26
|
Tovey D, Tugwell P, Tricco A, McGowan J. The value of international collaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2022; 150:A1-A2. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.11.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
|
27
|
Tugwell P, Tovey D. Editors’ Choice: September 2022. J Clin Epidemiol 2022; 149:A1. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.10.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
|
28
|
Tovey D, Tugwell P. Editors' Choice: August 2022. J Clin Epidemiol 2022; 148:A1-A2. [PMID: 36280379 PMCID: PMC9595434 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.08.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
|
29
|
Dewidar O, Kawala BA, Antequera A, Tricco AC, Tovey D, Straus S, Glover R, Tufte J, Magwood O, Smith M, Ooi CP, Dion A, Goetghebeur M, Reveiz L, Negrini S, Tugwell P, Petkovic J, Welch V. Methodological Guidance For Incorporating Equity When Informing Rapid-Policy And Guideline Development. J Clin Epidemiol 2022; 150:142-153. [PMID: 35863618 PMCID: PMC9359903 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2022] [Revised: 05/30/2022] [Accepted: 07/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
Objectives We provide guidance for considering equity in rapid reviews through examples of published COVID-19 rapid reviews. Study Design and Setting This guidance was developed based on a series of methodological meetings, review of internationally renowned guidance such as the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-Equity) guideline. We identified Exemplar rapid reviews by searching COVID-19 databases and requesting examples from our team. Results We proposed the following key steps: 1. involve relevant stakeholders with lived experience in the conduct and design of the review; 2. reflect on equity, inclusion and privilege in team values and composition; 3. develop research question to assess health inequities; 4. conduct searches in relevant disciplinary databases; 5. collect data and critically appraise recruitment, retention and attrition for populations experiencing inequities; 6. analyse evidence on equity; 7. evaluate the applicability of findings to populations experiencing inequities; and 8. adhere to reporting guidelines for communicating review findings. We illustrated these methods through rapid review examples. Conclusion Implementing this guidance could contribute to improving equity considerations in rapid reviews produced in public health emergencies, and help policymakers better understand the distributional impact of diseases on the population.
Collapse
|
30
|
Gattrell WT, Hungin AP, Price A, Winchester CC, Tovey D, Hughes EL, van Zuuren EJ, Goldman K, Logullo P, Matheis R, Harrison N. ACCORD guideline for reporting consensus-based methods in biomedical research and clinical practice: a study protocol. Res Integr Peer Rev 2022; 7:3. [PMID: 35672782 PMCID: PMC9171734 DOI: 10.1186/s41073-022-00122-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2021] [Accepted: 05/09/2022] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Structured, systematic methods to formulate consensus recommendations, such as the Delphi process or nominal group technique, among others, provide the opportunity to harness the knowledge of experts to support clinical decision making in areas of uncertainty. They are widely used in biomedical research, in particular where disease characteristics or resource limitations mean that high-quality evidence generation is difficult. However, poor reporting of methods used to reach a consensus - for example, not clearly explaining the definition of consensus, or not stating how consensus group panellists were selected - can potentially undermine confidence in this type of research and hinder reproducibility. Our objective is therefore to systematically develop a reporting guideline to help the biomedical research and clinical practice community describe the methods or techniques used to reach consensus in a complete, transparent, and consistent manner. METHODS The ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document) project will take place in five stages and follow the EQUATOR Network guidance for the development of reporting guidelines. In Stage 1, a multidisciplinary Steering Committee has been established to lead and coordinate the guideline development process. In Stage 2, a systematic literature review will identify evidence on the quality of the reporting of consensus methodology, to obtain potential items for a reporting checklist. In Stage 3, Delphi methodology will be used to reach consensus regarding the checklist items, first among the Steering Committee, and then among a broader Delphi panel comprising participants with a range of expertise, including patient representatives. In Stage 4, the reporting guideline will be finalised in a consensus meeting, along with the production of an Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document. In Stage 5, we plan to publish the reporting guideline and E&E document in open-access journals, supported by presentations at appropriate events. Dissemination of the reporting guideline, including a website linked to social media channels, is crucial for the document to be implemented in practice. DISCUSSION The ACCORD reporting guideline will provide a set of minimum items that should be reported about methods used to achieve consensus, including approaches ranging from simple unstructured opinion gatherings to highly structured processes.
Collapse
|
31
|
Tovey D, Bours M, Tugwell P. Editors' choice: June 2022. J Clin Epidemiol 2022; 146:A4-A5. [PMID: 35750407 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
|
32
|
Tugwell P, Tovey D. Editors' Choice March 2022: Harmonisation needed in a) assessing harms and b) guideline classification of certainty of evidence and strength. J Clin Epidemiol 2022; 143:A4-A5. [PMID: 35489810 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.01.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
|
33
|
Tugwell P, Tovey D. Editors' Choice May 2022: Evidence-Based-Research, Surrogate Outcomes and Exclusion of Old Systematic Reviews in Meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 2022; 145:A4-A5. [PMID: 35738698 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.04.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/02/2020] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
|
34
|
Thomson D, Cumpston M, Delgado‐Figueroa N, Ebi KL, Haddaway N, Heijden M, Heyn PC, Lokotola CL, Meerpohl JJ, Metzendorf M, Parker ER, Phalkey R, Tovey D, Elm E, Webster RJ, Wieland SL, Young T. Protecting human health in a time of climate change: how Cochrane should respond. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 3:ED000156. [PMID: 35353372 PMCID: PMC9052374 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.ed000156] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
|
35
|
Tovey D, Tugwell P. Editors' Choice: February 2022. J Clin Epidemiol 2022; 142:A6-A7. [PMID: 35210058 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.01.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
|
36
|
Davidson M, Menon S, Chaimani A, Evrenoglou T, Ghosn L, Graña C, Henschke N, Cogo E, Villanueva G, Ferrand G, Riveros C, Bonnet H, Kapp P, Moran C, Devane D, Meerpohl JJ, Rada G, Hróbjartsson A, Grasselli G, Tovey D, Ravaud P, Boutron I. Interleukin-1 blocking agents for treating COVID-19. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 1:CD015308. [PMID: 35080773 PMCID: PMC8791232 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd015308] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/28/2023]
Abstract
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).
Collapse
|
37
|
Tugwell P, Tovey D. Clinical epidemiology challenges when involving patients. J Clin Epidemiol 2022; 141:A5-A6. [PMID: 35341581 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.12.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
|
38
|
Tovey D, Tugwell P. Increasing diversity within the Journal. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 140:A5-A7. [PMID: 34952684 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.11.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
|
39
|
Tugwell P, Tovey D. Editors Choice: Patient-important Outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 139:A5. [PMID: 34637928 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.10.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
|
40
|
Tovey D, Tugwell P. On outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 136:A4-A5. [PMID: 34489051 PMCID: PMC8413902 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
|
41
|
Tugwell P, Tovey D. January 2021 Editors' choice. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 129:A6-A7. [PMID: 33422268 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.12.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
42
|
Tugwell P, Tovey D. In 2021 When Is It Unethical to Use a Placebo in a Clinical Trial? J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 133:A5-A6. [PMID: 34024414 PMCID: PMC8137361 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
|
43
|
Tovey D, Tugwell P. Provisional title: old world, new world. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 132:A5-A6. [PMID: 33775388 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
|
44
|
Tugwell P, Tovey D, Cuella-Garcia CA. "NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE": HOW SCIENCE HAS RESPONDED TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 131:A5-A6. [PMID: 33741124 PMCID: PMC7964248 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
|
45
|
Ghosn L, Chaimani A, Evrenoglou T, Davidson M, Graña C, Schmucker C, Bollig C, Henschke N, Sguassero Y, Nejstgaard CH, Menon S, Nguyen TV, Ferrand G, Kapp P, Riveros C, Ávila C, Devane D, Meerpohl JJ, Rada G, Hróbjartsson A, Grasselli G, Tovey D, Ravaud P, Boutron I. Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 3:CD013881. [PMID: 33734435 PMCID: PMC8406988 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013881] [Citation(s) in RCA: 68] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
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).
Collapse
|
46
|
Tovey D, Tugwell P. Editor's choice: February 2021. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 130:A6-A7. [PMID: 33483005 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.12.026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
47
|
Boutron I, Chaimani A, Meerpohl JJ, Hróbjartsson A, Devane D, Rada G, Tovey D, Grasselli G, Ravaud P. The COVID-NMA Project: Building an Evidence Ecosystem for the COVID-19 Pandemic. Ann Intern Med 2020; 173:1015-1017. [PMID: 32931326 PMCID: PMC7518109 DOI: 10.7326/m20-5261] [Citation(s) in RCA: 57] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
These authors propose an “evidence ecosystem” for COVID-19–related studies that minimizes multiple low-quality reviews and helps connect evidence generation, synthesis, and decision making.
Collapse
|
48
|
Boutron I, Chaimani A, Devane D, Meerpohl JJ, Rada G, Hróbjartsson A, Tovey D, Grasselli G, Ravaud P. Interventions for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19: a living mapping of research and living network meta-analysis. THE COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS 2020. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013769] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/16/2023]
|
49
|
Boutron I, Chaimani A, Devane D, Meerpohl JJ, Rada G, Hróbjartsson A, Tovey D, Grasselli G, Ravaud P. Interventions for the treatment of COVID-19: a living network meta-analysis. Hippokratia 2020. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013770] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
|
50
|
Tugwell P, Welch VA, Karunananthan S, Maxwell LJ, Akl EA, Avey MT, Bhutta ZA, Brouwers MC, Clark JP, Cook S, Cuervo LG, Curran JA, Ghogomu ET, Graham IG, Grimshaw JM, Hutton B, Ioannidis JPA, Jordan Z, Jull JE, Kristjansson E, Langlois EV, Little J, Lyddiatt A, Martin JE, Marušić A, Mbuagbaw L, Moher D, Morton RL, Nasser M, Page MJ, Pardo Pardo J, Petkovic J, Petticrew M, Pigott T, Pottie K, Rada G, Rader T, Riddle AY, Rothstein H, Schüneman HJ, Shamseer L, Shea BJ, Simeon R, Siontis KC, Smith M, Soares-Weiser K, Thavorn K, Tovey D, Vachon B, Valentine J, Villemaire R, Walker P, Weeks L, Wells G, Wilson DB, White H. When to replicate systematic reviews of interventions: consensus checklist. BMJ (CLINICAL RESEARCH ED.) 2020. [PMID: 32933948 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n.71] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
|