Interleukin-1 blocking agents for treating COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Davidson M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8791232 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Interleukin-1 blocking agents for treating COVID-19.
Davidson Mauricia M Menon Sonia S Chaimani Anna A Evrenoglou Theodoros T Ghosn Lina L Graña Carolina C Henschke Nicholas N Cogo Elise E Villanueva Gemma G Ferrand Gabriel G Riveros Carolina C Bonnet Hillary H Kapp Philipp P Moran Conor C Devane Declan D Meerpohl Joerg J JJ Rada Gabriel G Hróbjartsson Asbjørn A Grasselli Giacomo G Tovey David D Ravaud Philippe P Boutron Isabelle I
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20220126
<h4>Background</h4>Interleukin-1 (IL-1) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), on the premise that their immunomodulatory effect might be beneficial in people with COVID-19.<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the effects of IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo on effectiveness and safety outcomes in people with COVID-19. We will update this assessment regularly.<h4>Search methods</h4>We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Stu ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8406988 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IL-1 is a master cytokine of local and systemic inflammation. With the availability of specific IL-1 targeting therapies, a broadening list of diseases has revealed the pathologic role of IL-1-mediated inflammation. Although IL-1, either IL-1? or IL-1?, was administered to patients in order to improve bone marrow function or increase host immune responses to cancer, these patients experienced unacceptable toxicity with fever, anorexia, myalgias, arthralgias, fatigue, gastrointestinal upset and sleep disturbances; frank hypotension occurred. Thus it was not unexpected that specific pharmacological blockade of IL-1 activity in inflammatory diseases would be beneficial. Monotherapy blocking IL-1 activity in a broad spectrum of inflammatory syndromes results in a rapid and sustained reduction in disease severity. In common conditions such as heart failure and gout arthritis, IL-1 blockade can be effective therapy. Three IL-1blockers have been approved: the IL-1 receptor antagonist, anakinra, blocks the IL-1 receptor and therefore reduces the activity of IL-1? and IL-1?. A soluble decoy receptor, rilonacept, and a neutralizing monoclonal anti-interleukin-1? antibody, canakinumab, are also approved. A monoclonal antibody directed against the IL-1 receptor and a neutralizing anti-IL-1? are in clinical trials. By specifically blocking IL-1, we have learned a great deal about the role of this cytokine in inflammation but equally important, reducing IL-1 activity has lifted the burden of disease for many patients.
| S-EPMC3953875 | biostudies-other
Project description:The inflammatory cytokines IL-1α and IL-1β orchestrate local and systemic inflammatory responses underlying a broad spectrum of diseases. Three agents for reducing IL-1 activities are currently available. Anakinra is a recombinant form of the naturally occurring IL-1 receptor antagonist. Anakinra binds to the IL-1 receptor and prevents the activity of IL-1α and IL-1β. The soluble decoy receptor rilonacept and the neutralizing mAb canakinumab block IL-1β. A mAb directed against the IL-1 receptor and a neutralizing anti-human IL-1α are in clinical trials. The availability of therapies specifically targeting IL-1 unveiled the pathological role of IL-1-mediated inflammation in a broadening list of diseases. Conditions effectively treated with agents blocking IL-1 range from classic rheumatic diseases, such as RA and gout, to autoinflammatory syndromes, such as systemic JIA and FMF. However, IL-1 antagonism is also effective against highly prevalent inflammatory diseases, namely cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes, conditions that are frequently encountered as co-morbidities in patients with rheumatic diseases. Thereby, IL-1 inhibition has the potential to lift the burden of disease for patients with rheumatic conditions, but also to provide clinical benefits beyond the efficacy on osteoarticular manifestations.
| S-EPMC5009422 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Interleukin-1 (IL-1) is a highly active pro-inflammatory cytokine that lowers pain thresholds and damages tissues. Monotherapy blocking IL-1 activity in autoinflammatory syndromes results in a rapid and sustained reduction in disease severity, including reversal of inflammation-mediated loss of sight, hearing and organ function. This approach can therefore be effective in treating common conditions such as post-infarction heart failure, and trials targeting a broad spectrum of new indications are underway. So far, three IL-1-targeted agents have been approved: the IL-1 receptor antagonist anakinra, the soluble decoy receptor rilonacept and the neutralizing monoclonal anti-IL-1β antibody canakinumab. In addition, a monoclonal antibody directed against the IL-1 receptor and a neutralizing anti-IL-1α antibody are in clinical trials.
| S-EPMC3644509 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Apha-1-adrenergic receptor antagonists (α1-blockers) can suppress pro-inflammatory cytokines, thereby potentially improving outcomes among patients with COVID-19. Accordingly, we evaluated the association between α1-blocker exposure (before or during hospitalization) and COVID-19 in-hospital mortality. We identified 2,627 men aged 45 or older who were admitted to Mount Sinai hospitals with COVID-19 between February 24 and May 31, 2020, in New York. Men exposed to α1-blockers (N = 436) were older (median age 73 vs. 64 years, P < 0.001) and more likely to have comorbidities than unexposed men (N = 2,191). Overall, 777 (29.6%) patients died in hospital, and 1,850 (70.4%) were discharged. Notably, we found that α1-blocker exposure was independently associated with improved in-hospital mortality in a multivariable logistic analysis (OR 0.699; 95% CI, 0.498-0.982; P = 0.039) after adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, and baseline vitals and labs. The protective effect of α1-blockers was stronger among patients with documented inpatient exposure to α1-blockers (OR 0.624; 95% CI 0.431-0.903; P = 0.012). Finally, age-stratified analyses suggested variable benefit from inpatient α1-blocker across age groups: Age 45-65 OR 0.483, 95% CI 0.216-1.081 (P = 0.077); Age 55-75 OR 0.535, 95% CI 0.323-0.885 (P = 0.015); Age 65-89 OR 0.727, 95% CI 0.484-1.092 (P = 0.124). Taken together, clinical trials to assess the therapeutic value of α1-blockers for COVID-19 complications are warranted.
| S-EPMC8919772 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8120485 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe role of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is not fully elucidated. Therefore, we aimed to investigate in COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS the impact of early use of NMBAs on 90-day mortality, through propensity score (PS) matching analysis.MethodsWe analyzed a convenience sample of patients with COVID-19 and moderate-to-severe ARDS, admitted to 244 intensive care units within the COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium, from February 1, 2020, through October 31, 2021. Patients undergoing at least 2 days and up to 3 consecutive days of NMBAs (NMBA treatment), within 48 h from commencement of IMV were compared with subjects who did not receive NMBAs or only upon commencement of IMV (control). The primary objective in the PS-matched cohort was comparison between groups in 90-day in-hospital mortality, assessed through Cox proportional hazard modeling. Secondary objectives were comparisons in the numbers of ventilator-free days (VFD) between day 1 and day 28 and between day 1 and 90 through competing risk regression.ResultsData from 1953 patients were included. After propensity score matching, 210 cases from each group were well matched. In the PS-matched cohort, mean (± SD) age was 60.3 ± 13.2 years and 296 (70.5%) were male and the most common comorbidities were hypertension (56.9%), obesity (41.1%), and diabetes (30.0%). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death at 90 days in the NMBA treatment vs control group was 1.12 (95% CI 0.79, 1.59, p = 0.534). After adjustment for smoking habit and critical therapeutic covariates, the HR was 1.07 (95% CI 0.72, 1.61, p = 0.729). At 28 days, VFD were 16 (IQR 0-25) and 25 (IQR 7-26) in the NMBA treatment and control groups, respectively (sub-hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.67, 1.00, p = 0.055). At 90 days, VFD were 77 (IQR 0-87) and 87 (IQR 0-88) (sub-hazard ratio 0.86 (95% CI 0.69, 1.07; p = 0.177).ConclusionsIn patients with COVID-19 and moderate-to-severe ARDS, short course of NMBA treatment, applied early, did not significantly improve 90-day mortality and VFD. In the absence of definitive data from clinical trials, NMBAs should be indicated cautiously in this setting.
| S-EPMC9112652 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to challenge the health workforce and societies worldwide. Favipiravir was suggested by some experts to be effective and safe to use in COVID-19. Although this drug has been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is still unclear if it has a definite role in the treatment of COVID-19.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of favipiravir compared to no treatment, supportive treatment, or other experimental antiviral treatment in people with acute COVID-19.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and three other databases, up to 18 July 2023.Selection criteriaWe searched for RCTs evaluating the efficacy of favipiravir in treating people with COVID-19.Data collection and analysisWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures for data collection and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.Main resultsWe included 25 trials that randomized 5750 adults (most under 60 years of age). The trials were conducted in Bahrain, Brazil, China, India, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, the UK, and the USA. Most participants were hospitalized with mild to moderate disease (89%). Twenty-two of the 25 trials investigated the role of favipiravir compared to placebo or standard of care, whilst lopinavir/ritonavir was the comparator in two trials, and umifenovir in one trial. Most trials (24 of 25) initiated favipiravir at 1600 mg or 1800 mg twice daily for the first day, followed by 600 mg to 800 mg twice a day. The duration of treatment varied from five to 14 days. We do not know whether favipiravir reduces all-cause mortality at 28 to 30 days, or in-hospital (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.46; 11 trials, 3459 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 8 trials, 1383 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference in the need for admission to hospital (if ambulatory) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.46; 4 trials, 670 participants; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the time to clinical improvement (defined as time to a 2-point reduction in patients' admission status on the WHO's ordinal scale) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; 4 trials, 721 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference to the progression to oxygen therapy (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.75; 2 trials, 543 participants; low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may lead to an overall increased incidence of adverse events (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.54; 18 trials, 4699 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may result in little to no difference inserious adverse eventsattributable to the drug (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.42; 12 trials, 3317 participants; low-certainty evidence).Authors' conclusionsThe low- to very low-certainty evidence means that we do not know whether favipiravir is efficacious in people with COVID-19 illness, irrespective of severity or admission status. Treatment with favipiravir may result in an overall increase in the incidence of adverse events but may not result in serious adverse events.
| S-EPMC10840071 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7232130 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The unprecedented pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) demands effective treatment for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The infection of SARS-CoV-2 critically depends on diverse viral or host proteases, which mediate viral entry, viral protein maturation, as well as the pathogenesis of the viral infection. Endogenous and exogenous agents targeting for proteases have been proved to be effective toward a variety of viral infections ranging from HIV to influenza virus, suggesting protease inhibitors as a promising antiviral treatment for COVID-19. In this Review, we discuss how host and viral proteases participated in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 as well as the prospects and ongoing clinical trials of protease inhibitors as treatments.
| S-EPMC7640965 | biostudies-literature