patients under mechanical ventilation who persist with severe respiratory impairment despite sedation-analgesia, muscle relaxation and recruitment measures, although it is also described and can be used in patients under non-invasive mechanical ventilation as in COVID-19 [46, 47] .

When comparing the need for mechanical ventilation between the both periods, as we gained experience, we readily learned that many COVID-19 ARDS patients tolerated alarmingly low PaO2/FiO2 ratios (even under 100) without the need for intubation and mechanical ventilation, therefore avoiding invasive measures and ICU stay, yet without a negative impact on mortality. This is, to our knowledge, the biggest report of patients treated with tocilizumab and glucocorticoids. However, this study has some limitations. It is a single center retrospective case review without a formally defined control group in terms of treatment protocol. This is partly attributable to the lack of standardized treatment guidelines, especially at the beginning of the epidemic. However, our treatment protocol was maintained rather homogeneously throughout the study period in a large sample of hospitalized patients. Our overall mortality rate also compared favorably with previous series. Acknowledging potential sources of bias, we found a significantly reduced mortality rate among patients treated with tocilizumab plus corticoids compared to theoretical candidates who did not received such treatment. In line with previous reports, abandonment of lopinavir/ritonavir plus interferon 1ß combination showed no impact on mortality. Finally, infectious complications rate was acceptable and the majority of them occurred in the ICU where predisposing factors may have also contributed.

In summary, we report favorable outcomes from a large single center cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with respiratory impairment, treated with early glucocorticoid therapy and interleukin inhibitors. The combination of methylprednisolone and tocilizumab resulted in improved mortality and acceptable complication rates among severely ill COVID-19 patients. Upcoming results from clinical trials will eventually elucidate the effectiveness of immunomodulatory therapy in this clinical setting.

J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f 

COVID-19: towards controlling of a pandemic

WHO Coronavirus Disease

Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study

Clinical and immunologic features in severe and moderate Coronavirus Disease

As COVID-19 cases, deaths and fatality rates surge in Italy, underlying causes require investigation

COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the Seattle region-Case series

Effect of Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Preliminary Report

COVID-19: Consider cytokine storm syndromes and immunosupression

The many faces of the anti-COVID immune response

The pathogenesis and treatment of the 'Cytokine Storm' in COVID-19

Should we stimulate or suppress immune responses in COVID-19? Cytokine and anti-cytokine interventions

Complex Immune Dysregulation in COVID-19 Patients with Severe Respiratory Failure

COVID-19, cytokines and immunosupression: what can we learn from severe acute respiratory syndrome?

The use of anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of people with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): The perspectives of clinical immunologist from China

Controversial treatments: An updated understanding of the coronavirus disease 2019

The effect of corticosteroid treatment on patients with coronavirus infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Use of Corticosteroids in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in COVID-19 based on evidence for COVID-19, other coronavirus infections, influenza, community-acquired pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical management of severe acute respiratory infection when novel coronavirus (nCoV) infection is suspected: interim guidance

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: guidelines on the management of critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Infectious Disease Society of America Guidelines on the treatment and management of patients with COVID-19

Dexamethasone treatment for the acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

Rationale for Prolonged Corticosteroid Treatment in the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Caused by Coronavirus Disease

Early preemptive immunomodulators (corticosteroids)for severe pneumonia patients infected with SARS-CoV-2

Early short course corticosteroids in hospitalized patients with COVID-19

Effective treatment of severe COVID-19 patients with tocilizumab

Tocilizumab for the treatment of severe COVID-19 pneumonia with hyperinflammatory syndrome and acute respiratory failure: A single center

Supportive Treatment with Tocilizumab for COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in severe COVID-19 patients: a single-centre retrospective cohort study

Targeting the inflammatory cascade with anakinra in moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia: case series

Role of Anti-Cytokine therapies in severe Coronavirus Disease

Association of treatment dose anticoagulation with in-hospital survival among hospitalized patients with COVID-19

A Trial of Lopinavir-Ritonavir in Adults Hospitalized with Severe Covid-19

The Berlin definition of ARDS: an expanded rationale, justification, and supplementary material

Etoposide treatment adjunctive to immunosuppressants for critically ill COVID-19 patients

A Cohort of Patients with COVID-19 in a Major Teaching Hospital in Europe

The COVID-19@Spain Study group. Characteristics and predictors of death among 4,035 consecutively hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Spain

Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomized, double-bind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial

Triple combination of interferon beta-1b, lopinavir-ritonavir and ribavirin in the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19: an open-label, randomized, phase 2 trial

Cloroquine and hydroxicloroquine as available weapons to fight COVID-19

NIH halts clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine

Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency (CIRCI) in critically ill patients (Part I): Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM)

High dose subcutaneous Anakinra to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome secondary to cytokine storm syndrome among severely ill COVD-19 patients

An Official American Thoracic Society/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine/Society of Critical Care Medicine Clinical Practice Guideline: Mechanical Ventilation in Adult Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Efficacy and safety of early prone positioning combined with HFNC or NIV in moderate to severe ARDS: a multi-center prospective cohort study

Prone Position for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

• Immune dysregulation and thrombotic phenomena seem to be key features in the pathophysiology of COVID-19. • Corticoids have proven effective in reducing mortality among severely ill COVID-19 patients • The combination of corticoids and interleukin inhibitors may reduce the need for mechanical ventilation in severe cases. • Aggressive immunomodulatory therapy results in good overall outcome with acceptable infectious/thrombotic complications.