Interleukin-1 blocking agents for treating COVID-19

Davidson, Mauricia; Menon, Sonia; Chaimani, Anna; Evrenoglou, Theodoros; Ghosn, Lina; Graña, Carolina; Henschke, Nicholas; Cogo, Elise; Villanueva, Gemma; Ferrand, G; Riveros, Carolina; Bonnet, H; Kapp, Philipp; Moran, Conor; Devane, Declan; Meerpohl, Joerg J; Rada, Gabriel; Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn; Grasselli, Giacomo; Tovey, David; Ravaud, Philippe; Boutron, Isabelle

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd015308

Cited by 32 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, blocking of IL-1 signaling with anakinra had no substantial effect on reducing mortality of critically ill COVID-19 patients. 88 , 89 However, there have been reports that long-term metformin users have a strikingly reduced risk of fatal courses, 90 , 91 with one study showing that this is especially true for women with obesity or type 2 diabetes. 92 It was recently shown that metformin blocks NLRP3 inflammasome activation including inhibition of IL-1β and IL-6 in alveolar macrophages attenuating SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS in a mouse model.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF cytokine triad is associated with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19

Schultheiß

Willscher

Paschold

et al. 2022

Cell Reports Medicine

251

208

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF cytokine triad is associated with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19

Schultheiß

Willscher

Paschold

et al. 2022

Cell Reports Medicine

251

208

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“… 16–21 , 23–44 , 46–51 , 53–57 , 59–69 , 73–79 The impact factor published in SCI journals ranged from 1.04 to 39.89, with an average of 11.72 and a standard deviation of 11.30. The impact factor of 64.1% studies was >5, 16–20 , 23 , 26 , 27 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 36 , 37 , 39–44 , 46 , 47 , 49–51 , 54–57 , 60–64 , 67–69 , 73–76 , 79 the impact factor of 17.2% studies was >15. 16 , 17 , 23 , 42 , 43 , 51 , 62–64 , 74 , 76 LSRs were published in journals with high impact factor, which indicated COVID-19 related studies have attracted much attention from readers ( Table 1 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19

Chen¹,

Luo²,

Li³

et al. 2022

CLEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The systematic review aims to analyze and summarize the characteristics of living systematic review (LSR) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods Six databases including Medline, Excerpta Medica (Embase), Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database and China Science, and Technology Journal Database (VIP), were searched as the source of basic information and methodology of LSR. Descriptive analytical methods were used to analyze the included COVID-19 LSRs, and the study characteristics of COVID-19 LSRs were further assessed. Results Sixty-four COVID-19 LSRs were included. Eighty-nine point one percent of LSRs were published on Science Citation Index (SCI) journals, and 64.1% publication with an impact factor (IF) >5 and 17.2% with an IF >15 among SCI journals. The first unit of the published LSRs for COVID-19 came from 19 countries, with the largest contribution from the UK (17.2%, 11/64). Forty point six percent of LSRs for COVID-19 were related to therapeutics topic which was considered the most concerned perspective for LSRs for COVID-19. Seventy-six point six percent of LSRs focused on the general population, with less attention to children, pregnant women and the elderly. However, the LSR for COVID-19 was reported incomplete on “living” process, including 40.6% of studies without search frequency, 79.7% of studies without screening frequency, 20.3% of studies without update frequency, and 65.6% of studies without the timing or criteria of transitioning LSR out of living mode. Conclusion Although researchers in many countries have applied LSRs to COVID-19, most of the LSRs for COVID-19 were incomplete in reporting on the “living” process and less focused on special populations. This could reduce the confidence of health-care providers and policy makers in the results of COVID-19 LSR, thereby hindering the translation of evidence on COVID-19 LSR into clinical practice. It was necessary to explicitly enact preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) to improve the reporting quality of LSR and support ongoing efforts of therapeutics research for special patients with COVID-19.

show abstract

“…Possibly, the clinical severity of these patients was milder compared with the ones in the COV-AID trial. A recent systematic review of RCTs targeting IL-1 signaling in COVID-19 patients could not find evidence for an important beneficial effect of IL-1 blocking agents [115] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%