scispace - formally typeset
Open AccessJournal ArticleDOI

Interleukin-1 blocking agents for treating COVID-19

- 26 Jan 2022 - 
- Vol. 2022, Iss: 1
Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
In this paper , the effects of IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo on effectiveness and safety outcomes in people with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were assessed.
Abstract
Interleukin-1 (IL-1) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), on the premise that their immunomodulatory effect might be beneficial in people with COVID-19.To assess the effects of IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo on effectiveness and safety outcomes in people with COVID-19. We will update this assessment regularly.We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L-OVE Platform (search date 5 November 2021). These sources are maintained through regular searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, trial registers and other sources. We also checked the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, Retraction Watch (search date 3 November 2021).We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity.We followed Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two researchers independently screened and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes of clinical improvement (Day 28; ≥ D60); WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above (i.e. the proportion of participants with mechanical ventilation +/- additional organ support OR death) (D28; ≥ D60); all-cause mortality (D28; ≥ D60); incidence of any adverse events; and incidence of serious adverse events.We identified four RCTs of anakinra (three published in peer-reviewed journals, one reported as a preprint) and two RCTs of canakinumab (published in peer-reviewed journals). All trials were multicentre (2 to 133 centres). Two trials stopped early (one due to futility and one as the trigger for inferiority was met). The median/mean age range varied from 58 to 68 years; the proportion of men varied from 58% to 77%. All participants were hospitalised; 67% to 100% were on oxygen at baseline but not intubated; between 0% and 33% were intubated at baseline. We identified a further 16 registered trials with no results available, of which 15 assessed anakinra (four completed, four terminated, five ongoing, three not recruiting) and one (completed) trial assessed canakinumab. Effectiveness of anakinra for people with COVID-19 Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.20; 3 RCTs, 837 participants; absolute effect: 59 more per 1000 (from 22 fewer to 147 more); moderate-certainty evidence. The evidence is uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.22; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 55 fewer per 1000 (from 107 fewer to 37 more); low-certainty evidence) and ≥ D60 (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.96; 1 RCT, 606 participants; absolute effect: 47 fewer per 1000 (from 72 fewer to 4 fewer) low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.39; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 32 fewer per 1000 (from 68 fewer to 40 more); low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with clinical improvement at ≥ D60 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 115 participants; absolute effect: 59 fewer per 1000 (from 186 fewer to 102 more); very low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.56; 4 RCTs, 1633 participants; absolute effect: 8 more per 1000 (from 84 fewer to 147 more); very low-certainty evidence). Safety of anakinra for people with COVID-19 Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 14 more per 1000 (from 43 fewer to 78 more); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain regarding an effect of anakinra on serious adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.56; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 12 fewer per 1000 (from 104 fewer to 138 more); low-certainty evidence). Effectiveness of canakinumab for people with COVID-19 Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 42 more per 1000 (from 33 fewer to 116 more); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence of an effect of canakinumab is uncertain on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.20; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 35 fewer per 1000 (from 69 fewer to 25 more); low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR:0.75; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.42); 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 20 fewer per 1000 (from 48 fewer to 33 more); low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about an effect of canakinumab on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.91; 1 RCT, 45 participants; absolute effect: 112 fewer per 1000 (from 210 fewer to 227 more); very low-certainty evidence). Safety of canakinumab for people with COVID-19 Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21; 1 RCT, 454 participants; absolute effect: 11 more per 1000 (from 74 fewer to 111 more); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence of an effect of canakinumab on serious adverse events is uncertain (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.13; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 44 fewer per 1000 (from 94 fewer to 28 more); low-certainty evidence).Overall, we did not find evidence for an important beneficial effect of IL-1 blocking agents. The evidence is uncertain or very uncertain for several outcomes. Sixteen trials of anakinra and canakinumab with no results are currently registered, of which four are completed, and four terminated. The findings of this review are updated on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).

read more

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

The IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF cytokine triad is associated with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19

TL;DR: In this paper , a digital epidemiology approach was used to find post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), predominantly consisting of fatigue, dyspnea, and concentration deficit, which persists in 60% over the mean 8-month follow-up period.
Journal ArticleDOI

Inflammasomes and IL-1 family cytokines in SARS-CoV-2 infection: from prognostic marker to therapeutic agent

TL;DR: In this article , the authors discuss the contribution of inflammasomes and IL-1 family cytokines to the immunopathogenesis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV2) and its clinical implications.
Journal ArticleDOI

The effect of canakinumab on clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19: A meta-analysis

TL;DR: Wang et al. as mentioned in this paper performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the relationship between canakinumab administration and patient outcomes following COVID-19 infection, which was conducted using Review Manager 5.2 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford).
Journal ArticleDOI

Anakinra for the treatment of COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

TL;DR: The role of Anakinra in COVID-19 patients with elevated soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) remains unanswered, especially in patients receiving different forms of respiratory support as discussed by the authors .
Journal ArticleDOI

metaCOVID: A web‐application for living meta‐analyses of COVID‐19 trials

TL;DR: The metaCOVID as mentioned in this paper application is based on the COVID NMA platform and conducts living meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials related to COVID-19 treatments and vaccines for several outcomes.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews.

TL;DR: The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users.
Journal ArticleDOI

Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis

TL;DR: This practical guide should improve the quality of the analysis and subsequent interpretation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that include time-to-event outcomes and provide a corresponding, easy- to-use calculations spreadsheet, to facilitate the computational aspects.
Journal ArticleDOI

Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses.

TL;DR: Summary estimates of treatment effect from random effects meta-analysis give only the average effect across all studies, but inclusion of prediction intervals, which estimate the likely effect in an individual setting, could make it easier to apply the results to clinical practice.
Journal ArticleDOI

Treating inflammation by blocking interleukin-1 in a broad spectrum of diseases

TL;DR: Monotherapy blocking IL-1 activity in autoinflammatory syndromes results in a rapid and sustained reduction in disease severity, including reversal of inflammation-mediated loss of sight, hearing and organ function.
Related Papers (5)