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).

Screening for sickle cell disease in newborns: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an inherited autosomal recessive disorder caused by the replacement of normal haemoglobin (HbA) by mutant Hb (sickle Hb, HbS). The sickle-shaped red blood cells lead to haemolysis and vaso-occlusion. Especially in the first years of life, patients with SCD are at high risk of life-threatening complications. SCD prevalence shows large regional variations; the disease predominantly occurs in sub-Saharan Africa. We aimed to systematically assess the evidence on the benefit of newborn screening for SCD followed by an earlier treatment start. METHODS: We systematically searched bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Databases, and the Health Technology Assessment Database), trial registries, and other sources to identify systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised trials on newborn screening for SCD. The last search was in 07/2020. Two reviewers independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles and assessed the risk of bias of the studies included. Data were extracted by one person and checked by another. As meta-analyses were not possible, a qualitative summary of results was performed. RESULTS: We identified 1 eligible study with direct evidence: a Jamaican retrospective study evaluating newborn screening for SCD followed by preventive measures (prevention of infections and education of parents). The study included 500 patients with SCD (intervention group, 395; historical control group, 105). Although the results showed a high risk of bias, the difference between the intervention and the control group was very large: mortality in children decreased by a factor of about 10 in the first 5 years of life (0.02% in the intervention group vs. 0.19% in the control group, odds ratio 0.09; 95% confidence interval [0.04; 0.22], p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The results are based on a single retrospective study including historical controls. However, the decrease of mortality by a factor of 10 is unlikely to be explained by bias alone. Therefore, in terms of mortality, data from this single retrospective study included in our systematic review suggest a benefit of newborn screening for SCD (followed by preventive measures) versus no newborn screening for SCD (weak certainty of conclusions).

Deferasirox for managing iron overload in people with thalassaemia.

BACKGROUND: Thalassaemia is a hereditary anaemia due to ineffective erythropoiesis. In particular, people with thalassaemia major develop secondary iron overload resulting from regular red blood cell transfusions. Iron chelation therapy is needed to prevent long-term complications.Both deferoxamine and deferiprone are effective; however, a review of the effectiveness and safety of the newer oral chelator deferasirox in people with thalassaemia is needed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral deferasirox in people with thalassaemia and iron overload. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 12 August 2016.We also searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Biosis Previews, Web of Science Core Collection and three trial registries: ClinicalTrials.gov; the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; and the Internet Portal of the German Clinical Trials Register: 06 and 07 August 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled studies comparing deferasirox with no therapy or placebo or with another iron-chelating treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen studies involving 1807 randomised participants (range 23 to 586 participants) were included. Twelve two-arm studies compared deferasirox to placebo (two studies) or deferoxamine (seven studies) or deferiprone (one study) or the combination of deferasirox and deferoxamine to deferoxamine alone (one study). One study compared the combination of deferasirox and deferiprone to deferiprone in combination with deferoxamine. Three three-arm studies compared deferasirox to deferoxamine and deferiprone (two studies) or the combination of deferasirox and deferiprone to deferiprone and deferasirox monotherapy respectively (one study). One four-arm study compared two different doses of deferasirox to matching placebo groups.The two studies (a pharmacokinetic and a dose-escalation study) comparing deferasirox to placebo (n = 47) in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia showed that deferasirox leads to net iron excretion. In these studies, safety was acceptable and further investigation in phase II and phase III studies was warranted.Nine studies (1251 participants) provided data for deferasirox versus standard treatment with deferoxamine. Data suggest that a similar efficacy can be achieved depending on the ratio of doses of deferoxamine and deferasirox being compared. In the phase III study, similar or superior efficacy for the intermediate markers ferritin and liver iron concentration (LIC) could only be achieved in the highly iron-overloaded subgroup at a mean ratio of 1 mg of deferasirox to 1.8 mg of deferoxamine corresponding to a mean dose of 28.2 mg per day and 51.6 mg per day respectively. The pooled effects across the different dosing ratios are: serum ferritin, mean difference (MD) 454.42 ng/mL (95% confidence interval (CI) 337.13 to 571.71) (moderate quality evidence); LIC evaluated by biopsy or SQUID, MD 2.37 mg Fe/g dry weight (95% CI 1.68 to 3.07) (moderate quality evidence) and responder analysis, LIC 1 to < 7 mg Fe/g dry weight, risk ratio (RR) 0.80 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.92) (moderate quality evidence). The substantial heterogeneity observed could be explained by the different dosing ratios. Data on mortality (low quality evidence) and on safety at the presumably required doses for effective chelation therapy are limited. Patient satisfaction was better with deferasirox among those who had previously received deferoxamine treatment, RR 2.20 (95% CI 1.89 to 2.57) (moderate quality evidence). The rate of discontinuations was similar for both drugs (low quality evidence).For the remaining comparisons in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia, the quality of the evidence for outcomes assessed was low to very low, mainly due to the very small number of participants included. Four studies (205 participants) compared deferasirox to deferiprone; one of which (41 participants) revealed a higher number of participants experiencing arthralgia in the deferiprone group, but due to the large number of different types of adverse events reported and compared this result is uncertain. One study (96 participants) compared deferasirox combined with deferiprone to deferiprone with deferoxamine. Participants treated with the combination of the oral iron chelators had a higher adherence compared to those treated with deferiprone and deferoxamine, but no participants discontinued the study. In the comparisons of deferasirox versus combined deferasirox and deferiprone and that of deferiprone versus combined deferasirox and deferiprone (one study, 40 participants), and deferasirox and deferoxamine versus deferoxamine alone (one study, 94 participants), only a few patient-relevant outcomes were reported and no significant differences were observed.One study (166 participants) included people with non-transfusion dependent thalassaemia and compared two different doses of deferasirox to placebo. Deferasirox treatment reduced serum ferritin, MD -306.74 ng/mL (95% CI -398.23 to -215.24) (moderate quality evidence) and LIC, MD -3.27 mg Fe/g dry weight (95% CI -4.44 to -2.09) (moderate quality evidence), while the number of participants experiencing adverse events and rate of discontinuations (low quality evidence) was similar in both groups. No participant died, but data on mortality were limited due to a follow-up period of only one year (moderate quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Deferasirox offers an important treatment option for people with thalassaemia and secondary iron overload. Based on the available data, deferasirox does not seem to be superior to deferoxamine at the usually recommended ratio of 1 mg of deferasirox to 2 mg of deferoxamine. However, similar efficacy seems to be achievable depending on the dose and ratio of deferasirox compared to deferoxamine. Whether this will result in similar efficacy and will translate to similar benefits in the long term, as has been shown for deferoxamine, needs to be confirmed. Data from randomised controlled trials on rare toxicities and long-term safety are still limited. However, after a detailed discussion of the potential benefits and risks, deferasirox could be offered as the first-line option to individuals who show a strong preference for deferasirox, and may be a reasonable treatment option for people showing an intolerance or poor adherence to deferoxamine.