ABSTRACT
Background There is accumulating evidence for an overly activated immune response in severe Covid-19. Several studies exploring the role of immunomodulation as a potential therapeutic strategy have been published. Through systematic review and meta-analysis, we assess the effectiveness of specific interleukin inhibitors for the treatment of Covid-19.
Methods Electronic databases, preprint servers and clinical trial registries were searched on 23rd October 2020 to identify studies of immunomodulatory agents (anakinra, sarilumab, siltuximab and tocilizumab) for the treatment of Covid-19. The primary outcomes were severity on an ordinal scale measured at day 15 and days to hospital discharge. Key secondary endpoints included overall mortality.
Results Sixty studies totalling 16588 patients were included, four were randomised controlled studies. Most explored outcomes in patients who received tocilizumab (50/60), followed by anakinra (5/60), sarilumab (4/60) and siltuximab (1/60). There was substantial heterogeneity in meta-analysis and pooled effect estimates should be interpreted with caution. In retrospective studies, tocilizumab was associated with less severe outcomes on an ordinal scale (Generalised odds ratio 1.23 95%CI 1.10;1.37, I2=97%) and reduced mortality (HR 0.58 95%CI 0.43;0.78, I2 =80.3%) but consistent outcome benefit was not shown in prospective studies. The mean difference with control in the duration of hospitalisation was 0.26 days (95%CI −0.10;0.62, I2 =85%). Insufficient data precluded meta-analysis for other immunomodulatory agents.
Conclusion Meta-analysis revealed substantial heterogeneity in reported findings of tocilizumab and an inconclusive effect from prospective studies. Currently available evidence for the efficacy of anakinra, siltuximab or sarilumab in Covid-19 is insufficient. Results from adequately powered, high-quality randomised studies are urgently needed.
INTRODUCTION
The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified in Wuhan, China in December 2019(1). Since then, coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has been declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and continues to spread at an exponential rate with over a million deaths currently reported worldwide (2, 3).
The clinical manifestations of Covid-19 tend to be heterogenous ranging from asymptomatic infection to acute respiratory disease syndrome (ARDS), multi-organ failure and death. Mechanisms underlying severe disease are incompletely understood, but accumulating evidence points towards a dysregulated and excessive host immune response referred to as cytokine storm syndrome (CSS)(4). During this state of immunological hyperactivation, increased circulating levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines including interleukin (IL)-1 and IL-6 have been demonstrated, and are associated with adverse clinical outcomes (5-7). Suppression of pro-inflammatory cytokines in Covid-19 may therefore be a potential therapeutic strategy (8).
SARS-CoV-2 shares a number of genetic and clinical similarities with other zoonotic coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)(9, 10). There are also reports of elevated pro-inflammatory cytokines in patients with SARS and MERS (11, 12), suggesting overlapping therapeutic targets in the management of SARS, MERS and Covid-19.
Several clinical studies evaluating the role of immunomodulatory agents in Covid-19 have been published recently. Through systematic review and critical appraisal of the literature, we assess the effectiveness and safety of specific IL-1 (anakinra) and IL-6 (tocilizumab, siltuximab, sarilumab) inhibitors for the treatment of Covid-19, whilst concurrently drawing on literature from previous similar coronavirus infections (SARS and MERS). These agents already carry approval for the treatment of other rare non-infectious and autoimmune conditions, with an acceptable safety profile.
METHODS
The systematic review was conducted in accordance with a pre-specified protocol (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020176375), and has been reported in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines(13).
Search strategy and study selection
Electronic database searches were carried out in MEDLINE (1946 to latest) and EMBASE (1974 to latest), and ongoing clinical trial registries (clinicaltrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry), with the last search carried out on 23rd October 2020. Search terms were kept broad and included keywords and controlled vocabulary for patient and treatment-related terms (see supplementary appendix for MEDLINE search strategy). Unpublished and ongoing studies were identified by searching pre-print servers including medRxiv and bioRxiv. Searches were carried out independently by two reviewers in a standardised manner, followed by screening through titles and abstracts, before full text review. Disagreements were resolved by consensus, with unresolved conflicts decided by a third reviewer.
The review included all original studies excluding case reports, evaluating the use of at least one of anakinra, tocilizumab, sarilumab or siltuximab in patients aged over 18 with either suspected or confirmed Covid-19, SARS or MERS. Retrospective studies without a comparator arm were excluded due to their associated heterogeneity and inherent risk of bias. Language or year of publication restrictions were not applied. No minimal study sample size was specified for inclusion.
The planned primary outcomes were selected based on their clinical usefulness and included time to hospital discharge (days) and severity on an adapted four-point ordinal scale at day 15 with the following ratings: i) death; ii) requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or ECMO; iii) hospitalised but no requirement for IMV/ECMO; iv) not hospitalised. Secondary outcomes included time to clinical improvement (days), duration of mechanical ventilation (days), overall mortality, mortality at 28 days and treatment related adverse events.
Data extraction and risk of bias assessment
Data were extracted from article text and figures using a data-extraction proforma and verified by a second reviewer. Information sought included study design, sample size, participant demographics, clinical investigation findings, intervention characteristics (name of agent, dose, route), treatment related adverse events, requirement and duration of invasive and non-invasive ventilation, use and dosage of oxygen, duration of hospital stay, survival outcome measures and follow up duration. Where ordinal outcomes were reported at multiple timepoints, those closest to day 15 were chosen for extraction. For ongoing trial protocols, the registration number, sample size, and expected date of completion were recorded.
Risk of bias assessment was carried out independently in duplicate. Due to the heterogeneity of study designs included in the review, various quality assessment tools available through the National Institute of Health were applied(14). The tools assess risk of bias through criterion specific to each study design, before providing an overall quality rating of good, fair or poor. Randomised studies were assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB2)(15). As per the review protocol, all studies were included irrespective of their risk of bias rating.
Statistical analysis
All identified studies were included in the narrative summary with summary tables for characteristics. For the primary outcomes, numbers of individuals meeting each outcome on the adapted ordinal scale were pooled using rank-based Wilcoxon Mann Whitney tests with ties split evenly between positive and negative outcomes, providing a generalised odds ratio (GenOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The GenOR provides a measure of the likelihood that the intervention leads to a better rather than worse outcome when compared to a randomly chosen control (16). Mean hospital duration and standard deviation (SD) were extracted or were estimates from median and range/interquartile range (IQR) using the Box-Cox method (17). Mean difference in hospital stay was calculated where a control arm was reported. Where available, adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and unadjusted mortality data were extracted for quantitative synthesis. Where data were not reported in a tabular format, values were extracted from plotted data using a digital plot analyser(18).
Where sufficient studies were identified for a specific immunomodulator, findings were assessed using random effects meta-analysis and presented as forest plot. Limited study numbers precluded subgroup analysis by immunomodulator. Meta-analyses were grouped by retrospective and prospective design and presented on the same plots with no overall estimate. The I2 statistic was used to evaluate statistical heterogeneity. Although sample sizes were limited, we used pseudo-R2 from meta-regression to explore variability in heterogeneity owing to study design (single-centre vs. multicentre), non-peer reviewed manuscripts, use of concomitant steroids, route of drug administration and day outcome measured. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot analysis and Egger’s test. All analyses were performed using Stata v.16 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).
RESULTS
Search of the electronic databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE) on 23rd October yielded a total of 2275 studies, with a further 572 studies identified through preprint servers. Following removal of duplicates, screening and full text review, 60 articles published worldwide were shortlisted for inclusion (anakinra, n=4; tocilizumab, n=50; anakinra and tocilizumab, n=1; sarilumab, n=4; siltuximab, n=1) (Figure 1). 43 studies were published in peer-reviewed journals, with the remaining 17 identified through preprint servers. All studies were performed in patients with Covid-19, with no suitable studies identified for SARS or MERS. Twenty-four studies were prospective in design, with thirteen studies including a control group for comparison, of which four were randomised studies. The remaining 36 studies were retrospective case-control studies. Included studies provided a total of 16588 patients, of which 5632 (34%) received one of the therapies under review alongside standard of care (SOC), and 10956 (59%) received SOC alone. Individual study characteristics for the published studies are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
*non peer-reviewed preprint study; #, study investigating both anakinra and tocilizumab; A, anakinra; Sa, sarilumab; Si, siltuximab; T, tocilizumab
Treatment related adverse events. Adverse events for drug under study reported. Adverse events for control population reported where applicable. * non peer-reviewed preprint study
Flow diagram illustrates systematic search and screening strategy, including numbers meeting eligibility criteria and numbers excluded.
Risk of bias assessment of the retrieved studies identified multiple limitations and highlighted a number of biases (Figure 2). The majority of included studies defined the study population specifically with clear inclusion/exclusion criteria. Where applicable, control participants were selected from the same population. However, many studies provided insufficient detail of the interventions and outcomes being studied or reporting was inconsistent, with key design, and outcome details omitted. Statistical analysis was variably reported, with few studies providing a sample size justification. In nearly all studies, patients were on concomitant therapies, limiting the ability to discern whether a specific intervention was related to the outcome. Following a formal risk of bias assessment, 16 (27%) studies were rated as good, 35 (58%) fair and 9 (15%) poor. Publication bias, assessed by observation of funnel plots and Egger’s test, was not present for any of the outcomes assessed (Supplementary Appendix)
A - Randomised clinical trials assessed using Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. Risk of bias was assessed in six categories and scored as either low risk of bias, some concern, or high risk of bias, before an overall risk of bias was given to each study.
B - Non-randomised prospective studies. Questions numbered in the first column. 1. Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated? 2. Was the study population clearly specified and defined? 3. Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%? 4. Were all the subjects selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the same time period)? Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study prespecified and applied uniformly to all participants? 5. Was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided? 6. For the analyses in this paper, were the exposure(s) of interest measured prior to the outcome(s) being measured? 7. Was the timeframe sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between exposure and outcome if it existed? 8. For exposures that can vary in amount or level, did the study examine different levels of the exposure as related to the outcome (e.g., categories of exposure, or exposure measured as continuous variable)? 9. Were the exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? 10. Was the exposure(s) assessed more than once over time? 11. Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? 12. Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants? 13. Was loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less? 14. Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposure(s) and outcome(s)?
C - Summary of risk of bias assessment for case-control studies. Questions numbered in first column. 1. Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated and appropriate? 2. Was the study population clearly specified and defined? 3. Did the authors include a sample size justification? 4. Were controls selected or recruited from the same or similar population that gave rise to the cases (including the same timeframe)? 5. Were the definitions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, algorithms or processes used to identify or select cases and controls valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? 6. Were the cases clearly defined and differentiated from controls? 7. If less than 100 percent of eligible cases and/or controls were selected for the study, were the cases and/or controls randomly selected from those eligible? 8. Was there use of concurrent controls? 9. Were the investigators able to confirm that the exposure/risk occurred prior to the development of the condition or event that defined a participant as a case? 10. Were the measures of exposure/risk clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently (including the same time period) across all study participants? 11. Were the assessors of exposure/risk blinded to the case or control status of participants? 12. Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically in the analyses? If matching was used, did the investigators account for matching during study analysis?
Tocilizumab
Nine prospective studies with a control arm, eight prospective studies without a control arm, and 34 case-control studies examining the clinical impact of tocilizumab in Covid-19 were identified. Amongst the prospective studies there were four randomised clinical trials (RCTs). In total, the studies reported outcomes from 15947 patients, of whom 5119 (32%) were given tocilizumab. Criteria for eligible participants varied across the studies, with many specifying respiratory failure with laboratory evidence of hyperinflammation as a prerequisite. The dose of tocilizumab administration was not entirely consistent with intravenous 8mg/kg or 400mg the most commonly studied route and dose.
Ordinal scale
A total of 12 studies provided outcomes on an adapted 4-point scale for 1782 patients including cases and controls. The median time for reporting outcomes after treatment was 14 days (IQR 14-28). In two of the three RCTs, tocilizumab was associated with improved outcomes compared with controls who received SOC alone(19, 20). When prospective studies were included in meta-analysis (Figure 3), tocilizumab was not associated with better outcomes (GenOR 1.09 95% CI 0.99;1.19, I2 = 84.3%). Variability in reported concomitant steroid administration had a significant contribution upon the substantial heterogeneity observed (Supplementary Appendix). When retrospective studies were included in meta-analysis, tocilizumab was associated with better outcomes, indicating a 23% greater chance of less-severe outcomes on the adapted ordinal scale when compared to control (GenOR 1.23 95% CI 1.10;1.37, I2 = 97%). However, these results should be interpreted with caution as there was substantial heterogeneity which could not be explained by variability in the factors assessed.
Tocilizumab generalised odds ratios (OR) for ordinal outcome forest plot. Generalised OR shown for each study with 95% confidence interval and day at which ordinal outcome recorded. Sample sizes given for patients receiving intervention (n) alongside total included (N) in study. Summary estimates presented separately for prospective and retrospective studies.
*non peer-reviewed preprint studies
# randomised controlled trials
Duration of hospitalisation
Eight retrospective case-control studies and one RCT reported the duration of hospitalisation for a total of 699 survivors who received tocilizumab (Figure 4). Case-control studies reporting the duration of hospitalisation were combined to give an overall summary estimate (20.55 days 95%CI 15.68;25.48, I2 = 96.5%), which was lower than the duration reported by the RCT (22.31 days 95%CI 21.38;23.26). Compared with 446 patients who received SOC only, the difference in the mean duration of hospital stay 0.26 days (95% CI - 0.10;0.62, I2 = 85.9), with considerable heterogeneity. Variability in route of administration was associated with heterogeneity (R2 = 94.4%, p<0.001).
Tocilizumab duration of hospitalisation (days) forest plot. A: Mean duration of hospital stay. B: Mean difference compared with controls in duration of hospital stay. Effect sizes and associated 95% confidence intervals presented for each study. Sample sizes given for patients receiving intervention (n) and total included in study (N). Summary estimates presented separately for prospective and retrospective studies.
*non peer-reviewed preprint studies
# randomised controlled trials
Overall mortality
Seventeen studies totalling 10,159 patients reported adjusted hazard ratios for overall mortality, at a follow up time censored at a median of 28 days (IQR 14-30). Amongst the studies, two were RCTs and neither found any difference between tocilizumab and control for mortality (19, 21). Survival benefit was not conclusively demonstrated in prospective studies (HR 0.63 95%CI 0.36;1.10, I2 = 13%) (Figure 5). In the remaining retrospective case-control studies, tocilizumab was associated with a 42% lower risk of adjusted mortality with substantial heterogeneity (HR 0.58 95%CI 0.43;0.78, I2 = 80.3%;). Although meta-regressions did not identify a significant contribution to heterogeneity, variability was noted according to peer review (R2 = 86.9%) and outcome day (R2 = 30.9%).
Tocilizumab adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for overall mortality forest plot. Adjusted HRs with associated 95% confidence interval and day of censorship presented for each study. Sample sizes given for patients receiving intervention (n) and total included (N) in study. Summary estimates presented separately for prospective and retrospective studies.
*non peer-reviewed preprint studies
# randomised controlled trials
NR, not reported
Rate ratios (RR) were calculated from 31 studies, including three RCTs, reporting unadjusted mortality data for 10,564 patients at a median follow up of 18 days (IQR 9-28) (Figure 6). Tocilizumab was associated with a 25% reduced risk of mortality compared with the control arm in retrospective studies (RR 0.75 95%CI 0.61;0.94, I2 = 81.3%). Heterogeneity was substantial and was significantly associated with variability in the time at which the outcome was recorded. Tocilizumab was not associated with reduced mortality in the prospective studies (RR 0.73 95%CI 0.32;1.62, I2 = 39.1%).
Tocilizumab mortality risk ratios (RR) forest plot. Risk ratios with associated 95% confidence interval and day of censorship presented for each study. Sample sizes given for patients receiving intervention (n) and total included in study (N). Summary estimates presented separately for prospective and retrospective studies.
*non peer-reviewed preprint studies
# randomised controlled trials
NR, not reported
Other immunomodulators
Studies exploring outcomes in patients who received anakinra, sarilumab or siltuximab were not quantitively synthesised, owing to differences in outcomes reported, study design and limited study numbers. Similar to studies in tocilizumab, participant criteria were inconsistent but typically included patients with respiratory failure and signs of hyperinflammation. Doses of therapeutic agents ranged from 200-600mg daily for anakinra, and 200-400mg daily for sarilumab. In all studies, patients received concomitant medications including but not limited to antivirals, hydroxychloroquine and corticosteroids. Meta-analysis inclusive of all immunomodulatory agents without sub analysis are presented in Supplementary Figures 5-8.
Anakinra
Two prospective studies and three retrospective case-control exploring outcomes in 139 patients who received anakinra and 1575 controls were retrieved. Two case-control studies reported ordinal outcome data for both anakinra and control participants. Anakinra was associated with improved clinical outcomes on day 15 in a study of 22 patients (GenOR 4.00 95%CI 2.39;6.89)(22), and in another study of 45 patients on day 21 (GenOR 1.50 95%CI 1.20;1.88)(23). In the only study reporting adjusted HRs, treatment in 37 patients was not associated with a mortality benefit (aHR 0.40 95%CI 0.13;1.28)(24). In a further study reporting unadjusted HRs, anakinra administered to 52 patients was associated with a reduced risk of death (HR 0.30; 95%CI 0.12-0.71)(25). Across the remaining three studies(22, 23, 26), there was a combined case fatality rate (CFR) of 6% (3/50) in participants who received anakinra, compared with 30.8% (8/26) in two studies reporting mortality outcomes from controls(22, 23). No studies compared the duration of hospitalisation between recipients and non-recipients of anakinra.
Sarilumab
Four prospective studies of sarilumab with a total sample size of 372 participants were included. In the only study reporting ordinal outcomes and duration of hospitalisation(27), sarilumab was not associated with improved outcomes when measured on day 28 (GenOR 1.07 95%CI 0.90;1.27), whilst the duration of hospitalisation was comparable amongst treated and non-treated patients (mean difference 0.02; 95%CI −0.51;0.54). All studies reported mortality outcomes, including one study reporting the adjusted HR. When sarilumab was given to 28 patients no effect on mortality was observed (aHR 0.36 95%CI 0.08;1.68)(27). The combined CFR across the three remaining studies was 9.8% (31/316)(28-30). No control mortality data was available.
Siltuximab
A single prospective cohort study of siltuximab studying outcomes in 60 patients was identified(31). Neither ordinal outcome data nor duration of hospitalisation were reported, but the adjusted risk of mortality was significantly lower in patients who received siltuximab (aHR 0.46 95%CI 0.22;0.97).
Treatment related adverse events
Many studies did not report treatment related adverse events, but where described (41% of studies), adverse events typically included secondary bacterial infections and derangement of liver enzymes (Table 3). In studies with a comparator arm exploring outcomes from patients who received anakinra or sarilumab, the frequency of treatment related adverse events was similar in both treatment and comparator groups. Findings from studies reporting outcomes following tocilizumab administration were inconsistent. In four studies (21%), tocilizumab recipients had an increased prevalence of secondary infections compared with controls. However, in twelve studies (63%), tocilizumab was associated with a lower or similar rate of secondary infections when compared with controls.
Clinical trials
Sixty-one planned or in-process clinical trials (tocilizumab, 43; siltuximab, 4; sarilumab, 8; anakinra, 13) were identified through clinical registry searches, with some clinical trials exploring more than one immunomodulatory agent. Currently registered clinical trials and their estimated dates of completion are provided in the supplementary appendix.
DISCUSSION
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we summarise and examine the association between immunomodulatory agents and multiple outcomes in Covid-19. Although there was substantial heterogeneity across tocilizumab studies exploring outcomes on an adapted four-point ordinal scale, a beneficial effect of tocilizumab compared with controls was suggested in retrospective studies, and whilst prospective studies followed a similar direction of association, findings were not conclusive. The certainty of the findings related to the adapted ordinal severity scale are assessed as moderate using GRADE(32). The mean duration of hospitalisation was not altered by intervention, with low certainty of findings. When mortality was examined specifically, a survival benefit with tocilizumab was noted in retrospective studies, although high heterogeneity was demonstrated. Amongst prospective studies, there was less heterogeneity, and although a clear association was not observed, the estimates were inconclusive with wide confidence intervals, suggesting larger sample sizes are needed to better inform this question. Consequently, we assess the certainty of our findings related to overall mortality as moderate.
Due to heterogeneity in study designs and reported outcomes, there was insufficient data for quantitative analysis in non-tocilizumab studies. Anakinra, in two small case-control studies was associated with improved ordinal outcomes. However, in the only study reporting adjusted HRs, no mortality benefit with anakinra was reported. In unadjusted analyses, when mortality was pooled across studies, recipients of anakinra had a CFR of 6% compared with 30.8% in controls where reported. Sarilumab in four observational studies was not associated with improved ordinal outcomes, shortened duration of hospitalisation, or improved mortality. Only one study reporting siltuximab was identified, and neither ordinal outcome data nor hospitalisation were reported, but mortality was significant lower in patients who received intervention. For all included agents, no specific adverse events were consistently reported across the studies. No suitable studies in SARS or MERS were found. Sixty-one registered clinical trials exploring immunomodulatory agents in Covid-19 were identified, of which some have completed and been published.
In this review we highlight multiple limitations and considerable sources of inter-study heterogeneity. The majority of included studies were non-randomised cohorts of relatively modest size. Although most studies necessitated respiratory failure requiring at least basic respiratory support, participant criteria were not entirely consistent across the studies. The dosage and delivery of therapy varied across many of the non-randomised studies, and in nearly all studies patients were on concomitant medications such as antivirals, hydroxychloroquine and steroids with administration at the discretion of the treating physician, precluding causal associations of specific interleukin inhibitors with outcomes. Study outcomes were heterogeneous and a combination of clinical, laboratory and radiological outcomes were reported, rather than a single consistent endpoint. Furthermore, there was inconsistency in the duration of follow up and timing of reported outcomes. Individual patient data (IPD) may have mitigated some of these limitations, but in a rapidly progressing area, seeking IPD was deemed to be unrealistic due to the associated delays. Lastly, there was significant statistical heterogeneity as measured by the I2, and therefore the findings of our meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution. We were unable to explain all the residual heterogeneity using the factors we assessed, although concomitant steroid use, route of drug administration and day of outcome measure appeared to contribute within specific outcomes.
To maximise value and timeliness of our review of four specific immunomodulators, two primary endpoints and a number of secondary endpoints, we included both retrospective and preprint studies. Risk of bias was minimised by restricting analysis of non-prospective studies to those with a control group, and caution is used to present summaries separately. We did not detect any heterogeneity owing to inclusion of non-peer reviewed studies, and no significant publication bias was observed in the reporting of effects. Where there was insufficient data for meta-analysis, summary outcomes were presented with qualitative synthesis to ensure the review was comprehensive. The data presented here represent findings from different countries, offering diversity in ethnic background.
In conclusion, this systematic review provides the most up-to-date and complete evidence for a range of specific immunomodulatory therapies in the management of Covid-19. We demonstrate through quantitative synthesis of retrospective studies in tocilizumab that intervention was frequently associated with improved outcomes yet there was no difference in the duration of hospitalisation or all-cause mortality. However, data were highly heterogeneous and must be interpreted with caution. In contrast, prospective studies showed potential association with inconclusive estimates, indicating further prospective studies are required. This review further establishes evidence that the efficacy of anakinra, siltuximab or sarilumab in Covid-19 is currently insufficient and adequately powered high-quality randomised clinical studies are urgently needed.
Data Availability
Not applicable
Funding
FK/LF/IS/AS are supported by the Nottingham National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre. RGJ is supported by an NIHR Research Professorship (RP-2017-08-ST2-014).
Footnotes
Since the original submission the literature in this area has progressed significantly, with a large number of newly published studies. Therefore, we have carried out updated searches and comprehensively undertaken the review to reflect this update, with meta-analysis now possible and a number of recent RCTs included.
References
