This study investigated the efficacy and safety of interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonists with standard care treatment in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The randomized controlled trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases through February 10, 2022. In total, 17 trials comprising 8,614 patients were included. Compared with exclusive standard care or placebo, IL-6 receptor antagonists with standard of care treatment were associated with a significantly reduced all-cause mortality at 28 days (pooled risk ratios [RR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82–0.95; 17 studies) and progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71–0.88; nine studies). Particularly, the subgroup of patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 showed a significant mortality benefit (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81–0.96; four studies) and a reduced risk for mechanical ventilation (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70–0.91; three studies) with tocilizumab treatment. The frequency of serious adverse events was lower in the tocilizumab treatment group than in the standard of care treatment group (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71–0.97; 11 studies), with no significant difference in the sarilumab treatment group (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.89–1.40; four studies). Our meta-analysis demonstrated that tocilizumab treatment showed promising results in reducing 28-day mortality and progression to mechanical ventilation in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, without the burden of serious adverse events. Trial registration: PROSPERO: registration number CRD42021294120.

Interferon (IFN) has been highlighted in several randomized controlled trials as an attractive therapeutic candidate based plausible mode of action, suppressed response in severe COVID-19, and inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 replication. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of IFN in patients with COVID-19 according to clinical severity. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of IFN (systemic or inhaled IFN-α, -β, and -λ) treatment in adult patients with COVID-19 were identified by systematically searching electronic databases until January 2023. Risk of bias were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, meta-analysis, and certainty of evidence grading were followed for the systematic review. We included 11 trials comprising 6,124 patients. Compared with exclusive standard care or placebo, IFN therapy did not provide significant clinical benefits for mortality at day 28 (pooled risk ratio [RR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62–1.18, 9 studies, low-certainty evidence) and progression to mechanical ventilation (pooled RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.81–1.43, 6 studies, low-certainty evidence) in patients with COVID-19. IFN therapy resulted in significantly increased hospital discharge on day 14 relative to the control arm (pooled RR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.04–1.59). These results were inconsistent compared to other comparable outcomes such as recovery at day 14 and time to clinical improvement. The IFN-treated arm was as safe as the control arm, regardless of clinical severity (pooled RR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.64–1.19, 9 studies, low-certainty evidence). In conclusion, IFN therapy was safe but did not demonstrate favorable outcomes for major clinical indices in patients with COVID-19, particularly those with higher than moderate severity. IFN therapy was not associated with worsening outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19. Future clinical trials should evaluate the clinical efficacy of IFN therapy in patients with mild COVID-19 or at an earlier stage. Trial registration: The protocol for this review was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the registration number CRD42022301413.

Kim SB, et al. Infect Chemother. 2021 Mar;53(1):166-219. https://doi.org/10.3947/ic.2021.0303

Jin-Soo Lee, Dong Ah Park, Seungeun Ryoo, Jungeun Park, Gi Hong Choi, Jeong-Ju Yoo. Gut and Liver 2024;18:695-708. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl230485

Kim HK, et al. Korean Circ J. 2024 Oct;54:e110. https://doi.org/10.4070/kcj.2024.0257

Although the disease burden of elderly cancer patients is rapidly increasing, reliable scientific information, value and preference information of domestic patients, and standardized guidelines for determining the treatment of elderly cancer patients are lacking. The aim of this study is to compare the therapeutic effects of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and surgery in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients aged 65 years or older. For the meta-analysis, the databases including PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, OVID Medline, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched. After the abstract-based review by two investigators, selected manuscripts were read in detail. The surgery group showed higher overall survival (OS) (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.22–1.70) and disease-free survival (DFS) (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00–1.97) than the RFA group. This was also shown in small HCC of less than 3 cm (OS, HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.00–2.03; DFS, HR 1.32, 95% CI 0.91–1.91). This might be related to the high local recurrence in the RFA group (OR 4.90, 95% 2.16–11.08). On the other hand, adverse events were significantly lower in the RFA group (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.14–0.36), which led to a decrease in the duration of hospital stay (mean difference −14.88 days, 95% CI −22.44–−7.32). In elderly HCC patients, survival in the surgery group was significantly higher than in the RFA group, but various complications tended to increase; so, appropriate patient selection is required.