Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review.

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.

The BIGG-REC database makes available all WHO/PAHO evidence informed recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To build and maintain a living database of the Pan American Health Organization/World Health Organization (PAHO/WHO) recommendations developed using GRADE. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Guidelines are identified from WHO and PAHO databases. We periodically extract recommendations, according to the health and wellbeing targets of Sustainable Development Goal 3. RESULTS: As of March 2022, the BIGG-REC (https://bigg-rec.bvsalud.org/en) database hosted 2682 recommendations contained in 285 WHO/PAHO guidelines. Recommendations were classified as follows: communicable diseases (1,581), children's health (1,182), universal health (1,171), sexual and reproductive health (910), non-communicable diseases (677), maternal health (654), COVID-19 (224), use of psychoactive substances (99), tobacco (14) and road and traffic accidents (16). BIGG-REC allows searching by SDG-3, condition or disease, type of intervention, institution, year of publication and age. CONCLUSION: Recommendation maps provide an important resource for health professionals, organizations and Member States that use evidence-informed guidance to make better decisions, providing a source for the adoption or adaptation of recommendations to meet their needs. This one-stop shop database of evidence-informed recommendations built with intuitive functionalities undoubtedly represents a long-needed tool for decision-makers, guideline developers and the public at large.

Consistency of covid-19 trial preprints with published reports and impact for decision making: retrospective review

Objective To assess the trustworthiness (ie, complete and consistent reporting of key methods and results between preprint and published trial reports) and impact (ie, effects of preprints on meta-analytic estimates and the certainty of evidence) of preprint trial reports during the covid-19 pandemic. Design Retrospective review. Data sources World Health Organization covid-19 database and the Living Overview of the Evidence (L-OVE) covid-19 platform by the Epistemonikos Foundation (up to 3 August 2021). Main outcome measures Comparison of characteristics of covid-19 trials with and without preprints, estimates of time to publication of covid-19 preprints, and description of differences in reporting of key methods and results between preprints and their later publications. For the effects of eight treatments on mortality and mechanical ventilation, the study comprised meta-analyses including preprints and excluding preprints at one, three, and six months after the first trial addressing the treatment became available either as a preprint or publication (120 meta-analyses in total, 60 of which included preprints and 60 of which excluded preprints) and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework. Results Of 356 trials included in the study, 101 were only available as preprints, 181 as journal publications, and 74 as preprints first and subsequently published in journals. The median time to publication of preprints was about six months. Key methods and results showed few important differences between trial preprints and their subsequent published reports. Apart from two (3.3%) of 60 comparisons, point estimates were consistent between meta-analyses including preprints versus those excluding preprints as to whether they indicated benefit, no appreciable effect, or harm. For nine (15%) of 60 comparisons, the rating of the certainty of evidence was different when preprints were included versus being excluded—the certainty of evidence including preprints was higher in four comparisons and lower in five comparisons. Conclusion No compelling evidence indicates that preprints provide results that are inconsistent with published papers. Preprints remain the only source of findings of many trials for several months—an unsuitable length of time in a health emergency that is not conducive to treating patients with timely evidence. The inclusion of preprints could affect the results of meta-analyses and the certainty of evidence. Evidence users should be encouraged to consider data from preprints.

Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Different forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS-CoV-2. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID-19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes.  We synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).  MAIN RESULTS: We included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty-two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty-nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two-month follow-up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. Overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. We identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available.  This abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, severe and critical COVID-19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO-approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO-approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high-certainty evidence). Confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants). There is low-certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants). Severe or critical COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID-19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants). Two trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled. Serious adverse events (SAEs) mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)/SII-ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in SAEs compared to placebo (RR: mRNA-1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII-ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants. Evidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, and NVX-CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX-CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants). For the evaluation of heterologous schedules, booster doses, and efficacy against variants of concern, see main text of review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com). Implications for practice Due to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern. Implications for research Future research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficacy and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.

High prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 detection and prolonged viral shedding in stools: A systematic review and cohort study Elevada detección de SARS-CoV-2 y prolongada excreción viral en deposiciones: Estudio de cohorte y revisión sistemática

Objectives To: 1. Describe the frequency of viral RNA detection in stools in a cohort of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, and 2. Perform a systematic review to assess the clearance time in stools of SARS-CoV-2. Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study in two centers between March and May 2020. We included SARS-CoV-2 infected patients of any age and severity. We collected seriated nasopharyngeal swabs and stool samples to detect SARS-CoV-2. After, we performed a systematic review of the prevalence and clearance of SARS-CoV-2 in stools (PROSPERO-ID: CRD42020192490). We estimated prevalence using a random-effects model. We assessed clearance time by using Kaplan–Meier curves. Results We included 32 patients;mean age was 43.7 ± 17.7 years, 43.8% were female, and 40.6% reported gastrointestinal symptoms. Twenty-five percent (8/32) of patients had detectable viral RNA in stools. The median clearance time in stools of the cohort was 11[10–15] days. Systematic review included 30 studies (1392 patients) with stool samples. Six studies were performed in children and 55% were male. The pooled prevalence of viral detection in stools was 34.6% (twenty-four studies, 1393 patients;95%CI:25.4–45.1);heterogeneity was high (I2:91.2%, Q:208.6;p ≤ 0.001). A meta-regression demonstrates an association between female-gender and lower presence in stools (p = 0.004). The median clearance time in stools was 22 days (nineteen studies, 140 patients;95%CI:19–25). After 34 days, 19.9% (95%CI:11.3–29.7) of patients have a persistent detection in stools. Conclusions Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in stools is a frequent finding. The clearance of SARS-CoV-2 in stools is prolonged and it takes longer than nasopharyngeal secretions.

Correction: Prognostic factors for severity and mortality in patients infected with COVID-19: A systematic review.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241955.].

COVID-19 Living Overview of Evidence repository is highly comprehensive and can be used as a single source for COVID-19 studies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 Living OVerview of Evidence (COVID-19 L·OVE) is a public repository and classification platform for COVID-19 articles. The repository contains more than 430,000 articles as of September 20, 2021 and intends to provide a one-stop shop for COVID-19 evidence. Considering that systematic reviews conduct high-quality searches, this study assesses the comprehensiveness and currency of the repository against the total number of studies in a representative sample of COVID-19 systematic reviews. METHODS: Our sample was generated from all the studies included in the systematic reviews of COVID-19 published during April 2021. We estimated the comprehensiveness of COVID-19 L·OVE repository by determining how many of the individual studies in the sample were included in the COVID-19 L·OVE repository. We estimated the currency as the percentage of studies that was available in the COVID-19 L·OVE repository at the time the systematic reviews conducted their own search. RESULTS: We identified 83 eligible systematic reviews that included 2,132 studies. COVID-19 L·OVE had an overall comprehensiveness of 99.67% (2,125/2,132). The overall currency of the repository, that is, the proportion of articles that would have been obtained if the search of the reviews was conducted in COVID-19 L·OVE instead of searching the original sources, was 96.48% (2,057/2,132). Both the comprehensiveness and the currency were 100% for randomized trials (82/82). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 L·OVE repository is highly comprehensive and current. Using this repository instead of traditional manual searches in multiple databases can save a great amount of work to people conducting systematic reviews and would improve the comprehensiveness and timeliness of evidence syntheses. This tool is particularly important for supporting living evidence synthesis processes.

Interleukin-1 blocking agents for treating COVID-19.

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).

High prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 detection and prolonged viral shedding in stools: A systematic review and cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To: 1. Describe the frequency of viral RNA detection in stools in a cohort of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, and 2. Perform a systematic review to assess the clearance time in stools of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study in two centers between March and May 2020. We included SARS-CoV-2 infected patients of any age and severity. We collected seriated nasopharyngeal swabs and stool samples to detect SARS-CoV-2. After, we performed a systematic review of the prevalence and clearance of SARS-CoV-2 in stools (PROSPERO-ID: CRD42020192490). We estimated prevalence using a random-effects model. We assessed clearance time by using Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: We included 32 patients; mean age was 43.7±17.7 years, 43.8% were female, and 40.6% reported gastrointestinal symptoms. Twenty-five percent (8/32) of patients had detectable viral RNA in stools. The median clearance time in stools of the cohort was 11[10-15] days. Systematic review included 30 studies (1392 patients) with stool samples. Six studies were performed in children and 55% were male. The pooled prevalence of viral detection in stools was 34.6% (twenty-four studies, 1393 patients; 95%CI:25.4-45.1); heterogeneity was high (I2:91.2%, Q:208.6; p≤0.001). A meta-regression demonstrates an association between female-gender and lower presence in stools (p=0.004). The median clearance time in stools was 22 days (nineteen studies, 140 patients; 95%CI:19-25). After 34 days, 19.9% (95%CI:11.3-29.7) of patients have a persistent detection in stools. CONCLUSIONS: Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in stools is a frequent finding. The clearance of SARS-CoV-2 in stools is prolonged and it takes longer than nasopharyngeal secretions.

Bias as a source of inconsistency in ivermectin trials for COVID-19: A systematic review. Ivermectin's suggested benefits are mainly based on potentially biased results.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review is to summarize the effects of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of patients with COVID-19 and to assess inconsistencies in results from individual studies with focus on risk of bias due to methodological limitations. METHODS: We searched the L.OVE platform through July 6, 2021 and included randomized trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard or other active treatments. We conducted random-effects pairwise meta-analysis, assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach and performed sensitivity analysis excluding trials with risk of bias. RESULTS: We included 29 RCTs which enrolled 5592 cases. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was very low to low suggesting that ivermectin may result in important benefits. However, after excluding trials classified as "high risk" or "some concerns" in the risk of bias assessment, most estimates of effect changed substantially: Compared to standard of care, low certainty evidence suggests that ivermectin may not reduce mortality (RD 7 fewer per 1000) nor mechanical ventilation (RD 6 more per 1000), and moderate certainty evidence shows that it probably does not increase symptom resolution or improvement (RD 14 more per 1000) nor viral clearance (RD 12 fewer per 1000). CONCLUSION: Ivermectin may not improve clinically important outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and its effects as a prophylactic intervention in exposed individuals are uncertain. Previous reports concluding important benefits associated with ivermectin are based on potentially biased results reported by studies with substantial methodological limitations. Further research is needed.

Challenges of evidence synthesis during the 2020 COVID pandemic: a scoping review.

AIM: The objectives of this scoping review are to identify the challenges to conducting evidence synthesis during the COVID-19 pandemic and to propose some recommendations addressing the identified gaps. METHODS: A scoping review methodology was followed to map the literature published on the challenges and solutions of conducting evidence synthesis using the Joanna Briggs Methodology of performing scoping review. We searched several databases from the start of the Pandemic in December 2019 until 10th June 2021. RESULTS: A total of 28 publications was included in the review. The challenges cited in the included studies have been categorised into four distinct but interconnected themes including: upstream, Evidence synthesis, downstream and contextual challenges. These challenges have been further refined into issues with primary studies, databases, team capacity, process, resources, and context. Several proposals to improve the above challenges included: transparency in primary studies registration and reporting, establishment of online platforms that enables collaboration, data sharing and searching, the use of computable evidence and coordination of efforts at an international level. CONCLUSION: This review has highlighted the importance of including artificial intelligence, a framework for international collaboration and a sustained funding model to address many of the shortcomings and ensure we are ready for similar challenges in the future.

COVID-19 transmission during swimming-related activities: a rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There are uncertainties about mitigating strategies for swimming-related activities in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is an opportunity to learn from the experience of previous re-openings to better plan the future one. Our objectives are to systematically review the evidence on (1) the association between engaging in swimming-related activities and COVID-19 transmission; and (2) the effects of strategies for preventing COVID-19 transmission during swimming-related activities. METHODS: We conducted a rapid systematic review. We searched in the L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19. The searches covered the period from the inception date of each database until April 19, 2021. We included non-randomized studies for the review on association of COVID-19 transmission and swimming-related activities. We included guidance documents reporting on the strategies for prevention of COVID-19 transmission during swimming-related activities. We also included studies on the efficacy and safety of the strategies. Teams of two reviewers independently assessed article eligibility. For the guidance documents, a single reviewer assessed the eligibility and a second reviewer verified the judgement. Teams of two reviewers extracted data independently. We summarized the findings of included studies narratively. We synthesized information from guidance documents according to the identified topics and subtopics, and presented them in tabular and narrative formats. RESULTS: We identified three studies providing very low certainty evidence for the association between engaging in swimming-related activities and COVID-19 transmission. The analysis of 50 eligible guidance documents identified 11 topics: ensuring social distancing, ensuring personal hygiene, using personal protective equipment, eating and drinking, maintaining the pool, managing frequently touched surfaces, ventilation of indoor spaces, screening and management of sickness, delivering first aid, raising awareness, and vaccination. One study assessing the efficacy of strategies to prevent COVID-19 transmission did not find an association between compliance with precautionary restrictions and COVID-19 transmission. CONCLUSIONS: There are major gaps in the research evidence of relevance to swimming-related activities in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the synthesis of the identified strategies from guidance documents can inform public health management strategies for swimming-related activities, particularly in future re-opening plans.

Antibody and cellular therapies for treatment of covid-19: a living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021). STUDY SELECTION: Trials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm. RESULTS: As of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative. CONCLUSION: In patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement. FUNDING: This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321). READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).

Improving Social Justice in COVID-19 Health Research: Interim Guidelines for Reporting Health Equity in Observational Studies.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the global imperative to address health inequities. Observational studies are a valuable source of evidence for real-world effects and impacts of implementing COVID-19 policies on the redistribution of inequities. We assembled a diverse global multi-disciplinary team to develop interim guidance for improving transparency in reporting health equity in COVID-19 observational studies. We identified 14 areas in the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) checklist that need additional detail to encourage transparent reporting of health equity. We searched for examples of COVID-19 observational studies that analysed and reported health equity analysis across one or more social determinants of health. We engaged with Indigenous stakeholders and others groups experiencing health inequities to co-produce this guidance and to bring an intersectional lens. Taking health equity and social determinants of health into account contributes to the clinical and epidemiological understanding of the disease, identifying specific needs and supporting decision-making processes. Stakeholders are encouraged to consider using this guidance on observational research to help provide evidence to close the inequitable gaps in health outcomes.

Pulmonary rehabilitation for COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol. / Rehabilitación pulmonar en COVID-19: protocolo de una revisión sistemática viva.

OBJECTIVE: This living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of pulmonary rehabilitation in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: This is the protocol of a living systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We will conduct searches in the L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that maps PICO questions to a repository maintained through regular searches in electronic databases, preprint servers, trial registries and other resources relevant to COVID-19. No date or language restrictions will be applied. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES AND METHODS: We adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We will include randomized trials evaluating the effect of pulmonary rehabilitation as monotherapy or in combination with other interventions-versus sham or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.

OBJETIVO: Proporcionar un resumen oportuno, riguroso y continuamente actualizado de la evidencia disponible sobre el papel de la rehabilitación pulmonar en el tratamiento de los pacientes con COVID-19. DISEÑO: Es el protocolo de una revisión sistemática viva. FUENTE DE DATOS: Realizaremos búsquedas en la plataforma L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) para COVID-19, un sistema que mapea los componentes de las preguntas de investigación (PICO) en un repositorio mantenido a través de búsquedas regulares en bases de datos electrónicas, servidores de pre-impresión, registros de ensayos y otros recursos relevantes para COVID-19. No se aplicarán restricciones de fecha ni de idioma. CRITERIOS DE ELEGIBILIDAD PARA LA SELECCIÓN DE ESTUDIOS Y MÉTODOS: Se adaptó un protocolo común ya publicado para revisiones sistemáticas paralelas múltiples a las especificidades de la pregunta. Se incluirán ensayos aleatorios que evalúen el efecto de la rehabilitación pulmonar como monoterapia o en combinación con otras intervenciones frente a un tratamiento simulado o ningún tratamiento en pacientes con COVID-19. Dos revisores examinarán de forma independiente cada estudio para determinar su elegibilidad, extraerán los datos y evaluarán el riesgo de sesgo. Se agruparán los resultados mediante un metaanálisis y se aplicará el sistema Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) para evaluar la certeza de las pruebas para cada resultado. ÉTICA Y DIFUSIÓN: No se considera necesaria la aprobación ética. Los resultados de esta revisión se difundirán ampliamente a través de publicaciones revisadas por pares, redes sociales y medios de comunicación tradicionales.

Prophylaxis against covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19. DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 25 March 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 February 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials of people at risk of covid-19 who were assigned to receive prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: Random effects bayesian network meta-analysis was performed after duplicate data abstraction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: The first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomised trials-six of hydroxychloroquine (n=6059 participants), one of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (n=234), and two of ivermectin alone (n=540), all compared with standard care or placebo. Two trials (one of ramipril and one of bromhexine hydrochloride) did not meet the sample size requirements for network meta-analysis. Hydroxychloroquine has trivial to no effect on admission to hospital (risk difference 1 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% credible interval 3 fewer to 4 more; high certainty evidence) or mortality (1 fewer per 1000, 2 fewer to 3 more; high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably does not reduce the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (2 more per 1000, 18 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (19 more per 1000, 1 fewer to 70 more; moderate certainty), and may have trivial to no effect on suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 41 more; low certainty). Owing to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, and thus very low certainty of evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory confirmed covid-19 (52 fewer per 1000, 58 fewer to 37 fewer), ivermectin alone on laboratory confirmed infection (50 fewer per 1000, 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed infection (159 fewer per 1000, 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain very uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis has trivial to no effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, it is highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers for COVID-19: A living systematic review of randomized clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: This living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: We conducted searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralized repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence), which retrieves articles from multiple sources such as PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, among other pre-print and protocols repositories. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) was adapted to expand the range of evidence and customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place on a daily search basis. The search covered a period of time up to July 31, 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES AND METHODS: We adapted an already published standard protocol for multiple parallel living systematic reviews to this question's specificities. We included randomized trials evaluating the effect of either suspension or indication of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers as monotherapy, or in combination versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. We searched for randomized trials evaluating the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Two reviewers independently screened each study for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We pooled the results using meta-analysis and applied the GRADE system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. We will resubmit results every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates. RESULTS: We screened 772 records, but none was considered for eligibility. We identified 55 ongoing studies, including 41 randomized trials evaluating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers for patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find a randomized clinical trial meeting our inclusion criteria, and hence there is no evidence for supporting the role of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. A substantial number of ongoing studies would provide valuable evidence to inform researchers and decision-makers in the near future. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020182495. PROTOCOL PREPRINT DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/vp9nj.

OBJETIVO: Esta revisión sistemática viva tiene como objetivo proporcionar un resumen oportuno, riguroso y continuamente actualizado de la evidencia disponible sobre el rol de los inhibidores de la enzima convertidora de angiotensina (iECA) y los bloqueadores del receptor de angiotensina II (ARA-II) en el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19. FUENTES DE DATOS: Realizamos búsquedas en PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), literatura gris y en el repositorio centralizado L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) que recupera artículos de múltiples fuentes como PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, entre otros repositorios de preprints y protocolos. En respuesta a la emergencia de COVID-19, L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) se adaptó para ampliar el rango de información que cubre y se personalizó para agrupar toda la evidencia en torno a COVID-19 en un solo lugar, en una base de búsqueda diaria. La búsqueda cubrió el período hasta el 31 de julio de 2020. CRITERIOS DE ELEGIBILIDAD PARA LA SELECCIÓN DE ESTUDIOS Y MÉTODOS: Adaptamos un protocolo común ya publicado para múltiples revisiones sistemáticas vivas paralelas a las especificidades de esta pregunta. Se incluyeron ensayos aleatorizados que evaluaban el efecto de la suspensión o la indicación de inhibidores de la enzima convertidora de angiotensina o bloqueadores de los receptores de angiotensina II, como monoterapia o en combinación, versus placebo o ningún tratamiento, en pacientes con COVID-19. Se buscaron ensayos aleatorizados que evaluaran el efecto de los inhibidores de la enzima convertidora de angiotensina/bloqueadores del receptor de angiotensina II versus placebo o ningún tratamiento en pacientes con COVID-19. Dos revisores examinaron de forma independiente la elegibilidad de cada estudio, extrajeron los datos y evaluaron el riesgo de sesgo. Los resultados se agruparon mediante un metanálisis y se aplicó GRADE para evaluar la certeza de la evidencia para cada resultado. Cada vez que cambien las conclusiones o hayan actualizaciones sustanciales, volveremos a enviar un reporte. RESULTADOS: Analizamos 772 artículos, pero ninguno cumplió con los criterios de inclusión. Identificamos 55 estudios en curso, incluidos 41 ensayos aleatorizados que evaluaban inhibidores de la enzima convertidora de angiotensina/bloqueadores del receptor de angiotensina II para pacientes con COVID-19. CONCLUSIONES: No encontramos ningún ensayo clínico aleatorizado que cumpliera con nuestros criterios de inclusión y, por lo tanto, no hay pruebas que respalden el papel de los inhibidores de la enzima convertidora de angiotensina y los bloqueadores de los receptores de angiotensina II en el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19. Identificamos un número considerable de estudios en curso que podría proporcionar evidencia valiosa para informar a los investigadores y a los responsables de la toma de decisiones en un futuro próximo.

Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review.

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).

Use of gloves for the prevention of COVID-19 in healthy population: A living systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The efficacy of using gloves by the general population to prevent COVID-19 is unknown. We aim to determine the efficacy of routine glove use by the general healthy population in preventing COVID-19. This is the protocol of a living systematic review. METHODS: We adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature, and in a centralized repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal. We will include randomized trials evaluating the effect of use of gloves in healthy population to prevent COVID-19 disease. Randomized trials evaluating the effect of use of gloves during outbreaks caused by MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and nonrandomized studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case no direct evidence from randomized trials is found.Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses and use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it if the conclusions change or there are substantial updates.

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19: a living systematic review

OBJETIVO: Esta revisión sistemática viva tiene como objetivo entregar un resumen oportuno, riguroso y continuamente actualizado de la evidencia disponible sobre los efectos de remdesivir en pacientes con COVID-19. MÉTODOS: Se buscaron ensayos aleatorios que evaluaran el uso de remdesivir versus placebo o ningún tratamiento en pacientes con COVID-19. Se realizó una búsqueda en la plataforma L·OVE COVID-19 (Living OVerview of Evidence), un sistema que mantiene búsquedas regulares en bases de datos, registros de ensayos, servidores preprint y sitios web relevantes en COVID-19. Todas las búsquedas fueron realizadas hasta el 25 de agosto de 2020. No se aplicaron restricciones de fecha ni de idioma. Dos revisores evaluaron de forma independiente los artículos potencialmente elegibles, de acuerdo con criterios de selección predefinidos, y extrajeron los datos mediante un formulario estandarizado. Los resultados fueron combinados mediante un metanálisis utilizando modelos de efectos aleatorios y evaluamos la certeza de la evidencia utilizando el método GRADE. Una versión viva de esta revisión estará abiertamente disponible durante la pandemia de COVID-19. RESULTADOS: La búsqueda inicial arrojó 574 referencias. Finalmente, identificamos 3 ensayos aleatorios, que evaluaban el uso de remdesivir adicionado al tratamiento estándar versus tratamiento estándar. La evidencia es muy incierta acerca del efecto del remdesivir sobre la mortalidad (RR 0,7;IC del 95%: 0,46 a 1,05;certeza de la evidencia muy baja) y la necesidad de ventilación mecánica invasiva (RR 0,69;IC del 95%: 0,39 a 1,24;certeza de evidencia muy baja). Por otro lado, es probable que el uso de remdesivir produzca un aumento en la incidencia de efectos adversos en pacientes con COVID-19 (RR 1,29;IC del 95%: 0,58 a 2,84;evidencia de certeza moderada). CONCLUSIONES: La evidencia disponible sobre el papel del remdesivir en el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19 es insuficiente en relación a los desenlaces críticos para tomar decisiones, por lo que no es posible realizar un correcto balance entre los beneficios potenciales, los efectos adversos y los costos. OBJECTIVE: Provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the evidence on the role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Eligible studies were randomized trials evaluating the effect of remdesivir versus placebo or no treatment. We conducted searches in the special L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that performs regular searches in databases, trial registries, preprint servers and websites relevant to COVID-19. All the searches covered the period until 25 August 2020. No date or language restrictions were applied. Two reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible studies according to predefined selection criteria, and extracted data on study characteristics, methods, outcomes, and risk of bias, using a predesigned, standardized form. We performed meta-analyses using random-effect models and assessed overall certainty in evidence using the GRADE approach. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded 574 references. Finally, we included three randomized trials evaluating remdesivir in addition to standard care versus standard care alone. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of remdesivir on mortality (RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.05;very low certainty evidence) and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.24;very low certainty evidence). On the other hand, remdesivir likely results in a large increase in the incidence of adverse effects in patients with COVID-19 (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.84;moderate certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is insufficient for the outcomes critical for making decisions on the role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients with COVID-19, so it is impossible to balance potential benefits, if there are any, with the adverse effects and costs.