Commenting on baricitinib versus tocilizumab in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: a nationwide cohort study

Abstract

We read with great interest the article by You et al., which provides valuable insights into the comparative efficacy of baricitinib and tocilizumab in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients [1]. While the study’s findings are important, especially regarding the lower 30-day mortality in the baricitinib group, we believe that the issue of confounding by indication was not sufficiently addressed and may have significantly influenced the results.

Confounding by indication occurs when treatment assignment is influenced by disease severity, leading to a bias in outcome comparison between treatment groups. In this study, patients in the tocilizumab group appeared to be more severely ill at baseline compared to those in the baricitinib group. Although the authors employed propensity score matching (PSM) to balance baseline characteristics, the data suggest that the tocilizumab group had a higher severity of illness, which could explain some of the observed differences in mortality. Notably, patients in the tocilizumab group had longer durations of mechanical ventilation prior to drug administration, higher use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and more severe comorbidities, as detailed in the supplementary tables. These factors strongly suggest that tocilizumab was more likely administered to patients in critical condition, potentially skewing the mortality comparison in favor of baricitinib.

Furthermore, while PSM is effective at balancing observable variables, it may not fully account for unmeasured or residual confounders, such as the timing of drug administration relative to disease progression or the specific clinical criteria that influenced treatment choices. Baricitinib was administered for a median of 8 days, while tocilizumab was often given as a single dose. This difference in treatment duration and pharmacodynamics could have further impacted the results. Baricitinib, with its broader anti-inflammatory effects and prolonged administration, may have provided a more sustained reduction in inflammation, whereas the single-dose nature of tocilizumab could have limited its efficacy in severely ill patients.

Additionally, the study does not provide sufficient detail regarding the criteria used to determine whether a patient received baricitinib or tocilizumab beyond the similar indications in general consideration [2]. Without understanding the clinical decision-making process, it is difficult to evaluate the extent to which confounding by indication may have influenced the results. If tocilizumab was preferentially administered to patients with more rapidly progressing or refractory disease, the higher mortality rate in this group might reflect underlying disease severity rather than a difference in drug efficacy [3].

It may be beneficial to consider a subgroup analysis excluding patients requiring total parenteral nutrition (TPN), as those unable to tolerate enteral nutrition typically represent a more critically ill population with poorer prognostic indicators, such as higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores [4]. These patients are more likely to receive intravenous therapies, including tocilizumab, which is administered as an injection. This could introduce a potential confounder, as the preference for tocilizumab in this critically ill subgroup might reflect the inability to administer oral medications like baricitinib, rather than a direct reflection of the drug’s relative efficacy. Consequently, these factors could disproportionately affect mortality rates in the tocilizumab group, further complicating direct efficacy comparisons.

In light of these concerns, we suggest that future studies consider using SOFA or APACHE II scores in PSM to better control for baseline severity differences. If SOFA or APACHE II data are unavailable, matching based on laboratory data associated with SOFA or APACHE II scores at the time of ICU admission or intubation could serve as a proxy for disease severity [5,6,7]. Incorporating these variables may help mitigate confounding and strengthen the conclusions. Additionally, more detailed time-dependent analyses, such as the duration of mechanical ventilation or timing of drug administration, would clarify the true effects of these therapies in critically ill patients.

Ultimately, randomized controlled trials remain the gold standard to address these concerns, but in the interim, the use of more nuanced statistical matching techniques may help refine comparisons between baricitinib and tocilizumab in this population.

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

1. You S-H, Baek MS, Kim TW, Jung S-Y, Kim W-Y. Baricitinib versus tocilizumab in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID–19: a nationwide cohort study. Crit Care. 2024;28(1):282.

   Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

2. Liu LT, Tsai JJ. Unveiling COVID–19 treatment strategies for immunocompromised individuals: terapeutic innovations and latest findings. Hoboken: Wiley; 2024. p. e14900.

   Google Scholar

3. Trøseid M, Arribas JR, Assoumou L, Holten AR, Poissy J, Terzić V, et al. Efficacy and safety of baricitinib in hospitalized adults with severe or critical COVID–19 (Bari-SolidAct): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Crit Care. 2023;27(1):9.

   Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

4. Lopez-Delgado JC, Servia-Goixart L, Grau-Carmona T, Bordeje-Laguna L, Portugal-Rodriguez E, Lorencio-Cardenas C, et al. Factors associated with the need of parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients after the initiation of enteral nutrition therapy. Front Nutr. 2023;10:1250305.

   Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

5. Vicka V, Januskeviciute E, Miskinyte S, Ringaitiene D, Serpytis M, Klimasauskas A, et al. Comparison of mortality risk evaluation tools efficacy in critically ill COVID–19 patients. BMC Infect Dis. 2021;21:1–7.

   Article Google Scholar

6. Beigmohammadi MT, Amoozadeh L, Rezaei Motlagh F, Rahimi M, Maghsoudloo M, Jafarnejad B, et al. Mortality predictive value of APACHE II and SOFA scores in COVID–19 patients in the intensive care unit. Can Respir J. 2022;2022(1):5129314.

   PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

7. Roddy J, Wells D, Schenck K, Santosh S, Santosh S. Tocilizumab versus baricitinib in patients hospitalized with COVID–19 pneumonia and hypoxemia: a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Crit Care Explor. 2022;4(5):e0702.

   Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Download references

No funding involved

Authors and Affiliations

1. Department of Allergy, Immunology & Rheumatology, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Section 1, Jianguo N Rd, Taichung, 402, Taiwan

   James Cheng Chung Wei

2. Institute of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan

   James Cheng Chung Wei & Po-Cheng Shih

3. Graduate Institute of Integrated Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan

   James Cheng Chung Wei

4. Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan

   Poi Kuo

5. Department of Allergy, Immunology & Rheumatology, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan

   Po-Cheng Shih

6. Shanxi Bethune Hospital, Shanxi Academy of Medical Sciences, Third Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Tongji Shanxi Hospital, Taiyuan, 030032, China

   James Cheng Chung Wei

7. Institute of Medicine/Department of Nursing, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan

   James Cheng Chung Wei

Authors

1. James Cheng Chung WeiView author publications

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

2. Poi KuoView author publications

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

3. Po-Cheng ShihView author publications

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors wrote and revised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Po-Cheng Shih.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

Cite this article

Wei, J.C.C., Kuo, P. & Shih, PC. Commenting on baricitinib versus tocilizumab in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: a nationwide cohort study. Crit Care 28, 357 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05116-6

Download citation

• Received: 26 September 2024

• Accepted: 30 September 2024

• Published: 05 November 2024

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05116-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Get shareable link

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Copy to clipboard

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative