IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0272826.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Clinical efficacy and safety of interferon (Type I and Type III) therapy in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Author

Listed:
  • Seungeun Ryoo
  • Dae-Hyup Koh
  • Su-Yeon Yu
  • Miyoung Choi
  • Kyungmin Huh
  • Joon-Sup Yeom
  • Jung Yeon Heo

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Seungeun Ryoo & Dae-Hyup Koh & Su-Yeon Yu & Miyoung Choi & Kyungmin Huh & Joon-Sup Yeom & Jung Yeon Heo, 2023. "Clinical efficacy and safety of interferon (Type I and Type III) therapy in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-17, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0272826
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272826
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0272826
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0272826&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0272826?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Prasanna Jagannathan & Jason R. Andrews & Hector Bonilla & Haley Hedlin & Karen B. Jacobson & Vidhya Balasubramanian & Natasha Purington & Savita Kamble & Christiaan R. Vries & Orlando Quintero & Kent, 2021. "Peginterferon Lambda-1a for treatment of outpatients with uncomplicated COVID-19: a randomized placebo-controlled trial," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0272826. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.