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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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).

Ghosn L ，Chaimani A ，Evrenoglou T ，Davidson M ，Graña C ，Schmucker C ，Bollig C ，Henschke N ，Sguassero Y ，Nejstgaard CH ，Menon S ，Nguyen TV ，Ferrand G ，Kapp P ，Riveros C ，Ávila C ，Devane D ，Meerpohl JJ ，Rada G ，Hróbjartsson A ，Grasselli G ，Tovey D ，Ravaud P ，Boutron I ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Treatment for women with postpartum iron deficiency anaemia.

Postpartum iron deficiency anaemia is caused by antenatal iron deficiency or excessive blood loss at delivery and might affect up to 50% of labouring women in low- and middle-income countries. Effective and safe treatment during early motherhood is important for maternal well-being and newborn care. Treatment options include oral iron supplementation, intravenous iron, erythropoietin, and red blood cell transfusion. To assess the benefits and harms of the available treatment modalities for women with postpartum iron deficiency anaemia. These include intravenous iron, oral iron supplementation, red blood cell transfusion, and erythropoietin. A Cochrane Information Specialist searched for all published, unpublished, and ongoing trials, without language or publication status restrictions. We searched databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify eligible studies. We applied date limits to retrieve new records since the last search on 9 April 2015 until 11 April 2024. We included published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatments for postpartum iron deficiency anaemia with placebo, no treatment, or alternative treatments. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. We included RCTs regardless of blinding. Participants were women with postpartum haemoglobin ≤ 12 g/dL, treated within six weeks after childbirth. We excluded non-randomised, quasi-randomised, and cross-over trials. The critical outcomes of this review were maternal mortality and fatigue. The important outcomes included persistent anaemia symptoms, persistent postpartum anaemia, psychological well-being, infections, compliance with treatment, breastfeeding, length of hospital stay, serious adverse events, anaphylaxis or evidence of hypersensitivity, flushing/Fishbane reaction, injection discomfort/reaction, constipation, gastrointestinal pain, number of red blood cell transfusions, and haemoglobin levels. We assessed risk of bias in the included studies using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. Two review authors independently performed study screening, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. We contacted trial authors for supplementary data when necessary. We screened all trials for trustworthiness and scientific integrity using the Cochrane Trustworthiness Screening Tool. We conducted meta-analyses using a fixed-effect model whenever feasible to synthesise outcomes. In cases where data were not suitable for meta-analysis, we provided a narrative summary of important findings. We evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We included 33 RCTs with a total of 4558 postpartum women. Most trials were at high risk of bias for several risk of bias domains. Most of the evidence was of low or very low certainty. Imprecision due to few events and risk of bias due to lack of blinding were the most important factors. Intravenous iron versus oral iron supplementation The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of intravenous iron on mortality (risk ratio (RR) 2.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 71.96; P = 0.51; I² = not applicable; 3 RCTs; 1 event; 572 women; very low-certainty evidence). One woman died of cardiomyopathy, and another developed arrhythmia, both in the groups treated with intravenous iron. Intravenous iron probably results in a slight reduction in fatigue within 8 to 28 days (standardised mean difference -0.25, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.07; P = 0.006; I² = 47%; 2 RCTs; 515 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Breastfeeding was not reported. Oral iron probably increases the risk of constipation compared to intravenous iron (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.21; P < 0.001; I² = 0%; 10 RCTs; 1798 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of intravenous iron on anaphylaxis or hypersensitivity (RR 2.77, 95% CI 0.31 to 24.86; P = 0.36; I² = 0%; 12 RCTs; 2195 women; very low-certainty evidence). Three women treated with intravenous iron experienced anaphylaxis or hypersensitivity. The trials that reported on haemoglobin at 8 to 28 days were too heterogeneous to pool. However, 5 of 6 RCTs favoured intravenous iron, with mean changes in haemoglobin ranging from 0.73 to 2.10 g/dL (low-certainty evidence). Red blood cell transfusion versus intravenous iron No women died in the only trial that reported on mortality (1 RCT; 7 women; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of red blood cell transfusion on fatigue at 8 to 28 days (mean difference (MD) 1.20, 95% CI -2.41 to 4.81; P = 0.51; I² = not applicable; 1 RCT; 13 women; very low-certainty evidence) and breastfeeding more than six weeks postpartum (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.57; P = 0.20; I² = not applicable; 1 RCT; 13 women; very low-certainty evidence). Constipation and anaphylaxis were not reported. Red blood cell transfusion may result in little to no difference in haemoglobin within 8 to 28 days (MD -1.00, 95% CI -2.02 to 0.02; P = 0.05; I² = not applicable; 1 RCT; 12 women; low-certainty evidence). Intravenous iron and oral iron supplementation versus oral iron supplementation Mortality and breastfeeding were not reported. One trial reported a greater improvement in fatigue in the intravenous and oral iron group, but the effect size could not be calculated (1 RCT; 128 women; very low-certainty evidence). Intravenous iron and oral iron may result in a reduction in constipation compared to oral iron alone (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.69; P = 0.01; I² = not applicable; 1 RCT; 128 women; low-certainty evidence). There were no anaphylaxis or hypersensitivity events in the trials (2 RCTs; 168 women; very low-certainty evidence). Intravenous iron and oral iron may result in little to no difference in haemoglobin (g/dL) at 8 to 28 days (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.48; P = 1.00; I² = not applicable; 1 RCT; 60 women; low-certainty evidence). Red blood cell transfusion versus no transfusion Mortality, fatigue at day 8 to 28, constipation, anaphylaxis, and haemoglobin were not reported. Red blood cell transfusion may result in little to no difference in breastfeeding more than six weeks postpartum (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.07; P = 0.24; I² = not applicable; 1 RCT; 297 women; low-certainty evidence). Oral iron supplementation versus placebo or no treatment Mortality, fatigue, breastfeeding, constipation, anaphylaxis, and haemoglobin were not reported. Two trials reported on gastrointestinal symptoms, but did not report results by study arm. Intravenous iron probably reduces fatigue slightly in the early postpartum weeks (8 to 28 days) compared to oral iron tablets, but probably results in little to no difference after four weeks. It is very uncertain if intravenous iron has an effect on mortality and anaphylaxis/hypersensitivity. Breastfeeding was not reported. Intravenous iron may increase haemoglobin slightly more than iron tablets, but the data were too heterogeneous to pool. However, changes in haemoglobin levels are a surrogate outcome, and treatment decisions should preferentially be based on patient-relevant outcomes. Iron tablets probably result in a large increase in constipation compared to intravenous iron. The effect of red blood cell transfusion compared to intravenous iron on mortality, fatigue, and breastfeeding is very uncertain. No studies reported on constipation or anaphylaxis/hypersensitivity. Red blood cell transfusion may result in little to no difference in haemoglobin at 8 to 28 days. The effect of intravenous iron and oral iron supplementation on mortality, fatigue, breastfeeding, and anaphylaxis/hypersensitivity is very uncertain or unreported. Intravenous iron and oral iron may result in a reduction in constipation compared to oral iron alone, and in little to no difference in haemoglobin. The effect of red blood cell transfusion compared to non-transfusion on mortality, fatigue, constipation, anaphylaxis/hypersensitivity, and haemoglobin is unreported. Red blood cell transfusion may result in little to no difference in breastfeeding. The effect of oral iron supplementation on mortality, fatigue, breastfeeding, constipation, anaphylaxis/hypersensitivity, and haemoglobin is unreported. This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. Protocol and previous versions are available: Protocol (2013) [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010861] Original review (2004) [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004222.pub2] Review update (2015) [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010861.pub2].

Jensen MCH ，Holm C ，Jørgensen KJ ，Schroll JB ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Tamoxifen for adults with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common type of liver cancer, accounting for 70% to 85% of individuals with primary liver cancer. Tamoxifen has been evaluated in randomised clinical trials in people with hepatocellular cancer. The reported results have been inconsistent. To evaluate the benefits and harms of tamoxifen or tamoxifen plus any other anticancer drugs compared with no intervention, placebo, any type of standard care, or alternative treatment in adults with hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of sex, administered dose, type of formulation, and duration of treatment. We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and major trials registries, and handsearched reference lists up to 26 March 2024. Parallel-group randomised clinical trials including adults (aged 18 years and above) diagnosed with advanced or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Had we found cross-over trials, we would have included only the first trial phase. We did not consider data from quasi-randomised trials for analysis. Our critical outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our important outcomes were disease progression, and adverse events considered non-serious. We assessed risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool. We used standard Cochrane methods and Review Manager. We meta-analysed the outcome data at the longest follow-up. We presented the results of dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous data as mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random-effects model. We summarised the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We included 10 trials that randomised 1715 participants with advanced, unresectable, or terminal stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Six were single-centre trials conducted in Hong Kong, Italy, and Spain, while three were conducted as multicentre trials in single countries (France, Italy, and Spain), and one trial was conducted in nine countries in the Asia-Pacific region (Australia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and Thailand). The experimental intervention was tamoxifen in all trials. The control interventions were no intervention (three trials), placebo (six trials), and symptomatic treatment (one trial). Co-interventions were best supportive care (three trials) and standard care (one trial). The remaining six trials did not provide this information. The number of participants in the trials ranged from 22 to 496 (median 99), mean age was 63.7 (standard deviation 4.18) years, and mean proportion of men was 74.7% (standard deviation 42%). Follow-up was three months to five years. Ten trials evaluated oral tamoxifen at five different dosages (ranging from 20 mg per day to 120 mg per day). All trials investigated one or more of our outcomes. We performed meta-analyses when at least two trials assessed similar types of tamoxifen versus similar control interventions. Eight trials evaluated all-cause mortality at varied follow-up points. Tamoxifen versus the control interventions (i.e. no treatment, placebo, and symptomatic treatment) results in little to no difference in mortality between one and five years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 8 trials, 1364 participants; low-certainty evidence). In total, 488/682 (71.5%) participants died in the tamoxifen groups versus 487/682 (71.4%) in the control groups. The separate analysis results for one, between two and three, and five years were comparable to the analysis result for all follow-up periods taken together. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tamoxifen versus no treatment on serious adverse events at one-year follow-up (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.06; 1 trial, 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A total of 5/20 (25.0%) participants in the tamoxifen group versus 9/16 (56.3%) participants in the control group experienced serious adverse events. One trial measured health-related quality of life at baseline and at nine months' follow-up, using the Spitzer Quality of Life Index. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tamoxifen versus no treatment on health-related quality of life (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.51; 1 trial, 420 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A second trial found no appreciable difference in global health-related quality of life scores. No further data were provided. Tamoxifen versus control interventions (i.e. no treatment, placebo, or symptomatic treatment) results in little to no difference in disease progression between one and five years' follow-up (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.14; 4 trials, 720 participants; low-certainty evidence). A total of 191/358 (53.3%) participants in the tamoxifen group versus 198/362 (54.7%) participants in the control group had progression of hepatocellular carcinoma. Tamoxifen versus control interventions (i.e. no treatment or placebo) may have little to no effect on adverse events considered non-serious during treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.06; 4 trials, 462 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A total of 10/265 (3.8%) participants in the tamoxifen group versus 6/197 (3.0%) participants in the control group had adverse events considered non-serious. We identified no trials with participants diagnosed with early stages of hepatocellular carcinoma. We identified no ongoing trials. Based on the low- and very low-certainty evidence, the effects of tamoxifen on all-cause mortality, disease progression, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, and adverse events considered non-serious in adults with advanced, unresectable, or terminal stage hepatocellular carcinoma when compared with no intervention, placebo, or symptomatic treatment could not be established. Our findings are mostly based on trials at high risk of bias with insufficient power (fewer than 100 participants), and a lack of trial data on clinically important outcomes. Therefore, firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Trials comparing tamoxifen administered with any other anticancer drug versus standard care, usual care, or alternative treatment as control interventions were lacking. Evidence on the benefits and harms of tamoxifen in participants at the early stages of hepatocellular carcinoma was also lacking. This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014869.

Naing C ，Ni H ，Aung HH 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices that produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke, healthcare providers, and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review. To examine the safety, tolerability, and effectiveness of using EC to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence, in comparison to non-nicotine EC, other smoking cessation treatments, and no treatment. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 February 2024 and the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register to 1 February 2023, reference-checked, and contacted study authors. We included trials randomizing people who smoke to an EC or control condition. We included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report an eligible outcome. We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. We used the risk of bias tool (RoB 1) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Critical outcomes were abstinence from smoking after at least six months, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Important outcomes were biomarkers, toxicants/carcinogens, and longer-term EC use. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in pairwise and network meta-analyses (NMA). We included 90 completed studies (two new to this update), representing 29,044 participants, of which 49 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the included studies, we rated 10 (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 61 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. Nicotine EC results in increased quit rates compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (high-certainty evidence) (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.93; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 2544 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6 more). The rate of occurrence of AEs is probably similar between groups (moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision)) (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2052 participants). SAEs were rare, and there is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differ between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.60; I2 = 32%; 6 studies, 2761 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nicotine EC probably results in increased quit rates compared to non-nicotine EC (moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision) (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96; I2 = 4%; 6 studies, 1613 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 7 more). There is probably little to no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (moderate-certainty evidence) (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 840 participants). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differ between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 1412 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates may be higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (low-certainty evidence due to issues with risk of bias) (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.32; I2 = 0%; 11 studies, 6819 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 3 to 5 more). There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs may be more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.27; I2 = 6%; low-certainty evidence; 6 studies, 2351 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.28; I2 = 0%; 12 studies, 4561 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Results from the NMA were consistent with those from pairwise meta-analyses for all critical outcomes. There was inconsistency in the AE network, which was explained by a single outlying study contributing the only direct evidence for one of the nodes. Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons; hence, evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing both clinically significant harm and benefit. There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care or no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain due to risk of bias inherent in the study design. Confidence intervals were, for the most part, wide for data on AEs, SAEs, and other safety markers, with no evidence for a difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT, but low-certainty evidence for increased AEs compared with behavioural support/no support. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but longer, larger studies are needed to fully evaluate EC safety. Our included studies tested regulated nicotine-containing EC; illicit products and/or products containing other active substances (e.g. tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)) may have different harm profiles. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Lindson N ，Butler AR ，McRobbie H ，Bullen C ，Hajek P ，Wu AD ，Begh R ，Theodoulou A ，Notley C ，Rigotti NA ，Turner T ，Livingstone-Banks J ，Morris T ，Hartmann-Boyce J ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir for preventing and treating COVID-19.

Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable. To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care (SoC) compared to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 or preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates. We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 15 May 2023. This is a LSR. We conduct update searches every two months and make them publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval. We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in postexposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from low-income countries and low- to middle-income countries, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds. As of 15 May 2023, we included two RCTs with 2510 participants with mild and mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo. All trial participants were without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at high risk for progression to severe disease. Randomization coincided with the Delta wave for outpatients and Omicron wave for inpatients. Outpatient trial participants and 73% of inpatients were unvaccinated. Symptom onset in outpatients was no more than five days before randomisation and prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 were not allowed. We excluded two studies due to concerns with research integrity. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Three studies are currently awaiting classification. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 in outpatient settings Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence) and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement of clinical status, quality of life, or viral clearance. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with moderate to severe COVID-19 in inpatient settings We are uncertain whether nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC reduces all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.86; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.58; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 14 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement or worsening of clinical status and quality of life. We did not include data for safety outcomes due to insufficient and inconsistent information. Subgroup analyses for equity For outpatients, the outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity regarding age (less than 65 years versus 65 years or greater) and ethnicity. There were no subgroup differences for age or ethnicity. For inpatients, the outcome 'all-cause mortality' was investigated for equity regarding age (65 years or less versus greater than 65 years). There was no difference between subgroups of age. No further equity-related subgroups were reported, and no subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available. Low-certainty evidence suggests nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death in high-risk, unvaccinated COVID-19 outpatients infected with the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence of the safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Very low-certainty evidence exists regarding the effects of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on all-cause mortality and viral clearance in mildly to moderately affected, mostly unvaccinated COVID-19 inpatients infected with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Insufficient and inconsistent information prevents the assessment of safety outcomes. No reliable differences in effect size and direction were found regarding equity aspects. There is no available evidence supporting the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are continually updating our search and making search results available on the OSF platform.

Reis S ，Metzendorf MI ，Kuehn R ，Popp M ，Gagyor I ，Kranke P ，Meybohm P ，Skoetz N ，Weibel S ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》