IntroductionDeficiencies in interleukin (IL)-1 receptor (IL-R) antagonist (DIRA) and IL-36R antagonist (DITRA) are rare genetic autoinflammatory diseases related to alterations in antagonists of the IL-1 pathway. IL-1 antagonists may represent therapeutic alternatives. Here, we aim to provide a scoping review of knowledge on use of IL-1-targeting drugs in DIRA and DITRA.MethodsAn a priori protocol was published, and the study was conducted using the methodology described in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual and the recently published PRISMA Extension for Scoping Review statement. A three-step search using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases until March 2018 with additional hand searching was performed. Data charting was performed. The search, article selection, and data extraction were carried out by two researchers independently.ResultsTwenty-four studies on use of anti-IL-1 drugs were included [15 studies including patients with diagnosis of DIRA (n = 19) and 9 studies including patients with diagnosis of DITRA (n = 9)]. Most studies followed a multicenter observational design. Among all patients who received treatment with anti-IL-1 drugs, nine and four mutations in IL1RN and IL36RN were found, respectively. Patients with DIRA were treated with anakinra (n = 17), canakinumab (n = 2), or rinolacept (n = 6). All patients with DITRA were treated with anakinra, and only one case was also treated with canakinumab. Time-to-response frequencies were evaluated as immediate, short, and medium–long term for DIRA (17/17, 15/17, and 9/10, respectively) and DITRA (7/9, 3/9, and 2/9, respectively). Most DITRA patients in whom anti-IL-1 treatment failed experienced good response to anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha or anti-IL-12/23 drugs. The safety profiles of treatments were similar in both diseases.ConclusionsEvidence on use of anti-IL-1 drugs in DIRA and DITRA is scarce and based on observational studies. Larger studies with better methodological quality are needed to increase confidence in use of these drugs in patients with DIRA and DITRA.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s13555-018-0269-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundEpidemiology and the reporting characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are well known. However, no study has analyzed the influence of protocol features on the probability that a study’s results will be finally reported, thereby indirectly assessing the reporting bias of International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration records.ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to explore which factors are associated with a higher probability that results derived from a non-Cochrane PROSPERO registration record for a systematic review will be finally reported as an original article in a scientific journal.Methods/designThe PROSPERO repository will be web scraped to automatically and iteratively obtain all completed non-Cochrane registration records stored from February 2011 to December 2017. Downloaded records will be screened, and those with less than 90% fulfilled or are duplicated (i.e., those sharing titles and reviewers) will be excluded. Manual and human-supervised automatic methods will be used for data extraction, depending on the data source (fields of PROSPERO registration records, bibliometric databases, etc.). Records will be classified into published, discontinued, and abandoned review subgroups. All articles derived from published reviews will be obtained through multiple parallel searches using the full protocol “title” and/or “list reviewers” in MEDLINE/PubMed databases and Google Scholar. Reviewer, author, article, and journal metadata will be obtained using different sources. R and Python programming and analysis languages will be used to describe the datasets; perform text mining, machine learning, and deep learning analyses; and visualize the data. We will report the study according to the recommendations for meta-epidemiological studies adapted from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement for SRs and MAs.DiscussionThis meta-epidemiological study will explore, for the first time, characteristics of PROSPERO records that may be associated with the publication of a completed systematic review. The evidence may help to improve review workflow performance in terms of research topic selection, decision-making regarding team selection, planning relationships with funding sources, implementing literature search strategies, and efficient data extraction and analysis. We expect to make our results, datasets, and R and Python code scripts publicly available during the third quarter of 2018.

This research-on-research study describes efforts to develop non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) by analyzing demographical and time-course collaborations between international institutions using protocols registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) or published in scientific journals. We have published an a priori protocol to develop this study. Protocols published in scientific journals were searched using the MEDLINE and Embase databases; the query terms “Systematic review” [Title] AND “protocol” [Title] were searched from February 2011 to December 2017. Protocols registered at PROSPERO during the same period were obtained by web scraping all non-Cochrane records with a Python script. After excluding protocols that had a fulfillment or duplication rate of less than 90%, they were classified as published “only in PROSPERO”, “only in journals”, or in “journals and PROSPERO”. Results of data and metadata extraction using text mining processes were curated by two reviewers. These Datasets and R scripts are freely available to facilitate reproducibility. We obtained 20,814 protocols of non-Cochrane SRs. While “unique protocols” by reviewers’ institutions from 60 countries were the most frequent, a median of 6 (2-150) institutions from 130 different countries were involved in the preparation of “collaborative protocols”. The highest Ranked countries involved in overall protocol production were the UK, the U.S., Australia, Brazil, China, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy. Most protocols were registered only in PROSPERO. However, the number of protocols published in scientific journals (924) or in both PROSPERO and journals (807) has increased over the last three years. Syst Rev and BMJ Open published more than half of the total protocols. While the more productive countries were involved in “unique” and “collaborative protocols”, less productive countries only participated in “collaborative protocols” that were mainly published in PROSPERO. Our results suggest that, although most countries were involved in solitary production of protocols for non-Cochrane SRs during the study period, it would be useful to develop new strategies to promote international collaborations, especially with less productive countries.