scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of IL-6 inhibitors in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of multicentre, randomized trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Belletti ◽  
Corrado Campochiaro ◽  
Marilena Marmiere ◽  
Valery Likhvantsev ◽  
Andrey Yavorovskiy ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose COVID-19 is characterized by dysregulated immune response, respiratory failure and a relevant mortality rate among hospitalized patients. Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is involved in COVID-19-associated cytokine storm, and several trials investigated whether its inhibition could improve patients’ outcome. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials (RCT) to test this hypothesis. Materials and methods Two independent investigators searched PubMed, Scopus, ClnicalTrials.gov and medRxiv up to September 1st, 2021. Inclusion criteria were: administration of tocilizumab or sarilumab; COVID-19 adult patients with pneumonia; and being a RCT. Primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up. Secondary outcomes included intubation rate and incidence of adverse events. Two independent investigators extracted data from eligible trials. Results Of the 763 studies assessed, 15 RCTs were included (9,320 patients), all were multicentre, and the majority open-label vs standard treatment. IL-6 inhibitors were associated with reduced all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up (1315/5,380 [24.4%] in the IL-6 inhibitors group versus 1080/3,814 [28.3%] in the control group, RR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96; p for effect = 0.003, I2 = 0%, with 13 studies included), with reduction in 28/30-day mortality and intubation rates, and with no increase in adverse events and secondary infections. Conclusion IL-6 inhibitors reduced longest follow-up mortality and intubation in COVID-19 patients. Findings need to be confirmed in high-quality RCTs.

Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 939
Author(s):  
Jiaxin Chen ◽  
Yuangui Cai ◽  
Yicong Chen ◽  
Anthony P. Williams ◽  
Yifang Gao ◽  
...  

Background: Nervous and muscular adverse events (NMAEs) have garnered considerable attention after the vaccination against coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, the incidences of NMAEs remain unclear. We aimed to calculate the pooled event rate of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials on the incidences of NMAEs after COVID-19 vaccination was conducted. The PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched from inception to 2 June 2021. Two independent reviewers selected the study and extracted the data. Categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-square test. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and generated with random or fixed effects models. The protocol of the present study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021240450). Results: In 15 phase 1/2 trials, NMAEs occurred in 29.2% vs. 21.6% (p < 0.001) vaccinated participants and controls. Headache and myalgia accounted for 98.2% and 97.7%, and their incidences were 16.4% vs. 13.9% (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28–3.06, p = 0.002) and 16.0% vs. 7.9% (OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05–5.35, p < 0.001) in the vaccine and control groups, respectively. Headache and myalgia were more frequent in the newly licensed vaccines (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28–3.06, p = 0.02 and OR = 3.31, 95% CI = 2.05–5.35, p < 0.001) and younger adults (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.12–1.75, p = 0.003 and OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.20–1.96, p < 0.001). In four open-label trials, the incidences of headache, myalgia, and unsolicited NMAEs were 38.7%, 27.4%, and 1.5%. Following vaccination in phase 3 trials, headache and myalgia were still common with a rate of 29.5% and 19.2%, although the unsolicited NMAEs with incidence rates of ≤ 0.7% were not different from the control group in each study. Conclusions: Following the vaccination, NMAEs are common of which headache and myalgia comprised a considerable measure, although life-threatening unsolicited events are rare. NMAEs should be continuously monitored during the ongoing global COVID-19 vaccination program.


Author(s):  
David E. Krummen ◽  
Gordon Ho ◽  
Kurt S. Hoffmayer ◽  
Franz Schweis ◽  
Tina Baykaner ◽  
...  

Background - Refractory ventricular fibrillation (VF) is a challenging clinical entity, for which ablation of triggering premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) is described. When PVCs are infrequent and multifocal, the optimal treatment strategy is uncertain. Methods - We prospectively enrolled consecutive patients presenting with multiple ICD shocks for VF refractory to antiarrhythmic drug therapy, exhibiting infrequent (≤3%), multifocal PVCs (≥3 morphologies). Procedurally, VF was induced with rapid pacing and mapped, identifying sites of conduction slowing and rotation or rapid focal activation. VF electrical substrate ablation (VESA) was then performed. Outcomes were compared against reference patients with VF who were unable or unwilling to undergo catheter ablation. The primary outcome was a composite of ICD shock, electrical storm, or all-cause mortality. Results - VF was induced and mapped in 6 patients (60±10 y, LVEF 46±19%) with ischemic (n=3) and nonischemic cardiomyopathy. An average of 3.3±0.5 sites of localized reentry during VF were targeted for radiofrequency ablation (38.3±10.9 minutes) during sinus rhythm, rendering VF non-inducible with pacing. Freedom from the primary outcome was 83% in the VF ablation group versus 17% in 6 non-ablation reference patients at a median of 1.0 years (IQR 0.5-1.5 years, p=0.046) follow-up. Conclusions - VESA is associated with a reduction in the combined endpoint compared with the non-ablation reference group. Additional work is required to understand the precise pathophysiologic changes which promote VF in order to improve preventative and therapeutic strategies.


2016 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Agarwal ◽  
A. Khan ◽  
A.N. Aggarwal ◽  
D. Gupta

Background and Aims. The combination of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β2 agonists (LABA) has been used as a single inhaler both for maintenance and reliever therapy in asthma, the SMART approach. The administration of additional CS with each reliever inhalation in response to symptoms is expected to provide better control of airway inflammation. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the SMART approach versus other approaches in the management of asthma in preventing asthma exacerbations. Methods. We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for studies that have reported exacerbations in the SMART group versus the control group. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to assess the exacerbations in the two groups and pooled the results using a random-effects model. Results. Our search yielded eight studies. The use of SMART approach compared to fixed-dose ICS-LABA combination significantly decreased the odds of a severe exacerbation (OR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53-0.80) and severe exacerbation requiring hospitalization/ER treatment (OR 0.69; 95% CI, 058- 0.83). The use of SMART approach compared to fixed-dose ICS also significantly decreased the odds of a severe exacerbation (OR 0.52; 95% CI, 0.45-0.61) and severe exacerbation requiring medical intervention (OR 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42-0.65). The occurrence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. There was some evidence of statistical heterogeneity. Conclusions. The SMART approach using formoterol- budesonide is superior in preventing exacerbations when compared to traditional therapy with fixed dose ICS or ICS-LABA combination without any increase in adverse events.


2020 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. e201669
Author(s):  
Marcella Goetz Moro ◽  
Maria Luisa Silveira Souto ◽  
Emanuel Silva Rovai ◽  
João Batista Cesar Neto ◽  
Marinella Holzhausen ◽  
...  

Root coverage surgery can be performed in patients with gingival recession to cover the exposed root aiming to control hypersensitivity and promotes better aesthetic. Optical magnification has been proposed as a refinement in this surgical technique to increase root coverage. This approach may lead to enhanced soft tissue stability, less post-operative discomfort, better predictability and esthetic appearance. Aim: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of magnification on root coverage surgery when compared to procedures performed without magnification. Methods: Randomized controlled trials with a follow-up of at least 6 months that compared surgeries for root coverage performed under optic magnification versus conventional (macro) root coverage surgery were screened. The primary outcome was mean root coverage (mm) (MRC) and secondary outcomes were percentage of root coverage (PRC) and complete root coverage (CRC). Results: Of 569 papers relevant to this review, seven were included. Meta-analysis showed that the use of magnification may favor greater PRC (7.38%, 95% CI 3.66-11.09). Conclusion: Magnification can increase PRC in root coverage surgeries. More randomized trials with the use of magnification may be necessary to verify if this benefit is clinically relevant, in order to justify the use of this device.


2021 ◽  
pp. 152660282110235
Author(s):  
Krystal Dinh ◽  
Alexandra M. Limmer ◽  
Andy Z. L. Chen ◽  
Shannon D. Thomas ◽  
Andrew Holden ◽  
...  

Purpose: A late increased mortality risk has been reported in a summary level meta-analysis of patients with femoropopliteal artery occlusive disease treated with paclitaxel-coated angioplasty balloons and stents. However, at the longer follow up timepoints that analysis was limited by small trial numbers and few participants. The aim of this study was to report an updated summary level risk of all-cause mortality after treatment with paclitaxel-coated devices in that same patient group. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to investigate the mortality outcomes associated with paclitaxel-coated devices used to treat patients with occlusive disease of femoropopliteal arteries (last search date December 10, 2020). The single primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Results: We identified 34 randomized controlled trials (7654 patients; 84% intermittent claudication). There were 622 deaths among 4147 (15.0%) subjects in the paclitaxel device group and 475 deaths among 3507 (13.5%) subjects in the noncoated control group [relative risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.20, p=0.20, I2=0%). All-cause mortality was similar between groups at 12 months (34 studies, 7654 patients; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.22, p=0.94, I2=0%), 24 months (20 studies, 3799 patients; RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.55, p=0.31, I2=0%), and 60 months (9 studies, 2288 patients; RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.45, p=0.08, I2=0%). Conclusion: This updated meta-analysis with included additional trials and larger patient numbers shows no evidence of increased risk of all-cause mortality in patients treated with paclitaxel-coated devices, compared with uncoated devices for femoropopliteal disease at all time points to 60 months. There is therefore no justification to limit their use, or alter regulatory body follow-up recommendations in this patient population. Systematic Review Registration: CRD42020216140.


2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Diaz-Arocutipa ◽  
J Benites-Meza ◽  
D Chambergo-Michilot ◽  
J Barboza ◽  
V Pasupuleti ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Inflammation plays a key role in atherosclerotic plaque destabilization and adverse cardiac remodeling. Recent evidence has shown a promising role of colchicine in patients with coronary artery disease. Purpose We evaluated the efficacy and safety of colchicine in post-acute myocardial infarction (MI) patients. Methods We searched five electronic databases from inception to January 18, 2021, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating colchicine in post-acute MI patients. Primary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality and recurrent MI. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke, urgent coronary revascularization, levels of follow-up high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), and drug-related adverse events. All meta-analyses used inverse-variance random-effects models. Results Six RCTs (n=6005) patients were included. Colchicine did not significantly reduce cardiovascular mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.52–1.61; p=0.64), recurrent MI (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.62–1.22; p=0.28), all-cause mortality (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.61–1.85; p=0.78), stroke (RR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.07–1.09; p=0.05), urgent coronary revascularization (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.02–8.89; p=0.19), or decreased levels of follow-up hs-CRP (MD, −1.95 mg/L; 95% CI, −12.88 to 8.98; p=0.61) compared to the control group. There was no increase of any adverse event (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89–1.07; p=0.34) or gastrointestinal adverse events (RR, 2.49; 95% CI, 0.48–12.99; p=0.20). Subgroup analyses by colchicine dose (0.5 versus 1 mg/day), time of follow-up (&lt;1 versus ≥1 year), and treatment duration (≤30 versus &gt;30 days) showed no changes in the overall findings. Conclusion In post-acute MI patients, colchicine does not reduce cardiovascular or all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, or other cardiovascular outcomes. Also, colchicine did not increase drug-related adverse events. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.


Author(s):  
Josef Haik ◽  
Yehuda Ullman ◽  
Eyal Gur ◽  
Dean Ad-El ◽  
Dana Egozi ◽  
...  

Abstract Dressings used to manage donor site wounds have up to 40% of patients experiencing complications that may cause suboptimal scarring. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a portable electrospun nanofibrous matrix that provides contactless management of donor site wounds compared with standard dressing techniques. This study included adult patients who underwent an excised split-thickness skin graft with a donor site wound area of 10-200 cm 2. Patients were allocated into two groups; i.e., the nanofiber group managed with a nanofibrous polymer-based matrix, and the control group managed using the standard of care such as Jelonet® or Biatain® Ibu dressing. Primary outcomes were postoperative dermal healing efficacy assessed by Draize scores. The time to complete re-epithelialization was also recorded. Secondary outcomes included postoperative adverse events, pain, and infections during the first 21-days and extended 12-month follow-up. The itching and scarring were recorded during the extended follow-up (months 1,3,6,9,12) using Numerical-Analogue-Score and Vancouver scores, respectively. The nanofiber and control groups included 21 and 20 patients, respectively. The Draize dermal irritation scores were significantly lower in the nanofiber vs. control group (Z=-2.509; P=0.028) on the first postoperative day but became similar afterward (Z≥-1.62; P≥0.198). In addition, the average time to re-epithelialization was similar in the nanofiber (17.9±4.4 days) and control group (18.3±4.5 days) (Z=-0.299; P=0.764), so were postoperative adverse events, pain, and infection incidence, itching and scarring. The safety and efficacy of electrospun nanofibrous matrix are similar to standard wound care allowing its use as an alternative donor site dressing following the split-thickness skin graft excision.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krystal Dinh ◽  
Miguel Lemos Gomes ◽  
Shannon D. Thomas ◽  
Sharath C.V. Paravastu ◽  
Andrew Holden ◽  
...  

Purpose: To report the risk of all-cause mortality after treatment with paclitaxel-coated devices vs uncoated controls in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). Materials and Methods: A search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, DARE, and PROSPERO databases was made on 5 November 2019 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) using intention-to-treat analysis to compare a paclitaxel-coated device to an uncoated device in PAD patients having clinical follow-up of at least 6 months. Half of the study population had to have CLTI or extractable data on the CLTI subgroup if <50%. The search identified 11 trials having 1450 patients randomized to a paclitaxel-coated device (n=866) or an uncoated control (n=584). There were 1367 (94.3%) patients with CLTI (range 10–429). The single endpoint was all-cause mortality, which was analyzed by pooling the mortality data in a DerSimonian and Laird random effects model. Summary statistics are expressed as relative risk ratios (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The mean follow-up was 25.6 months (range 6–60); 10 of 11 studies reported a minimum 12-month follow-up. There were 161 (18.6%) deaths among 866 subjects in the paclitaxel device group and 116 deaths among 584 (19.9%) subjects in the non-coated control group (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12, p=0.45). Conclusion: There was no observed difference in short- to midterm mortality among a pooled patient population of predominately CLTI patients treated with paclitaxel-coated balloons or stents compared with uncoated controls.


Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ninad Zaman ◽  
Simran Grewal ◽  
Louis Borgatta ◽  
Matthew Nudy ◽  
Brandon Peterson

Introduction: Recent evidence suggests colchicine may prevent adverse outcomes from cardiovascular disease (CVD). The objective of this study is to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing colchicine’s effect on CVD adverse events and mortality among participants with known CVD. Methods: All RCTs testing colchicine versus control were identified and included in the analysis. The endpoints of interest included CVD adverse events (a composite of acute coronary syndrome, cardiac arrest, acute heart failure and hospitalization, stroke, revascularization, and recurrent myocardial infarction), mortality, and gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events. The primary analysis calculated the summary odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each endpoint. A secondary analysis tested CVD adverse events for heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) using Chi 2 and I 2 tests. Results: 9 RCTs (N = 7,031, mean follow-up 9 months) were identified comparing colchicine to control. Colchicine decreased the risk of CVD adverse events [OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.91]. Colchicine did not reduce all-cause mortality [OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61-1.15]. GI adverse events were more likely in the colchicine group [OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.60-5.75, p = 0.0007; I 2 = 83%] but with significant HTE. When performing the test for subgroup differences, there was significant HTE between placebo and open-label trial for CVD events [Chi 2 = 10.55, p = 0.001, I 2 = 90.5%]. After excluding two open-label trials, colchicine reduced the risk of CVD events [OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63-0.93]. Conclusion: Colchicine was associated with reduced CVD adverse events, but not with reduced mortality, among patients with underlying CVD. Colchicine use was associated with increased GI adverse events. Further studies with longer follow-up times are needed to better understand colchicine’s role in the long-term prevention of CVD adverse events.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A655-A655
Author(s):  
Joyce Hwang ◽  
Hannah Dzimitrowicz ◽  
Riddhishkumar Shah ◽  
Kathleen Ashcraft ◽  
Daniel George ◽  
...  

BackgroundPatients with cancer are at high risk for severe COVID-19 disease and mortality1; however, patients on active cancer treatment, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), were excluded from COVID19 vaccine trials.2 3 Thus, safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination in patients receiving ICIs is not well described.MethodsWe identified patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) or melanoma who received at least one dose of an FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccine (vax+), with or without being on ICI, between the dates of December 1, 2020 and April 1, 2021, and had at least 3 months of documented follow up at Duke Cancer Center. Retrospective chart abstraction of patient encounters during three months following vaccination was performed. Patient characteristics included demographics and oncologic treatments. Primary outcome was adverse events attributed to vaccination; other outcomes included immune related adverse events (IRAE) following vaccination and subsequent COVID-19 infection.Results51 study patients (vax+ with ICI) and 23 control patients (vax+ not on active treatment) were initially identified. Baseline characteristics are in table 1. 27.5% of ICI patients (N = 14/51) reported symptoms attributed to vaccination. Common symptoms reported by the ICI group were fever (9.8%; N = 5), chills (7.8%; N = 4), arm pain (7.8%; N = 4), myalgias (7.8%; N = 4), lymphadenopathy (7.8%; N = 4), headache (5.9%; N = 3), and diarrhea (3.9%; N = 2). None of these were reported in the control group. One patient in the ICI group developed a rash at the injection site, and one developed porokeratoses following the second dose. From the control group, one patient developed a stye and one patient developed PVCs. Five ICI patients (9.8%) developed a new or worsening IRAE requiring systemic steroids and/or treatment hold. These IRAEs included: colitis (N = 2), hepatitis, rash, and concurrent pancreatitis/colitis. Two ICI patients (4%) and 0 patients developed COVID-19 infection after one and two vaccine doses, respectively.ConclusionsAmongst a heterogeneous population of patients receiving ICI therapy, COVID-19 vaccination appears to be well tolerated and safe. The higher rate of symptoms reported post-vaccination in patients receiving ICI therapy is likely related to more frequent follow up intervals versus control. The rate of new or worsening IRAEs post-vaccination is no higher than historically reported.4 5 An update of this data with a larger cohort will be presented. Larger cohort studies of patients receiving ICIs are needed to fully assess the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination in this population; however, these data support the safety of vaccination in patients receiving ICIs.ReferencesKuderer NM, Choueiri TK, Shah DP, Shyr Y, Rubinstein SM, Rivera DR et al. Clinical impact of COVID-19 on patients with cancer (CCC19): a cohort study. The Lancet 2020;395:1907–1918.Polack FP, Thomas SJ, Kitchin N, Absalon J, Gurtman A, Lockhart S, et al. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine. N Engl J Med 2020;383(27):2603–15.Baden LR, El Sahly HM, Essink B, Kotloff K, Frey S, Novak R, et al. Efficacy and safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine. N Engl J Med 2020.Xing P, Zhang F, Wang G, Xu Y, Li C, Wang S, et al. Incidence rates of immune-related adverse events and their correlation with response in advanced solid tumors treated with NIVO or NIVO+IPI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J ImmunoTherapy Cancer 2019;341.Osta B, Hu F, Sadek R, Chintalapally R, Tang S. A meta-analysis of immune-related adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitors from cancer clinical trials. Submitted Abstracts Immunotherapy of Cancer 2016;27.Abstract 625 Table 1Baseline characteristics of ICI and control populations


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document