Cited by 202COVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesRespiratory Support and MechanismsSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

GM-CSF blockade with mavrilimumab in severe COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation: a single-centre, prospective cohort study

Open access

Abstract

Background Mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation is high. We aimed to examine whether mavrilimumab, an anti-granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor-α monoclonal antibody, added to standard management, improves clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation.Methods This single-centre prospective cohort study included patients aged 18 years or older who were admitted to San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, Italy) with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, hypoxia, and systemic hyperinflammation. Patients received a single intravenous dose (6 mg/kg) of mavrilimumab added to standard care given by the hospital at the time. The control group consisted of contemporaneous patients with similar baseline characteristics who received standard care at the same hospital. The main outcome was time to clinical improvement (defined as improvement of two or more points on the seven-point ordinal scale of clinical status). Other outcomes included proportion of patients achieving clinical improvement, survival, mechanical ventilation-free survival, and time to fever resolution. Adverse events were monitored daily.Findings Between March 17 and April 15, 2020, 13 non-mechanically ventilated patients (median age 57 years [IQR 52-58], 12 [92%] men) received mavrilimumab and 26 patients (median age 60 [IQR 53-67], 17 [65%] men) in the control group received standard care. During the 28-day follow-up, no patients in the mavrilimumab group died, and seven (27%) patients in the control group died (p=0·086). At day 28, all patients in the mavrilimumab group and 17 (65%) patients in the control group showed clinical improvement (p=0·030), with earlier improvement in the mavrilimumab than in the control group (mean time to improvement 8 days [IQR 5 to 11] vs 19 days [11 to >28], p=0·0001). By day 28, one (8%) patient in the mavrilimumab group progressed to mechanical ventilation compared with nine (35%) patients in the control group who progressed to mechanical ventilation or died (p=0·14). By day 14, fever resolved in ten (91%) of 11 febrile patients in the mavrilimumab group, compared with 11 (61%) of 18 febrile patients in the control group (p=0·18); fever resolution was faster in mavrilimumab recipients versus controls (median time to resolution 1 day [IQR 1 to 2] vs 7 days [3 to >14], p=0·0093). Mavrilimumab was well tolerated, with no infusion reactions. Three (12%) patients in the control group developed infectious complications.Interpretation Mavrilimumab treatment was associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with standard care in non-mechanically ventilated patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation. Treatment was well tolerated. Confirmation of efficacy requires controlled testing.Funding IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2665-9913(20)30170-3

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 28 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 202

Metadata

Authors
De Luca, G., Cavalli, G., Campochiaro, C., Della-Torre, E., Angelillo, P., Tomelleri, A., Boffini, N., Tentori, S., Mette, F., Farina, N., Rovere-Querini, P., Ruggeri, A., D'Aliberti, T., Scarpellini, P., Landoni, G., De Cobelli, F., Paolini, J. F., Zangrillo, A., Tresoldi, M., Trapnell, B. C., Ciceri, F., & Dagna, L.
Affiliations
  • Vita-Salute San Raffaele University (IT)
  • IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele (IT)
  • Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals (United States) (US)
  • Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Dagna, Lorenzo
Venue
The Lancet Rheumatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-08
Volume
2
Issue
8
Pages
e465-e473
ISSN
2665-9913 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3035293132
Cited by
202
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 73 · 2020: 59
FWCI
5.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Rheumatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL118342, R01HL085453)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Keywords
COVID-19 pneumonia, systemic hyperinflammation, severe COVID-19, hypoxia, mechanical ventilation, survival, clinical improvement, cytokine storm, SARS-CoV-2, adverse events, fever resolution

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review