Comparison of effect estimates between preprints and peer-reviewed journal articles of COVID-19 trials.

BACKGROUND: Preprints are increasingly used to disseminate research results, providing multiple sources of information for the same study. We assessed the consistency in effect estimates between preprint and subsequent journal article of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials. METHODS: The study utilized data from the COVID-NMA living systematic review of pharmacological treatments for COVID-19 (covid-nma.com) up to July 20, 2022. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pharmacological treatments vs. standard of care/placebo for patients with COVID-19 that were originally posted as preprints and subsequently published as journal articles. Trials that did not report the same analysis in both documents were excluded. Data were extracted independently by pairs of researchers with consensus to resolve disagreements. Effect estimates extracted from the first preprint were compared to effect estimates from the journal article. RESULTS: The search identified 135 RCTs originally posted as a preprint and subsequently published as a journal article. We excluded 26 RCTs that did not meet the eligibility criteria, of which 13 RCTs reported an interim analysis in the preprint and a final analysis in the journal article. Overall, 109 preprint-article RCTs were included in the analysis. The median (interquartile range) delay between preprint and journal article was 121 (73-187) days, the median sample size was 150 (71-464) participants, 76% of RCTs had been prospectively registered, 60% received industry or mixed funding, 72% were multicentric trials. The overall risk of bias was rated as 'some concern' for 80% of RCTs. We found that 81 preprint-article pairs of RCTs were consistent for all outcomes reported. There were nine RCTs with at least one outcome with a discrepancy in the number of participants with outcome events or the number of participants analyzed, which yielded a minor change in the estimate of the effect. Furthermore, six RCTs had at least one outcome missing in the journal article and 14 RCTs had at least one outcome added in the journal article compared to the preprint. There was a change in the direction of effect in one RCT. No changes in statistical significance or conclusions were found. CONCLUSIONS: Effect estimates were generally consistent between COVID-19 preprints and subsequent journal articles. The main results and interpretation did not change in any trial. Nevertheless, some outcomes were added and deleted in some journal articles.

Estimating individualized treatment effects using an individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: One key aspect of personalized medicine is to identify individuals who benefit from an intervention. Some approaches have been developed to estimate individualized treatment effects (ITE) with a single randomized control trial (RCT) or observational data, but they are often underpowered for the ITE estimation. Using individual participant data meta-analyses (IPD-MA) might solve this problem. Few studies have investigated how to develop risk prediction models with IPD-MA, and it remains unclear how to combine those methods with approaches used for ITE estimation. In this article, we compared different approaches using both simulated and real data with binary and time-to-event outcomes to estimate the individualized treatment effects from an IPD-MA in a one-stage approach. METHODS: We compared five one-stage models: naive model (NA), random intercept (RI), stratified intercept (SI), rank-1 (R1), and fully stratified (FS), built with two different strategies, the S-learner and the T-learner constructed with a Monte Carlo simulation study in which we explored different scenarios with a binary or a time-to-event outcome. To evaluate the performance of the models, we used the c-statistic for benefit, the calibration of predictions, and the mean squared error. The different models were also used on the INDANA IPD-MA, comparing an anti-hypertensive treatment to no treatment or placebo ( N = 40 237 , 836 events). RESULTS: Simulation results showed that using the S-learner led to better ITE estimation performances for both binary and time-to-event outcomes. None of the risk models stand out and had significantly better results. For the INDANA dataset with a binary outcome, the naive and the random intercept models had the best performances. CONCLUSIONS: For the choice of the strategy, using interactions with treatment (the S-learner) is preferable. For the choice of the method, no approach is better than the other.

Sharing information across patient subgroups to draw conclusions from sparse treatment networks.

Network meta-analysis (NMA) usually provides estimates of the relative effects with the highest possible precision. However, sparse networks with few available studies and limited direct evidence can arise, threatening the robustness and reliability of NMA estimates. In these cases, the limited amount of available information can hamper the formal evaluation of the underlying NMA assumptions of transitivity and consistency. In addition, NMA estimates from sparse networks are expected to be imprecise and possibly biased as they rely on large-sample approximations that are invalid in the absence of sufficient data. We propose a Bayesian framework that allows sharing of information between two networks that pertain to different population subgroups. Specifically, we use the results from a subgroup with a lot of direct evidence (a dense network) to construct informative priors for the relative effects in the target subgroup (a sparse network). This is a two-stage approach where at the first stage, we extrapolate the results of the dense network to those expected from the sparse network. This takes place by using a modified hierarchical NMA model where we add a location parameter that shifts the distribution of the relative effects to make them applicable to the target population. At the second stage, these extrapolated results are used as prior information for the sparse network. We illustrate our approach through a motivating example of psychiatric patients. Our approach results in more precise and robust estimates of the relative effects and can adequately inform clinical practice in presence of sparse networks.

Heterogeneity of design features in studies included in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of cognitive outcomes in children born very preterm.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of the voluminous scientific literature on the impact of very preterm (VPT, <32 weeks' gestation) birth on cognition find a marked deficit in intelligence quotient (IQ) among children born VPT relative to term-born peers, but with unexplained between-study heterogeneity in effect size. OBJECTIVES: To conduct an umbrella review to describe the design and methodology of primary studies and to assess whether methodological heterogeneity affects the results of meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: Primary studies from five systematic reviews with meta-analysis on VPT birth and childhood IQ. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Information on study design, sample characteristics and results was extracted from studies. Study features covered study type, sample size, follow-up rates, adjustment for social context, management of severe impairments and test type. SYNTHESIS: We used random-effects subgroup meta-analyses and meta-regressions to investigate the contribution of study features to between-study variance in standardised mean differences (SMD) in IQ between groups. RESULTS: In 58 cohorts (56%), children with severe impairments were excluded, while 23 (22%) cohorts accounted for social factors. The least reported feature was the follow-up rate (missing in 38 cohorts). The largest difference in SMDs was between studies using full scale IQ tests (61 cohorts, SMD -0.89, 95% CI -0.96, -0.82) versus short-form tests (27 cohorts, SMD -0.68, 95% CI -0.79, -0.57). The proportion of between-study variance explained by the type of test was 14%; the other features explained less than 1% of the variance. CONCLUSIONS: Study design and methodology varied across studies, but most of them did not affect the variance in effect size, except the type of cognitive test. Key features, such as the follow-up rate, were not consistently reported limiting the evaluation of their potential contribution. Incomplete reporting limited the evaluation of the full impact of this methodological diversity.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their benefits and harms. SEARCH METHODS: For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2022: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety). MAIN RESULTS: This update includes an additional 12 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 179, and randomised participants to 62,339, 67.1% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.6 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (56%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (152) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (65/179) had high risk of bias, 24 unclear risk, and most (90) low risk. Most studies (138/179) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 49.16, 95% CI 20.49 to 117.95), bimekizumab (RR 27.86, 95% CI 23.56 to 32.94), ixekizumab (RR 27.35, 95% CI 23.15 to 32.29), risankizumab (RR 26.16, 95% CI 22.03 to 31.07). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab and ixekizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than secukinumab. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than brodalumab and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab), and anti-IL23 drugs except tildrakizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than ustekinumab, three anti-TNF alpha agents, and deucravacitinib. Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab. Adalimumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with very low- to moderate-certainty evidence for all the comparisons. The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.6 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was very low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It has been reported that people with COVID-19 and pre-existing autoantibodies against type I interferons are likely to develop an inflammatory cytokine storm responsible for severe respiratory symptoms. Since interleukin 6 (IL-6) is one of the cytokines released during this inflammatory process, IL-6 blocking agents have been used for treating people with severe COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To update the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to a placebo for people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) platform, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify studies on 7 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of researchers independently conducted study selection, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for all critical and important outcomes. In this update we amended our protocol to update the methods used for grading evidence by establishing minimal important differences for the critical outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: This update includes 22 additional trials, for a total of 32 trials including 12,160 randomized participants all hospitalized for COVID-19 disease. We identified a further 17 registered RCTs evaluating IL-6 blocking agents without results available as of 7 June 2022.  The mean age range varied from 56 to 75 years; 66.2% (8051/12,160) of enrolled participants were men. One-third (11/32) of included trials were placebo-controlled. Twenty-two were published in peer-reviewed journals, three were reported as preprints, two trials had results posted only on registries, and results from five trials were retrieved from another meta-analysis. Eight were funded by pharmaceutical companies.  Twenty-six included studies were multicenter trials; four were multinational and 22 took place in single countries. Recruitment of participants occurred between February 2020 and June 2021, with a mean enrollment duration of 21 weeks (range 1 to 54 weeks). Nineteen trials (60%) had a follow-up of 60 days or more. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The proportion of participants who were intubated at study inclusion also varied from 5% to 95%. Only six trials reported vaccination status; there were no vaccinated participants included in these trials, and 17 trials were conducted before vaccination was rolled out. We assessed a total of six treatments, each compared to placebo or standard care. Twenty trials assessed tocilizumab, nine assessed sarilumab, and two assessed clazakizumab. Only one trial was included for each of the other IL-6 blocking agents (siltuximab, olokizumab, and levilimab). Two trials assessed more than one treatment. Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 At day (D) 28, tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement (tocilizumab: risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.11; 15 RCTs, 6116 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; sarilumab: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 2425 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For clinical improvement at ≥ D60, the certainty of evidence is very low for both tocilizumab (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.48; 1 RCT, 97 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and sarilumab (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.63; 2 RCTs, 239 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score (WHO-CPS) of level 7 or above remains uncertain at D28 (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 13 RCTs, 2117 participants; low-certainty evidence) and that for sarilumab very uncertain (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.33; 5 RCTs, 886 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab reduces all cause-mortality at D28 compared to standard care/placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; 18 RCTs, 7428 participants; high-certainty evidence). The evidence about the effect of sarilumab on this outcome is very uncertain (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; 9 RCTs, 3305 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain for all cause-mortality at ≥ D60 for tocilizumab (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04; 9 RCTs, 2775 participants; low-certainty evidence) and very uncertain for sarilumab (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; 6 RCTs, 3379 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab probably results in little to no difference in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 9 RCTs, 1811 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence about adverse events for sarilumab is uncertain (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28; 4 RCT, 860 participants; low-certainty evidence).  The evidence about serious adverse events is very uncertain for tocilizumab (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; 16 RCTs; 2974 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and uncertain for sarilumab (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21; 6 RCTs; 2936 participants; low-certainty evidence). Efficacy and safety of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab and levilimab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 The evidence about the effects of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab, and levilimab comes from only one or two studies for each blocking agent, and is uncertain or very uncertain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized people with COVID-19, results show a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on all-cause mortality in the short term and probably little or no difference in the risk of adverse events compared to standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, both tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab and the other IL-6 blocking agents on critical outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. Most of the trials included in our review were done before the waves of different variants of concern and before vaccination was rolled out on a large scale. An additional 17 RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents are currently registered with no results yet reported. The number of pending studies and the number of participants planned is low. Consequently, we will not publish further updates of this review.

Comparing efficacy and safety in catheter ablation strategies for atrial fibrillation: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on the most efficient catheter ablation (CA) strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of different CA strategies for AF ablation through network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL was performed up to October 5th, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing different CA approaches were included. Efficacy was defined as arrhythmia recurrence after CA and safety as any reported complication related to the procedure during a minimum follow-up time of 6 months. RESULTS: In total, 67 RCTs (n = 9871) comparing 19 different CA strategies were included. The risk of recurrence was significantly decreased compared to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone for PVI with renal denervation (RR: 0.60, CI: 0.38-0.94), PVI with ganglia-plexi ablation (RR: 0.62, CI: 0.41-0.94), PVI with additional ablation lines (RR: 0.8, CI: 0.68-0.95) and PVI in combination with bi-atrial modification (RR: 0.32, CI: 0.11-0.88). Strategies including PVI appeared superior to non-PVI strategies such as electrogram-based approaches. No significant differences in safety were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This NMA showed that PVI in combination with additional CA strategies, such as autonomic modulation and additional lines, seem to increase the efficacy of PVI alone. These strategies can be considered in treating patients with AF, since, additionally, no differences in safety were observed. This study provides decision-makers with comprehensive and comparative evidence about the efficacy and safety of different CA strategies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registry number: CRD42020169494 .

Network meta-analysis of rare events using penalized likelihood regression.

Network meta-analysis (NMA) of rare events has attracted little attention in the literature. Until recently, networks of interventions with rare events were analyzed using the inverse-variance NMA approach. However, when events are rare the normal approximations made by this model can be poor and effect estimates are potentially biased. Other methods for the synthesis of such data are the recent extension of the Mantel-Haenszel approach to NMA or the use of the noncentral hypergeometric distribution. In this article, we suggest a new common-effect NMA approach that can be applied even in networks of interventions with extremely low or even zero number of events without requiring study exclusion or arbitrary imputations. Our method is based on the implementation of the penalized likelihood function proposed by Firth for bias reduction of the maximum likelihood estimate to the logistic expression of the NMA model. A limitation of our method is that heterogeneity cannot be taken into account as an additive parameter as in most meta-analytical models. However, we account for heterogeneity by incorporating a multiplicative overdispersion term using a two-stage approach. We show through simulation that our method performs consistently well across all tested scenarios and most often results in smaller bias than other available methods. We also illustrate the use of our method through two clinical examples. We conclude that our "penalized likelihood NMA" approach is promising for the analysis of binary outcomes with rare events especially for networks with very few studies per comparison and very low control group risks.

The challenges of heterogeneity in gestational age and birthweight inclusion criteria for research synthesis on very preterm birth and childhood cognition: An umbrella review and meta-regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of studies on very preterm (VPT) birth and childhood cognition select primary studies using gestational age inclusion criteria only, while others also include birthweight criteria. The consequences of this choice are unknown. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the gestational age (GA) and birthweight (BW) criteria used in studies of VPT birth and cognition and to investigate whether meta-analysis results differ based on these criteria. DATA SOURCES: Five systematic reviews on VPT birth and childhood IQ. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Country, birth years, GA-BW selection criteria and participant IQ were extracted from 156 studies representing 103 birth cohorts. SYNTHESIS: Pooled standardised mean differences (SMD) in IQ between children born VPT and term-born controls were estimated by sub-group based on GA-BW criteria (GA, BW and GA-BW combined) and degree of preterm birth-low birthweight combinations: extremely preterm (EPT, <28 weeks) and extremely low BW (ELBW, <1000 g); VPT (<32 weeks) and very low BW (VLBW, <1500 g); and moderately MPT (<34 weeks) and moderately low BW (MLBW, <1800 g). RESULTS: Cohorts used 27 distinct GA-BW inclusion criteria. Most common criteria were BW <1500 g (24 cohorts), BW <1000 g (12), GA <32 weeks (12) and GA <33 weeks (12); 23 studies used GA-BW combinations. BW-only criteria were more frequent in North America than Europe (63% versus 24%) and for cohorts before than after 1990 (67% vs 26%). Pooled SMD in IQ varied: SMDEPT/ELBW -0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.07, -0.82; SMDVPT/VLBW -0.78, 95% CI -0.85, -0.71; SMDMPT/MLBW -0.68, 95% CI -0.79, -0.57; however, there was no difference in SMD across cohorts using BW compared to GA criteria after adjustment on risk group. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the inclusion of studies using GA and/or BW criteria in meta-analyses on VPT birth and cognition to increase the geographical and temporal generalisability of the results and to allow investigation of the impact of the heterogeneous inclusion criteria in this literature on outcomes.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety. SEARCH METHODS: For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2021: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety). MAIN RESULTS: This update includes an additional 19 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 167, and randomised participants to 58,912, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.5 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (57%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (140) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (57/167) had high risk of bias; 23 unclear risk, and most (87) low risk. Most studies (127/167) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions, except anti-IL23. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23 and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 50.19, 95% CI 20.92 to 120.45), bimekizumab (RR 30.27, 95% CI 25.45 to 36.01), ixekizumab (RR 30.19, 95% CI 25.38 to 35.93), risankizumab (RR 28.75, 95% CI 24.03 to 34.39). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab and risankizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than other anti-IL17 drugs (secukinumab and brodalumab) and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and brodalumab) and anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab) except tildrakizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents (adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept). Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab; adalimumab and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low- to moderate-certainty for all the comparisons (except methotrexate versus placebo, which was high-certainty). The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.5 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports from regulatory agencies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Interleukin-1 blocking agents for treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVES: 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. SEARCH METHODS: 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). SELECTION CRITERIA: 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. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: 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. MAIN RESULTS: 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). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: 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).

Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Different forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS-CoV-2. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID-19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes.  We synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).  MAIN RESULTS: We included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty-two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty-nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two-month follow-up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. Overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. We identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available.  This abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, severe and critical COVID-19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO-approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO-approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high-certainty evidence). Confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants). There is low-certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants). Severe or critical COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID-19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants). Two trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled. Serious adverse events (SAEs) mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)/SII-ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in SAEs compared to placebo (RR: mRNA-1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII-ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants. Evidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, and NVX-CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX-CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants). For the evaluation of heterologous schedules, booster doses, and efficacy against variants of concern, see main text of review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com). Implications for practice Due to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern. Implications for research Future research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficacy and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.

A Markov chain approach for ranking treatments in network meta-analysis.

When interpreting the relative effects from a network meta-analysis (NMA), researchers are usually aware of the potential limitations that may render the results for some comparisons less useful or meaningless. In the presence of sufficient and appropriate data, some of these limitations (eg, risk of bias, small-study effects, publication bias) can be taken into account in the statistical analysis. Very often, though, the necessary data for applying these methods are missing and data limitations cannot be formally integrated into ranking. In addition, there are other important characteristics of the treatment comparisons that cannot be addressed within a statistical model but only through qualitative judgments; for example, the relevance of data to the research question, the plausibility of the assumptions, and so on. Here, we propose a new measure for treatment ranking called the Probability of Selecting a Treatment to Recommend (POST-R). We suggest that the order of treatments should represent the process of considering treatments for selection in clinical practice and we assign to each treatment a probability of being selected. This process can be considered as a Markov chain model that allows the end-users of NMA to select the most appropriate treatments based not only on the NMA results but also to information external to the NMA. In this way, we obtain rankings that can inform decision-making more efficiently as they represent not only the relative effects but also their potential limitations. We illustrate our approach using a NMA comparing treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis and we provide the Stata commands.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety. SEARCH METHODS: For this living systematic review we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to September 2020: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers to the same date. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to eligible RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse events). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons, according to CINeMA, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer on treatment hierarchy: 0% (treatment is the worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (treatment is the best for effectiveness or safety). MAIN RESULTS: We included 158 studies (18 new studies for the update) in our review (57,831 randomised participants, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (58%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 20 treatments. In all, 133 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (53/158) as being at high risk of bias; 25 were at an unclear risk, and 80 at low risk. Most studies (123/158) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report their source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in reaching PASI 90. At class level, in reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the non-biological systemic agents. At drug level, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, risankizumab and guselkumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Ustekinumab and adalimumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than etanercept; ustekinumab was more effective than certolizumab, and the clinical effectiveness of ustekinumab and adalimumab was similar. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and three non-biological drugs: fumaric acid esters (FAEs), ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab, and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar, except for ixekizumab which had a better chance of reaching PASI 90 compared with secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab. The clinical effectiveness of these seven drugs was: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 50.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 20.96 to 120.67, SUCRA = 93.6; high-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 32.48, 95% CI 27.13 to 38.87; SUCRA = 90.5; high-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.76, 95% CI 23.96 to 34.54; SUCRA = 84.6; high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86; SUCRA = 81.4; high-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 25.79, 95% CI 21.61 to 30.78; SUCRA = 76.2; high-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.52, 95% CI 21.25 to 30.64; SUCRA = 75; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 23.55, 95% CI 19.48 to 28.48; SUCRA = 68.4; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as mirikizumab, tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to moderate certainty for all the comparisons. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the evidence for all the interventions was of low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials directly comparing active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between non-biological systemic agents and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin 6 (IL-6) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Their immunosuppressive effect might be valuable in patients with COVID-19 characterised by substantial immune system dysfunction by controlling inflammation and promoting disease tolerance. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or with placebo on efficacy and safety outcomes in COVID-19. We will update this assessment regularly. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (up to 11 February 2021) and the L-OVE platform, and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify trials up to 26 February 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two review authors independently collected data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence with the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes such as clinical improvement (defined as hospital discharge or improvement on the scale used by trialists to evaluate clinical progression or recovery) (day (D) 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. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 RCTs with available data including one platform trial comparing tocilizumab and sarilumab with standard of care. These trials evaluated tocilizumab (nine RCTs including two platform trials; seven were reported as peer-reviewed articles, two as preprints; 6428 randomised participants); and two sarilumab (one platform trial reported as peer reviewed article, one reported as preprint, 880 randomised participants). All trials included were multicentre trials. They were conducted in Brazil, China, France, Italy, UK, USA, and four were multi-country trials. The mean age range of participants ranged from 56 to 65 years; 4572 (66.3%) of trial participants were male. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The reported proportion of participants on oxygen at baseline but not intubated varied from 56% to 100% where reported. Five trials reported the inclusion of intubated patients at baseline. We identified a further 20 registered RCTs of tocilizumab compared to placebo/standard care (five completed without available results, five terminated without available results, eight ongoing, two not recruiting); 11 RCTs of sarilumab (two completed without results, three terminated without available results, six ongoing); six RCTs of clazakisumab (five ongoing, one not recruiting); two RCTs of olokizumab (one completed, one not recruiting); one of siltuximab (ongoing) and one RCT of levilimab (completed without available results). Of note, three were cancelled (2 tocilizumab, 1 clazakisumab). One multiple-arm RCT evaluated both tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard of care, one three-arm RCT evaluated tocilizumab and siltuximab compared to standard of care and consequently they appear in each respective comparison. Tocilizumab versus standard care alone or with placebo a. Effectiveness of tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 Tocilizumab probably results in little or no increase in the outcome of clinical improvement at D28 (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13; I2 = 40.9%; 7 RCTs, 5585 participants; absolute effect: 31 more with clinical improvement per 1000 (from 0 fewer to 67 more); moderate-certainty evidence). However, we cannot exclude that some subgroups of patients could benefit from the treatment. We did not obtain data for longer-term follow-up (≥ D60). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level of 7 or above is uncertain at D28 (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.74; I2 = 64.4%; 3 RCTs, 712 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not obtain data for longer-term follow-up (≥ D60). Tocilizumab reduces all-cause mortality at D28 compared to standard care alone or placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; I2 = 0.0%; 8 RCTs, 6363 participants; absolute effect: 32 fewer deaths per 1000 (from 52 fewer to 9 fewer); high-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests uncertainty around the effect on mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.40; I2 = 0.0%; 2 RCTs, 519 participants; low-certainty evidence). b. Safety of tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tocilizumab on adverse events (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.72; I2 = 86.4%; 7 RCTs, 1534 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Nevertheless, tocilizumab probably results in slightly fewer serious adverse events than standard care alone or placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.06; I2 = 0.0%; 8 RCTs, 2312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Sarilumab versus standard care alone or with placebo The evidence is uncertain about the effect of sarilumab on all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.36; 2 RCTs, 880 participants; low certainty), on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.0; 1 RCT, 420 participants; low certainty), and serious adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.77; 2 RCTs, 880 participants; low certainty). It is unlikely that sarilumab results in an important increase of adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.25; 1 RCT, 420 participants; moderate certainty). However, an increase cannot be excluded No data were available for other critical outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: On average, tocilizumab reduces all-cause mortality at D28 compared to standard care alone or placebo and probably results in slightly fewer serious adverse events than standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, tocilizumab probably results in little or no increase in the outcome clinical improvement (defined as hospital discharge or improvement measured by trialist-defined scales) at D28. The impact of tocilizumab on other outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. With the data available, we were not able to explore heterogeneity. Individual patient data meta-analyses are needed to be able to identify which patients are more likely to benefit from this treatment. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab is uncertain and evidence for other anti-IL6 agents is unavailable. Thirty-nine RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents with no results are currently registered, of which nine are completed and seven trials were terminated with no results available. The findings of this review will be updated as new data are made available on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).

CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The evaluation of the credibility of results from a meta-analysis has become an important part of the evidence synthesis process. We present a methodological framework to evaluate confidence in the results from network meta-analyses, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA), when multiple interventions are compared. METHODOLOGY: CINeMA considers 6 domains: (i) within-study bias, (ii) reporting bias, (iii) indirectness, (iv) imprecision, (v) heterogeneity, and (vi) incoherence. Key to judgments about within-study bias and indirectness is the percentage contribution matrix, which shows how much information each study contributes to the results from network meta-analysis. The contribution matrix can easily be computed using a freely available web application. In evaluating imprecision, heterogeneity, and incoherence, we consider the impact of these components of variability in forming clinical decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Via 3 examples, we show that CINeMA improves transparency and avoids the selective use of evidence when forming judgments, thus limiting subjectivity in the process. CINeMA is easy to apply even in large and complicated networks.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. This is the baseline update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2017, in preparation for this Cochrane Review becoming a living systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our research using the following databases to January 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings. We also searched five trials registers and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports (until June 2019). We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse effects (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse effects). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes, according to GRADE, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. MAIN RESULTS: We included 140 studies (31 new studies for the update) in our review (51,749 randomised participants, 68% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (59%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 19 treatments. In all, 117 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (57/140) as being at high risk of bias; 42 were at an unclear risk, and 41 at low risk. Most studies (107/140) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report the source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90. At class level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents. At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, infliximab, all of the anti-IL17 drugs (ixekizumab, secukinumab, bimekizumab and brodalumab) and the anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab, but not tildrakizumab) were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and 3 anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept. Adalimumab and ustekinumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than certolizumab and etanercept. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and between two conventional drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness for these seven drugs was similar: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 29.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19.94 to 43.70, Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 88.5; moderate-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.12, 95% CI 23.17 to 34.12, SUCRA = 88.3, moderate-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 27.67, 95% CI 22.86 to 33.49, SUCRA = 87.5, high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86, SUCRA = 83.5, low-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.84, 95% CI 20.90 to 31.95; SUCRA = 81; moderate-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 23.97, 95% CI 20.03 to 28.70, SUCRA = 75.4; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 21.96, 95% CI 18.17 to 26.53, SUCRA = 68.7; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just under half of the treatment estimates in total, and moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were very similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab were the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence (low-certainty evidence for bimekizumab). This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. Indeed, we found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, but the evidence for all the interventions was of very low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials comparing directly active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between conventional systemic and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide in adults. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments are available; however, because of inadequate resources, antidepressants are used more frequently than psychological interventions. Prescription of these agents should be informed by the best available evidence. Therefore, we aimed to update and expand our previous work to compare and rank antidepressants for the acute treatment of adults with unipolar major depressive disorder. METHODS: We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Embase, LILACS database, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, PsycINFO, the websites of regulatory agencies, and international registers for published and unpublished, double-blind, randomised controlled trials from their inception to Jan 8, 2016. We included placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials of 21 antidepressants used for the acute treatment of adults (≥18 years old and of both sexes) with major depressive disorder diagnosed according to standard operationalised criteria. We excluded quasi-randomised trials and trials that were incomplete or included 20% or more of participants with bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, or treatment-resistant depression; or patients with a serious concomitant medical illness. We extracted data following a predefined hierarchy. In network meta-analysis, we used group-level data. We assessed the studies' risk of bias in accordance to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Primary outcomes were efficacy (response rate) and acceptability (treatment discontinuations due to any cause). We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42012002291. FINDINGS: We identified 28 552 citations and of these included 522 trials comprising 116 477 participants. In terms of efficacy, all antidepressants were more effective than placebo, with ORs ranging between 2·13 (95% credible interval [CrI] 1·89-2·41) for amitriptyline and 1·37 (1·16-1·63) for reboxetine. For acceptability, only agomelatine (OR 0·84, 95% CrI 0·72-0·97) and fluoxetine (0·88, 0·80-0·96) were associated with fewer dropouts than placebo, whereas clomipramine was worse than placebo (1·30, 1·01-1·68). When all trials were considered, differences in ORs between antidepressants ranged from 1·15 to 1·55 for efficacy and from 0·64 to 0·83 for acceptability, with wide CrIs on most of the comparative analyses. In head-to-head studies, agomelatine, amitriptyline, escitalopram, mirtazapine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine were more effective than other antidepressants (range of ORs 1·19-1·96), whereas fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, and trazodone were the least efficacious drugs (0·51-0·84). For acceptability, agomelatine, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, and vortioxetine were more tolerable than other antidepressants (range of ORs 0·43-0·77), whereas amitriptyline, clomipramine, duloxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, trazodone, and venlafaxine had the highest dropout rates (1·30-2·32). 46 (9%) of 522 trials were rated as high risk of bias, 380 (73%) trials as moderate, and 96 (18%) as low; and the certainty of evidence was moderate to very low. INTERPRETATION: All antidepressants were more efficacious than placebo in adults with major depressive disorder. Smaller differences between active drugs were found when placebo-controlled trials were included in the analysis, whereas there was more variability in efficacy and acceptability in head-to-head trials. These results should serve evidence-based practice and inform patients, physicians, guideline developers, and policy makers on the relative merits of the different antidepressants. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

Comparative effects of different dietary approaches on blood pressure in hypertensive and pre-hypertensive patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pairwise meta-analyses have shown beneficial effects of individual dietary approaches on blood pressure but their comparative effects have not been established. OBJECTIVE: Therefore we performed a systematic review of different dietary intervention trials and estimated the aggregate blood pressure effects through network meta-analysis including hypertensive and pre-hypertensive patients. DESIGN: PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar were searched until June 2017. The inclusion criteria were defined as follows: i) Randomized trial with a dietary approach; ii) hypertensive and pre-hypertensive adult patients; and iii) minimum intervention period of 12 weeks. In order to determine the pooled effect of each intervention relative to each of the other intervention for both diastolic and systolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP), random effects network meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 67 trials comparing 13 dietary approaches (DASH, low-fat, moderate-carbohydrate, high-protein, low-carbohydrate, Mediterranean, Palaeolithic, vegetarian, low-GI/GL, low-sodium, Nordic, Tibetan, and control) enrolling 17,230 participants were included. In the network meta-analysis, the DASH, Mediterranean, low-carbohydrate, Palaeolithic, high-protein, low-glycaemic index, low-sodium, and low-fat dietary approaches were significantly more effective in reducing SBP (-8.73 to -2.32 mmHg) and DBP (-4.85 to -1.27 mmHg) compared to a control diet. According to the SUCRAs, the DASH diet was ranked the most effective dietary approach in reducing SBP (90%) and DBP (91%), followed by the Palaeolithic, and the low-carbohydrate diet (ranked 3rd for SBP) or the Mediterranean diet (ranked 3rd for DBP). For most comparisons, the credibility of evidence was rated very low to moderate, with the exception for the DASH vs. the low-fat dietary approach for which the quality of evidence was rated high. CONCLUSION: The present network meta-analysis suggests that the DASH dietary approach might be the most effective dietary measure to reduce blood pressure among hypertensive and pre-hypertensive patients based on high quality evidence.

Allowing for uncertainty due to missing and LOCF imputed outcomes in meta-analysis.

The use of the last observation carried forward (LOCF) method for imputing missing outcome data in randomized clinical trials has been much criticized and its shortcomings are well understood. However, only recently have published studies widely started using more appropriate imputation methods. Consequently, meta-analyses often include several studies reporting their results according to LOCF. The results from such meta-analyses are potentially biased and overprecise. We develop methods for estimating summary treatment effects for continuous outcomes in the presence of both missing and LOCF-imputed outcome data. Our target is the treatment effect if complete follow-up was obtained even if some participants drop out from the protocol treatment. We extend a previously developed meta-analysis model, which accounts for the uncertainty due to missing outcome data via an informative missingness parameter. The extended model includes an extra parameter that reflects the level of prior confidence in the appropriateness of the LOCF imputation scheme. Neither parameter can be informed by the data and we resort to expert opinion and sensitivity analysis. We illustrate the methodology using two meta-analyses of pharmacological interventions for depression.