4.4 Article

Unraveling the Treatment Effect of Baricitinib on Clinical Progression and Resource Utilization in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: Secondary Analysis of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Randomized Trial-2

期刊

OPEN FORUM INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 9, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofac219

关键词

clinical progression; COVID-19 therapy; critical care; multistate models; therapeutics

资金

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID)
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland
  3. NIAID
  4. National Cancer Institute, NIH [HHSN261200800001E 75N910D00024, 75N91019F00130/75N91020F00010]
  5. Department of Defense, Defense Health Program
  6. NIAID of the NIH [M1AI148684, UM1AI148576, UM1AI148573, UM1AI148575, UM1AI148452, UM1AI148685, UM1AI148450, UM169432, UM1AI148689]
  7. NIH Stimulating Access to Research in Residency grant [5R38AI140299-02]
  8. government of Japan
  9. government of Mexico
  10. government of Denmark
  11. government of Singapore
  12. Seoul National University Hospital
  13. United Kingdom Medical Research Council [MRC_UU_12023/23]
  14. Emory CFAR [P30AI050409]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study showed that the combination therapy of baricitinib and remdesivir sped recovery in COVID-19 patients, particularly those requiring high levels of respiratory support, compared to remdesivir monotherapy.
Background The Adaptive COVID Treatment Trial-2 (ACTT-2) found that baricitinib in combination with remdesivir therapy (BCT) sped recovery in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients vs remdesivir monotherapy (RMT). We examined how BCT affected progression throughout hospitalization and utilization of intensive respiratory therapies. Methods We characterized the clinical trajectories of 891 ACTT-2 participants requiring supplemental oxygen or higher levels of respiratory support at enrollment. We estimated the effect of BCT on cumulative incidence of clinical improvement and deterioration using competing risks models. We developed multistate models to estimate the effect of BCT on clinical improvement and deterioration and on utilization of respiratory therapies. Results BCT resulted in more linear improvement and lower incidence of clinical deterioration compared with RMT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.95). The benefit was pronounced among participants enrolled on high-flow oxygen or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation. In this group, BCT sped clinical improvement (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.51) while slowing clinical deterioration (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.02), which reduced the expected days in ordinal score (OS) 6 per 100 patients by 74 days (95% CI, -8 to 154 days) and the expected days in OS 7 per 100 patients by 161 days (95% CI, 46 to 291 days) compared with RMT. BCT did not benefit participants who were mechanically ventilated at enrollment. Conclusions Compared with RMT, BCT reduces the clinical burden and utilization of intensive respiratory therapies for patients requiring low-flow oxygen or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation compared with RMT and may thereby improve care for this patient population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据