Azathioprine for people with multiple sclerosis.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an immune-mediated, chronic, inflammatory demyelinating disease of the central nervous system, impacting around 2.8 million people worldwide. Characterised by recurrent relapses or progression, or both, it represents a substantial global health burden, affecting people, predominantly women, at a young age (the mean age of diagnosis is 32 years). Azathioprine is used to treat chronic inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, and it is used in clinical practice as an off-label intervention for MS, especially where access to on-label disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for MS is limited. Given this, a review of azathioprine's benefits and harms would be timely and valuable to inform shared healthcare decisions. To evaluate the benefits and harms of azathioprine (AZA) for relapsing and progressive multiple sclerosis (MS), compared to other disease-modifying treatments (DMTs), placebo or no treatment. Specifically, we will assess the following comparisons. AZA compared with other DMTs or placebo as first-choice treatment for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis AZA compared with other DMTs or placebo for relapsing forms of MS when switching from another DMT AZA compared with other DMTs or placebo as first-choice treatment for progressive forms of MS AZA compared with other DMTs or placebo for progressive forms of MS when switching from another DMT SEARCH METHODS: We conducted an extensive search for relevant literature using standard Cochrane search methods. The most recent search date was 9 August 2023. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) lasting 12 months or more that compared azathioprine versus DMTs, placebo or no intervention in adults with MS. We considered evidence from non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) as these studies may provide additional evidence not available from RCTS. We excluded cluster-randomised trials, cross-over trials, interrupted time series, case reports and studies of within-group design with no control group. We followed standard Cochrane methodology. There were three outcomes we considered to be critical: disability, relapse and serious adverse events (SAEs, as defined in the studies). We were also interested in other important outcomes: quality-of-life (QoL) impairment (mental score), short-term adverse events (gastrointestinal disorders), long-term adverse events (neoplasms) and mortality. We included 14 studies: eight RCTs (1076 participants included in meta-analyses) and six NRSIs (1029 participants). These studies involved people with relapsing and progressive MS. Most studies included more women (57 to 83%) than men, with participants' average age at the onset of MS being between 29.4 and 33.4 years. Five RCTs and all six NRSIs were conducted in Europe (1793 participants); two RCTs were conducted in the USA (126 participants) and one in Iran (94 participants). The RCTs lasted two to three years, while NRSIs looked back up to 10 years. Four studies received some funding or support from commercial interests and five were funded by government or philanthropy; the other five provided no information about funding. There are three ongoing studies. Comparison groups included other DMTs (interferon beta and cyclosporine A), placebo or no treatment. Below, we report on azathioprine as a 'first choice' treatment compared to interferon beta for people with relapsing MS. None of the studies reported on any critical or important outcome for this comparison for progressive MS. No study was retrieved comparing azathioprine to placebo or other DMTs for either relapsing or progressive MS. Furthermore, the NRSIs did not provide information not already covered in the RCTs. Azathioprine as a first-choice treatment compared to other DMTs (specifically, interferon beta) for relapsing MS - The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of azathioprine on the number of people with disability progression over two years compared to interferon beta (risk ratio (RR) 0.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.58; 1 RCT, 148 participants; very low certainty evidence). - Azathioprine may decrease the number of people with relapses over a one- to two-year follow-up compared to interferon beta (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.86; 2 RCTs, 242 participants; low-certainty evidence). - Azathioprine may result in a possible increase in the number of people with SAEs over two years in comparison with interferon beta (RR 6.64, 95% CI 0.35 to 126.27; 1 RCT, 148 participants; low-certainty evidence). - The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of azathioprine on the number of people with the short-term adverse event of gastrointestinal disorders over two years compared to interferon beta (RR 5.30, 95% CI 0.15 to 185.57; 2 RCTs, 242 participants; very low certainty evidence). We found no evidence comparing azathioprine to other DMTs for QoL impairment (mental score), long-term adverse events (neoplasms) or mortality. Azathioprine has been proposed as an alternative treatment for MS when access to approved, on-label DMTs is limited, especially in resource-limited settings. The limited evidence available suggests that azathioprine may result in a modest benefit in terms of relapse frequency, with a possible increase in SAEs, when compared to interferon beta-1b, for people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. The evidence for the effect on disability progression and short-term adverse events is very uncertain. Caution is required in interpreting the conclusions of this review since our certainty in the available evidence on the benefits and harms of azathioprine in multiple sclerosis is low to very low, implying that further evidence is likely to change our conclusions. An important limitation we noted in the available evidence is the lack of long-term comparison with other treatments and the failure of most studies to measure outcomes that are important to people with multiple sclerosis, such as quality of life and cognitive decline. This is especially the case in the evidence relevant to people with progressive forms of multiple sclerosis.

Ridley B ，Nonino F ，Baldin E ，Casetta I ，Iuliano G ，Filippini G ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis.

Different therapeutic strategies are available for the treatment of people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), including immunomodulators, immunosuppressants and biological agents. Although each one of these therapies reduces relapse frequency and slows disability accumulation compared to no treatment, their relative benefit remains unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2015. To compare the efficacy and safety, through network meta-analysis, of interferon beta-1b, interferon beta-1a, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, alemtuzumab, pegylated interferon beta-1a, daclizumab, laquinimod, azathioprine, immunoglobulins, cladribine, cyclophosphamide, diroximel fumarate, fludarabine, interferon beta 1-a and beta 1-b, leflunomide, methotrexate, minocycline, mycophenolate mofetil, ofatumumab, ozanimod, ponesimod, rituximab, siponimod and steroids for the treatment of people with RRMS. CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers were searched on 21 September 2021 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. A top-up search was conducted on 8 August 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that studied one or more of the available immunomodulators and immunosuppressants as monotherapy in comparison to placebo or to another active agent, in adults with RRMS. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We considered both direct and indirect evidence and performed data synthesis by pairwise and network meta-analysis. Certainty of the evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach. We included 50 studies involving 36,541 participants (68.6% female and 31.4% male). Median treatment duration was 24 months, and 25 (50%) studies were placebo-controlled. Considering the risk of bias, the most frequent concern was related to the role of the sponsor in the authorship of the study report or in data management and analysis, for which we judged 68% of the studies were at high risk of other bias. The other frequent concerns were performance bias (34% judged as having high risk) and attrition bias (32% judged as having high risk). Placebo was used as the common comparator for network analysis. Relapses over 12 months: data were provided in 18 studies (9310 participants). Natalizumab results in a large reduction of people with relapses at 12 months (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.63; high-certainty evidence). Fingolimod (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.57; moderate-certainty evidence), daclizumab (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73; moderate-certainty evidence), and immunoglobulins (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.79; moderate-certainty evidence) probably result in a large reduction of people with relapses at 12 months. Relapses over 24 months: data were reported in 28 studies (19,869 participants). Cladribine (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.64; high-certainty evidence), alemtuzumab (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.68; high-certainty evidence) and natalizumab (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65; high-certainty evidence) result in a large decrease of people with relapses at 24 months. Fingolimod (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.60; moderate-certainty evidence), dimethyl fumarate (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.70; moderate-certainty evidence), and ponesimod (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.70; moderate-certainty evidence) probably result in a large decrease of people with relapses at 24 months. Glatiramer acetate (RR 0.84, 95%, CI 0.76 to 0.93; moderate-certainty evidence) and interferon beta-1a (Avonex, Rebif) (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91; moderate-certainty evidence) probably moderately decrease people with relapses at 24 months. Relapses over 36 months findings were available from five studies (3087 participants). None of the treatments assessed showed moderate- or high-certainty evidence compared to placebo. Disability worsening over 24 months was assessed in 31 studies (24,303 participants). Natalizumab probably results in a large reduction of disability worsening (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.75; moderate-certainty evidence) at 24 months. Disability worsening over 36 months was assessed in three studies (2684 participants) but none of the studies used placebo as the comparator. Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events data were available from 43 studies (35,410 participants). Alemtuzumab probably results in a slight reduction of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.79; moderate-certainty evidence). Daclizumab (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.40 to 4.63; moderate-certainty evidence), fingolimod (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.57; moderate-certainty evidence), teriflunomide (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.79; moderate-certainty evidence), interferon beta-1a (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.20; moderate-certainty evidence), laquinimod (OR 1.49, 95 % CI 1.00 to 2.15; moderate-certainty evidence), natalizumab (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.05), and glatiramer acetate (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.14; moderate-certainty evidence) probably result in a slight increase in the number of people who discontinue treatment due to adverse events. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in 35 studies (33,998 participants). There was probably a trivial reduction in SAEs amongst people with RRMS treated with interferon beta-1b as compared to placebo (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.54; moderate-certainty evidence). We are highly confident that, compared to placebo, two-year treatment with natalizumab, cladribine, or alemtuzumab decreases relapses more than with other DMTs. We are moderately confident that a two-year treatment with natalizumab may slow disability progression. Compared to those on placebo, people with RRMS treated with most of the assessed DMTs showed a higher frequency of treatment discontinuation due to AEs: we are moderately confident that this could happen with fingolimod, teriflunomide, interferon beta-1a, laquinimod, natalizumab and daclizumab, while our certainty with other DMTs is lower. We are also moderately certain that treatment with alemtuzumab is associated with fewer discontinuations due to adverse events than placebo, and moderately certain that interferon beta-1b probably results in a slight reduction in people who experience serious adverse events, but our certainty with regard to other DMTs is lower. Insufficient evidence is available to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DMTs in a longer term than two years, and this is a relevant issue for a chronic condition like MS that develops over decades. More than half of the included studies were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and this may have influenced their results. Further studies should focus on direct comparison between active agents, with follow-up of at least three years, and assess other patient-relevant outcomes, such as quality of life and cognitive status, with particular focus on the impact of sex/gender on treatment effects.

Gonzalez-Lorenzo M ，Ridley B ，Minozzi S ，Del Giovane C ，Peryer G ，Piggott T ，Foschi M ，Filippini G ，Tramacere I ，Baldin E ，Nonino F ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Adverse effects of immunotherapies for multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disease of the central nervous system that affects mainly young adults (two to three times more frequently in women than in men) and causes significant disability after onset. Although it is accepted that immunotherapies for people with MS decrease disease activity, uncertainty regarding their relative safety remains. To compare adverse effects of immunotherapies for people with MS or clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), and to rank these treatments according to their relative risks of adverse effects through network meta-analyses (NMAs). We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, two other databases and trials registers up to March 2022, together with reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies. We included participants 18 years of age or older with a diagnosis of MS or CIS, according to any accepted diagnostic criteria, who were included in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined one or more of the agents used in MS or CIS, and compared them versus placebo or another active agent. We excluded RCTs in which a drug regimen was compared with a different regimen of the same drug without another active agent or placebo as a control arm. We used standard Cochrane methods for data extraction and pairwise meta-analyses. For NMAs, we used the netmeta suite of commands in R to fit random-effects NMAs assuming a common between-study variance. We used the CINeMA platform to GRADE the certainty of the body of evidence in NMAs. We considered a relative risk (RR) of 1.5 as a non-inferiority safety threshold compared to placebo. We assessed the certainty of evidence for primary outcomes within the NMA according to GRADE, as very low, low, moderate or high. This NMA included 123 trials with 57,682 participants. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Reporting of SAEs was available from 84 studies including 5696 (11%) events in 51,833 (89.9%) participants out of 57,682 participants in all studies. Based on the absolute frequency of SAEs, our non-inferiority threshold (up to a 50% increased risk) meant that no more than 1 in 18 additional people would have a SAE compared to placebo. Low-certainty evidence suggested that three drugs may decrease SAEs compared to placebo (relative risk [RR], 95% confidence interval [CI]): interferon beta-1a (Avonex) (0.78, 0.66 to 0.94); dimethyl fumarate (0.79, 0.67 to 0.93), and glatiramer acetate (0.84, 0.72 to 0.98). Several drugs met our non-inferiority criterion versus placebo: moderate-certainty evidence for teriflunomide (1.08, 0.88 to 1.31); low-certainty evidence for ocrelizumab (0.85, 0.67 to 1.07), ozanimod (0.88, 0.59 to 1.33), interferon beta-1b (0.94, 0.78 to 1.12), interferon beta-1a (Rebif) (0.96, 0.80 to 1.15), natalizumab (0.97, 0.79 to 1.19), fingolimod (1.05, 0.92 to 1.20) and laquinimod (1.06, 0.83 to 1.34); very low-certainty evidence for daclizumab (0.83, 0.68 to 1.02). Non-inferiority with placebo was not met due to imprecision for the other drugs: low-certainty evidence for cladribine (1.10, 0.79 to 1.52), siponimod (1.20, 0.95 to 1.51), ofatumumab (1.26, 0.88 to 1.79) and rituximab (1.01, 0.67 to 1.52); very low-certainty evidence for immunoglobulins (1.05, 0.33 to 3.32), diroximel fumarate (1.05, 0.23 to 4.69), peg-interferon beta-1a (1.07, 0.66 to 1.74), alemtuzumab (1.16, 0.85 to 1.60), interferons (1.62, 0.21 to 12.72) and azathioprine (3.62, 0.76 to 17.19). Withdrawals due to adverse events Reporting of withdrawals due to AEs was available from 105 studies (85.4%) including 3537 (6.39%) events in 55,320 (95.9%) patients out of 57,682 patients in all studies. Based on the absolute frequency of withdrawals, our non-inferiority threshold (up to a 50% increased risk) meant that no more than 1 in 31 additional people would withdraw compared to placebo. No drug reduced withdrawals due to adverse events when compared with placebo. There was very low-certainty evidence (meaning that estimates are not reliable) that two drugs met our non-inferiority criterion versus placebo, assuming an upper 95% CI RR limit of 1.5: diroximel fumarate (0.38, 0.11 to 1.27) and alemtuzumab (0.63, 0.33 to 1.19). Non-inferiority with placebo was not met due to imprecision for the following drugs: low-certainty evidence for ofatumumab (1.50, 0.87 to 2.59); very low-certainty evidence for methotrexate (0.94, 0.02 to 46.70), corticosteroids (1.05, 0.16 to 7.14), ozanimod (1.06, 0.58 to 1.93), natalizumab (1.20, 0.77 to 1.85), ocrelizumab (1.32, 0.81 to 2.14), dimethyl fumarate (1.34, 0.96 to 1.86), siponimod (1.63, 0.96 to 2.79), rituximab (1.63, 0.53 to 5.00), cladribine (1.80, 0.89 to 3.62), mitoxantrone (2.11, 0.50 to 8.87), interferons (3.47, 0.95 to 12.72), and cyclophosphamide (3.86, 0.45 to 33.50). Eleven drugs may have increased withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo: low-certainty evidence for teriflunomide (1.37, 1.01 to 1.85), glatiramer acetate (1.76, 1.36 to 2.26), fingolimod (1.79, 1.40 to 2.28), interferon beta-1a (Rebif) (2.15, 1.58 to 2.93), daclizumab (2.19, 1.31 to 3.65) and interferon beta-1b (2.59, 1.87 to 3.77); very low-certainty evidence for laquinimod (1.42, 1.01 to 2.00), interferon beta-1a (Avonex) (1.54, 1.13 to 2.10), immunoglobulins (1.87, 1.01 to 3.45), peg-interferon beta-1a (3.46, 1.44 to 8.33) and azathioprine (6.95, 2.57 to 18.78); however, very low-certainty evidence is unreliable. Sensitivity analyses including only studies with low attrition bias, drug dose above the group median, or only patients with relapsing remitting MS or CIS, and subgroup analyses by prior disease-modifying treatments did not change these figures. Rankings No drug yielded consistent P scores in the upper quartile of the probability of being better than others for primary and secondary outcomes. We found mostly low and very low-certainty evidence that drugs used to treat MS may not increase SAEs, but may increase withdrawals compared with placebo. The results suggest that there is no important difference in the occurrence of SAEs between first- and second-line drugs and between oral, injectable, or infused drugs, compared with placebo. Our review, along with other work in the literature, confirms poor-quality reporting of adverse events from RCTs of interventions. At the least, future studies should follow the CONSORT recommendations about reporting harm-related issues. To address adverse effects, future systematic reviews should also include non-randomized studies.

Tramacere I ，Virgili G ，Perduca V ，Lucenteforte E ，Benedetti MD ，Capobussi M ，Castellini G ，Frau S ，Gonzalez-Lorenzo M ，Featherstone R ，Filippini G ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis.

Filippini G ，Del Giovane C ，Vacchi L ，D'Amico R ，Di Pietrantonj C ，Beecher D ，Salanti G ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

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》