Decreased mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 patients treated with tocilizumab: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Background: We systematically reviewed the literature to answer the following research questions: (1) Does interleukin 6 (IL-6) (receptor) antagonist therapy reduce mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients compared to patients not treated with IL-6 (receptor) antagonists; and (2) is there an increased risk of side effects in COVID-19 patients treated with IL-6 (receptor) antagonists compared to patients not treated with IL-6 (receptor) antagonists?Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, PMC PubMed Central, Medline, World Health Organization COVID-19 Database, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, and Academic Search Premier (through 30 June 2020). Random effects meta-analysis was used to pool the risk ratios and risk differences of individual studies. Risk of bias was appraised using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) checklist.Results: The search strategy retrieved 743 unique titles, of which 10 studies (all on tocilizumab [TCZ]) comprising 1358 patients were included. Nine of 10 studies were considered to be of high quality. Meta-analysis showed that the TCZ group had lower mortality than the control group. The risk ratio was 0.27 (95% confidence interval [CI], .12-.59) and the risk difference was 12% (95% CI, 4.6%-20%) in favor of the TCZ group. With only a few studies available, there were no differences observed regarding side effects.Conclusions: Our results showed that mortality was 12% lower for COVID-19 patients treated with TCZ compared with those not treated with TCZ. The number needed to treat was 11, suggesting that for every 11 (severe) COVID-19 patients treated with TCZ, 1 death is prevented. These results require confirmation by randomized controlled trials.Orthopaedics, Trauma Surgery and Rehabilitatio

Tocilizumab in Coronavirus Disease 2019: Give It Time! Reply

Orthopaedics, Trauma Surgery and Rehabilitatio

The different risk of new-onset, chronic, worsening, and advanced heart failure:A systematic review and meta-regression analysis

Aims: Heart failure (HF) is a chronic and progressive syndrome associated with a poor prognosis. While it may seem intuitive that the risk of adverse outcomes varies across the different stages of HF, an overview of these risks is lacking. This study aims to determine the risk of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalizations associated with new-onset HF, chronic HF (CHF), worsening HF (WHF), and advanced HF. Methods and results: We performed a systematic review of observational studies from 2012 to 2022 using five different databases. The primary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality, as well as 1-year HF hospitalization. Studies were pooled using random effects meta-analysis, and mixed-effects meta-regression was used to compare the different HF groups. Among the 15 759 studies screened, 66 were included representing 862 046 HF patients. Pooled 30-day mortality rates did not reveal a significant distinction between hospital-admitted patients, with rates of 10.13% for new-onset HF and 8.11% for WHF (p = 0.10). However, the 1-year mortality risk differed and increased stepwise from CHF to advanced HF, with a rate of 8.47% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.24–9.89) for CHF, 21.15% (95% CI 17.78–24.95) for new-onset HF, 26.84% (95% CI 23.74–30.19) for WHF, and 29.74% (95% CI 24.15–36.10) for advanced HF. Readmission rates for HF at 1 year followed a similar trend. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis of observational studies confirms the different risk for adverse outcomes across the distinct HF stages. Moreover, it emphasizes the negative prognostic value of WHF as the first progressive stage from CHF towards advanced HF.</p

The different risk of new-onset, chronic, worsening, and advanced heart failure:A systematic review and meta-regression analysis

Aims: Heart failure (HF) is a chronic and progressive syndrome associated with a poor prognosis. While it may seem intuitive that the risk of adverse outcomes varies across the different stages of HF, an overview of these risks is lacking. This study aims to determine the risk of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalizations associated with new-onset HF, chronic HF (CHF), worsening HF (WHF), and advanced HF. Methods and results: We performed a systematic review of observational studies from 2012 to 2022 using five different databases. The primary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality, as well as 1-year HF hospitalization. Studies were pooled using random effects meta-analysis, and mixed-effects meta-regression was used to compare the different HF groups. Among the 15 759 studies screened, 66 were included representing 862 046 HF patients. Pooled 30-day mortality rates did not reveal a significant distinction between hospital-admitted patients, with rates of 10.13% for new-onset HF and 8.11% for WHF (p = 0.10). However, the 1-year mortality risk differed and increased stepwise from CHF to advanced HF, with a rate of 8.47% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.24–9.89) for CHF, 21.15% (95% CI 17.78–24.95) for new-onset HF, 26.84% (95% CI 23.74–30.19) for WHF, and 29.74% (95% CI 24.15–36.10) for advanced HF. Readmission rates for HF at 1 year followed a similar trend. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis of observational studies confirms the different risk for adverse outcomes across the distinct HF stages. Moreover, it emphasizes the negative prognostic value of WHF as the first progressive stage from CHF towards advanced HF.</p

Guideline implementation, drug sequencing, and quality of care in heart failure:design and rationale of TITRATE-HF

Aims: Current heart failure (HF) guidelines recommend to prescribe four drug classes in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). A clear challenge exists to adequately implement guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) regarding the sequencing of drugs and timely reaching target dose. It is largely unknown how the paradigm shift from a serial and sequential approach for drug therapy to early parallel application of the four drug classes will be executed in daily clinical practice, as well as the reason clinicians may not adhere to new guidelines. We present the design and rationale for the real-world TITRATE-HF study, which aims to assess sequencing strategies for GDMT initiation, dose titration patterns (order and speed), intolerance for GDMT, barriers for implementation, and long-term outcomes in patients with de novo, chronic, and worsening HF. Methods and results: A total of 4000 patients with HFrEF, HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction, and HF with improved ejection fraction will be enrolled in &gt;40 Dutch centres with a follow-up of at least 3 years. Data collection will include demographics, physical examination and vital parameters, electrocardiogram, laboratory measurements, echocardiogram, medication, and quality of life. Detailed information on titration steps will be collected for the four GDMT drug classes. Information will include date, primary reason for change, and potential intolerances. The primary clinical endpoints are HF-related hospitalizations, HF-related urgent visits with a need for intravenous diuretics, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. Conclusions: TITRATE-HF is a real-world multicentre longitudinal registry that will provide unique information on contemporary GDMT implementation, sequencing strategies (order and speed), and prognosis in de novo, worsening, and chronic HF patients.</p

The misleading "pooled effect estimate" of crude data from observational studies at critical risk of bias: the case of tocilizumab in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reply

Orthopaedics, Trauma Surgery and Rehabilitatio

Impact of Tocilizumab on the mortality of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 reply

Orthopaedics, Trauma Surgery and Rehabilitatio

Decreased mortality and increased side effects in COVID-19 patients treated with IL-6 receptor antagonists: systematic review and meta-analysis

There is controversy whether IL-6 (receptor) antagonists are beneficial in treating COVID-19 patients. We therefore update our systematic review to answer the following research questions: (1) Do patients hospitalized for COVID-19 treated with IL-6 (receptor) antagonists have lower mortality compared to standard of care? (2) Do patients hospitalized for COVID-19 treated with IL-6 (receptor) antagonists have more side effects compared to standard of care? The following databases were search up to December 1st 2020: PubMed, PMC PubMed Central, MEDLINE, WHO COVID-19 Database, Embase, Web-of-Science, COCHRANE LIBRARY, Emcare and Academic Search Premier. In order to pool the risk ratio (RR) and risk difference of individual studies we used random effects meta-analysis. The search strategy retrieved 2975 unique titles of which 71 studies (9 RCTs and 62 observational) studies comprising 29,495 patients were included. Mortality (RR 0.75) and mechanical ventilation (RR 0.78) were lower and the risk of neutropenia (RR 7.3), impaired liver function (RR 1.67) and secondary infections (RR 1.26) were higher for patients treated with IL-6 (receptor) antagonists compared to patients not treated with treated with IL-6 (receptor) antagonists. Our results showed that IL-6 (receptor) antagonists are effective in reducing mortality in COVID-19 patients, while the risk of side effects was higher. The baseline risk of mortality was an important effect modifier: IL-6 (receptor) antagonists were effective when the baseline mortality risk was high (e.g. ICU setting), while they could be harmful when the baseline mortality risk was low