MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review of multiple reports and kit inserts on the diagnostic performance of rapid tests from various manufacturers that are commercially available were performed. Only preliminary data are available currently.

RESULTS: From a total of nine rapid detection test (RDT) kits, three kits offer total antibody detection, while six kits offer combination SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG detection in two separate test lines. All kits are based on colloidal gold-labeled immunochromatography principle and one-step method with results obtained within 15 minutes, using whole blood, serum or plasma samples. The sensitivity for both IgM and IgG tests ranges between 72.7% and 100%, while specificity ranges between 98.7% to 100%. Two immunochromatography using nasopharyngeal or throat swab for detection of COVID-19 specific antigen are also reviewed.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes.

DATA SOURCES: Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts.

STUDY SELECTION: Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: In this prospective meta-analysis, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days.

METHODS: We determined the frequency of opportunistic infections and tuberculosis in patients receiving vedolizumab in phase 3 clinical trials and post-marketing settings. We also evaluated adverse events reported in the post-marketing setting in patients with a history of or concurrent hepatitis B/C virus infection.

RESULTS: The incidence of opportunistic infections in patients receiving vedolizumab was 0.7 (GEMINI 1 and 2 clinical trials) and 1.0 (long-term safety study) per 100 patient-years, with 217 events reported in approximately 114,071 patient-years of exposure (post-marketing setting). Most opportunistic infections were nonserious and the majority of patients continued treatment with vedolizumab. Clostridium difficile was the most commonly reported infection, with an incidence rate of 0.5 per 100 patient-years (clinical trials). Tuberculosis was reported at 0.1 per 100 patient-years (clinical trials), with 7 events in the post-marketing setting. No tuberculosis-related deaths were reported in either setting. No cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy were reported. In 29 patients with a history of or concurrent hepatitis B/C infection in the post-marketing setting, no viral reactivation was observed.

METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, time-to-event trial, 143 adults were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either intravenous eculizumab (at a dose of 900 mg weekly for the first four doses starting on day 1, followed by 1200 mg every 2 weeks starting at week 4) or matched placebo. The continued use of stable-dose immunosuppressive therapy was permitted. The primary end point was the first adjudicated relapse. Secondary outcomes included the adjudicated annualized relapse rate, quality-of-life measures, and the score on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), which ranges from 0 (no disability) to 10 (death).

RESULTS: The trial was stopped after 23 of the 24 prespecified adjudicated relapses, given the uncertainty in estimating when the final event would occur. The mean (±SD) annualized relapse rate in the 24 months before enrollment was 1.99±0.94; 76% of the patients continued to receive their previous immunosuppressive therapy during the trial. Adjudicated relapses occurred in 3 of 96 patients (3%) in the eculizumab group and 20 of 47 (43%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02 to 0.20; P<0.001). The adjudicated annualized relapse rate was 0.02 in the eculizumab group and 0.35 in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.15; P<0.001). The mean change in the EDSS score was -0.18 in the eculizumab group and 0.12 in the placebo group (least-squares mean difference, -0.29; 95% CI, -0.59 to 0.01). Upper respiratory tract infections and headaches were more common in the eculizumab group. There was one death from pulmonary empyema in the eculizumab group.

METHODS: In this phase Ib, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients received AMG 557 210 mg (n = 10) or placebo (n = 10) weekly for 3 weeks, then every other week for 10 additional doses. The corticosteroid dosage was tapered to ≤7.5 mg/day by day 85, and immunosuppressants were discontinued by day 29. Primary end points on day 169 were safety, immunogenicity, the Lupus Arthritis Response Index (LARI; defined by a reduction in the tender and swollen joint counts), ≥1-letter improvement in the musculoskeletal domain of the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) index, and medication discontinuation. The secondary/exploratory end points were changes in the tender and swollen joint counts, BILAG index scores (musculoskeletal, global), and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI).

RESULTS: The incidence of adverse events, most of which were mild, was similar between groups. LARI responses occurred in 3 of 10 patients receiving AMG 557 and 1 of 10 patients receiving placebo (P = 0.58). More patients in the AMG 557 group achieved a ≥4-point improvement in the SLEDAI score on day 169 (7 of 10 patients) compared with the placebo group (2 of 10 patients) (P = 0.07). Patients treated with AMG 557 (versus placebo) had greater improvements from baseline in the global BILAG index scores (-36.3% versus -24.7%) and the SLEDAI score (-47.8% versus -10.7%) and in tender (-22.8% versus -13.5%) and swollen (-62.1% versus -7.8%) joint counts on day 169.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included only COVID-19 positive patients hospitalized in a Private Hospital in West Jakarta between March and September 2020. All patients were not vaccinated during this period and treatment was based on the guidelines by the Ministry of Health Indonesia. A convenience sampling method was used and all patients who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled.

RESULTS: The clinical outcome of COVID-19 patients following medical therapy was either cured (85.7%) or died (14.3%), with 14.3% patients reported to have cytokine storm, from which 23.1% led to fatalities. A plasma immunoglobulin (Gammaraas®) and/or tocilizumab (interleukin-6 receptor antagonist; Actemra®) injection was utilised to treat the cytokine storm while remdesivir and oseltamivir were administered to ameliorate COVID-19. Most (61.5%) patients who experienced the cytokine storm were male; mean age 60 years. Interestingly, all patients who experienced the cytokine storm had hypertension or/ and diabetes complication (100%). Fever, cough and shortness of breath were also the common symptoms (100.0%). Almost all (92.3%) patients with cytokine storm had to be treated in the intensive care unit (ICU). Most (76.9%) patients who had cytokine storm received hydroxychloroquine and all had antibiotics [1) azithromycin + levofloxacin or 2) meropenam for critically ill patients] and vitamins such as vitamins C and B-complex as well as mineral. Unfortunately, from this group, 23.1% patients died while the remaining 70% of patients recovered. A significant (p<0.05) correlation was established between cytokine storms and age, the presence of comorbidity, diabetes, hypertension, fever, shortness of breath, having oxygen saturation (SPO2) less than 93%, cold, fatigue, ward of admission, the severity of COVID-19 disease, duration of treatment as well as the use of remdesivir, Actemra® and Gammaraas®. Most patients recovered after receiving a combination treatment (oseltamivir + remdesivir + Antibiotics + Vitamin/Mineral) for approximately 11 days with a 90% survival rate. On the contrary, patients who received oseltamivir + hydroxychloroquine + Gammaraas® + antibiotics +Vitamin/Mineral, had a 83% survival rate after being admitted to the hospital for about ten days.

METHODS: Using FHSC global registry data, we did a cross-sectional assessment of adults (aged 18 years or older) with a clinical or genetic diagnosis of probable or definite heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia at the time they were entered into the registries. Data were assessed overall and by WHO regions, sex, and index versus non-index cases.

FINDINGS: Of the 61 612 individuals in the registry, 42 167 adults (21 999 [53·6%] women) from 56 countries were included in the study. Of these, 31 798 (75·4%) were diagnosed with the Dutch Lipid Clinic Network criteria, and 35 490 (84·2%) were from the WHO region of Europe. Median age of participants at entry in the registry was 46·2 years (IQR 34·3-58·0); median age at diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolaemia was 44·4 years (32·5-56·5), with 40·2% of participants younger than 40 years when diagnosed. Prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors increased progressively with age and varied by WHO region. Prevalence of coronary disease was 17·4% (2·1% for stroke and 5·2% for peripheral artery disease), increasing with concentrations of untreated LDL cholesterol, and was about two times lower in women than in men. Among patients receiving lipid-lowering medications, 16 803 (81·1%) were receiving statins and 3691 (21·2%) were on combination therapy, with greater use of more potent lipid-lowering medication in men than in women. Median LDL cholesterol was 5·43 mmol/L (IQR 4·32-6·72) among patients not taking lipid-lowering medications and 4·23 mmol/L (3·20-5·66) among those taking them. Among patients taking lipid-lowering medications, 2·7% had LDL cholesterol lower than 1·8 mmol/L; the use of combination therapy, particularly with three drugs and with proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibitors, was associated with a higher proportion and greater odds of having LDL cholesterol lower than 1·8 mmol/L. Compared with index cases, patients who were non-index cases were younger, with lower LDL cholesterol and lower prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and cardiovascular diseases (all p<0·001).

INTERPRETATION: Familial hypercholesterolaemia is diagnosed late. Guideline-recommended LDL cholesterol concentrations are infrequently achieved with single-drug therapy. Cardiovascular risk factors and presence of coronary disease were lower among non-index cases, who were diagnosed earlier. Earlier detection and greater use of combination therapies are required to reduce the global burden of familial hypercholesterolaemia.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of different types of systemic immunosuppressive treatments for moderate to severe eczema using NMA and to generate rankings of available systemic immunosuppressive treatments for eczema according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to August 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic immunosuppressive agents for moderate to severe atopic eczema when compared against placebo or any other eligible eczema treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We synthesised data using pair-wise analysis and NMA to compare treatments and rank them according to their effectiveness. Effectiveness was assessed primarily by determining the proportion of participants who achieved at least 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75) and improvement in the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). Safety was evaluated primarily by considering the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) and infection. We deemed short-term follow-up as ≤ 16 weeks and long-term follow-up as > 16 weeks. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for these primary outcomes using six domains of CiNEMA grading.

MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 74 studies, with 8177 randomised participants. Approximately 55% of participants were male, with average age of 32 years (range 2 to 84 years), although age and gender were unreported for 419 and 902 participants, respectively. Most of the included trials were placebo controlled (65%), 34% were head-to-head studies (15% assessed the effects of different doses of the same drug), and 1% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. All trials included participants with moderate to severe eczema, but 62% of studies did not separate data by severity; 38% of studies assessed only severe eczema. The total duration of included trials ranged from 2 weeks to 60 months, whereas treatment duration varied from a single dose (CIM331, KPL-716) to 60 months (methotrexate (MTX)). Seventy studies were available for quantitative synthesis; this review assessed 29 immunosuppressive agents from three classes of interventions. These included (1) conventional treatments, with ciclosporin assessed most commonly; (2) small molecule treatments, including phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors; and (3) biological treatments, including anti-CD31 receptors, anti-interleukin (IL)-22, anti-IL-31, anti-IL-13, anti-IL-12/23p40, anti-OX40, anti-TSLP, anti-CRTH2, and anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) monoclonal antibodies, but most commonly dupilumab. Most trials (73) assessed outcomes at a short-term duration ranging from 2 to 16 weeks, whereas 33 trials assessed long-term outcomes, with duration ranging from 5 to 60 months. All participants were from a hospital setting. Fifty-two studies declared a source of funding, and of these, pharmaceutical companies funded 88%. We rated 37 studies as high risk; 21, unclear risk, and 16, low risk of bias, with studies most commonly at high risk of attrition bias. Network meta-analysis suggests that dupilumab ranks first for effectiveness when compared with other biological treatments. Dupilumab is more effective than placebo in achieving EASI75 (risk ratio (RR) 3.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.51 to 3.69) and improvement in POEM score (mean difference 7.30, 95% CI 6.61 to 8.00) at short-term follow-up (high-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain of the effects of dupilumab when compared with placebo, in terms of the proportion of participants who achieve EASI75 (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.60) at longer-term follow-up. Low-certainty evidence indicates that tralokinumab may be more effective than placebo in achieving short-term EASI75 (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.21 to 5.34), but there was no evidence for tralokinumab to allow us to assess short-term follow-up of POEM or long-term follow-up of EASI75. We are uncertain of the effect of ustekinumab compared with placebo in achieving EASI75 (long-term follow-up: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.45; short-term follow-up: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.97; both very low certainty). We found no evidence on ustekinumab for the POEM outcome. We are uncertain whether other immunosuppressive agents that targeted our key outcomes influence the achievement of short-term EASI75 compared with placebo due to low- or very low-certainty evidence. Dupilumab and ustekinumab were the only immunosuppressive agents evaluated for longer-term EASI75. Dupilumab was the only agent evaluated for improvement in POEM during short-term follow-up. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence indicates a lower proportion of participants with SAEs after treatment with QAW039 and dupilumab compared to placebo during short-term follow-up, but low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in SAEs during short-term follow-up of other immunosuppressive agents compared to placebo. Evidence for effects of immunosuppressive agents on risk of any infection during short-term follow-up and SAEs during long-term follow-up compared with placebo was of low or very low certainty but did not indicate a difference. We did not identify differences in other adverse events (AEs), but dupilumab is associated with specific AEs, including eye inflammation and eosinophilia.

METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central systematically for the randomised control trials (RCTs) of interventions for preventing OM. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from both direct and indirect evidence. The primary outcome was any grade of OM. Secondary outcomes were mild-moderate OM, severe OM and adverse events, such as taste disturbance and gastrointestinal adverse events. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016052489.

RESULTS: A total of 29 RCTs with 2348 patients (median age, 56.1 years; 57.5% male) were included. Cryotherapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of OM than control (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.68), and zinc sulphate (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.97), but not significantly lower than sucralfate and palifermin. No significant differences were observed between cryotherapy and control for taste disturbance and gastrointestinal adverse events. Palifermin was associated with the highest risk of taste disturbance.

METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial was done at 60 hospitals and clinics in 20 countries. Eligible study participants were aged between 12 and 75 years with a documented history of GPP as per the European Rare and Severe Psoriasis Expert Network criteria, with a history of at least two past GPP flares, and a GPP Physician Global Assessment (GPPGA) score of 0 or 1 at screening and random assignment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive subcutaneous placebo, subcutaneous low-dose spesolimab (300 mg loading dose followed by 150 mg every 12 weeks), subcutaneous medium-dose spesolimab (600 mg loading dose followed by 300 mg every 12 weeks), or subcutaneous high-dose spesolimab (600 mg loading dose followed by 300 mg every 4 weeks) over 48 weeks. The primary objective was to demonstrate a non-flat dose-response curve on the primary endpoint, time to first GPP flare.

FINDINGS: From June 8, 2020, to Nov 23, 2022, 157 patients were screened, of whom 123 were randomly assigned. 92 were assigned to receive spesolimab (30 high dose, 31 medium dose, and 31 low dose) and 31 to placebo. All patients were either Asian (79 [64%] of 123) or White (44 [36%]). Patient groups were similar in sex distribution (76 [62%] female and 47 [38%] male), age (mean 40·4 years, SD 15·8), and GPP Physician Global Assessment score. A non-flat dose-response relationship was established on the primary endpoint. By week 48, 35 patients had GPP flares; seven (23%) of 31 patients in the low-dose spesolimab group, nine (29%) of 31 patients in the medium-dose spesolimab group, three (10%) of 30 patients in the high-dose spesolimab group, and 16 (52%) of 31 patients in the placebo group. High-dose spesolimab was significantly superior versus placebo on the primary outcome of time to GPP flare (hazard ratio [HR]=0·16, 95% CI 0·05-0·54; p=0·0005) endpoint. HRs were 0·35 (95% CI 0·14-0·86, nominal p=0·0057) in the low-dose spesolimab group and 0·47 (0·21-1·06, p=0·027) in the medium-dose spesolimab group. We established a non-flat dose-response relationship for spesolimab compared with placebo, with statistically significant p values for each predefined model (linear p=0·0022, emax1 p=0·0024, emax2 p=0·0023, and exponential p=0·0034). Infection rates were similar across treatment arms; there were no deaths and no hypersensitivity reactions leading to discontinuation.

INTERPRETATION: High-dose spesolimab was superior to placebo in GPP flare prevention, significantly reducing the risk of a GPP flare and flare occurrence over 48 weeks. Given the chronic nature of GPP, a treatment for flare prevention is a significant shift in the clinical approach, and could ultimately lead to improvements in patient morbidity and quality of life.

METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial, done in 209 sites in 29 countries, we randomly assigned patients 2:1 with untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer using a block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice-response system with integrated web-response to pembrolizumab (200 mg) every 3 weeks plus chemotherapy (nab-paclitaxel; paclitaxel; or gemcitabine plus carboplatin) or placebo plus chemotherapy. Randomisation was stratified by type of on-study chemotherapy (taxane or gemcitabine-carboplatin), PD-L1 expression at baseline (combined positive score [CPS] ≥1 or <1), and previous treatment with the same class of chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting (yes or no). Eligibility criteria included age at least 18 years, centrally confirmed triple-negative breast cancer; at least one measurable lesion; provision of a newly obtained tumour sample for determination of triple-negative breast cancer status and PD-L1 status by immunohistochemistry at a central laboratory; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score 0 or 1; and adequate organ function. The sponsor, investigators, other study site staff (except for the unmasked pharmacist), and patients were masked to pembrolizumab versus saline placebo administration. In addition, the sponsor, the investigators, other study site staff, and patients were masked to patient-level tumour PD-L1 biomarker results. Dual primary efficacy endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival assessed in the PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more, CPS of 1 or more, and intention-to-treat populations. The definitive assessment of progression-free survival was done at this interim analysis; follow-up to assess overall survival is continuing. For progression-free survival, a hierarchical testing strategy was used, such that testing was done first in patients with CPS of 10 or more (prespecified statistical criterion was α=0·00411 at this interim analysis), then in patients with CPS of 1 or more (α=0·00111 at this interim analysis, with partial alpha from progression-free survival in patients with CPS of 10 or more passed over), and finally in the intention-to-treat population (α=0·00111 at this interim analysis). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02819518, and is ongoing.

FINDINGS: Between Jan 9, 2017, and June 12, 2018, of 1372 patients screened, 847 were randomly assigned to treatment, with 566 patients in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 281 patients in the placebo-chemotherapy group. At the second interim analysis (data cutoff, Dec 11, 2019), median follow-up was 25·9 months (IQR 22·8-29·9) in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 26·3 months (22·7-29·7) in the placebo-chemotherapy group. Among patients with CPS of 10 or more, median progression-free survival was 9·7 months with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy and 5·6 months with placebo-chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0·65, 95% CI 0·49-0·86; one-sided p=0·0012 [primary objective met]). Median progression-free survival was 7·6 and 5·6 months (HR, 0·74, 0·61-0·90; one-sided p=0·0014 [not significant]) among patients with CPS of 1 or more and 7·5 and 5·6 months (HR, 0·82, 0·69-0·97 [not tested]) among the intention-to-treat population. The pembrolizumab treatment effect increased with PD-L1 enrichment. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse event rates were 68% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 67% in the placebo-chemotherapy group, including death in <1% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 0% in the placebo-chemotherapy group.

INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab-chemotherapy showed a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival versus placebo-chemotherapy among patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer with CPS of 10 or more. These findings suggest a role for the addition of pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.