Interleukin-1 blocking agents for treating COVID-19

Anakinra authorized to treat severe coronavirus disease 2019; Sepsis breakthrough or time to reflect?

Introduction

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced conditions for using recombinant human interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (rhIL-1ra) to treat hospitalized patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and risk for progression. These decisions followed publication of the suPAR-guided Anakinra treatment for Validation of the risk and early Management OF seveRE respiratory failure by COVID-19 (SAVE- MORE) phase 3 clinical trial that yielded positive results.

Methods

We conducted a literature review and theoretical analysis of IL-1 blockade as a therapy to treat COVID-19. Using a stepwise analysis, we assessed clinical applicability of the SAVE-MORE results and evaluated conceptual support for interleukin-1 suppression as a suitable approach to COVID-19 treatment. This therapeutic approach was then examined as an example of inflammation-suppressing measures used to treat sepsis.

Results

Anakinra use as a COVID-19 therapy seems to rely on a view of pathogenesis that incorrectly reflects human disease. Since COVID-19 is an example of sepsis, COVID-19 benefit due to anti-inflammatory therapy contradicts an extensive history of unsuccessful clinical study. Repurposing rhIL-1ra to treat COVID-19 appears to exemplify a cycle followed by inflammation-suppressing sepsis treatments. A landscape of treatment failures is interrupted by a successful clinical trial. However, subsequent confirmatory study fails to replicate the positive data.

Discussion

We suggest further experimentation is not a promising pathway to discover game-changing sepsis therapies. A different kind of approach may be necessary.

COVID-19: An Update on Epidemiology, Prevention and Treatment, September-2023

After a downward trend for more than 12 months, the incidence of COVID-19 has increased in the last months. Although COVID-19 is not as frequent as in the first years of the pandemic, case numbers are still very high, and it causes a significant number of deaths. COVID-19 is not seen with a predictable frequency, at least two times more deadly than the flu, continues as an epidemic, and has not reached the endemic level yet. Currently, the Omicron strains EG.5 and XBB.1.16 are dominant worldwide. Although BA.2.86 and FLip variants, including FL.1.5.1 are not widespread at the moment, both were shown to be highly immune-evasive and require close monitoring. Prevention of COVID-19 relies on vaccinations, surveillance, proper ventilation of enclosed spaces, isolation of patients, and mask usage. Currently, monovalent COVID-19 vaccines, including XBB.1.5 Omicron SARS-CoV-2, are recommended for both primary and booster vaccinations against COVID-19. Monovalent vaccines, including only original SARS-CoV-2 strain, and bivalent vaccines, including original virus plus BA4/5 variant, are no longer recommended against COVID-19. Booster vaccination with XBB.1.5 containing vaccine should be prioritized for patients at high risk for severe COVID-19. Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination does not seem to be effective in preventing COVID-19. At the current phase of the pandemic, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, remdesivir, molnupiravir, sotrovimab (for patients from XBB.1.5 variant dominant settings), and convalescent plasma can be considered for the treatment of high-risk early-stage outpatients with COVID-19, while hospitalized patients with more severe disease can be treated with dexamethasone, anti cytokines including tocilizumab, sarilumab, baricitinib, and tofacitinib and antithrombotic agents including enoxaparin. Remdesivir oral analogues and ensitrelvir fumarate are promising agents for treating acute COVID-19, which are in phase trials now; however, ivermectin, fluvoxamine, and metformin were shown to be ineffective.

Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of living systematic reviews (LSRs) on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while the secondary objective is to investigate potential factors that may influence the overall quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

METHODS

Six representative databases, including Medline, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science, Technology Journal Database (VIP) were systematically searched for COVID-19 LSRs. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and then assessed the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs using the "A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2" (AMSTAR-2) tool and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) 2020 statement, respectively. Univariate linear regression and multivariate linear regression were used to explore eight potential factors that might affect the methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

RESULTS

A total of 64 COVID-19 LSRs were included. The AMSTAR-2 evaluation results revealed that the number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 13 ± 2.68 (mean ± standard deviation). Among them, 21.9% COVID-19 LSRs were rated as "high", 4.7% as "moderate", 23.4% as "low", and 50% as "critically low". The evaluation results of the PRISMA 2020 statement showed that the sections with poor adherence were methods, results and other information. The number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 21 ± 4.18 (mean ± standard deviation). The number of included studies and registration are associated with better methodological quality; the number of included studies and funding are associated with better reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement is needed in the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Researchers conducting COVID-19 LSRs should take note of the quality-related factors identified in this study to generate evidence-based evidence of higher quality.

Alpha-1-antitrypsin antagonizes COVID-19: a review of the epidemiology, molecular mechanisms, and clinical evidence

Alpha-1-antitrypsin (AAT), a serine protease inhibitor (serpin), is increasingly recognized to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection and counter many of the pathogenic mechanisms of COVID-19. Herein, we reviewed the epidemiologic evidence, the molecular mechanisms, and the clinical evidence that support this paradigm. As background to our discussion, we first examined the basic mechanism of SARS-CoV-2 infection and contend that despite the availability of vaccines and anti-viral agents, COVID-19 remains problematic due to viral evolution. We next underscored that measures to prevent severe COVID-19 currently exists but teeters on a balance and that current treatment for severe COVID-19 remains grossly suboptimal. We then reviewed the epidemiologic and clinical evidence that AAT deficiency increases risk of COVID-19 infection and of more severe disease, and the experimental evidence that AAT inhibits cell surface transmembrane protease 2 (TMPRSS2) - a host serine protease required for SARS-CoV-2 entry into cells - and that this inhibition may be augmented by heparin. We also elaborated on the panoply of other activities of AAT (and heparin) that could mitigate severity of COVID-19. Finally, we evaluated the available clinical evidence for AAT treatment of COVID-19.

Tocilizumab versus anakinra in COVID-19: results from propensity score matching

Background

Tocilizumab and anakinra are anti-interleukin drugs to treat severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) refractory to corticosteroids. However, no studies compared the efficacy of tocilizumab versus anakinra to guide the choice of the therapy in clinical practice. We aimed to compare the outcomes of COVID-19 patients treated with tocilizumab or anakinra.

Methods

Our retrospective study was conducted in three French university hospitals between February 2021 and February 2022 and included all the consecutive hospitalized patients with a laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection assessed by RT-PCR who were treated with tocilizumab or anakinra. A propensity score matching was performed to minimize confounding effects due to the non-random allocation.

Results

Among 235 patients (mean age, 72 years; 60.9% of male patients), the 28-day mortality (29.4% vs. 31.2%, p = 0.76), the in-hospital mortality (31.7% vs. 33.0%, p = 0.83), the high-flow oxygen requirement (17.5% vs. 18.3%, p = 0.86), the intensive care unit admission rate (30.8% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.30), and the mechanical ventilation rate (15.4% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.50) were similar in patients receiving tocilizumab and those receiving anakinra. After propensity score matching, the 28-day mortality (29.1% vs. 30.4%, p = 1) and the rate of high-flow oxygen requirement (10.1% vs. 21.5%, p = 0.081) did not differ between patients receiving tocilizumab or anakinra. Secondary infection rates were similar between the tocilizumab and anakinra groups (6.3% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.44).

Conclusion

Our study showed comparable efficacy and safety profiles of tocilizumab and anakinra to treat severe COVID-19.

Anakinra for the treatment of COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

At the end of 2021, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) expanded its approval for the recombinant human interleukin-1 (IL-1) receptor antagonist Anakinra for the treatment of COVID-19 patients with elevated soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR). However, the role of Anakinra in COVID-19 remains unanswered, especially in patients receiving different forms of respiratory support. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review is to assess the safety and effects of Anakinra compared to placebo or standard care alone on clinical outcomes in adult hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCSR)) and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database to identify completed and ongoing studies from inception of each database to December 13, 2021. Since then, we monitored new published studies weekly up to June 30, 2022 using the CCSR. We included RCTs comparing treatment with Anakinra to placebo or standard care alone in adult hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

RESULTS

We included five RCTs with 1,627 patients (n_Anakinra = 888, n_control = 739, mean age 59.63 years, 64% male). Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool data. We found that Anakinra makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 compared to placebo or standard care alone (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.64-1.45; RD 9 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 84 fewer to 104 more; 4 studies, 1593 participants; I² = 49%; low certainty of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

Anakinra has no effect on adult hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection regarding mortality, clinical improvement and worsening as well as on safety outcomes compared to placebo or standard care alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42021257552.

metaCOVID: A web-application for living meta-analyses of COVID-19 trials

Outputs from living evidence syntheses projects have been used widely during the pandemic by guideline developers to form evidence-based recommendations. However, the needs of different stakeholders cannot be accommodated by solely providing pre-defined non amendable numerical summaries. Stakeholders also need to understand the data and perform their own exploratory analyses. This requires resources, time, statistical expertise, software knowledge as well as relevant clinical expertise to avoid spurious conclusions. To assist them, we created the metaCOVID application which, based on automation processes, facilitates the fast exploration of the data and the conduct of sub-analyses tailored to end-users needs. metaCOVID has been created in R and is freely available as an R-Shiny application. Based on the COVID-NMA platform (https://covid-nma.com/) the application conducts living meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials related to COVID-19 treatments and vaccines for several outcomes. Several options are available for subgroup and sensitivity analyses. The results are presented in downloadable forest plots. We illustrate metaCOVID through three examples involving well-known treatments and vaccines for COVID-19. The application is freely available from https://covid-nma.com/metacovid/.

Evaluation of anakinra in the management of patients with COVID-19 infection: A randomized clinical trial

Background

The global COVID-19 pandemic led to substantial clinical and economic outcomes with catastrophic consequences. While the majority of cases has mild to moderate disease, minority of patients progress into severe disease secondary to the stimulation of the immune response. The hyperinflammatory state contributes towards progression into multi-organ failure which necessitates suppressive therapy with variable outcomes. This study aims to explore the safety and efficacy of anakinra in COVID-19 patients with severe disease leading to cytokine release syndromes.

Methods

In this open-label, multi-center, randomized clinical trial, patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection with evidence of respiratory distress and signs of cytokine release syndrome were randomized in 1:1 ratio to receive either standard of care (SOC) or anakinra (100 mg subcutaneously every 12 h for 3 days then 100 mg subcutaneously once daily for 4 days) in addition to SOC. The primary outcome was treatment success at day 14 as defined by the WHO clinical progression score of ≤3. Primary analysis was based upon intention-to-treat population, with value of p of <0.05.

Results

Out 327 patients screened for eligibility, 80 patients were recruited for the study. The mean age was 49.9 years (SD = 11.7), with male predominance at 82.5% (n = 66). The primary outcome was not statistically different (87.5% (n = 35) in anakinra group vs. 92.5% (n = 37) in SOC group, p = 0.712; OR = 1.762 (95%CI: 0.39-7.93). The majority of reported adverse events were mild in severity and not related to the study treatment. Elevated aspartate aminotransferase was the only significant adverse event which was not associated with discontinuation of therapy.

Conclusion

In patients with severe COVID-19 infection, the addition of anakinra to SOC treatment was safe but was not associated with significant improvement according to the WHO clinical progression scale. Further studies are warranted to explore patients' subgroups characteristics that might benefit from administered therapy.

Clinical Trial Registration

Trial registration at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04643678.

[Drug therapy interventions for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection: who, when, and what?]

There is a variety of drug therapy options for treatment of acute SARS-CoV-2 infections. The updated S3 guideline "Recommendations for inpatient therapy of patients with COVID-19" provides clear recommendations in this regard. Which therapy is best suited for which patient and in which phase of the disease must be decided individually based on risk factors, comorbidities and contraindications. This article provides an overview.

Cytokine levels associated with favorable clinical outcome in the CAPSID randomized trial of convalescent plasma in patients with severe COVID-19

Objectives

To determine the profile of cytokines in patients with severe COVID-19 who were enrolled in a trial of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP).

Methods

Patients were randomized to receive standard treatment and 3 CCP units or standard treatment alone (CAPSID trial, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04433910). The primary outcome was a dichotomous composite outcome (survival and no longer severe COVID-19 on day 21). Time to clinical improvement was a key secondary endpoint. The concentrations of 27 cytokines were measured (baseline, day 7). We analyzed the change and the correlation between serum cytokine levels over time in different subgroups and the prediction of outcome in receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses and in multivariate models.

Results

The majority of cytokines showed significant changes from baseline to day 7. Some were strongly correlated amongst each other (at baseline the cluster IL-1ß, IL-2, IL-6, IL-8, G-CSF, MIP-1α, the cluster PDGF-BB, RANTES or the cluster IL-4, IL-17, Eotaxin, bFGF, TNF-α). The correlation matrix substantially changed from baseline to day 7. The heatmaps of the absolute values of the correlation matrix indicated an association of CCP treatment and clinical outcome with the cytokine pattern. Low levels of IP-10, IFN-γ, MCP-1 and IL-1ß on day 0 were predictive of treatment success in a ROC analysis. In multivariate models, low levels of IL-1ß, IFN-γ and MCP-1 on day 0 were significantly associated with both treatment success and shorter time to clinical improvement. Low levels of IP-10, IL-1RA, IL-6, MCP-1 and IFN-γ on day 7 and high levels of IL-9, PDGF and RANTES on day 7 were predictive of treatment success in ROC analyses. Low levels of IP-10, MCP-1 and high levels of RANTES, on day 7 were associated with both treatment success and shorter time to clinical improvement in multivariate models.

Conclusion

This analysis demonstrates a considerable dynamic of cytokines over time, which is influenced by both treatment and clinical course of COVID-19. Levels of IL-1ß and MCP-1 at baseline and MCP-1, IP-10 and RANTES on day 7 were associated with a favorable outcome across several endpoints. These cytokines should be included in future trials for further evaluation as predictive factors.

COVID-19 and its genomic variants: Molecular pathogenesis and therapeutic interventions

Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), caused by a β-coronavirus and its genomic variants, is associated with substantial morbidities and mortalities globally. The COVID-19 virus and its genomic variants enter host cells upon binding to the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 receptors that are expressed in a variety of tissues, but predominantly in the lungs, heart, and blood vessels. Patients afflicted with COVID-19 may be asymptomatic or present with critical symptoms possibly due to diverse lifestyles, immune responses, aging, and underlying medical conditions. Geriatric populations, especially men in comparison to women, with immunocompromised conditions, are most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 associated infections, complications, and mortalities. Notably, whereas immunomodulation, involving nutritional consumption, is essential to protecting an individual from COVID-19, immunosuppression is detrimental to a person with this aggressive disease. As such, immune health is inversely correlated to COVID-19 severity and resulting consequences. Advances in genomic and proteomic technologies have helped us to understand the molecular events underlying symptomatology, transmission and, pathogenesis of COVID-19 and its genomic variants. Accordingly, there has been development of a variety of therapeutic interventions, ranging from mask wearing to vaccination to medication. This review summarizes the current understanding of molecular pathogenesis of COVID-19, effects of comorbidities on COVID-19, and prospective therapeutic strategies for the prevention and treatment of this contagious disease.

Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19

Purpose

The systematic review aims to analyze and summarize the characteristics of living systematic review (LSR) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods

Six databases including Medline, Excerpta Medica (Embase), Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database and China Science, and Technology Journal Database (VIP), were searched as the source of basic information and methodology of LSR. Descriptive analytical methods were used to analyze the included COVID-19 LSRs, and the study characteristics of COVID-19 LSRs were further assessed.

Results

Sixty-four COVID-19 LSRs were included. Eighty-nine point one percent of LSRs were published on Science Citation Index (SCI) journals, and 64.1% publication with an impact factor (IF) >5 and 17.2% with an IF >15 among SCI journals. The first unit of the published LSRs for COVID-19 came from 19 countries, with the largest contribution from the UK (17.2%, 11/64). Forty point six percent of LSRs for COVID-19 were related to therapeutics topic which was considered the most concerned perspective for LSRs for COVID-19. Seventy-six point six percent of LSRs focused on the general population, with less attention to children, pregnant women and the elderly. However, the LSR for COVID-19 was reported incomplete on “living” process, including 40.6% of studies without search frequency, 79.7% of studies without screening frequency, 20.3% of studies without update frequency, and 65.6% of studies without the timing or criteria of transitioning LSR out of living mode.

Conclusion

Although researchers in many countries have applied LSRs to COVID-19, most of the LSRs for COVID-19 were incomplete in reporting on the “living” process and less focused on special populations. This could reduce the confidence of health-care providers and policy makers in the results of COVID-19 LSR, thereby hindering the translation of evidence on COVID-19 LSR into clinical practice. It was necessary to explicitly enact preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) to improve the reporting quality of LSR and support ongoing efforts of therapeutics research for special patients with COVID-19.