Search

Ranking metrics in network meta-analysis (NMA) are computed separately for each outcome. Our aim is to 1) present graphical ways to group competing interventions considering multiple outcomes and 2) use conjoint analysis for placing weights on the various outcomes based on the stakeholders' preferences.We used multidimensional scaling (MDS) and hierarchical tree clustering to visualize the extent of similarity of interventions in terms of the relative effects they produce through a random effects NMA. We reanalyzed a published network of 212 psychosis trials taking three outcomes into account: reduction in symptoms of schizophrenia, all-cause treatment discontinuation and weight gain.Conjoint analysis provides a mathematical method to transform judgements into weights that can be subsequently used to visually represent interventions on a two-dimensional plane or through a dendrogram. These plots provide insightful information about the clustering of interventions.Grouping interventions can help decision makers not only to identify the optimal ones in terms of benefit-risk balance but also choose one from the best cluster based on other grounds such as cost, implementation etc. Placing weights on outcomes allows considering patient profile or preferences.

International audience; BackgroundMeta-analyses of the voluminous scientific literature on the impact of very preterm (VPT

Background: 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. Objectives: 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. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L-OVE Platform (search date 5 November 2021). These sources are maintained through regular searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, trial registers and other sources. We also checked the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, Retraction Watch (search date 3 November 2021). Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. Data collection and analysis: We followed Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two researchers independently screened and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes of clinical improvement (Day 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. Main results: We identified four RCTs of anakinra (three published in peer-reviewed journals, one reported as a preprint) and two RCTs of canakinumab (published in peer-reviewed journals). All trials were multicentre (2 to 133 centres). Two trials stopped early (one due to futility and one as the trigger for inferiority was met). The median/mean age range varied from 58 to 68 years; the proportion of men varied from 58% to 77%. All participants were hospitalised; 67% to 100% were on oxygen at baseline but not intubated; between 0% and 33% were intubated at baseline. We identified a further 16 registered trials with no results available, of which 15 assessed anakinra (four completed, four terminated, five ongoing, three not recruiting) and one (completed) trial assessed canakinumab. Effectiveness of anakinra for people with COVID-19. Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.20; 3 RCTs, 837 participants; absolute effect: 59 more per 1000 (from 22 fewer to 147 more); moderate-certainty evidence. The evidence is uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.22; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 55 fewer per 1000 (from 107 fewer to 37 more); low-certainty evidence) and ≥ D60 (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.96; 1 RCT, 606 participants; absolute effect: 47 fewer per 1000 (from 72 fewer to 4 fewer) low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.39; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 32 fewer per 1000 (from 68 fewer to 40 more); low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with clinical improvement at ≥ D60 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 115 participants; absolute effect: 59 fewer per 1000 (from 186 fewer to 102 more); very low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.56; 4 RCTs, 1633 participants; absolute effect: 8 more per 1000 (from 84 fewer to 147 more); very low-certainty evidence). Safety of anakinra for people with COVID-19. Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 14 more per 1000 (from 43 fewer to 78 more); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain regarding an effect of anakinra on serious adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.56; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 12 fewer per 1000 (from 104 fewer to 138 more); low-certainty evidence). Effectiveness of canakinumab for people with COVID-19. Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 42 more per 1000 (from 33 fewer to 116 more); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence of an effect of canakinumab is uncertain on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.20; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 35 fewer per 1000 (from 69 fewer to 25 more); low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR:0.75; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.42); 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 20 fewer per 1000 (from 48 fewer to 33 more); low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about an effect of canakinumab on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.91; 1 RCT, 45 participants; absolute effect: 112 fewer per 1000 (from 210 fewer to 227 more); very low-certainty evidence). Safety of canakinumab for people with COVID-19. Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21; 1 RCT, 454 participants; absolute effect: 11 more per 1000 (from 74 fewer to 111 more); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence of an effect of canakinumab on serious adverse events is uncertain (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.13; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 44 fewer per 1000 (from 94 fewer to 28 more); low-certainty evidence). Authors' conclusions: Overall, we did not find evidence for an important beneficial effect of IL-1 blocking agents. The evidence is uncertain or very uncertain for several outcomes. Sixteen trials of anakinra and canakinumab with no results are currently registered, of which four are completed, and four terminated. The findings of this review are updated on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).

Different forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS-CoV-2.We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch.We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID-19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules.We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes. We synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty-two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty-nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two-month follow-up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. Overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. We identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available. This abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, severe and critical COVID-19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO-approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO-approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high-certainty evidence). Confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants). There is low-certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants). Severe or critical COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID-19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants). Two trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled. Serious adverse events (SAEs) mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)/SII-ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in SAEs compared to placebo (RR: mRNA-1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII-ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants. Evidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, and NVX-CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX-CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants). For the evaluation of heterologous schedules, booster doses, and efficacy against variants of concern, see main text of review.Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com). Implications for practice Due to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern. Implications for research Future research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficacy and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.

IntroductionThere have been important advances in the use of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) to treat major depressive episodes. These include variations to the type of stimulus the brain regions stimulated, and the stimulus parameters (eg, stimulus duration/pulse width). Our aim is to investigate ECT types using a network meta-analysis (NMA) approach and report on comparative treatment efficacy, cognitive side effects and acceptability.MethodWe will conduct a systematic review to identify randomised controlled trials that compared two or more ECT protocols to treat depression. This will be done using the following databases: Embase, MEDLINE PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL and will be supplemented by personal contacts with researchers in the field. All authors will be contacted to provide missing information. Primary outcomes will be symptom severity on a validated continuous clinician-rated scale of depression, cognitive functioning measured using anterograde verbal recall, and acceptability calculated using all-cause drop-outs. Secondary outcomes will include response and remission rates, autobiographical memory following a course of ECT, and anterograde visuospatial recall.Bayesian random effects hierarchical models will compare ECT types. Additional meta-regressions may be conducted to determine the impact of effect modifiers and patient-specific prognostic factors if sufficient data are available.DiscussionThis NMA will facilitate clinician decision making and allow more sophisticated selection of ECT type according to the balance of efficacy, cognitive side effects and acceptability.EthicsThis systematic review and NMA does not require research ethics approval as it will use published aggregate data and will not collect nor disclose individually identifiable participant data.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022357098.

For a given medical condition, network meta-analysis (NMA) compares multiple available treatments in a network of comparative studies and provides both direct and indirect estimates of the relative effects for all treatments at hand. Despite NMA is increasingly used to inform decision-making, the lack of user-friendly software is still limiting its usage within a restricted community of researchers and end-users. In this tutorial, we describe NMAstudio, a novel user-friendly tool aimed to produce and visualise network meta-analyses in a fully interactive way. NMAstudio enhances visualisation while simplifying the reporting and interpretation of findings. The main feature of the application is a direct visual connection between a customisable network diagram and the main NMA outputs. Specifically, users upload their data and interact with the network diagram by clicking one or more nodes-treatments or edges-comparisons; based on the selection made, tailored outputs and information are displayed. NMAstudio is written in Python and connected to the R package netmeta to produce the NMA estimates.

Background The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension statement for network meta-analysis (NMA) published in 2015 promotes comprehensive reporting in published systematic reviews with NMA. PRISMA-NMA includes 32 items: 27 core items as indicated in the 2009 PRISMA Statement and five items specific to the reporting of NMAs. Although NMA reporting is improving, it is unclear whether PRISMA-NMA has accelerated this improvement. We aimed to investigate the impact of PRISMA-NMA and highlight key items that require attention and improvement. Methods We updated our previous collection of NMAs with articles published between April 2015 and July 2018. We assessed the completeness of reporting for each NMA, including main manuscript and online supplements, using the PRISMA-NMA checklist. The PRISMA-NMA checklist originally includes 32 total items (i.e. a 32-point scale original PRISMA-NMA score). We also prepared a modified version of the PRISMA-NMA checklist with 49 items to evaluate separately at a more granular level all multiple-content items (i.e. a 49-point scale modified PRISMA-NMA score). We compared average reporting scores of articles published until and after 2015. Results In the 1144 included NMAs the mean modified PRISMA-NMA score was 32.1 (95% CI 31.8–32.4) of a possible 49-excellence-score. For 1-year increase, the mean modified score increased by 0.96 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.59) for 389 NMAs published until 2015 and by 0.53 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.04) for 755 NMAs published after 2015. The mean modified PRISMA-NMA score for NMAs published after 2015 was higher by 0.81 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.39) compared to before 2015 when adjusting for journal impact factor, type of review, funding, and treatment category. Description of summary effect sizes to be used, presentation of individual study data, sources of funding for the systematic review, and role of funders dropped in frequency after 2015 by 6–16%. Conclusions NMAs published after 2015 more frequently reported the five items associated with NMA compared to those published until 2015. However, improvement in reporting after 2015 is compatible with that observed on a yearly basis until 2015, and hence, it could not be attributed solely to the publication of the PRISMA-NMA.

Network meta-analysis (NMA) of rare events has attracted little attention in the literature. Until recently, networks of interventions with rare events were analyzed using the inverse-variance NMA approach. However, when events are rare the normal approximation made by this model can be poor and effect estimates are potentially biased. Other methods for the synthesis of such data are the recent extension of the Mantel-Haenszel approach to NMA or the use of the non-central hypergeometric distribution. In this article, we suggest a new common-effect NMA approach that can be applied even in networks of interventions with extremely low or even zero number of events without requiring study exclusion or arbitrary imputations. Our method is based on the implementation of the penalized likelihood function proposed by Firth for bias reduction of the maximum likelihood estimate to the logistic expression of the NMA model. A limitation of our method is that heterogeneity cannot be taken into account as an additive parameter as in most meta-analytical models. However, we account for heterogeneity by incorporating a multiplicative overdispersion term using a two-stage approach. We show through simulations that our method performs consistently well across all tested scenarios and most often results in smaller bias than other available methods. We also illustrate the use of our method through two clinical examples. We conclude that our "penalized likelihood NMA" approach is promising for the analysis of binary outcomes with rare events especially for networks with very few studies per comparison and very low control group risks.

As comparatively few trials in subgroups of patients with schizophrenia have been done, clinicians need to know whether they can rely on the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the general population of patients with schizophrenia. We aimed to compare the efficacy and side-effects of antipsychotic drugs in different subgroups.In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register (from database inception to April 27, 2020), and PubMed (from April 1, 2020 to June 14, 2021). We excluded studies in patients with stable schizophrenia (ie, relapse prevention studies), studies with a high risk of bias, and studies from mainland China due to quality concerns concerning allocation and masking methods. We included single-blind RCTs or better that assessed one or more of 16 second-generation and 18 first-generation antipsychotics in the general population of patients with schizophrenia or in one or more of the subgroups: children and adolescents (age range as defined in the original studies), patients with a first episode, patients with predominant or prominent negative symptoms, patients with comorbid substance use, patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, or older patients (age range as defined in the original studies). Two authors independently screened the results of the search, retrieved full-text articles, and checked the inclusion criteria. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline, all parameters were extracted in duplicate. The primary outcome was change in overall symptoms. We compared drug efficacy between subgroups, by sex, schizoaffective disorder versus schizophrenia, and study origin using random-effects, inverse variance meta-analyses and random-effects subgroup tests, and meta-regression.We included 537 RCTs with 76 382 participants, 26 627 (34·9%) women, 49 755 (65·1%) men, mean age 37·3 years (range of means 7·9-80·2; ethnicity data not available). 412 RCTs included patients in the general population of patients with schizophrenia, 42 included patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, 25 included children and adolescents, 20 included patients with their first episode, 20 included patients with predominant or prominent negative symptoms, 13 included patients with comorbid substance use, and 11 included older patients. Of 507 random-effects subgroup tests done, 46 (9%) showed a significant difference (p0·05) between subgroups, but there was no clear indication as to which drug should be used in which subgroup.The effects of antipsychotics in various patient subgroups were usually similar to those in the general population of patients with schizophrenia, but comparably few studies contributed to the subgroups, in particular in terms of side-effects. If the evidence for treatment in a given subgroup is small, guideline makers and clinicians should consider using the results in the much better studied group of the general population of patients with schizophrenia.German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung; FKZ 01KG1508).

Background There is no consensus on the most efficient catheter ablation (CA) strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of different CA strategies for AF ablation through network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL was performed up to October 5th, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing different CA approaches were included. Efficacy was defined as arrhythmia recurrence after CA and safety as any reported complication related to the procedure during a minimum follow-up time of 6 months. Results In total, 67 RCTs (n = 9871) comparing 19 different CA strategies were included. The risk of recurrence was significantly decreased compared to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone for PVI with renal denervation (RR: 0.60, CI: 0.38–0.94), PVI with ganglia-plexi ablation (RR: 0.62, CI: 0.41–0.94), PVI with additional ablation lines (RR: 0.8, CI: 0.68–0.95) and PVI in combination with bi-atrial modification (RR: 0.32, CI: 0.11–0.88). Strategies including PVI appeared superior to non-PVI strategies such as electrogram-based approaches. No significant differences in safety were observed. Conclusions This NMA showed that PVI in combination with additional CA strategies, such as autonomic modulation and additional lines, seem to increase the efficacy of PVI alone. These strategies can be considered in treating patients with AF, since, additionally, no differences in safety were observed. This study provides decision-makers with comprehensive and comparative evidence about the efficacy and safety of different CA strategies. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registry number: CRD42020169494.

International audience; Background: Meta-analyses of studies on very preterm (VPT) birth and childhood cognition select primary studies using gestational age inclusion criteria only, while others also include birthweight criteria. The consequences of this choice are unknown.Objective: The objective of this study was to describe the gestational age (GA) and birthweight (BW) criteria used in studies of VPT birth and cognition and to investigate whether meta-analysis results differ based on these criteria.Data sources: Five systematic reviews on VPT birth and childhood IQ.Study selection and data extraction: Country, birth years, GA-BW selection criteria and participant IQ were extracted from 156 studies representing 103 birth cohorts.Synthesis: Pooled standardised mean differences (SMD) in IQ between children born VPT and term-born controls were estimated by sub-group based on GA-BW criteria (GA, BW and GA-BW combined) and degree of preterm birth-low birthweight combinations: extremely preterm (EPT

This is a protocol of a living systematic review of vaccine observational studies. Our aim isto assess the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS CoV-2 variants of concern Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (P.1), Delta (B.1.617.2) in addition to any other newly discovered variants of concerns as identified by WHO over time.. All results will be made available on the COVID-NMA platform (https://covid-nma.com/) and updated weekly.

“Living” evidence synthesis is of primary interest for decision-makers to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-NMA provides open-access living meta-analyses assessing different therapeutic and preventive interventions. Data are posted on a platform (https://covid-nma.com/) and analyses are updated every week. However, guideline developers and other stakeholders also need to investigate the data and perform their own analyses. This requires resources, time, statistical expertise, and software knowledge. To assist them, we created the “metaCOVID”application which, based on automation processes, facilitates the fast exploration of the data and the conduct of analyses tailored to end-users needs.metaCOVIDhas been created in R and is freely available as an R-Shiny application. The application conducts living meta-analyses for every outcome. Several options are available for subgroup and sensitivity analyses. The results are presented in downloadable forest plots.metaCOVIDis freely available fromhttps://covid-nma.com/metacovid/and the source code fromhttps://github.com/TEvrenoglou/metaCovid.

OBJECTIVES To assess the comparative efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines on SARS CoV-2 of any type (wild-type or variant) as well as SARS CoV-2 variants of concern Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (P.1), Delta (B.1.617.2) in addition to any other newly discovered variants of concerns as identified by WHO. This is a protocol of a living systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating COVID-19 vaccines. The living systematic review is part of the larger COVID-NMA initiative, (27)which aims to provide decision-makers with a complete, high-quality and up-to-date living systematic review on interventions for preventing and treating COVID-19. (28) This protocol on SARS-COV2 vaccines is a sub-protocol within the COVID-NMA project. The NMA, where feasible, aims to provide results for all possible comparisons (direct and indirect) across different vaccines. This is the protocol for a Cochrane living systematic review. All results will be made available on the COVID-NMA platform (https://covid-nma.com) and updated weekly. As this is an emerging topic and knowledge about this infection is evolving rapidly, we will set up regular meetings with content experts to update the protocol (e.g., definition of the nodes of the network, effect modifiers) and specify other important aspects (e.g., margin of equivalence). The review is registered in Prospero CRD42021271897.

Background Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head to head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. Objectives To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents (acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, methotrexate), small molecules (apremilast, tofacitinib, ponesimod), anti-TNF alpha (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab), anti-IL12/23 (ustekinumab), anti-IL17 (secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab), anti-IL23 (guselkumab, tildrakizumab), and other biologics (alefacept, itolizumab) for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety. Search methods We searched the following databases to December 2016: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports. We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs. We searched the trial results databases of a number of pharmaceutical companies and handsearched the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic and biological treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate to severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. Data collection and analysis Three groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI) 90) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse effects). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes, according to GRADE; we evaluated evidence as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. Main results We included 109 studies in our review (39,882 randomised participants, 68% men, all recruited from a hospital). The overall average age was 44 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo controlled (67%), 23% were head-to-head studies, and 10% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and placebo. We have assessed all treatments listed in the objectives (19 in total). In all, 86 trials were multicentric trials (two to 231 centres). All of the trials included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment at less than 24 weeks after randomisation); in fact, all trials included in the network meta-analysis were measured between 12 and 16 weeks after randomisation. We assessed the majority of studies (48/109) as being at high risk of bias; 38 were assessed as at an unclear risk, and 23, low risk. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90. In terms of reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents. Small molecules were associated with a higher chance of reaching PASI 90 compared to conventional systemic agents. At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, all of the anti-IL17 agents and guselkumab (an anti-IL23 drug) were significantly more effective than the anti-TNF alpha agents infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept, but not certolizumab. Ustekinumab was superior to etanercept. No clear difference was shown between infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept. Only one trial assessed the efficacy of infliximab in this network; thus, these results have to be interpreted with caution. Tofacitinib was significantly superior to methotrexate, and no clear difference was shown between any of the other small molecules versus conventional treatments. Network meta-analysis also showed that ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90: the most effective drug was ixekizumab (risk ratio (RR) 32.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 23.61 to 44.60; Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 94.3; high-certainty evidence), followed by secukinumab (RR 26.55, 95% CI 20.32 to 34.69; SUCRA = 86.5; high-certainty evidence), brodalumab (RR 25.45, 95% CI 18.74 to 34.57; SUCRA = 84.3; moderate-certainty evidence), guselkumab (RR 21.03, 95% CI 14.56 to 30.38; SUCRA = 77; moderate-certainty evidence), certolizumab (RR 24.58, 95% CI 3.46 to 174.73; SUCRA = 75.7; moderate-certainty evidence), and ustekinumab (RR 19.91, 95% CI 15.11 to 26.23; SUCRA = 72.6; high-certainty evidence). We found no significant difference between all of the interventions and the placebo regarding the risk of serious adverse effects (SAEs): the relative ranking strongly suggested that methotrexate was associated with the best safety profile regarding all of the SAEs (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99; SUCRA = 90.7; moderate-certainty evidence), followed by ciclosporin (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.10; SUCRA = 78.2; very low-certainty evidence), certolizumab (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.36; SUCRA = 70.9; moderate-certainty evidence), infliximab (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.00; SUCRA = 64.4; very low-certainty evidence), alefacept (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.55; SUCRA = 62.6; low-certainty evidence), and fumaric acid esters (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.99; SUCRA = 57.7; very low-certainty evidence). Major adverse cardiac events, serious infections, or malignancies were reported in both the placebo and intervention groups. Nevertheless, the SAEs analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just over half of the treatment estimates in total, moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be considered with caution. Considering both efficacy (PASI 90 outcome) and acceptability (SAEs outcome), highly effective treatments also had more SAEs compared to the other treatments, and ustekinumab, infliximab, and certolizumab appeared to have the better trade-off between efficacy and acceptability. Regarding the other efficacy outcomes, PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1, the results were very similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for a third of the interventions. Authors' conclusions Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab are the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate to severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. At class level, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents, too. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured between 12 to 16 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficiently relevant for a chronic disease. Moreover, low numbers of studies were found for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 44 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. Indeed, we found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs. Methotrexate appeared to have the best safety profile, but as the evidence was of very low to moderate quality, we cannot be sure of the ranking. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies as well. In terms of future research, randomised trials comparing directly active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between conventional systemic and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naive patients, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents.

Introduction Le nombre de traitements systemiques (TS) disponibles dans l’indication psoriasis modere a severe a augmente de facon considerable durant les 20 dernieres annees. La meta-analyse en reseau (MAR) est une methode statistique permettant de comparer des traitements n’ayant pas ete compares dans des essais (ECR) face-face et de classer les traitements en fonction de leur efficacite et tolerance. L’objectif de cette revue systematique (RS) avec MAR etait de comparer l’efficacite et la tolerance des TS chez l’adulte dans le psoriasis modere a severe. Sont presentes les resultats de la mise a jour la plus recente. Materiel et methodes Les bases bibliographiques CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase et les resumes de congres, les registres d’essais ont ete consultes jusqu’en septembre 2020. Les criteres d’inclusion etaient : ECR comparant un TS chez des adultes atteints de psoriasis modere a severe (Pso), par rapport a un PBO ou entre eux. La selection des ECR, l’extraction des donnees, l’evaluation du risque de biais ont ete effectuees independamment par 2 auteurs. Les criteres de jugement (CJ) principaux etaient: la proportion de participants atteignant le PASI 90 et la proportion de participants presentant des evenements indesirables graves (EIG) entre 8 et 24 semaines. Resultats Un total de 158 ECR ont ete inclus (57 831 patients, d’âge moyen de 45 ans, 68 % d’hommes, avec un score initial moyen PASI de 20) dans la revue systematique et 130 ECR (50 081 patients) dans la MAR comparant 20 TS ou PBO. Le risque de biais etait considere comme faible pour 80 ECR/158. Les patients sous infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, risankizumab et guselkumab atteignaient significativement plus le PASI90 comparativement aux patients sous ustekinumab ou sous l’un des 3 autres anti-TNF: adalimumab, certolizumab, et etanercept. L’ustekinumab et adalimumab etaient significativement plus efficaces pour l’obtention du PASI 90 que l’etanercept; l’ustekinumab etait egalement plus efficace que le certolizumab. Aucune difference n’etait constatee entre l’ustekinumab et l’adalimumab. L’efficacite clinique de ces 7 TS par rapport au PBO a ete est detaillee. Aucune difference significative entre les TS et le PBO a ete trouvee concernant le risque d’EIG. Discussion Cette RS/MA permet de donner de facon actualisee en continu les donnees d’efficacite et de tolerance relatives des TS. Ces donnees sont importantes dans la prise de decision medicale et pour les auteurs de recommandations. Les limites de cette etude sont le manque de donnees d’efficacite et de tolerance a long terme necessaires dans le cadre d’une maladie chronique.

Background: 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. Objectives: 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. Search methods: 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. Selection criteria: 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. Data collection and analysis: 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. Main results: 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. Authors' conclusions: 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).

It is often challenging to present the available evidence in a timely and comprehensible manner. We aimed to visualize the evolution of evidence about antidepressants for depression by conducting cumulative network meta-analyses (NMAs) and to examine whether it could have helped the selection of optimal drugs. We built a Shiny web application that performs and presents cumulative NMAs based on R netmeta. We used a comprehensive dataset of double-blind randomized controlled trials of 21 antidepressants in the acute treatment of major depression. The primary outcomes were efficacy (treatment response) and acceptability (all-cause discontinuation), and treatment effects were summarized via odds ratios. We evaluated the confidence in evidence using the CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) framework for a series of consecutive NMAs. Users can change several conditions for the analysis, such as the period of synthesis, among the others. We present the league tables and two-dimensional plots that combine efficacy, acceptability and level of confidence in the evidence together, for NMAs conducted in 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2016. They reveal that through the past four decades, newly approved drugs often showed initially exaggerated results, which tended to diminish and stabilize after approximately a decade. Over the years, the drugs with relative superiority changed dramatically; but as the evidence network grew larger and better connected, the overall confidence improved. The Shiny app visualizes how evidence evolved over years, emphasizing the need for a careful interpretation of relative effects between drugs, especially for the potentially amplified performance of newly approved drugs. HIGHLIGHTS: Network meta-analysis is considered to be a proper way of demonstrating the available evidence, since it allows comparisons between multiple interventions, and has been proved to be statistically powerful. It is challenging to present the voluminous results of NMA in an efficient and comprehendible manner. Evidence evolution based on the relatively new method NMA has not been investigated yet. The results of NMA should not only include the effects but also the confidence in the evidence, which can help interpret the findings appropriately. Effective use of rapidly developing statistical analysis and presentation tools such as Shiny package in R, may facilitate and simplify the visualization of NMA output. We should stay conservative towards new drugs, as their performance was often shown to be exaggerated initially, and it took time to become stable.

Objectives This study compares three major elements of evidence-based medicine (EBM) practices, namely evidence synthesis, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), and real-world prescriptions in the United States, regarding antidepressant treatments of major depression over the past 3 decades. Study Design and Setting We conducted network meta-analyses (NMAs) of antidepressants every 5 years up to 2016 based on a comprehensive data set of double-blind randomized controlled trials. We identified CPGs and extracted their recommendations. We surveyed the prescriptions in the United States at 5-year intervals up to 2015. Results Most drugs recommended by CPGs presented favorable performance in efficacy and acceptability in NMAs. However, CPG recommendations were often in terms of drug classes rather than individual drugs, whereas NMAs suggested distinctive difference between drugs within the same class. The update intervals of all CPGs were longer than 5 years. All the antidepressants prescribed frequently in the United States were recommended by CPGs. However, changes in prescriptions did not correspond to alterations in CPGs or to apparent changes in the effects indicated by NMAs. Many factors including marketing efforts, regulations, or patient values may have played a role. Conclusion Enhancements including accelerating CPG updates and monitoring the impact of marketing on prescriptions should be considered in future EBM implementation.

Introduction Work absenteeism due to chronic non-malignant pain (CNMP) is a major societal and individual cause of concern that requires effective treatments. Objective We present a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aiming to compare available interventions for return to work (RTW) in adults with CNMP. Methods and analysis PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases will be searched till 31 August 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining interventions for RTW outcomes among patients with CNMP. Two independent investigators will search the databases, perform data extraction and assess the methodological quality of the selected RCTs. The primary outcome will be RTW, if possible, full-time or part-time after work absence due to chronic pain from baseline to the last available follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include self-reported workability or work capacity, or self-reported physical functioning and quality of life as measured by any validated scale. Pairwise meta-analysis and NMA will be conducted for each outcome using a random-effects model. For the primary outcomes, we will also obtain the ranking of all competing interventions within each NMA using surface under the cumulative ranking curve. The assumption of coherence (ie, that direct and indirect evidence are in statistical agreement) will be examined using both a local and a global approach. We will also conduct subgroup and meta-regression analyses, whenever feasible, to investigate the unexplained variation in effect size. The comparison-adjusted funnel plot will be used to evaluate small-study effects. The overall quality of evidence will be rated with the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis tool. Data analysis will be conducted using Stata V.16.0. Ethics and dissemination This systematic review does not require ethical approval since it will not disseminate any private patient data. The results of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020171429.

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:. To provide a living mapping of registered randomized trials, and to assess and rank where appropriate the relative effects of interventions for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Our approach has been described in Boutron 2020 and Nguyen 2020. As part of the methodological process of living systematic reviews, we will continuously (i.e. every working day) collect and critically appraise results from all eligible RCTs addressing specific clinical outcomes related to COVID-19. We will synthesize the available study results using pairwise meta-analyses and when possible and appropriate, network meta-analyses (NMAs). The interventions and the research questions considered will evolve over time and will be guided by end-users’ needs. We will report our updated evidence synthesis every week, and will make all results available on a website: www.covid-nma.com. In addition, we will update this Cochrane Review at least once every six months, or as soon as the certainty of evidence (assessed with the GRADE methodology) changes. We will wait until the accumulating evidence changes one or more of the following aspects of the review, before incorporating it and re-publishing the Cochrane Review:. the findings of one or more critical outcomes; the credibility (e.g. GRADE rating) of one or more critical outcomes; new settings, population, interventions, comparisons or outcomes studied; or new serious adverse events. We will develop a steering committee of epidemiologists, methodologists, statisticians and clinicians with content expertise. This committee will meet regularly and discuss the conduct of the project, difficulties encountered and possible changes in the protocol according to new knowledge becoming available for the disease. Changes to the protocol could include, for example, changes in the search strategy, eligibility criteria (e.g. study design), research questions for the pairwise meta-analyses, or outcomes. The steering committee will systematically discuss and achieve consensus on the changes to the protocol. The process will also evolve over time according to new knowledge available regarding COVID-19.

IL-1 blockers are beneficial in inflammation-associated pathologies, such as rheumatoid arthritis (Mertens 2009) and possibly also in the subgroup of patients with severe sepsis where the inflammasome pathway is involved (Shakoory 2016). Similar benefits were reported in children with secondary macrophage activation syndrome, including cases triggered by viral infections (Mehta 2020b). In this review we aim to assess the effectiveness of IL-1 blocking agents compared to placebo, standard of care or no treatment on outcomes in patients with COVID-19. This review is part of a larger project: the COVID-NMA project (Boutron 2020a). The COVID-NMA project aims to provide decision-makers with a complete, high-quality and up-to-date synthesis of evidence on interventions for the prevention and treatment of COVID 19. For this purpose, we perform a living mapping of all registered randomized controlled trials and a living evidence synthesis of data from RCTs. We developed a master protocol on the effect of all interventions for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 (first published on April 8, 2020; an update on May 11, 2020, June 17, 2020,and September 8, 2020) (Boutron2020b). We set-up a platform (https://covid-nma.com) where all our results are made available and updated weekly. &nbsp