A meta-analysis of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) antibody treatment for COVID-19 patients.

OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) antibodies on COVID-19.
METHODS: Relevant literatures about GM-CSF antibody treatment in COVID-19 patients were searched from the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Google scholar, and Baiduscholar databases from the COVID-19 outbreak in December 2019 until 1 January 2021. The primary outcomes included the death, intensive care unit (ICU) admission risk, ventilation requirement, and secondary infection.
RESULTS: A total of 12 eligible literature involving 8979 COVID-19 patients were recruited, and they were divided into experimental group (n = 2673) and control group (n = 6306). Using a random-effect model, it is found that the GM-CSF antibody treatment was associated with a 23% decline of the risk of death [odd's ratio (OR): 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.21-0.56, p < 0.0001] and a 20% enhancement of ventilation (OR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.19, 1.80, p = 0.0002). GM-CSF antibody treatment did not have a significant correlation to secondary infection and increased risk of ICU admission in COVID-19 patients, which may be attributed to the older age and the length of stay.
CONCLUSIONS: Severe COVID-19 patients can benefit from GM-CSF antibodies.

Introduction

COVID-19 has been of global concern due to its serious outcomes and strong infectivity that significantly endangers public health. Clinical symptoms of COVID-19 include fever, hypotension, pulmonary edema, disseminated intravascular coagulation, respiratory failure, and even acute respira-tory distress syndrome (ARDS). Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) antibodies bind to corresponding receptors commonly applied to autoimmune and inflammatory disorders like rheumatoid arthritis. GM-CSF plays an important role in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 for its immune hyperresponse. Therefore, anti-GM-CSF therapy has been applied to hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and has achieved certain results.[1-3] In the announced clinical trials, GM-CSF antibodies, including mavrilimumab [Clinicialtrial.gov identifier: NCT04492514], lenzilumab [Clinicialtrial.gov identifier: NCT04351152], and tocilizumab [Clinicialtrial.gov identifier: NCT04306705] have been used in the treatment of COVID-19. However, their underlying pharmacological mechanisms, safety, and adverse events in the treatment of COVID-19 have not been clearly clarified. In addition, the safety and efficacy of GM-CSF antibodies in the treatment of COVID-19 are also controversial; in particular, mortality, drug use, and secondary infections should be of concern.[4-6] Therefore, the present meta-analysis was conducted to investigate GM-CSF antibody treatment in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

Inclusion and exclusion criteria and data collection

J.G. and W.W were responsible for the literature search and data analyses. After searching for relevant literature on online databases, duplicate studies were excluded using EndNote X9; non-eligible literature was further excluded by reviewing the full-text. Any disagreement was resolved by the third investigator (S. L). Briefly, literature concerning GM-CSF antibody treatment alone, or in combination with other specific treatments, of adult COVID-19 patients were included. Those studies that involved non-adult COVID-19 patients and which were without clear results were excluded.

Searching strategy

The study was performed based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement checklist. J.G. and W.W. were responsible for searching relevant literature in the Web of Science, Embase, Pubmed, Google scholar, and other databases (Baidu scholar, CNKI). References for each piece of literature were manually reviewed. Any disagreement was solved by the third author (Z.X.).

In detail, relevant literature published from 1 December 2019 year until 1 January 2021 with the following search keywords were searched: ‘GM-CSF’, ‘CSF’, ‘tocilizumab’, ‘atlizumab’, ‘actemra’, ‘roactemra’, ‘kevzara’, ‘sylvant’, ‘CNTO-328’, ‘SARS-CoV-2’, ‘coronavirus’, ‘nCoV’, ‘pneumonia’, ‘corona-viru’, ‘2019 nCoV’, ‘COVID-19’, ‘WuHan’, ‘lenzilumab’, ‘TJM’, ‘recombinant monoclonal antibodies against granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor’, ‘monoclonal antibodies against granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor’, ‘antibodies against granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor’, and ‘mavrilimumab’.

Study selection and data extraction

J. G. and W.W were responsible for extracting data through eligible literature, including the number of recruited patients, therapeutic strategies, ventilation conditions, ICU admission risk, death number, severe case number, risks of COVID-19, length of stay, secondary infection, and severe events (e.g., sepsis, acute kidney injury, cardiac injury) etc.

Assessment of study quality

Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS)[7] (Supplemental Table S1).

Statistical analysis

Pooled estimates were presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intrevals (CIs) and visualized by forest plots. Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated by χ2, I2, df, and Tau2. Negative I2 values were set to zero. 25%, 50%, and 75% I2indicated a low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively. Publication bias was assessed by using funnel plots and Egger’s asymmetry test. Revman 5.3 was used for statistical processing.

Results

Selection of eligible literatures

Following the searching strategy described in Figure 1, 12,577 pieces of literature were initially identified based on the assessment of the titles and abstracts. We excluded 12,565 pieces of literature strictly conformed to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. At last, a total of 12 pieces of eligible literature were finally included in the meta-analysis.

Figure 1.

Flow diagram of selection of eligible literatures.

Characteristics of included literatures

A total 12 pieces of eligible literature involving 8979 COVID-19 patients were divided into GM-CSF antibody treatment group (n = 2673) and control group (n = 6306). The baseline characteristics, including the study design (type of study), treatment methods of each group, sample sizes of each group, and NOS score of each study were shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Characteristics of eligible literatures included in the meta-analysis.

Reference	Type of study	Dosage of GM-CSF antibodies and combination therapy		Control		NOS score
		Number	Method	Number	Method
Campochiaro et al.[8]	A single-centre retrospective study	32	① TCZ IV 400 mg. A second dose of 400 mg of TCZ was given after 24 h in case of respiratory worsening (defined as need to increase FiO2, to start NIV, or to start mechanical ventilation) after the first TCZ infusion.② HCQ 400 mg daily, LV/RV 400/100 mg bid, ceftriaxone 2 gr for 6 days, AZ 500 mg daily TCZ IV 400 mg once. After 24 h if respiratory worsening given 400 mg of TCZ again	33	/	7
Somers et al.[9]	A single-center observational cohort study	78	① TCZ IV 8 mg/kg (maximum) 800 mg② HCQ 600 mg twice 12 h, then 200 mg every 8 h per day	76	/	8
DE Luca et al.[10]	A single-centre prospective cohort study	13	① Mavrilimumab IV 6 mg/kg.② HCQ po (200 mg bid), IV AZ (500 mg once daily until patient tested negative for urine antigen for Legionella pneumophila), oral LV–RV (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively, bid).	26	/	8
Pereira et al.[11]	A single-center retrospective cohort study	29	① TCZ 4–8 mg/kg (maximum 800 mg) IV② MP 1 mg/kg/day	29	/	7
Colaneri et al.[12]	A single-center retrospective cohort study	21	① 8 mg/kg (up to a maximum 800 mg per dose) of TCZ IV, repeated after 12 h② HCQ 200 mg bid, AZ 500 mg once, low weight heparin, and MP 1 mg/kg up to a maximum of 80 mg for 10 days.	91	/	8
Roumier et al.[13]	A muti-centers prospective cohort study	49	① β-lactam antibiotics, IV 1 g or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid 1 g tid for 7 days; AZ, 250 mg bid on day 1 and then 250 mg qid from days 2–5; HCQ, 200 mg tid for 10 days; and LV/RV, 400/100 mg bid.②. TCZ IV (8 mg/kg with a maximum of 800 mg; and if needed a second IV 24–72 h later)	47	/	7
Li et al.[14]	A 7-centres retrospective observational cohort study	1631	① TCZ IV 4–8 mg/kg② HCQ, antiretrovirals, antimicrobial, CP, GC, and anticoagulation.	307	/	7
Chilimuri et al.[15]	A single-centre retrospective cohort study	87	① TCZ 4–8 mg/kg (usually 400 mg).② HCQ antiretrovirals, antimicrobial, CP, GC, and anticoagulation.	1187	/	7
Guaraldi et al.[16]	A single-center retrospective cohort study	28	① 8 mg/kg up to 400 mg TCZ IV once.② Started by HCQ 400 mg BID, followed by 200 mg BID for 5 days HCQ+AZ 500 mg per day for 5 days.	23	/	7
Temesgen et al.[17]	A single-center retrospective cohort study	12	① Lenzilumab 600 mg IV for three doses.② Other: RV or SS.	27	/	8
Gupta et al.[18]	A 68-centers prospective cohort study	433	① TCZ(not clear)② Other: Steroid, MP, BT, DM, HD.	3491	/	7
Martínez et al.[19]	A 17-centers observational cohort study	261	① All patients received a median total dose of 600 mg (IQR 600–800 171 mg) of TCZ. The first dose was administered at a median time of 4 (IQR 3–5) days from inpatient admission.② other GC, HCQ, AZ, or LV/RV	969	/	7

AZ, azithromycin; bid, two times a day; CP, convalescent plasma; GC, glucocorticoids; HCV, hydroxychloroquine; HP, heparin; IV, intravenous; LV, lopinavir; MP, methylprednisolone; NA, not available; NIV, non-invasive ventilation; qd, once a day; qid, four times a day; RB, ribavirin; RV, ritonavir; SS, systemic steroids; TCZ, tocilizumab.

Mortality

Mortality data were obtained from 8 studies involving 1,530 COVID-19 patients; of these, 301/1530 received GM-CSF antibody treatment. As shown in Figure 2, GM-CSF antibody treatment significantly improved the overall survival (OS) of COVID-19 than conventional treatment (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.21, 0.56). The test for the overall efficacy manifested as the following: Z = 4.31 (p < 0.0001), Tau2 = 0.10; Chi2 = 8.98, df = 7 (p = 0.25), and I2 = 22%.

Figure 2.

Mortality risk between the GM-CSF antibody treatment group and the control group in COVID-19 patients.

Intensive care unit admission

To estimate the risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission in COVID-19 patients, we analyzed the data of 3337 COVID-19 patients from 4 studies, including 617 in the GM-CSF antibody treatment group and 2720 in the control group. In the former group, 244/617 patients were admitted for ICU admission; while 389/2720 in the control group were admitted for ICU admission. As shown in Figure 3, the test for the overall efficacy was Z = 6.66 (p < 0.00001), Tau2 = 0.11, Chi2 = 6.74, df = 3 (p = 0.08), and I2 = 55%.

Figure 3.

The risk of ICU admission between the GM-CSF antibody treatment group and the control group in COVID-19 patients.

Improvement of ventilation

Ventilation data from 4 controlled clinical trials involving 4053 COVID-19 patients (486 in the GM-CSF antibody treatment group and 3567 in the control group) were analyzed to assess the overall improvement on ventilation. A total of 326/486 in the GM-CSF antibody treatment group and 2048/3567 patients in control group had improved ventilation, respectively. As shown in Figure 4, the treatment of GM-CSF antibodies had no effect on improving ventilation in COVID-19 patients (OR = 1.47, 95% CI: 1.19, 1.80). The test for the overall efficacy was Z = 3.67 (p = 0.0002), Tau2 = 0.00, Chi2 = 1.97, df = 3 (p = 0.58), and I2 = 0%.

Figure 4.

Improvement in ventilation between the GM-CSF antibody treatment group and the control group in COVID-19 patients.

Secondary infection

Secondary infections were reported in 4 studies involving 4086 COVID-19 patients; of these, 507 were in the GM-CSF antibody treatment group and 3579 were in the control group. As shown in Figure 5, The data did not reveal a significant difference in secondary infection between groups (OR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.87, 1.31). The test for the overall efficacy was Z = 0.62 (p = 0.54), Tau2 = 0.00, Chi2 = 1.45, df = 3 (p = 0.69), and I2 = 0%.

Figure 5.

The risk of secondary infection between the GM-CSF antibody treatment group and the control group in COVID-19 patients.

Discussion

The health and economic crisis caused by COVID-19 has become an urgent problem in the international community. Emerging evidence suggests that interleukin-6 (IL-6) is one of the main drivers of the systemic pro-inflammatory response accompanying cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in COVID-19. By activating vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression and downregulating E-cadherin in endothelial cells through signaling transportation, IL-6 increases vascular permeability and leakage. The GM-CSF antibody blocks IL-6 by binding to its receptor. GM-CSF antibody treatment has emerged as a helpful therapeutic option that has been widely applied in clinical practice. However, the efficacy and safety of GM-CSF antibodies on the treatment of COVID-19 remain controversial. We performed this meta-analysis involving 12 studies of 8979 COVID-19 patients. Categorized by the therapeutic strategies, they were divided into the GM-CSF antibody treatment group (n = 2673) and the control group (n = 6306). Our results revealed that GM-CSF antibody treatment significantly reduced mortality but increased the risk of ICU admission.

Due to the limited understanding of pathology of COVID-19, the timing of tocilizumab (TCZ) medication should be noted. In the included studies, Martínez-Sanz et al.[19] found that COVID-19 patients with a c-reactive protein (CRP) greater than 150 mg/l can benefited from TCZ, while those with a CRP lower than 150 mg/l cannot. Interestingly, Pereira et al.[11] reported that severe COVID-19 patients with a CRP > 200 mmol/l or haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) < 1.0 OR d-dimer > 1000, and those who have more concurrent symptoms suffer an increased mortality. Consistent with this, Chilimuri et al.[15] recommended the use of GM-CSF antibodies in severe conditions when the CRP level was > 200 mmol/l. The above findings may have differences due to individual differences and racial differences.

In the latest report, GM-CSF antibodies were used to shorten the duration in ICU, which may be related to the decreased ventilation risk. However, the ICU admission rate of COVID-19 patients has been rarely reported. In the included studies, Martínez-Sanz et al.[19] found no significant difference in ICU admission of COVID-19 patients between groups; despite this, univariate analyses showed that older age and length of stay were risk factors for ICU admission. It should be noted that Li et al.[14] found that COVID-19 patients who are not admitted in ICU have a worse response to TCZ treatment, which may be related to respiratory and other life supports.

COVID-19 progressively causes severe respiratory failure and serious inflammation; as a result, this leads to a high mortality risk. However, Rodríguez-Molinero et al.[20] believed that an early intervention of GM-CSF antibodies also triggers adverse events in COVID-19 patients. Kimmig et al.[21] and Quartuccio et al.[22] revealed that COVID-19 patients in the GM-CSF antibody group have a higher rate of secondary infection. In our study, we did not obtain a significant difference in secondary infection in COVID-19 patients between groups, which may be attributed that they already have a high incidence of secondary infections.[23]

Consistent with previous meta-analyses, unmeasured confounding factors and potential biases in our study should be a concern. Therefore, our primary analysis adopted NOS based on an additional adjustment for propensity score that provided consistent results across these analyses. Although adjustments for potential confounders were performed in our study, some unmeasured confounding factors may exist. In addition, our study may include missing data for some variables and there is potential for inaccuracies in the documentation of electronic health records. Taken together, this meta-analysis provided a systematic comprehensive and updated evaluation of GM-CSF antibody treatment in COVID-19-related clinical outcomes. Otherwise, there are some other factors in this study, such as other drugs, ventilator availability, and vaccines. For example, the effectiveness of Decadron in COVID-19 has been previously reported.[24] So, the synergistic effect or other interactions of these factors (such as Decadron) remains unclear. Therefore, controlled trials are still needed for further verification.

Conclusions

Due to the urgent demand for effective treatments for COVID-19, this meta-analysis study comprehensively analyzed the safety and efficacy of GM-CSF antibody treatment, which was identified as being beneficial to COVID-19 patients. Different types of GM-CSF antibodies administration are currently being therapeutically tested in COVID-19 clinical trials. The application of GM-CSF antibodies can reduce respiratory symptoms; however, evidence supporting the function of GM-CSF antibodies in reducing secondary infections of COVID-19 is limited. However, our study had some limitations since some observational studies were included; potential biases of confounding factors could not be excluded. Therefore, more random controlled trials and high-quality literature is required to validate our study.

Click here for additional data file.

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-taj-10.1177_20406223211039699 for A meta-analysis of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) antibody treatment for COVID-19 patients by Jin-Tao Guan, Wei-Jie Wang, Du Jin, Xiao-Yue Mou, Shan-Shan Lei and Zheng-Hao Xu in Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease