Tocilizumab is an IL-6 receptor-blocking agent proposed for the treatment of severe COVID-19. The aim of this systematic review was to describe the rationale for the use of tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19 and to summarize the available evidence regarding its efficacy and safety. MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, pre-print repositories (bioRxiv and medRxiv) and two trial Registries were searched for studies on the use of tocilizumab in COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 infection, viral pneumonia, and/or sepsis until 20th June 2020. We identified 3 indirect pre-clinical studies and 28 clinical studies including 5776 patients with COVID-19 (13 with a comparison group, 15 single-arm). To date, no randomized trials have been published. We retrieved no studies at low risk of bias. Forty-five ongoing studies were retrieved from trial registries. There is insufficient evidence regarding the clinical efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in patients with COVID-19. Its use should be considered experimental, requiring ethical approval and clinical trial oversight.

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2018. Other selected articles can be found online at https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2018. Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from http://www.springer.com/series/8901.

Background: Rapid response teams are intended to improve early diagnosis and intervention in ward patients who develop acute respiratory or circulatory failure. A management protocol including the use of a handheld ultrasound device for immediate point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) examination at the bedside may improve team performance. The main objective of the study was to assess the impact of implementing such a POCUS-guided management on the proportion of adequate immediate diagnoses in two groups. Secondary endpoints included time to treatment and patient outcomes. Methods: A prospective, observational, controlled study was conducted in a single university hospital. Two teams alternated every other day for managing in-hospital ward patients developing acute respiratory and/or circulatory failures. Only one of the team used an ultrasound device (POCUS group). Results: We included 165 patients (POCUS group 83, control group 82). Proportion of adequate immediate diagnoses was 94% in the POCUS group and 80% in the control group (p = 0.009). Time to first treatment/intervention was shorter in the POCUS group (15 [10–25] min vs. 34 [15–40] min, p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality rates were 17% in the POCUS group and 35% in the control group (p = 0.007), but this difference was not confirmed in the propensity score sample (29% vs. 34%, p = 0.53). Conclusion: Our study suggests that protocolized use of a handheld POCUS device at the bedside in the ward may improve the proportion of adequate diagnosis, the time to initial treatment and perhaps also survival of ward patients developing acute respiratory or circulatory failure. Clinical Trial Registration NCT02967809. Registered 18 November 2016, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02967809.

Sex and gender dimorphisms are found in a large variety of diseases, including sepsis and septic shock which are more prevalent in men than in women. Animal models show that the host response to pathogens differs in females and males. This difference is partially explained by sex polarization of the intracellular pathways responding to pathogen–cell receptor interactions. Sex hormones seem to be responsible for this polarization, although other factors, such as chromosomal effects, have yet to be investigated. In brief, females are less susceptible to sepsis and seem to recover more effectively than males. Clinical observations produce more nuanced findings, but men consistently have a higher incidence of sepsis, and some reports also claim higher mortality rates. However, variables other than hormonal differences complicate the interaction between sex and sepsis, including comorbidities as well as social and cultural differences between men and women. Conflicting data have also been reported regarding sepsis-attributable mortality rates among pregnant women, compared with non-pregnant females. We believe that unraveling sex differences in the host response to sepsis and its treatment could be the first step in personalized, phenotype-based management of patients with sepsis and septic shock.