ABSTRACT
Background: Patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity have chronic activation of the innate immune system possibly contributing to the higher risk of hyperinflammatory response to SARS-CoV2 and severe COVID-19 observed in this population. We tested whether interleukin-1ß (IL-1ß) blockade using canakinumab improves clinical outcome. Methods: CanCovDia was a multicenter, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy of canakinumab plus standard-of-care compared with placebo plus standard-of-care in patients with type 2 diabetes and a BMI > 25 kg/m2 hospitalised with SARS-CoV2 infection in seven tertiary-hospitals in Switzerland. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to a single intravenous dose of canakinumab (body weight adapted dose of 450-750 mg) or placebo. Canakinumab and placebo were compared based on an unmatched win-ratio approach based on length of survival, ventilation, ICU stay and hospitalization at day 29. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510493. Findings: Between October 17, 2020, and May 12, 2021, 116 patients were randomly assigned with 58 in each group. One participant dropped out in each group for the primary analysis. At the time of randomization, 85 patients (74·6 %) were treated with dexamethasone. The win-ratio of canakinumab vs placebo was 1·08 (95 % CI 0·69-1·69; p = 0·72). During four weeks, in the canakinumab vs placebo group 4 (7·0%) vs 7 (12·3%) participants died, 11 (20·0 %) vs 16 (28·1%) patients were on ICU, 12 (23·5 %) vs 11 (21·6%) were hospitalised for more than 3 weeks, respectively. Median ventilation time at four weeks in the canakinumab vs placebo group was 10 [IQR 6.0, 16.5] and 16 days [IQR 14.0, 23.0], respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in HbA1c after four weeks despite a lower number of anti-diabetes drug administered in patients treated with canakinumab. Finally, high-sensitive CRP and IL-6 was lowered by canakinumab. Serious adverse events were reported in 13 patients (11·4%) in each group. Interpretation: In patients with type 2 diabetes who were hospitalised with COVID-19, treatment with canakinumab in addition to standard-of-care did not result in a statistically significant improvement of the primary composite outcome. Patients treated with canakinumab required significantly less anti-diabetes drugs to achieve similar glycaemic control. Canakinumab was associated with a prolonged reduction of systemic inflammation. Funding: Swiss National Science Foundation grant #198415 and University of Basel. Novartis supplied study medication.
ABSTRACT
Importance: Convalescent plasma is a proposed treatment for COVID-19. Objective: To assess clinical outcomes with convalescent plasma treatment vs placebo or standard of care in peer-reviewed and preprint publications or press releases of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Data Sources: PubMed, the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, and the Living Overview of Evidence platform were searched until January 29, 2021. Study Selection: The RCTs selected compared any type of convalescent plasma vs placebo or standard of care for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in any treatment setting. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data on relevant clinical outcomes, trial characteristics, and patient characteristics and used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. The primary analysis included peer-reviewed publications of RCTs only, whereas the secondary analysis included all publicly available RCT data (peer-reviewed publications, preprints, and press releases). Inverse variance-weighted meta-analyses were conducted to summarize the treatment effects. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, mechanical ventilation use, and serious adverse events. Results: A total of 1060 patients from 4 peer-reviewed RCTs and 10â¯722 patients from 6 other publicly available RCTs were included. The summary risk ratio (RR) for all-cause mortality with convalescent plasma in the 4 peer-reviewed RCTs was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.38), the absolute risk difference was -1.21% (95% CI, -5.29% to 2.88%), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision. Across all 10 RCTs, the summary RR was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.12) and there was moderate certainty of the evidence due to inclusion of unpublished data. Among the peer-reviewed RCTs, the summary hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.07 to 20.34) for length of hospital stay, the summary RR was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.20 to 2.87) for mechanical ventilation use (the absolute risk difference for mechanical ventilation use was -2.56% [95% CI, -13.16% to 8.05%]), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision for both outcomes. Limited data on clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, and serious adverse events showed no significant differences. Conclusions and Relevance: Treatment with convalescent plasma compared with placebo or standard of care was not significantly associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality or with any benefit for other clinical outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate for all-cause mortality and low for other outcomes.