SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2024
Effect of subcutaneous vs. intravenous tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19: a systematic review.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically evaluate the efficacy of subcutaneous tocilizumab in the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19 and provide evidence for the rational use of subcutaneous tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19.
methodsThis meta-analysis was carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CNKI, SinoMed, and Wanfang Medical Network electronic databases up to 11 January 2023 to identify relevant studies. To obtain the most recent clinical studies of subcutaneous injection of tocilizumab for the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19, we also searched the preprint platforms medRxiv and ChinaXiv. Furthermore, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant unpublished studies. The studies were screened based on the PICOS principle. The included studies were classified and evaluated for quality based on research type. The RevMan 5.3 software was used to conduct the meta-analysis, and a descriptive analysis was performed to examine relevant outcome indicators.
resultsFive observational studies were obtained, involving a total of 498 patients (240 patients in the subcutaneous injection group and 258 patients in the intravenous injection group). All of the studies were of the highest quality. The meta-analysis of the included studies revealed that the mortality rate of patients who received subcutaneous tocilizumab to treat COVID-19 was not significantly higher than that of the intravenous injection group [23.3% (45/193) vs. 18.4% (39/212), RD = 0.06, 95% CI = - 0.01 ~ 0.13, P = 0.11]. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients requiring mechanical ventilation between the two groups [24.5% (35/143) vs. 22% (35/159), RD = 0.03, 95% CI = - 0.07 ~ 0.12, P = 0.56].
conclusionsThe meta-analyses do not provide evidence that subcutaneous and intravenous tocilizumab formulations for the treatment of severe COVID-19 infection differ regarding their effectiveness. Considering that the meta-analyses cannot replace an appropriately powered non-inferiority study, subcutaneous formulations still need to be used with caution and only when intravenous formulations are in short supply. At present, there is a lack of randomized controlled trials of subcutaneous injection of tocilizumab for the treatment of severe COVID-19, and more clinical research should be conducted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38926166What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.