MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221127216 · doi:10.23750/abm.v93i1.12208

Tocilizumab in addition to standard of care in the management of COVID-19: a meta-analysis of RCTs.

2022· review· en· W4221127216 on OpenAlexaff
Victor Mutua, Brandon Michael Henry, Chris von Csefalvay, Isaac Cheruiyot, Jens Vikse, Giuseppe Lippi, Brian Bundi, Newnex Mong'are

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTocilizumabMedicineMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineOdds ratioAdverse effectMechanical ventilationIntensive care unitCochrane LibraryPlaceboSubgroup analysisDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis for exploring clinical benefits and safety of tocilizumab in addition to standard of care (SOC) in treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: An electronic search was carried out in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct, as well as in medRxiv preprint server, to identify eligible studies. Only randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) that compared mortality events and/or adverse events between a tocilizumab + SOC group and a SOC-only control group were included. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes include progression to severe disease, defined as need for mechanical ventilation (MV) or intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and adverse events (AE). RESULTS: A total of nine studies (6,490 participants) could be included in this meta-analysis, with 3,358 participants in the tocilizumab + SOC group and 3,132 participants in the SOC-only group. The overall mortality rate was lower in the tocilizumab group compared to the SOC-only group, though the difference was not statistically significant (odds ratio [OR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73-1.04; I2, 15%). This finding was unaffected by subgroup analyses based on initial use of steroids or mechanical ventilation at baseline. Patients receiving tocilizumab were 26% less likely to progress to MV, and this difference was statistically significant (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.86; I2, 0%). Among patients who were not in ICU at randomization, the tocilizumab group had 34 % lower rate of ICU admission compared to the SOC-only group (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.40-2.14; I2, 29%). The occurrence of serious infections was lower in the tocilizumab group (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.36-0.89; I2, 21%). CONCLUSION: Tocilizumab is generally well-tolerated in COVID-19. Although this drug does not appear to have a significant benefits on survival, it may have a role in preventing progression to intensive care and MV.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.062
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.322
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207