Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review.
Journal
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2023
01 06 2023
Historique:
pmc-release:
01
06
2024
medline:
2
6
2023
pubmed:
1
6
2023
entrez:
1
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37260086
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013881.pub2
pmc: PMC10237088
doi:
Substances chimiques
Cytokines
0
Interleukin-6
0
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
CD013881Commentaires et corrections
Type : UpdateOf
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Références
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2022 Feb 15;66(2):e0210721
pubmed: 34902262
Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Dec;9(12):1427-1438
pubmed: 34756178
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2021 May;147(5):1652-1661.e1
pubmed: 33662370
Inflamm Regen. 2020 Oct 1;40:37
pubmed: 33014208
Lancet Rheumatol. 2020 Oct;2(10):e594-e602
pubmed: 32864628
Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 Jan;80(1):88-95
pubmed: 32978237
N Engl J Med. 2021 Apr 22;384(16):1491-1502
pubmed: 33631065
N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 25;384(8):693-704
pubmed: 32678530
Lancet Rheumatol. 2020 Dec;2(12):e754-e763
pubmed: 33015645
Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Mar;9(3):295-304
pubmed: 33493450
EClinicalMedicine. 2022 May;47:101409
pubmed: 35475258
Scientometrics. 2021;126(6):5285-5304
pubmed: 33897069
J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Jan;141:46-53
pubmed: 34555426
J Infect. 2020 Oct;81(4):e11-e17
pubmed: 32652164
Evid Based Ment Health. 2019 Nov;22(4):153-160
pubmed: 31563865
Thorax. 2021 Sep;76(9):907-919
pubmed: 33579777
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2020 Jul;24(13):7475-7484
pubmed: 32706087
JAMA Intern Med. 2021 Jan 1;181(1):24-31
pubmed: 33080005
CMAJ. 2021 May 25;193(21):E771-E776
pubmed: 33952621
Lancet. 2021 May 01;397(10285):1637-1645
pubmed: 33933206
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Mar 18;3:CD013881
pubmed: 33734435
Eur Respir J. 2020 Oct 1;56(4):
pubmed: 32883678
Inflamm Res. 2021 Dec;70(10-12):1233-1246
pubmed: 34586459
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Jul;146(1):137-146.e3
pubmed: 32470486
Res Synth Methods. 2023 May;14(3):479-488
pubmed: 36772980
Trials. 2007 Jun 07;8:16
pubmed: 17555582
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jul 27;377(4):317-328
pubmed: 28745999
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Oct;146(4):799-807.e9
pubmed: 32710975
J Exp Med. 2020 May 4;217(5):
pubmed: 32267936
Cytokine. 2021 Dec;148:155662
pubmed: 34353696
Lancet Reg Health Am. 2022 Jul;11:100228
pubmed: 35345649
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021 Dec 04;9(1):ofab608
pubmed: 35024375
Lancet Rheumatol. 2020 Aug;2(8):e474-e484
pubmed: 32835257
Nat Med. 2021 Oct;27(10):1752-1760
pubmed: 34480127
Nat Immunol. 2021 Jan;22(1):32-40
pubmed: 33277638
Front Med (Lausanne). 2020 Oct 28;7:583897
pubmed: 33195334
Drugs. 2017 Nov;77(17):1865-1879
pubmed: 29094311
Cancer Discov. 2021 Dec 1;11(12):2950
pubmed: 34615654
Science. 2020 Oct 23;370(6515):
pubmed: 32972996
J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Oct;150:225-242
pubmed: 35934266
Infect Dis Ther. 2021 Dec;10(4):2735-2748
pubmed: 34658006
N Engl J Med. 2021 Mar 4;384(9):795-807
pubmed: 33306283
BMJ. 2021 Jan 20;372:n84
pubmed: 33472855
J Clin Invest. 2020 May 1;130(5):2202-2205
pubmed: 32217834
Lancet Respir Med. 2021 May;9(5):511-521
pubmed: 33676589
Clin Infect Dis. 2022 Aug 24;75(1):e380-e388
pubmed: 35219277
N Engl J Med. 2020 Dec 10;383(24):2333-2344
pubmed: 33085857
Lancet Respir Med. 2021 May;9(5):522-532
pubmed: 33676590
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Aug;20(8):e192-e197
pubmed: 32539990
Recenti Prog Med. 2021 Mar;112(3):195-206
pubmed: 33687358
BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898
pubmed: 31462531
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Jul;146(1):128-136.e4
pubmed: 32425269
BMJ. 2020 Jul 30;370:m2980
pubmed: 32732190
Stat Med. 2008 Feb 28;27(5):711-27
pubmed: 17703496
Stat Med. 2015 Feb 28;34(5):721-41
pubmed: 25393541
Lancet Rheumatol. 2020 Oct;2(10):e579-e580
pubmed: 32838322
PLoS One. 2021 Mar 11;16(3):e0248132
pubmed: 33705495
BMC Med. 2020 Dec 17;18(1):402
pubmed: 33334338
BMJ. 2011 Feb 10;342:d549
pubmed: 21310794
Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 5;5(1):210
pubmed: 27919275
Ann Intern Med. 2020 Dec 15;173(12):1015-1017
pubmed: 32931326
PLoS One. 2022 Aug 12;17(8):e0271807
pubmed: 35960720
Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7821):463-469
pubmed: 32717743
JAMA Intern Med. 2021 Jan 1;181(1):32-40
pubmed: 33080017
BMJ. 2018 Sep 28;362:k3802
pubmed: 30266736
Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395(10229):1033-1034
pubmed: 32192578
Aging (Albany NY). 2022 Jan 17;14(2):557-571
pubmed: 35038318
Med. 2020 Dec 18;1(1):14-20
pubmed: 33363283
Crit Care Med. 2022 Mar 1;50(3):398-409
pubmed: 34612846
BMJ. 2021 Mar 10;372:n436
pubmed: 33692022
Eur Respir J. 2022 Aug 10;60(2):
pubmed: 35115337
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Feb;27(2):215-227
pubmed: 33161150
Lancet Rheumatol. 2022 Jan;4(1):e24-e32
pubmed: 34812424
Evid Based Ment Health. 2018 Aug;21(3):123
pubmed: 25009176
Front Med. 2021 Jun;15(3):486-494
pubmed: 33687643
Stata J. 2018 Jul 1;18(3):716-740
pubmed: 30595674
PLoS One. 2022 Feb 25;17(2):e0263591
pubmed: 35213547
Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 2022 Feb 04;92(4):
pubmed: 35130679
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2021 Jan;147(1):72-80.e8
pubmed: 33010257
Crit Care Med. 2022 Sep 1;50(9):1348-1359
pubmed: 35583232
N Engl J Med. 2021 Apr 22;384(16):1503-1516
pubmed: 33631066
J Inflamm Res. 2021 Jul 20;14:3419-3428
pubmed: 34321903
N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 7;384(1):20-30
pubmed: 33332779
Emerg Microbes Infect. 2022 Dec;11(1):1154-1165
pubmed: 35343397
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2022 Jun;28(6):844-851
pubmed: 35259529
Trials. 2020 Sep 09;21(1):772
pubmed: 32907638
JAMA. 2021 Aug 10;326(6):499-518
pubmed: 34228774
Crit Care Explor. 2020 Sep 17;2(9):e0203
pubmed: 33063041