scholarly journals Immunomodulatory therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic literature review to inform EULAR points to consider

2021 ◽  
pp. annrheumdis-2020-219725
Author(s):  
Alessia Alunno ◽  
Aurélie Najm ◽  
Xavier Mariette ◽  
Gabriele De Marco ◽  
Jenny Emmel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Intravenous Immunoglobulins ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Disease Stage ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Immunomodulatory Treatment ◽  
Immunomodulatory Agents ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Immunomodulatory Therapies

ObjectiveTo summarise the available information on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents in SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsAs part of a European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) taskforce, a systematic literature search was conducted from January 2019 to 11 December 2020. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies according to the Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome framework and extracted data on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents used therapeutically in SARS-CoV-2 infection at any stage. The risk of bias was assessed with validated tools.ResultsOf the 60 372 records, 401 articles were eligible for inclusion. Studies were at variable risk of bias. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were available for the following drugs: hydroxychloroquine (n=12), glucocorticoids (n=6), tocilizumab (n=4), convalescent plasma (n=4), interferon beta (n=2), intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg) (n=2) and n=1 each for anakinra, baricitinib, colchicine, leflunomide, ruxolitinib, interferon kappa and vilobelimab. Glucocorticoids were able to reduce mortality in specific subsets of patients, while conflicting data were available about tocilizumab. Hydroxychloroquine was not beneficial at any disease stage, one RCT with anakinra was negative, one RCT with baricitinib+remdesivir was positive, and individual trials on some other compounds provided interesting, although preliminary, results.ConclusionAlthough there is emerging evidence about immunomodulatory therapies for the management of COVID-19, conclusive data are scarce with some conflicting data. Since glucocorticoids seem to improve survival in some subsets of patients, RCTs comparing glucocorticoids alone versus glucocorticoids plus anticytokine/immunomodulatory treatment are warranted. This systematic literature review informed the initiative to formulate EULAR ‘points to consider’ on COVID-19 pathophysiology and immunomodulatory treatment from the rheumatology perspective.

scholarly journals Immunomodulatory therapies for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection: an update of the systematic literature review to inform EULAR points to consider

RMD Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. e001899
Author(s):  
Alessia Alunno ◽  
Aurélie Najm ◽  
Xavier Mariette ◽  
Gabriele De Marco ◽  
Jenny Emmel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Therapeutic Strategies ◽  
Antibody Responses ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Jak Inhibitors ◽  
Immunomodulatory Agents ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Immunomodulatory Therapies

ObjectiveTo update the EULAR 2020 systematic literature review (SLR) on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents in SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsAs part of a EULAR taskforce, a systematic literature search update was conducted from 11 December 2020 to 14 July 2021. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies and extracted data on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents used therapeutically in SARS-CoV-2 infection at any stage of disease. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with validated tools.ResultsOf the 26 959 records, 520 articles were eligible for inclusion. Studies were mainly at high or unclear RoB. New randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on tocilizumab clarified its benefit in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, mainly if associated with glucocorticoids. There are emergent data on the usefulness of baricitinib and tofacitinib in severe COVID-19. Other therapeutic strategies such as the use of convalescent plasma and anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies showed efficacy in subjects not mounting normal anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses.ConclusionThis new SLR confirms that some immunomodulators (tocilizumab and JAK inhibitors) have a role for treating severe and critical COVID-19. Although better evidence is available compared with the previous SLR, the need of RCT with combination therapy (glucocorticoids+anti-cytokines) versus monotherapy with glucocorticoids still remains alongside the need for standardisation of inclusion criteria and outcomes to ultimately improve the care and prognosis of affected people. This SLR informed the 2021 update of the EULAR points to consider on the use of immunomodulatory therapies in COVID-19.

scholarly journals OP0287 IMMUNOMODULATORY THERAPIES FOR SEVERE FORMS OF COVID-19: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW TO INFORM EULAR POINTS TO CONSIDER

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 175.1-175
Author(s):  
A. Alunno ◽  
A. Najm ◽  
X. Mariette ◽  
J. Emmel ◽  
L. Mason ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
Disease Stage ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Immunomodulatory Agents ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Available Information ◽  
Immunomodulatory Therapies ◽  
Global Health Problem

Background:The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) pandemic is a global health problem. Beside the specific pathogenic effect of SARS-CoV-2, a deleterious aberrant non-effective host immune response plays an important role especially in severe forms of COVID-19. There is intense investigation to explore the utility of immunomodulatory drugs commonly used in the Rheumatology arena as agents that may mitigate against COVID-19 to improve disease prognosis. Rheumatologists are used to the utilization of these immune targeted therapies.Objectives:To summarize the available information on the use of immunomodulatory agents in severe COVID-19.Methods:As part of a EULAR taskforce, a systematic literature search was conducted from January 2019 up to December 11, 2020. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies according to the PICO framework P (population): patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection; I (intervention): any immunomodulator agent/strategy; C (comparator): any comparator; O (outcome) any clinical outcome including but not limited to mortality, admission to intensive care unit and clinical improvement. Data on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents utilized therapeutically in SARS-CoV-2 infection at any stage were extracted. The risk of bias was assessed using validated tools.Results:Of 60372 records, 401 articles were eligible for inclusion. Studies were at variable risk of bias. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were available for the following drugs: hydroxychloroquine (N=12), glucocorticoids (N=6), tocilizumab (N= 4), convalescent plasma (N=4), interferon beta (N=2), IVIg (N=2) and N=1 each for anakinra, baricitinib, colchicine, leflunomide, ruxolitinib, interferon kappa, and vilobelimab. For glucocorticoids, dexamethasone reduced mortality only in patients requiring respiratory support; while methylprednisolone reduced mortality in patients aged 60 years or over. Data from RCTs on tocilizumab are conflicting and definite conclusions cannot be drawn at this point in time, but recent studies suggest possible benefit in patients requiring respiratory support. Hydroxychloroquine was not beneficial at any disease stage, one RCT with anakinra was negative, one RCT with baricitinib+remdesivir was positive, and individual trials testing some other compounds provided interesting, albeit preliminary, results.Conclusion:Although there is emerging evidence about immunomodulatory therapies for the management of COVID-19, conclusive data is scarce with some conflicting data. Since glucocorticoids seem to improve survival in some subsets of patients, RCTs comparing glucocorticoids alone versus glucocorticoids plus anti-cytokine/immunomodulatory treatment are warranted. This SLR informed the initiative to formulate EULAR points to consider on pathophysiology and use of immunomodulatory therapies in COVID-19.Figure 1.Forest plots showing the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval for mortality in randomized controlled trials divided by intervention. The latest follow-up available is reported in the timing column.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological, pharmacological and surgical treatment for hand osteoarthritis: a systematic literature review informing the 2018 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of hand osteoarthritis

RMD Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. e000734 ◽  
Author(s):  
Féline P B Kroon ◽  
Loreto Carmona ◽  
Jan W Schoones ◽  
Margreet Kloppenburg
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Hand Osteoarthritis ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Pharmacological Treatments ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Positive Results

To update the evidence on efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological, pharmacological and surgical interventions for hand osteoarthritis (OA), a systematic literature review was performed up to June 2017, including (randomised) controlled trials or Cochrane systematic reviews. Main efficacy outcomes were pain, function and hand strength. Risk of bias was assessed. Meta-analysis was performed when advisable. Of 7036 records, 127 references were included, of which 50 studies concerned non-pharmacological, 64 pharmacological and 12 surgical interventions. Many studies had high risk of bias, mainly due to inadequate randomisation or blinding. Beneficial non-pharmacological treatments included hand exercise and prolonged thumb base splinting, while single trials showed positive results for joint protection and using assistive devices. Topical and oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) proved equally effective, while topical NSAIDs led to less adverse events. Single trials demonstrated positive results for chondroitin sulfate and intra-articular glucocorticoid injections in interphalangeal joints. Pharmacological treatments for which no clear beneficial effect was shown include paracetamol, intra-articular thumb base injections of glucocorticoids or hyaluronic acid, low-dose oral glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine and anti-tumour necrosis factor. No trials compared surgery to sham or non-operative treatment. No surgical intervention for thumb base OA appeared more effective than another, although in general more complex procedures led to more complications. No interventions slowed radiographic progression. In conclusion, an overview of the evidence on efficacy and safety of treatment options for hand OA was presented and informed the task force for the updated European League Against Rheumatism management recommendations for hand OA.

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for treating head lice: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e001129
Author(s):  
Bill Stevenson ◽  
Wubshet Tesfaye ◽  
Julia Christenson ◽  
Cynthia Mathew ◽  
Solomon Abrha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Head Lice ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017073375.

scholarly journals Lantox—The Chinese Botulinum Toxin Drug—Complete English Bibliography and Comprehensive Formalised Literature Review

Toxins ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 370
Author(s):  
Dirk Dressler ◽  
Lizhen Pan ◽  
Junhui Su ◽  
Fei Teng ◽  
Lingjing Jin
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Conversion Ratio ◽  
Brand Names ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Paper Citation ◽  
Safety Features ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Nose And Throat

In 1997, lanbotulinumtoxinA (LAN) was introduced in China. It is now available in Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe under various brand names including Hengli®, Lantox®, Prosigne®, Lanzox®, Redux®, Liftox®, HBTX-A and CBTX-A. The literature on LAN is mostly published in Chinese language, restricting its international accessibility. We, therefore, wanted to generate a complete English bibliography of all LAN publications and then use it for a comprehensive formalised literature review. Altogether, 379 LAN publications (322 in Chinese and 57 in English) were retrieved from PubMed and Science and Technology Paper Citation Database. Indications covered are motor (257), glandular (16), pain (32) and aesthetics (48). Topics are neurological (250), aesthetic (48), paediatric (38), ophthalmological (18), urological (9), methodological (6), gastroenterological (5), ear, nose and throat (4) and surgical (1). Seventy-one publications are randomised controlled trials, forty-one publications are interventional studies and observational studies, fifteen publications are case studies, eighteen publications are reviews, and two publications are guidelines. LAN publications cover all relevant topics of BT therapy throughout a period of more than 20 years. This constitutes a publication basis resembling those of other BT drugs. None of the LAN publications presents data contradictory to those generated with other BT type-A drugs. LAN seems to have a similar efficacy and safety features when compared to onabotulinumtoxinA using a 1:1 LAN– onabotulinumtoxinA conversion ratio. Large controlled multicentre studies will become necessary for LAN’s registrations in Europe and North America.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document