Mortality Rates Among Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 Infection Treated With Tocilizumab and Corticosteroids: A Bayesian Reanalysis of a Previous Meta-analysis | Allergy and Clinical Immunology | JN Learning | AMA Ed Hub [Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

Mortality Rates Among Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 Infection Treated With Tocilizumab and CorticosteroidsA Bayesian Reanalysis of a Previous Meta-analysis

Educational Objective
To identify the key insights or developments described in this article
1 Credit CME
Key Points

Question  Can bayesian methods clarify the uncertainty around tocilizumab’s association with mortality benefit in subgroups of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving corticosteroids?

Findings  In this bayesian reanalysis of a previous meta-analysis of 15 randomized clinical trials comprising 5339 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 treated with tocilizumab and corticosteroids, those receiving simple oxygen only or noninvasive ventilation were associated with a clinically meaningful mortality benefit. In contrast, for those receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, an association with benefit was uncertain.

Meaning  This study’s findings indicate that further research is needed to assess the association between mortality benefit or risk in patients with COVID-19 receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and treated with tocilizumab and corticosteroids.

Abstract

Importance  A World Health Organization (WHO) meta-analysis found that tocilizumab was associated with reduced mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. However, uncertainty remains concerning the magnitude of tocilizumab’s benefits and whether its association with mortality benefit is similar across respiratory subgroups.

Objective  To use bayesian methods to assess the magnitude of mortality benefit associated with tocilizumab and the differences between respiratory support subgroups in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Design, Setting, and Participants  A bayesian hierarchical reanalysis of the WHO meta-analysis of tocilizumab studies published in 2020 and 2021 was performed. Main results were estimated using weakly informative priors to exert little influence on the observed data. The robustness of these results was evaluated using vague and informative priors. The studies featured in the meta-analysis were randomized clinical tocilizumab trials of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Only patients receiving corticosteroids were included.

Interventions  Usual care plus tocilizumab in comparison with usual care or placebo.

Main Outcomes and Measures  All-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization.

Results  Among the 5339 patients included in this analysis, most were men, with mean ages between 56 and 66 years. There were 2117 patients receiving simple oxygen only, 2505 receiving noninvasive ventilation (NIV), and 717 receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in 15 studies from multiple countries and continents. Assuming weakly informative priors, the overall odds ratios (ORs) for survival were 0.70 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.50-0.91) for patients receiving simple oxygen only, 0.81 (95% CrI, 0.63-1.03) for patients receiving NIV, and 0.89 (95% CrI, 0.61-1.22) for patients receiving IMV, respectively. The posterior probabilities of any benefit (OR <1) were notably different between patients receiving simple oxygen only (98.9%), NIV (95.5%), and IMV (75.4%). The posterior probabilities of a clinically meaningful association (absolute mortality risk difference >1%) were greater than 95% in patients receiving simple oxygen only and greater than 90% in patients receiving NIV. In contrast, the posterior probability of this clinically meaningful association was only approximately 67% in patients receiving IMV. The probabilities of tocilizumab superiority in the simple oxygen only subgroup compared with the NIV and IMV subgroups were 85% and 90%, respectively. Predictive intervals highlighted that only 72.1% of future tocilizumab IMV studies would show benefit. The conclusions did not change with different prior distributions.

Conclusions and Relevance  In this bayesian reanalysis of a previous meta-analysis of 15 studies of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 treated with tocilizumab and corticosteroids, use of simple oxygen only and NIV was associated with a probability of a clinically meaningful mortality benefit from tocilizumab. Future research should clarify whether patients receiving IMV also benefit from tocilizumab.

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 CME Credit™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC

CME Disclosure Statement: Unless noted, all individuals in control of content reported no relevant financial relationships. If applicable, all relevant financial relationships have been mitigated.

Article Information

Accepted for Publication: January 11, 2022.

Published: February 28, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.0548

Correction: This article was corrected on March 22, 2022, to delete “(95% CI)” from the x-axis labels of Figures 1B and 2B.

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2022 Albuquerque AM et al. JAMA Network Open.

Corresponding Author: James M. Brophy, MD, PhD, McGill Health University Center, 5252 Boul de Maisonneuve W, Room 2B.37, Montreal, QC H4A 3S5, Canada (james.brophy@mcgill.ca).

Author Contributions: Mr Albuquerque and Dr Brophy had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Albuquerque, Tramujas, Williams, Brophy.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Albuquerque, Sewanan, Brophy.

Drafting of the manuscript: Albuquerque, Sewanan, Williams.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Albuquerque, Tramujas, Sewanan, Brophy.

Statistical analysis: Albuquerque, Sewanan, Williams, Brophy.

Supervision: Tramujas, Brophy.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Tramujas participated as a subinvestigator in TOCIBRAS, a randomized clinical trial included in this article. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: Dr Brophy is a research scholar supported by Les Fonds de Recherche Québec Santé.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Additional Information: The complete analysis code is available at https://github.com/arthur-albuquerque/tocilizumab_reanalysis.

References
1.
Shankar-Hari  M , Vale  CL , Godolphin  PJ ,  et al; WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group.  Association between administration of IL-6 antagonists and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19: a meta-analysis.   JAMA. 2021;326(6):499-518. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.11330 PubMedGoogle Scholar
2.
Therapeutics and COVID-19: living guideline. World Health Organization. Accessed September 2, 2021. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-therapeutics-2021.2
3.
Wijeysundera  DN , Austin  PC , Hux  JE , Beattie  WS , Laupacis  A .  Bayesian statistical inference enhances the interpretation of contemporary randomized controlled trials.   J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(1):13-21.e5. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.07.006 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Goligher  EC , Tomlinson  G , Hajage  D ,  et al.  Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and posterior probability of mortality benefit in a post hoc bayesian analysis of a randomized clinical trial.   JAMA. 2018;320(21):2251-2259. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.14276 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Brophy  JM .  Bayesian interpretation of the EXCEL trial and other randomized clinical trials of left main coronary artery revascularization.   JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(7):986-992. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.1647 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Spiegelhalter  DJ , Abrams  KR , Myles  JP .  Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health Care Evaluation. Wiley; 2004.
7.
Greenland  S .  Invited commentary: the need for cognitive science in methodology.   Am J Epidemiol. 2017;186(6):639-645. doi:10.1093/aje/kwx259 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Page  MJ , McKenzie  JE , Bossuyt  PM ,  et al.  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.   BMJ. 2021;372(n71):n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Hedges  LV , Vevea  JL .  Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis.   Psychol Methods. 1998;3(4):486-504. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486 Google ScholarCrossref
10.
Viechtbauer  W .  Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package.   J Stat Softw. 2010;36(1):1-48. doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03PubMedGoogle Scholar
11.
van de Schoot  R , Veen  D , Smeets  L , Winter  SD , Depaoli  S . A tutorial on using the WAMBS checklist to avoid the misuse of bayesian statistics. In: van de Schoot  R , Miočević  M , eds.  Small Sample Size Solutions. 1st ed. Routledge; 2020:30-49. doi:10.4324/9780429273872-4
12.
Röver  C , Bender  R , Dias  S ,  et al.  On weakly informative prior distributions for the heterogeneity parameter in bayesian random-effects meta-analysis.   Res Synth Methods. 2021;12(4):448-474. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1475 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Turner  RM , Jackson  D , Wei  Y , Thompson  SG , Higgins  JPT .  Predictive distributions for between-study heterogeneity and simple methods for their application in bayesian meta-analysis.   Stat Med. 2015;34(6):984-998. doi:10.1002/sim.6381 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
McElreath  R .  Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course With Examples in R and Stan. Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2020.
15.
Doi  SA , Furuya-Kanamori  L , Xu  C , Lin  L , Chivese  T , Thalib  L .  Questionable utility of the relative risk in clinical research: a call for change to practice.   J Clin Epidemiol. Published online November 7, 2020. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.08.019PubMedGoogle Scholar
16.
Doi  SA , Furuya-Kanamori  L , Xu  C ,  et al.  The odds ratio is “portable” but not the relative risk: time to do away with the log link in binomial regression.   J Clin Epidemiol. Published online August 8, 2021. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.003Google Scholar
17.
Welton  NJ , Jones  HE , Dias  S . Bayesian methods for meta-analysis. In: Lesaffre E, Baio G, Boulanger B, eds.  Bayesian Methods in Pharmaceutical Research. Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2020.
18.
IntHout  J , Ioannidis  JP , Rovers  MM , Goeman  JJ .  Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis.   BMJ Open. 2016;6(7):e010247. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010247 PubMedGoogle Scholar
19.
Higgins  JPT , Thompson  SG , Spiegelhalter  DJ .  A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis.   J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009;172(1):137-159. doi:10.1111/j.1467-985X.2008.00552.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Kalil  AC , Sun  J .  How many patients with severe sepsis are needed to confirm the efficacy of drotrecogin alfa activated? a bayesian design.   Intensive Care Med. 2008;34(10):1804-1811. doi:10.1007/s00134-008-1159-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Carpenter  B , Gelman  A , Hoffman  MD ,  et al.  Stan: a probabilistic programming language.   J Stat Softw. 2017;76(1):1-32. doi:10.18637/jss.v076.i01 Google ScholarCrossref
22.
Bürkner  PC .  brms: an R package for bayesian multilevel models using stan.   J Stat Softw. 2017;80(1):1-28. doi:10.18637/jss.v080.i01 Google ScholarCrossref
23.
Depaoli  S , van de Schoot  R .  Improving transparency and replication in bayesian statistics: the WAMBS-checklist.   Psychol Methods. 2017;22(2):240-261. doi:10.1037/met0000065 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
van de Schoot  R , Depaoli  S , King  R ,  et al.  Bayesian statistics and modelling.   Nat Rev Methods Primer. 2021;1(1):1-26. doi:10.1038/s43586-020-00001-2 Google ScholarCrossref
25.
Stone  JH , Frigault  MJ , Serling-Boyd  NJ ,  et al; BACC Bay Tocilizumab Trial Investigators.  Efficacy of tocilizumab in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.   N Engl J Med. 2020;383(24):2333-2344. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2028836 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Hermine  O , Mariette  X , Tharaux  PL , Resche-Rigon  M , Porcher  R , Ravaud  P ; CORIMUNO-19 Collaborative Group.  Effect of tocilizumab vs usual care in adults hospitalized with COVID-19 and moderate or severe pneumonia: a randomized clinical trial.   JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(1):32-40. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.6820 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Rosas  IO , Bräu  N , Waters  M ,  et al.  Tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.   N Engl J Med. 2021;384(16):1503-1516. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2028700 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Salama  C , Han  J , Yau  L ,  et al.  Tocilizumab in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia.   N Engl J Med. 2021;384(1):20-30. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2030340 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Rosas  IO , Diaz  G , Gottlieb  RL ,  et al.  Tocilizumab and remdesivir in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: a randomized clinical trial.   Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(11):1258-1270. doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06507-x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Veiga  VC , Prats  JAGG , Farias  DLC ,  et al; Coalition COVID-19 Brazil VI Investigators.  Effect of tocilizumab on clinical outcomes at 15 days in patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019: randomised controlled trial.   BMJ. 2021;372(n84):n84. doi:10.1136/bmj.n84 PubMedGoogle Scholar
31.
Abani  O , Abbas  A , Abbas  F ,  et al; RECOVERY Collaborative Group.  Tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial.   Lancet. 2021;397(10285):1637-1645. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00676-0 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Gordon  AC , Mouncey  PR , Al-Beidh  F ,  et al; REMAP-CAP Investigators.  Interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with COVID-19.   N Engl J Med. 2021;384(16):1491-1502. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2100433 PubMedGoogle Scholar
33.
Kent  DM , Steyerberg  E , van Klaveren  D .  Personalized evidence based medicine: predictive approaches to heterogeneous treatment effects.   BMJ. 2018;363:k4245. doi:10.1136/bmj.k4245 PubMedGoogle Scholar
34.
Albuquerque  AM , Tramujas  L , Sewanan  LR , Brophy  JM .  Tocilizumab in COVID-19—a bayesian reanalysis of RECOVERY.   medRxiv. Preprint posted online June 21, 2021. doi:10.1101/2021.06.15.21258966Google Scholar
35.
Kent  DM , Paulus  JK , van Klaveren  D ,  et al.  The Predictive Approaches to Treatment effect Heterogeneity (PATH) statement.   Ann Intern Med. 2020;172(1):35-45. doi:10.7326/M18-3667 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Aberegg  SK .  Post hoc bayesian analyses.   JAMA. 2019;321(16):1631-1632. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.1198 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Fisher  DJ , Carpenter  JR , Morris  TP , Freeman  SC , Tierney  JF .  Meta-analytical methods to identify who benefits most from treatments: daft, deluded, or deft approach?   BMJ. 2017;356:j573. doi:10.1136/bmj.j573 PubMedGoogle Scholar
Want full access to the AMA Ed Hub?
After you sign up for AMA Membership, make sure you sign in or create a Physician account with the AMA in order to access all learning activities on the AMA Ed Hub
Buy this activity
Close
Want full access to the AMA Ed Hub?
After you sign up for AMA Membership, make sure you sign in or create a Physician account with the AMA in order to access all learning activities on the AMA Ed Hub
Buy this activity
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close

Name Your Search

Save Search
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Close

Lookup An Activity

or

Close

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

Close

My Saved Courses

You currently have no courses saved.

Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close