Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

Early versus late tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

The role of early tracheostomy as an intervention for critically ill COVID-19 patients is unclear. Previous reports have described prolonged intensive care stays and difficulty weaning from mechanical ventilation in critically ill COVID-19 patients, particularly in those developing acute respiratory distress syndrome. Pre-pandemic evidence on the benefits of early tracheostomy is conflicting but suggests shorter hospital stays and lower mortality rates compared to late tracheostomy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of early tracheostomy compared to late tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, which comprises CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv, as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 14 June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) evaluating early tracheostomy compared to late tracheostomy during SARS-CoV-2 infection in critically ill adults irrespective of gender, ethnicity, or setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs and the ROBINS-I tool for NRSIs. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for outcomes of our prioritized categories: mortality, clinical status, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. As the timing of tracheostomy was very heterogeneous among the included studies, we applied GRADE only to studies that defined early tracheostomy as 10 days or less, which was chosen according to clinical relevance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one RCT with 150 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and 24 NRSIs with 6372 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. All participants were admitted to the ICU, orally intubated and mechanically ventilated. The RCT was a multicenter, parallel, single-blinded study conducted in Sweden. Of the 24 NRSIs, which were mostly conducted in high- and middle-income countries, eight had a prospective design and 16 a retrospective design. We did not find any ongoing studies. RCT-based evidence We judged risk of bias for the RCT to be of low or some concerns regarding randomization and measurement of the outcome. Early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in overall mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.29; RD 67 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 178 fewer to 108 more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). As an indicator of improvement of clinical status, early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation (MD 1.50 days fewer, 95%, CI 5.74 days fewer to 2.74 days more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). As an indicator of worsening clinical status, early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in the incidence of adverse events of any grade (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.13; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 164 fewer to 102 more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence); little to no difference in the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.23 to 5.20; RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 30 fewer to 162 more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported need for renal replacement therapy. Early tracheostomy may result in little benefit to no difference in ICU length of stay (MD 0.5 days fewer, 95% CI 5.34 days fewer to 4.34 days more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). NRSI-based evidence We considered risk of bias for NRSIs to be critical because of possible confounding, study participant enrollment into the studies, intervention classification and potentially systematic errors in the measurement of outcomes. We are uncertain whether early tracheostomy (≤ 10 days) increases or decreases overall mortality (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.00; RD 143 more per 1000, 95% CI 174 less to 1218 more; I2 = 79%; 2 studies, 719 participants) or duration to liberation from mechanical ventilation (MD 1.98 days fewer, 95% CI 0.16 days fewer to 4.12 more; 1 study, 50 participants), because we graded the certainty of evidence as very low. Three NRSIs reported ICU length of stay for 519 patients with early tracheostomy (≤ 10 days) as a median value, which we could not include in the meta-analyses. We are uncertain whether early tracheostomy (≤ 10 days) increases or decreases the ICU length of stay, because we graded the certainty of evidence as very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low-certainty evidence that early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in overall mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation compared with late tracheostomy. In terms of clinical improvement, early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in duration to liberation from mechanical ventilation compared with late tracheostomy. We are not certain about the impact of early tracheostomy on clinical worsening in terms of the incidence of adverse events, need for renal replacement therapy, ventilator-associated pneumonia, or the length of stay in the ICU. Future RCTs should provide additional data on the benefits and harms of early tracheostomy for defined main outcomes of COVID-19 research, as well as of comparable diseases, especially for different population subgroups to reduce clinical heterogeneity, and report a longer observation period. Then it would be possible to draw conclusions regarding which patient groups might benefit from early intervention. Furthermore, validated scoring systems for more accurate predictions of the need for prolonged mechanical ventilation should be developed and used in new RCTs to ensure safer indication and patient safety. High-quality (prospectively registered) NRSIs should be conducted in the future to provide valuable answers to clinical questions. This could enable us to draw more reliable conclusions about the potential benefits and harms of early tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have very-low to low certainty evidence for most primary outcomes and moderate certainty for hospital admission or death. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have low certainty evidence for our primary outcomes. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

How Protective are Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the Main Weapon of the B-Cell Response?

Since the beginning of the Coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic in December 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been responsible for more than 600 million infections and 6.5 million deaths worldwide. Given the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 and its ability to develop new variants, the implementation of an effective and long-term herd immunity appears to be crucial to overcome the pandemic. While a vast field of research has focused on the role of humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2, a growing body of evidence suggest that antibodies alone only confer a partial protection against infection of reinfection which could be of high importance regarding the strategic development goals (SDG) of the United Nations (UN) and in particular UN SDG3 that aims towards the realization of good health and well being on a global scale in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.In this review, we highlight the role of humoral immunity in the host defense against SARS-CoV-2, with a focus on highly neutralizing antibodies. We summarize the results of the main clinical trials leading to an overall disappointing efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy, variable results of monoclonal neutralizing antibodies in patients with COVID-19 but outstanding results for the mRNA based vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. Finally, we advocate that beyond antibody responses, the development of a robust cellular immunity against SARS-CoV-2 after infection or vaccination is of utmost importance for promoting immune memory and limiting disease severity, especially in case of (re)-infection by variant viruses.

Early spontaneous breathing for acute respiratory distress syndrome in individuals with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) represents the most severe course of COVID-19 (caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus), usually resulting in a prolonged stay in an intensive care unit (ICU) and high mortality rates. Despite the fact that most affected individuals need invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), evidence on specific ventilation strategies for ARDS caused by COVID-19 is scarce. Spontaneous breathing during IMV is part of a therapeutic concept comprising light levels of sedation and the avoidance of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA). This approach is potentially associated with both advantages (e.g. a preserved diaphragmatic motility and an optimised ventilation-perfusion ratio of the ventilated lung), as well as risks (e.g. a higher rate of ventilator-induced lung injury or a worsening of pulmonary oedema due to increases in transpulmonary pressure). As a consequence, spontaneous breathing in people with COVID-19-ARDS who are receiving IMV is subject to an ongoing debate amongst intensivists.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of early spontaneous breathing activity in invasively ventilated people with COVID-19 with ARDS compared to ventilation strategies that avoid spontaneous breathing.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, Clinical Trials.gov WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv) and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies from their inception to 2 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible study designs comprised randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated spontaneous breathing in participants with COVID-19-related ARDS compared to ventilation strategies that avoided spontaneous breathing (e.g. using NMBA or deep sedation levels). Additionally, we considered controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series with comparison group, prospective cohort studies and retrospective cohort studies. For these non-RCT studies, we considered a minimum total number of 50 participants to be compared as necessary for inclusion. Prioritised outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical improvement or worsening, quality of life, rate of (serious) adverse events and rate of pneumothorax. Additional outcomes were need for tracheostomy, duration of ICU length of stay and duration of hospitalisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two review authors independently screened all studies at the title/abstract and full-text screening stage. We also planned to conduct data extraction and risk of bias assessment in duplicate. We planned to conduct meta-analysis for each prioritised outcome, as well as subgroup analyses of mortality regarding severity of oxygenation impairment and duration of ARDS. In addition, we planned to perform sensitivity analyses for studies at high risk of bias, studies using NMBA in addition to deep sedation level to avoid spontaneous breathing and a comparison of preprints versus peer-reviewed articles. We planned to assess the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no eligible studies for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no direct evidence on whether early spontaneous breathing in SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS is beneficial or detrimental to this particular group of patients.  RCTs comparing early spontaneous breathing with ventilatory strategies not allowing for spontaneous breathing in SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS are necessary to determine its value within the treatment of severely ill people with COVID-19. Additionally, studies should aim to clarify whether treatment effects differ between people with SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS and people with non-SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS.

Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. They may modulate the exuberant immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, a direct antiviral effect has been described. An understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) on clinical outcomes in individuals (outpatient or in-hospital) with any severity of COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) Covid-19 Evidence Reviews to identify studies up to February 2022. We monitor newly published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) weekly using the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and have incorporated all new trials from this source until the first week of April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) for the treatment of individuals with COVID-19. We used the WHO definitions of illness severity for COVID-19.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (up to day 28), all-cause mortality (up to day 60), improvement in clinical status: alive and without need for in-hospital medical care (up to day 28), worsening of clinical status: new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (up to day 28), adverse events (any grade), serious adverse events, secondary infections.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs with 11,145 participants investigating systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo). Standard of care followed local protocols and included the application of glucocorticoids (five studies reported their use in a range of 70% to 95% of their participants; one study restricted glucocorticoid use to non-COVID-19 specific indications), antibiotic agents, anticoagulants, and antiviral agents, as well as non-pharmaceutical procedures. At study entry, about 65% of participants required low-flow oxygen, about 23% required high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, about 8% did not need any respiratory support, and only about 4% were intubated. We also identified 13 ongoing studies, and 9 studies that are completed or terminated and where classification is pending. Individuals with moderate to severe disease Four studies investigated the single agent baricitinib (10,815 participants), one tofacitinib (289 participants), and one ruxolitinib (41 participants). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (95 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 131 of 1000 participants in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.91; 6 studies, 11,145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 60 (125 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 181 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1626 participants; high-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status (discharged alive or hospitalised, but no longer requiring ongoing medical care) (801 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 778 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06; 4 studies, 10,802 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28) (154 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 172 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; 2 studies, 9417 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events (any grade) (427 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 441 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 3 studies, 1885 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events (160 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 202 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 4 studies, 2901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference to the rate of secondary infection (111 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 113 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 4 studies, 10,041 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 disease or type of JAK inhibitor did not identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease We did not identify any trial for this population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19, moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality. Baricitinib was the most often evaluated JAK inhibitor. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that they probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status and make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events of any grade, whilst they probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events. Based on low-certainty evidence, JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference in the rate of secondary infection. Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 or type of agent failed to identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Currently, there is no evidence on the efficacy and safety of systemic JAK inhibitors for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised individuals).

Convalescent plasma in COVID-19: renewed focus on the timing and effectiveness of an old therapy

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is responsible for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic that has strained health care systems worldwide and resulted in high mortality. The current COVID-19 treatment is based on supportive and symptomatic care. Therefore, convalescent plasma (CP), which provides passive immunization against many infectious diseases, has been studied for COVID-19 management. To date, a large number of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials as well as many systematic reviews have revealed conflicting results. This article summarizes the basic principles of passive immunization, particularly addressing CP in COVID-19. It also evaluates the effectiveness of CP as a therapy in patients with COVID-19, clinical trial reports and systematic reviews, regulatory considerations and different protocols that are authorized in different countries to use it safely and effectively. An advanced search was carried out in major databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE) and Google Scholar using the following key words: SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, convalescent plasma, and the applied query was “convalescent plasma” AND “COVID-19 OR SARS-CoV-2”. The results were filtered and duplicate data were removed. Collective evidence indicates that two cardinal players determine the effectiveness of CP use, time of infusion, and quality of CP. Early administration of CP with high neutralizing anti-spike IgG titer is hypothesized to be effective in improving clinical outcome, prevent progression, decrease the length of hospital stay, and reduce mortality. However, more reliable, high quality, well-controlled, double-blinded, randomized, international and multicenter collaborative trials are still needed.

In vitro Characterization of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Intravenous Immunoglobulins (IVIg) Produced From Plasma of Donors Immunized With the BNT162b2 Vaccine and Its Comparison With a Similar Formulation Produced From Plasma of COVID-19 Convalescent Donors

Despite vaccines are the main strategy to control the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic, their effectiveness could not be enough for individuals with immunosuppression. In these cases, as well as in patients with moderate/severe COVID-19, passive immunization with anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulins could be a therapeutic alternative. We used caprylic acid precipitation to prepare a pilot-scale batch of anti-SARS-CoV-2 intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg) from plasma of donors immunized with the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) anti-COVID-19 vaccine (VP-IVIg) and compared their in vitro efficacy and safety with those of a similar formulation produced from plasma of COVID-19 convalescent donors (CP-IVIg). Both formulations showed immunological, physicochemical, biochemical, and microbiological characteristics that meet the specifications of IVIg formulations. Moreover, the concentration of anti-RBD and ACE2-RBD neutralizing antibodies was higher in VP-IVIg than in CP-IVIg. In concordance, plaque reduction neutralization tests showed inhibitory concentrations of 0.03-0.09 g/L in VP-IVIg and of 0.06-0.13 in CP-IVIg. Thus, VP-IVIg has in vitro efficacy and safety profiles that justify their evaluation as therapeutic alternative for clinical cases of COVID-19. Precipitation with caprylic acid could be a simple, feasible, and affordable alternative to produce formulations of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg to be used therapeutically or prophylactically to confront the COVID-19 pandemic in middle and low-income countries.

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ).

METHODS

In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care.

Antibiotics for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The effect of antibiotics with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties are being investigated in clinical trials as treatment for COVID-19. The use of antibiotics follows the intention-to-treat the viral disease and not primarily to treat bacterial co-infections of individuals with COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding effectiveness and safety of antibiotics as anti-viral treatments for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotics compared to each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or any other active intervention with proven efficacy for treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 14 June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs were included that compared antibiotics with each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or another proven intervention, for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, treated in the in- or outpatient settings. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing antibiotics to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: 1. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as new need for intubation or death, clinical improvement defined as being discharged alive, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias; 2. to treat outpatients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as hospital admission or death, clinical improvement defined as symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies with 11,281 participants with an average age of 54 years investigating antibiotics compared to placebo, standard of care alone or another antibiotic. No study was found comparing antibiotics to an intervention with proven efficacy. All studies investigated azithromycin, two studies investigated other antibiotics compared to azithromycin. Seven studies investigated inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19 and four investigated mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. Eight studies had an open-label design, two were blinded with a placebo control, and one did not report on blinding. We identified 19 ongoing and 15 studies awaiting classification pending publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies. Of the 30 study results contributing to primary outcomes by included studies, 17 were assessed as overall low risk and 13 as some concerns of bias. Only studies investigating azithromycin reported data eligible for the prioritised primary outcomes. Azithromycin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies.  Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in inpatients We are very certain that azithromycin has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 compared to standard of care alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.06; 8600 participants; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). Azithromycin probably has little or no effect on clinical worsening or death at day 28 (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; 7311 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), on clinical improvement at day 28 (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; 8172 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), on serious adverse events during the study period (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.40; 794 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiac arrhythmias during the study period (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; 7865 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard of care alone. Azithromycin may increase any adverse events slightly during the study period (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.57; 355 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) compared to standard of care alone. No study reported quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in outpatients Azithromycin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care alone on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 1.00 ; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.69; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.94 ; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.56; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), and on symptom resolution at day 14 (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 138 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether azithromycin increases or reduces serious adverse events compared to placebo or standard of care alone (0 participants experienced serious adverse events; 454 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on adverse events, cardiac arrhythmias during the study period or quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to any other antibiotics in inpatients and outpatients One study compared azithromycin to lincomycin in inpatients, but did not report any primary outcome. Another study compared azithromycin to clarithromycin in outpatients, but did not report any relevant outcome for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are certain that risk of death in hospitalised COVID-19 patients is not reduced by treatment with azithromycin after 28 days. Further, based on moderate-certainty evidence, patients in the inpatient setting with moderate and severe disease probably do not benefit from azithromycin used as potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment for COVID-19 regarding clinical worsening or improvement. For the outpatient setting, there is currently low-certainty evidence that azithromycin may have no beneficial effect for COVID-19 individuals. There is no evidence from RCTs available for other antibiotics as antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment of COVID-19. With accordance to the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials to fill this evidence gap. However, in relation to the evidence for azithromycin and in the context of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics should not be used for treatment of COVID-19 outside well-designed RCTs.

Strategies to self-manage side-effects of adjuvant endocrine therapy among breast cancer survivors: an umbrella review of empirical evidence and clinical guidelines

PURPOSE

Side-effects of adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) are common in breast cancer survivors, and can affect adherence to treatment. We synthesised the evidence for strategies to self-manage these side-effects.

METHODS

We searched for systematic reviews and clinical guidelines on self-management strategies for AET side-effects (arthralgia, fatigue, hot flashes, gastrointestinal discomfort, nausea, vulvovaginal symptoms, and sleep disturbance). We searched oncology organisation's websites and eight databases (Inception-November 2020). Screening, data extraction and quality assessment were completed independently in duplicate.

PROSPERO

2019CRD4201914001.

RESULTS

We identified 33 systematic reviews and 18 clinical guidelines. 21% of reviews were high quality, and the average quality score for guidelines was 44%. Evidence for most strategies was absent or weak. There was consensus from a low-quality review and multiple guidelines to recommend moisturisers, gels and lubricants for vulvovaginal symptoms. Evidence was weak for physical activity for self-managing most symptoms, although two high-quality reviews indicated yoga and aerobic exercise could reduce fatigue. Primary research was often biased by weak and underpowered study designs. Eleven reviews did not report information on adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Most self-management strategies for breast cancer survivors experiencing side-effects from AET lack evidence. Primary research is needed using high-quality well-powered designs focusing on implementable strategies.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Patients and clinicians should be aware that although the risk of harm is low for these self-management strategies, the likelihood of benefit is often unclear. Women should consider moisturisers, gels or lubricants for self-managing vulvovaginal symptoms, and yoga or aerobic exercise for alleviating fatigue.

Convalescent plasma associates with reduced mortality and improved clinical trajectory in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

BACKGROUNDEvidence supporting convalescent plasma (CP), one of the first investigational treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has been inconclusive, leading to conflicting recommendations. The primary objective was to perform a comparative effectiveness study of CP for all-cause, in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19.METHODSThe multicenter, electronic health records-based, retrospective study included 44,770 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in one of 176 HCA Healthcare-affiliated community hospitals. Coarsened exact matching (1:k) was employed, resulting in a sample of 3774 CP and 10,687 comparison patients.RESULTSExamination of mortality using a shared frailty model, controlling for concomitant medications, date of admission, and days from admission to transfusion, demonstrated a significant association of CP with lower mortality risk relative to the comparison group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59-0.86; P < 0.001). Examination of patient risk trajectories, represented by 400 clinico-demographic features from our real-time risk model (RTRM), indicated that patients who received CP recovered more quickly. The stratification of days to transfusion revealed that CP within 3 days after admission, but not within 4 to 7 days, was associated with a significantly lower mortality risk (aHR = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.47-0.60; P < 0.001). CP serology level was inversely associated with mortality when controlling for its interaction with days to transfusion (HR = 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997-0.999; P = 0.013), yet it did not reach univariable significance.CONCLUSIONSThis large, diverse, multicenter cohort study demonstrated that CP, compared with matched controls, is significantly associated with reduced risk of in-hospital mortality. These observations highlight the utility of real-world evidence and suggest the need for further evaluation prior to abandoning CP as a viable therapy for COVID-19.FUNDINGThis research was supported in whole by HCA Healthcare and/or an HCA Healthcare-affiliated entity, including Sarah Cannon and Genospace.

V.I.T.A.M. in COVID 19: A Systematic Approach to a Global Pandemic

Introduction

In the unprecedented era of COVID-19, ongoing research and evolution of evidence has led to ever-changing guidelines for clinical monitoring and therapeutic options. Formulating treatment protocols requires the understanding and application of the evolving research.

Objective

The primary objective of this study is to present a systematic evidence-based approach to synthesize the necessary data in order to optimize the management of COVID-19.

Methods

At Mayo Clinic Florida, we developed a multidisciplinary centralized COVID Treatment Review Panel (TRP) of expert pulmonologists, intensivists, infectious disease specialists, anesthesiologists, hematologists, rheumatologists, and hospitalists that in real-time reviews the latest evidence in peer-reviewed journals, the available clinical trials, and help guide the rapid application of therapeutics or interventions to the patient and the bedside provider.

Results/Conclusions

The multi-disciplinary team approach of synthesizing clinical data and coordinating care is effective in responding to rapidly evolving and changing evidence. Systematic data collection and evidence-based treatment algorithms enable physicians to rapidly translate the current literature to clinical practice, and improve care and outcomes of patients.

Combating Oxidative Stress and Inflammation in COVID-19 by Molecular Hydrogen Therapy: Mechanisms and Perspectives

COVID-19 is a widespread global pandemic with nearly 185 million confirmed cases and about four million deaths. It is caused by an infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), which primarily affects the alveolar type II pneumocytes. The infection induces pathological responses including increased inflammation, oxidative stress, and apoptosis. This situation results in impaired gas exchange, hypoxia, and other sequelae that lead to multisystem organ failure and death. As summarized in this article, many interventions and therapeutics have been proposed and investigated to combat the viral infection-induced inflammation and oxidative stress that contributes to the etiology and pathogenesis of COVID-19. However, these methods have not significantly improved treatment outcomes. This may partly be attributable to their inability at restoring redox and inflammatory homeostasis, for which molecular hydrogen (H2), an emerging novel medical gas, may complement. Herein, we systematically review the antioxidative, anti-inflammatory, and antiapoptotic mechanisms of H2. Its small molecular size and nonpolarity allow H2 to rapidly diffuse through cell membranes and penetrate cellular organelles. H2 has been demonstrated to suppress NF-κB inflammatory signaling and induce the Nrf2/Keap1 antioxidant pathway, as well as to improve mitochondrial function and enhance cellular bioenergetics. Many preclinical and clinical studies have demonstrated the beneficial effects of H2 in varying diseases, including COVID-19. However, the exact mechanisms, primary modes of action, and its true clinical effects remain to be delineated and verified. Accordingly, additional mechanistic and clinical research into this novel medical gas to combat COVID-19 complications is warranted.

Ten things you need to know about intensive care unit management of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19

Introduction: The ongoing pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has posed important challenges for clinicians and health-care systems worldwide.Areas covered: The aim of this manuscript is to provide brief guidance for intensive care unit management of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 based on the literature and our direct experience with this population. PubMed, EBSCO, and the Cochrane Library were searched up until 15th of January 2021 for relevant literature.Expert opinion: Initially, the respiratory management of COVID-19 relied on the general therapeutic principles for acute respiratory distress syndrome; however, recent findings have suggested that the pathophysiology of hypoxemia in patients with COVID-19 presents specific features and changes over time. Several therapies, including antiviral and anti-inflammatory agents, have been proposed recently. The optimal intensive care unit management of patients with COVID-19 remains unclear; therefore, ongoing and future clinical trials are warranted to clarify the optimal strategies to adopt in this cohort of patients.

COVIDrugNet: a network-based web tool to investigate the drugs currently in clinical trial to contrast COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic poses a huge problem of public health that requires the implementation of all available means to contrast it, and drugs are one of them. In this context, we observed an unmet need of depicting the continuously evolving scenario of the ongoing drug clinical trials through an easy-to-use, freely accessible online tool. Starting from this consideration, we developed COVIDrugNet ( http://compmedchem.unibo.it/covidrugnet ), a web application that allows users to capture a holistic view and keep up to date on how the clinical drug research is responding to the SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here, we describe the web app and show through some examples how one can explore the whole landscape of medicines in clinical trial for the treatment of COVID-19 and try to probe the consistency of the current approaches with the available biological and pharmacological evidence. We conclude that careful analyses of the COVID-19 drug-target system based on COVIDrugNet can help to understand the biological implications of the proposed drug options, and eventually improve the search for more effective therapies.

Antibody and cellular therapies for treatment of covid-19: a living systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).

DESIGN

Living systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data.

DATA SOURCES

WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021).

STUDY SELECTION

Trials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate.

METHODS

After duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm.

RESULTS

As of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative.

CONCLUSION

In patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement.

FUNDING

This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321).

READERS' NOTE

This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).

Effectiveness of Convalescent Plasma Therapy in Severe or Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is a novel respiratory infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2); there are few specific treatments. Convalescent plasma (CP), donated by people who have recovered from COVID-19, is an investigational therapy for severe or critically ill patients with COVID-19.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study evaluated the effectiveness of CP therapy in patients with severe or life-threatening cases of COVID-19 at two hospitals in Seoul, Korea, between May and September 2020. Clinical outcomes were evaluated in 20 patients with CP therapy in a descriptive manner. Additionally, the changes in cycle threshold (Ct) values of 10 patients with CP therapy were compared to those of 10 controls who had the same (±0.8) initial Ct values but did not receive CP.

RESULTS

Of the 20 patients (mean age 66.6 years), 18 received high-dose oxygen therapy using mechanical ventilators or high-flow nasal cannulas. Systemic steroids were administered to 19 patients who received CP. The neutralizing antibody titers of the administered CP were between 1:80 and 1:10240. There were two ABO-mismatched transfusions. The World Health Organization ordinal scale score and National Institutes of Health severity score improved in half of the patients within 14 days. Those who received CP showed a higher increase in Ct values at 24 h and 72 h after CP therapy compared to controls with similar initial Ct values (p=0.002). No transfusion-related side effects were observed.

CONCLUSION

CP therapy may be a potential therapeutic option in severe or critically ill patients with COVID-19.

High-titre convalescent plasma therapy for an immunocompromised patient with systemic lupus erythematosus with protracted SARS-CoV-2 infection

A 39-year-old woman with systemic lupus erythematosus treated with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab was admitted to our hospital with COVID-19 pneumonia. Despite receiving dexamethasone, she developed hypoxaemia and persistent lung opacities. As bronchoalveolar lavage was suggestive of cryptogenic organising pneumonia, high-dose corticosteroid was administered, and she received antimicrobial therapy for opportunistic infections without improvement. Reverse transcription PCR was repeatedly positive for SARS-CoV-2, and virus replication was confirmed in cell cultures. As no anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were detected more than 100 days after symptom onset, she was treated with convalescent plasma with fast clinical improvement, returning home days later. Our case shows that persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection in an immunocompromised patient may be overturned with the appropriate treatment.

Long-Term Persistence and Relevant Therapeutic Impact of High-Titer Viral-Neutralizing Antibody in a Convalescent COVID-19 Plasma Super-Donor: A Case Report

A convalescent, non-severe, patient with COVID-19 was enrolled as a hyper-immune plasma voluntary donor by the Immuno-Hematology and Transfusion Unit of the Regina Elena National Cancer Institute in Rome, under the TSUNAMI national study criteria. During a nearly 6-month period (May-October 2020), the patient was closely monitored and underwent four hyperimmune plasma collections. Serum SARS-CoV-2 (anti-S + anti-N) IgG and IgM, anti-S1 IgA, and neutralizing titers (NTs) were measured. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels steadily decreased. No correlation was found between anti-S/anti-N IgG and IgM levels and viral NT, measured by either a microneutralization test or the surrogate RBD/ACE2-binding inhibition test. Conversely, NTs directly correlated with anti-S1 IgA levels. Hyperimmune donor plasma, administered to five SARS-CoV-2 patients with persistent, severe COVID-19 symptoms, induced short-term clinical and pathological improvement. Reported data suggest that high NTs can persist longer than expected, thus widening hyperimmune plasma source, availability, and potential use. In vitro RBD/ACE2-binding inhibition test is confirmed as a convenient surrogate index for neutralizing activity and patients' follow-up, suitable for clinical settings where biosafety level 3 facilities are not available. IgA levels may correlate with serum neutralizing activity and represent a further independent index for patient evaluation.

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine with properties to inhibit viral replication of SARS-CoV-2. Positive results from early studies attracted media attention and led to emergency use authorisation of remdesivir in COVID-19.  A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the effects of remdesivir as a treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of remdesivir compared to placebo or standard care alone on clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv) as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 16 April 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included RCTs evaluating remdesivir for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitalised adults compared to placebo or standard care alone irrespective of disease severity, gender, ethnicity, or setting.  We excluded studies that evaluated remdesivir for the treatment of other coronavirus diseases.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for outcomes that were reported according to our prioritised categories: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation, duration to liberation from supplemental oxygen, new need for mechanical ventilation (high-flow oxygen or non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation, new need for non-invasive mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen, new need for oxygen by mask or nasal prongs, quality of life, adverse events (any grade), and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs with 7452 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and a mean age of 59 years, of whom 3886 participants were randomised to receive remdesivir. Most participants required low-flow oxygen (n=4409) or mechanical ventilation (n=1025) at baseline. We identified two ongoing studies, one was suspended due to a lack of COVID-19 patients to recruit. Risk of bias was considered to be of some concerns or high risk for clinical status and safety outcomes because participants who had died did not contribute information to these outcomes. Without adjustment, this leads to an uncertain amount of missing values and the potential for bias due to missing data. Effects of remdesivir in hospitalised individuals  Remdesivir probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.06; risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 7 more; 4 studies, 7142 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Considering the initial severity of condition, only one study showed a beneficial effect of remdesivir in patients who received low-flow oxygen at baseline (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.66, 435 participants), but conflicting results exists from another study, and we were unable to validly assess this observations due to limited availability of comparable data. Remdesivir may have little or no effect on the duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation (2 studies, 1298 participants, data not pooled, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether remdesivir increases or decreases the chance of clinical improvement in terms of duration to liberation from supplemental oxygen at up to day 28 (3 studies, 1691 participants, data not pooled, very low-certainty evidence).   We are very uncertain whether remdesivir decreases or increases the risk of clinical worsening in terms of new need for mechanical ventilation at up to day 28 (high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.24; RD 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 68 fewer to 32 more; 3 studies, 6696 participants; very low-certainty evidence); new need for non-invasive mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.98; RD 72 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 118 fewer to 5 fewer; 1 study, 573 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and new need for oxygen by mask or nasal prongs (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.22; RD 84 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 204 fewer to 98 more; 1 study, 138 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that remdesivir may decrease the risk of clinical worsening in terms of new need for invasive mechanical ventilation (67 fewer participants amongst 1000 participants; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.77; 2 studies, 1159 participants; low-certainty evidence).  None of the included studies reported quality of life. Remdesivir probably decreases the serious adverse events rate at up to 28 days (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.90; RD 63 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 94 fewer to 25 fewer; 3 studies, 1674 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether remdesivir increases or decreases adverse events rate (any grade) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; RD 29 more per 1000, 95% CI 82 fewer to 158 more; 3 studies, 1674 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the currently available evidence, we are moderately certain that remdesivir probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 in hospitalised adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are uncertain about the effects of remdesivir on clinical improvement and worsening. There were insufficient data available to validly examine the effect of remdesivir on mortality in subgroups depending on the extent of respiratory support at baseline.  Future studies should provide additional data on efficacy and safety of remdesivir for defined core outcomes in COVID-19 research, especially for different population subgroups. This could allow us to draw more reliable conclusions on the potential benefits and harms of remdesivir in future updates of this review. Due to the living approach of this work, we will update the review periodically.

Current systematic reviews and meta-analyses of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has left a significant impact on the world's health, economic and political systems; as of November 20, 2020, more than 57 million people have been infected worldwide, with over 1.3 million deaths. While the global spotlight is currently focused on combating this pandemic through means ranging from finding a treatment among existing therapeutic agents to inventing a vaccine that can aid in halting the further loss of life.

AIM

To collect all systematic reviews and meta-analyses published related to COVID-19 to better identify available evidence, highlight gaps in knowledge, and elucidate further meta-analyses and umbrella reviews that are yet to be performed.

METHODS

We explored studies based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses with the key-terms, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), SARS virus, coronavirus disease, COVID-19, and SARS coronavirus-2. The included studies were extracted from Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases. The publication timeframe of included studies ranged between January 01, 2020, to October 30, 2020. Studies that were published in languages other than English were not considered for this systematic review. The finalized full-text articles are freely accessible in the public domain.

RESULTS

Searching Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases resulted in 1906, 669, and 19 results, respectively, that comprised 2594 studies. 515 duplicates were subsequently removed, leaving 2079 studies. The inclusion criteria were systematic reviews or meta-analyses. 860 results were excluded for being a review article, scope review, rapid review, panel review, or guideline that produced a total of 1219 studies. After screening articles were categorized, the included articles were put into main groups of clinical presentation, epidemiology, screening and diagnosis, severity assessment, special populations, and treatment. Subsequently, there was a second subclassification into the following groups: gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, neurological, stroke, thrombosis, anosmia and dysgeusia, ocular manifestations, nephrology, cutaneous manifestations, D-dimer, lymphocyte, anticoagulation, antivirals, convalescent plasma, immunosuppressants, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, technology, diabetes mellitus, obesity, pregnancy, children, mental health_, smoking, cancer, and transplant.

CONCLUSION

Among the included articles, it is clear that further research is needed regarding treatment options and vaccines. With more studies, data will be less heterogeneous, and statistical analysis can be better applied to provide more robust clinical evidence. This study was not designed to give recommendations regarding the management of COVID-19.

Clinical effectiveness of convalescent plasma in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims:

Given the variability of previously reported results, this systematic review aims to determine the clinical effectiveness of convalescent plasma employed in the treatment of hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19.

Methods:

We conducted a systematic review of controlled clinical trials assessing treatment with convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The outcomes were mortality, clinical improvement, and ventilation requirement.

Results:

A total of 51 studies were retrieved from the databases. Five articles were finally included in the data extraction and qualitative and quantitative synthesis of results. The overall risk of bias in the reviewed articles was established at low-risk only in two trials. The meta-analysis suggests that there is no benefit of convalescent plasma compared with standard care or placebo in reducing the overall mortality and the ventilation requirement. However, there could be a benefit for the clinical improvement in patients treated with plasma.

Conclusion:

Current results led to assume that the convalescent plasma transfusion cannot reduce the mortality or ventilation requirement in hospitalized patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. More controlled clinical trials conducted with methodologies that ensure a low risk of bias are still needed.

The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Efficacy and Safety of Convalescent Plasma for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Convalescent plasma is currently being used in the treatment of COVID-19. Recommendations regarding use convalescent plasma in COVID-19 requires systematic summaries of available evidence. We searched the databases Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Epistomonikos, Medrxiv and Biorxiv. Title/abstract screening, full text screening and data abstraction were carried out in duplicate by two reviewers. Pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. GRADE tool was used to rate the certainty of evidence. Twenty two studies were found eligible for inclusion: nine randomized controlled trials and thirteen cohort studies. Low certainty evidence from eight RCTs showed inconclusive effects of convalescent plasma on mortality at 28 days (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.18). Low certainty evidence from thirteen cohort studies showed a reduction in mortality at 28 days (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.82). The pooled OR for clinical improvement was 1.07 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.34) representing low certainty evidence. Evidence from three RCTs showed inconclusive effect of CP on the need for mechanical ventilation (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.98). Four cohort studies reporting unadjusted estimates suggested a reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation with convalescent plasma (OR 0.80 95% CI 0.71 to 0.91, low certainty). Pooled estimates from 2 RCTs showed inconclusive effects of convalescent plasma on the proportion of patients with nondetectable levels of virus in nasopharyngeal specimens on day 3 (OR 3.62, 95% CI 0.43, 30.49, very low-quality evidence). The present review reports uncertain estimates on the efficacy of convalescent plasma in the treatment of COVID-19. There is low certainty evidence of a possible reduction in mortality and mechanical ventilation, a faster viral clearance and the absence of any serious adverse events. However, its efficacy for these outcomes requires evidence from good quality and adequately powered randomized controlled trials.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12288-021-01417-w.

SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies: Longevity, breadth, and evasion by emerging viral variants

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody neutralization response and its evasion by emerging viral variants and variant of concern (VOC) are unknown, but critical to understand reinfection risk and breakthrough infection following vaccination. Antibody immunoreactivity against SARS-CoV-2 antigens and Spike variants, inhibition of Spike-driven virus-cell fusion, and infectious SARS-CoV-2 neutralization were characterized in 807 serial samples from 233 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) individuals with detailed demographics and followed up to 7 months. A broad and sustained polyantigenic immunoreactivity against SARS-CoV-2 Spike, Membrane, and Nucleocapsid proteins, along with high viral neutralization, was associated with COVID-19 severity. A subgroup of "high responders" maintained high neutralizing responses over time, representing ideal convalescent plasma donors. Antibodies generated against SARS-CoV-2 during the first COVID-19 wave had reduced immunoreactivity and neutralization potency to emerging Spike variants and VOC. Accurate monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses would be essential for selection of optimal responders and vaccine monitoring and design.

Convalescent Plasma for Pregnant Women with COVID-19: A Systematic Literature Review

The treatment of COVID-19 is particularly critical in pregnant women, considering the potential teratogenic effects of antiviral agents and the immune-depression related with pregnancy. The aim of this review is to systematically examine the current evidence on the clinical use of convalescent plasma during pregnancy. The electronic databases Medline PubMed Advanced Search Builder, Scopus, Web Of Science and Google Scholar were searched (until 1 January 2021). Inclusion criteria were pregnant women with COVID-19 (or SARS-CoV-2 infection), in whom convalescent plasma (or hyperimmune plasma) was used as treatment. We searched clinical trial registries (censored 5 January 2021) for eligible studies under way. After elimination of duplications, the initial search yielded 79 potentially relevant records, of which 67 were subsequently excluded. The 12 remaining records were case reports involving 12 pregnancies. Six of the mothers were reported to be well, two were reported to have preeclampsia, and in one case each the maternal outcome was described as survival, clinical improvement, discharged with oxygen and rehabilitation. With regard to the neonates, two were declared to be well, four had transient morbidity, two were critically ill and one died; normal ongoing pregnancies, but no post-delivery information, were reported for the remaining three cases. Clinical trials under way or planned to investigate the use of convalescent plasma for COVID-19 during pregnancy are lacking. This is the first systematic review of the literature regarding the treatment of COVID-19 in pregnancy. The published literature data seem to indicate that convalescent plasma administered to pregnant women with severe COVID-19 provides benefits for both the mother and the fetus. The quality of the available studies is, however, very limited since they are all case reports and thus suffer from relevant reporting bias.

Efficient Identification of High-Titer Anti-Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Antibody Plasma Samples by Pooling Method

CONTEXT.–

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has elicited a surge in demand for serological testing to identify previously infected individuals. In particular, antibody testing is crucial in identifying COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP), which has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for use as passive immune therapy for hospitalized patients infected with COVID-19. Currently, high-titer CCP can be qualified by Ortho's Vitros COVID-19 IgG antibody test (VG).

OBJECTIVE.–

To explore the use of an efficient testing method to identify high-titer CCP for use in treating COVID-19 infected patients and track COVID-19 positivity over time.

DESIGN.–

We evaluated an ELISA-based method that detects antibodies specific to the SARSCoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD) with individual and pooled plasma samples and compared its performance against VG. Using the pooled RBD-ELISA (P-RE) method, we also screened over 10,000 longitudinal healthy blood donor samples to assess seroprevalence.

RESULTS.–

P-RE demonstrates 100% sensitivity in detecting FDA-defined high-titer samples when compared to VG. Overall sensitivity of P-RE when compared to VG and our individual sample RBD-ELISA (I-RE) were 83% and 56%, respectively. When screening 10,218 healthy blood donor samples by P-RE, we found the seroprevalence correlated with the local infection rates with a correlation coefficient of 0.21 (P< .001).

CONCLUSIONS.–

Pooling plasma samples can be used to efficiently screen large populations for individuals with high-titer anti-RBD antibodies, important for CCP identification.

Convalescent Plasma Therapy for COVID-19: A Graphical Mosaic of the Worldwide Evidence

Convalescent plasma has been used worldwide to treat patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and prevent disease progression. Despite global usage, uncertainty remains regarding plasma efficacy, as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have provided divergent evidence regarding the survival benefit of convalescent plasma. Here, we argue that during a global health emergency, the mosaic of evidence originating from multiple levels of the epistemic hierarchy should inform contemporary policy and healthcare decisions. Indeed, worldwide matched-control studies have generally found convalescent plasma to improve COVID-19 patient survival, and RCTs have demonstrated a survival benefit when transfused early in the disease course but limited or no benefit later in the disease course when patients required greater supportive therapies. RCTs have also revealed that convalescent plasma transfusion contributes to improved symptomatology and viral clearance. To further investigate the effect of convalescent plasma on patient mortality, we performed a meta-analytical approach to pool daily survival data from all controlled studies that reported Kaplan-Meier survival plots. Qualitative inspection of all available Kaplan-Meier survival data and an aggregate Kaplan-Meier survival plot revealed a directionally consistent pattern among studies arising from multiple levels of the epistemic hierarchy, whereby convalescent plasma transfusion was generally associated with greater patient survival. Given that convalescent plasma has a similar safety profile as standard plasma, convalescent plasma should be implemented within weeks of the onset of future infectious disease outbreaks.

SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics: how far do we stand from a remedy?

The SARS-CoV-2 has affected millions worldwide and has posed an immediate need for effective pharmacological interventions. Ever since the outbreak was declared, the medical fraternity across the world is facing a unique situation of offering assistance and simultaneously generating reliable data with high-quality evidence to extend the scope of finding a treatment. With no proven vaccine or other interventions available hitherto, there is a frenzied urgency of sharing preliminary data from laboratories and trials to shape a global response against the virus. Several clinical trials with investigational and approved repurposed therapeutics have shown promising results. This review aims to compile the information of the reported molecules approved for emergency use and those under clinical trials and still others with good results in the studies conducted so far. Being an RNA virus, SARS-CoV-2 is prone to mutation; thus, the possibility of gaining resistance to available drugs is high. Consequently, a cocktail therapy based on drug interaction with different stages of its replicative cycle is desirable to reduce the chances of evolving drug resistance. Since this virus encodes several proteins, including 16 nonstructural and 4 structural proteins, this review also offers an insight into potential drug targets within SARS-CoV-2.

Hyperimmune anti-COVID-19 IVIG (C-IVIG) treatment in severe and critical COVID-19 patients: A phase I/II randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

Hyperimmune anti-COVID-19 Intravenous Immunoglobulin (C-IVIG) is an unexplored therapy amidst the rapidly evolving spectrum of medical therapies for COVID-19 and is expected to counter the three most life-threatening consequences of COVID-19 including lung injury by the virus, cytokine storm and sepsis.

METHODS

A single center, phase I/II, randomized controlled, single-blinded trial was conducted at Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan. Participants were COVID-19 infected individuals, classified as either severely or critically ill with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). Participants were randomized through parallel-group design with sequential assignment in a 4:1 allocation to either intervention group with four C-IVIG dosage arms (0.15, 0.20, 0.25, 0.30 g/kg), or control group receiving standard of care only (n = 10). Primary outcomes were 28-day mortality, patient's clinical status on ordinal scale and Horowitz index (HI), and were analysed in all randomized participants that completed the follow-up period (intention-to-treat population). The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04521309).

FINDINGS

Fifty participants were enrolled in the study from June 19, 2020 to February 3, 2021 with a mean age of 56.54±13.2 years of which 22 patients (44%) had severe and 28 patients (56%) had critical COVID-19. Mortality occurred in ten of 40 participants (25%) in intervention group compared to six of ten (60%) in control group, with relative risk reduction in intervention arm I (RR, 0.333; 95% CI, 0.087-1.272), arm II (RR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.171-1.463), arm III (RR, 0.167; 95% CI, 0.024-1.145), and arm IV (RR, 0.667; 95% CI, 0.268-1.660). In intervention group, median HI significantly improved to 359 mmHg [interquartile range (IQR) 127-400, P = 0.009)] by outcome day, while the clinical status of intervention group also improved as compared to control group, with around 15 patients (37.5%) being discharged by 7th day with complete recovery. Additionally, resolution of chest X-rays and restoration of biomarkers to normal levels were also seen in intervention groups. No drug-related adverse events were reported during the study.

INTERPRETATION

Administration of C-IVIG in severe and critical COVID-19 patients was safe, increased the chance of survival and reduced the risk of disease progression.

FUNDING

Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan (Ref no. 20-RRG-134/RGM/R&D/HEC/2020).

Vitamin D supplementation for the treatment of COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

The role of vitamin D supplementation as a treatment for COVID-19 has been a subject of considerable discussion. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of vitamin D supplementation for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether vitamin D supplementation is effective and safe for the treatment of COVID-19 in comparison to an active comparator, placebo, or standard of care alone, and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 11 March 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies investigating preventive effects, or studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following prioritised outcome categories: individuals with moderate or severe COVID-19: all-cause mortality, clinical status, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events, and for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease: all-cause mortality, development of severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three RCTs with 356 participants, of whom 183 received vitamin D. In accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) clinical progression scale, two studies investigated participants with moderate or severe disease, and one study individuals with mild or asymptomatic disease. The control groups consisted of placebo treatment or standard of care alone. Effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease We included two studies with 313 participants. Due to substantial clinical and methodological diversity of both studies, we were not able to pool data. Vitamin D status was unknown in one study, whereas the other study reported data for vitamin D deficient participants. One study administered multiple doses of oral calcifediol at days 1, 3 and 7,  whereas the other study gave a single high dose of oral cholecalciferol at baseline. We assessed one study with low risk of bias for effectiveness outcomes, and the other with some concerns about randomisation and selective reporting. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge (313 participants) We found two studies reporting data for this outcome. One study reported no deaths when treated with vitamin D out of 50 participants, compared to two deaths out of 26 participants in the control group (Risk ratio (RR) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.13). The other study reported nine deaths out of 119 individuals in the vitamin D group, whereas six participants out of 118 died in the placebo group (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.04]. We are very uncertain whether vitamin D has an effect on all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (very low-certainty evidence). Clinical status assessed by the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (237 participants) We found one study reporting data for this outcome. Nine out of 119 participants needed invasive mechanical ventilation when treated with vitamin D, compared to 17 out of 118 participants in the placebo group (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.13). Vitamin D supplementation may decrease need for invasive mechanical ventilation, but the evidence is uncertain (low-certainty evidence). Quality of life We did not find data for quality of life. Safety of vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease We did not include data from one study, because assessment of serious adverse events was not described and we are concerned that data might have been inconsistently measured. This study reported vomiting in one out of 119 participants immediately after vitamin D intake (RR 2.98, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.30). We are very uncertain whether vitamin D supplementation is associated with higher risk for adverse events (very low-certainty). Effectiveness and safety of vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19 and asymptomatic or mild disease We found one study including 40 individuals, which did not report our prioritised outcomes, but instead data for viral clearance, inflammatory markers, and vitamin D serum levels. The authors reported no events of hypercalcaemia, but recording and assessment of further adverse events remains unclear. Authors administered oral cholecalciferol in daily doses for at least 14 days, and continued with weekly doses if vitamin D blood levels were > 50 ng/mL.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms of vitamin D supplementation as a treatment of COVID-19. The evidence for the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation for the treatment of COVID-19 is very uncertain. Moreover, we found only limited safety information, and were concerned about consistency in measurement and recording of these outcomes. There was substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity of included studies, mainly because of different supplementation strategies, formulations, vitamin D status of participants, and reported outcomes. There is an urgent need for well-designed and adequately powered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with an appropriate randomisation procedure, comparability of study arms and preferably double-blinding. We identified 21 ongoing and three completed studies without published results, which indicates that these needs will be addressed and that our findings are subject to change in the future. Due to the living approach of this work, we will update the review periodically.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are being investigated as potential therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of these interventions is required.  OBJECTIVES: Using a living systematic review approach, to assess whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform, and trial registries. Searches were done on 17 March 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. For safety assessments, we also included non-controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) if 500 or more participants were included. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of Bias 2' tool for RCTs, and for NRSIs, the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer. We rated the certainty of evidence, using the GRADE approach, for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, improvement and worsening of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), development of severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms (for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease), quality of life (including fatigue and functional independence), grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies (12 RCTs, 1 NRSI) with 48,509 participants, of whom 41,880 received convalescent plasma. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We identified a further 100 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, and 33 studies reporting as being completed or terminated. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease Eleven RCTs and one NRSI investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 48,349 participants with moderate to severe disease. Nine RCTs compared convalescent plasma to placebo treatment or standard care alone, and two compared convalescent plasma to standard plasma (results not included in abstract). Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We included data on nine RCTs (12,875 participants) to assess the effectiveness of convalescent plasma compared to placebo or standard care alone.  Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 12,646 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on clinical improvement for all participants when assessed by liberation from respiratory support (RR not estimable; 8 RCTs, 12,682 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on the chance of being weaned or liberated from invasive mechanical ventilation for the subgroup of participants requiring invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.93; 2 RCTs, 630 participants; low-certainty evidence). It does not reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.08; 4 RCTs, 11,765 participants; high-certainty evidence). We did not identify any subgroup differences.  We did not identify any studies reporting quality of life, and therefore, do not know whether convalescent plasma has any impact on quality of life. One RCT assessed resolution of fatigue on day 7, but we are very uncertain about the effect (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.42; 309 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Safety of convalescent plasma We included results from eight RCTs, and one NRSI, to assess the safety of convalescent plasma. Some of the RCTs reported on safety data only for the convalescent plasma group.  We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma increases or reduces the risk of grade 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.41; 4 RCTs, 905 participants; low-certainty evidence), and serious adverse events (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.90; 2 RCTs, 414 participants; low-certainty evidence).  A summary of reported events of the NRSI (reporting safety data for 20,000 of 35,322 transfused participants), and four RCTs reporting safety data only for transfused participants (6125 participants) are included in the full text. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and asymptomatic or mild disease We identified one RCT reporting on 160 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo treatment (saline).  Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We are very uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on all-cause mortality (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.65; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on developing severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR not estimable; low-certainty evidence).  We identified no study reporting quality of life.  Safety of convalescent plasma We do not know whether convalescent plasma is associated with a higher risk of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (very low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). This is a living systematic review. We search weekly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have high certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for the treatment of individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on measures of clinical improvement. We are uncertain about the adverse effects of convalescent plasma. While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, heterogeneous reporting of outcomes is still problematic. There are 100 ongoing studies and 33 studies reporting in a study registry as being completed or terminated. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around hyperimmune immunoglobulin therapy for people with any disease severity, and convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

COVID-19: breaking down a global health crisis

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is the second pandemic of the twenty-first century, with over one-hundred million infections and over two million deaths to date. It is a novel strain from the Coronaviridae family, named Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2); the 7th known member of the coronavirus family to cause disease in humans, notably following the Middle East Respiratory syndrome (MERS), and Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (SARS). The most characteristic feature of this single-stranded RNA molecule includes the spike glycoprotein on its surface. Most patients with COVID-19, of which the elderly and immunocompromised are most at risk, complain of flu-like symptoms, including dry cough and headache. The most common complications include pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, septic shock, and cardiovascular manifestations. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is mainly via respiratory droplets, either directly from the air when an infected patient coughs or sneezes, or in the form of fomites on surfaces. Maintaining hand-hygiene, social distancing, and personal protective equipment (i.e., masks) remain the most effective precautions. Patient management includes supportive care and anticoagulative measures, with a focus on maintaining respiratory function. Therapy with dexamethasone, remdesivir, and tocilizumab appear to be most promising to date, with hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, ritonavir, and interferons falling out of favour. Additionally, accelerated vaccination efforts have taken place internationally, with several promising vaccinations being mass deployed. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, countries and stakeholders have taken varying precautions to combat and contain the spread of the virus and dampen its collateral economic damage. This review paper aims to synthesize the impact of the virus on a global, micro to macro scale.

Dynamics of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in convalescent plasma donors

OBJECTIVES

Characterisation of the human antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection is vital for serosurveillance purposes and for treatment options such as transfusion with convalescent plasma or immunoglobulin products derived from convalescent plasma. In this study, we longitudinally and quantitatively analysed antibody responses in RT-PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 convalescent adults during the first 250 days after onset of symptoms.

METHODS

We measured antibody responses to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the nucleocapsid protein in 844 longitudinal samples from 151 RT-PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 convalescent adults. With a median of 5 (range 2-18) samples per individual, this allowed quantitative analysis of individual longitudinal antibody profiles. Kinetic profiles were analysed by mixed-effects modelling.

RESULTS

All donors were seropositive at the first sampling moment, and only one donor seroreverted during follow-up analysis. Anti-RBD IgG and anti-nucleocapsid IgG levels declined with median half-lives of 62 and 59 days, respectively, 2-5 months after symptom onset, and several-fold variation in half-lives of individuals was observed. The rate of decline of antibody levels diminished during extended follow-up, which points towards long-term immunological memory. The magnitude of the anti-RBD IgG response correlated well with neutralisation capacity measured in a classic plaque reduction assay and in an in-house developed competitive assay.

CONCLUSION

The result of this study gives valuable insight into the long-term longitudinal response of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2.

Convalescent Plasma Transfusion for the Treatment of COVID-19 in Adults: A Global Perspective

More than one year into the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, healthcare systems across the world continue to be overwhelmed with soaring daily cases. The treatment spectrum primarily includes ventilation support augmented with repurposed drugs and/or convalescent plasma transfusion (CPT) from recovered COVID-19 patients. Despite vaccine variants being recently developed and administered in several countries, challenges in global supply chain logistics limit their timely availability to the wider world population, particularly in developing countries. Given the measured success of conventional CPT in treating several infections over the past decade, recent studies have reported its effectiveness in decreasing the duration and severity of COVID-19 symptoms. In this review, we conduct a literature search of published studies investigating the use of CPT to treat COVID-19 patients from January 2020 to January 2021. The literature search identified 181 records of which 39 were included in this review. A random-effects model was used to aggregate data across studies, and mortality rates of 17 vs. 32% were estimated for the CPT and control patient groups, respectively, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.49. The findings indicate that CPT shows potential in reducing the severity and duration of COVID-19 symptoms. However, early intervention (preferably within 3 days), recruitment of donors, and plasma potency introduce major challenges for its scaled-up implementation. Given the low number of existing randomized clinical trials (RCTs, four with a total of 319 patients), unanticipated risks to CPT recipients are highlighted and discussed. Nevertheless, CPT remains a promising COVID-19 therapeutic option that merits internationally coordinated RCTs to achieve a scientific risk-benefit consensus.

Severe COVID-19 in pediatric age: an update on the role of the anti-rheumatic agents

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 can induce an immune impairment and dysregulation, finally resulting in the massive release of inflammatory mediators (cytokine storm), strongly contributing to the pulmonary and systemic manifestations in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). As a consequence, different drugs active on the immune system have been proposed for the treatment of the disease in adults.

ROLE OF THE ANTI-RHEUMATIC AGENTS IN CHILDREN

Children are more likely to develop a mild disease course, as the severe form of COVID-19 is identified in less than 5% of the pediatric patients. Moreover, in children a peculiar disease phenotype, defined as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is observed, representing the most severe expression of the inflammatory dysregulation caused by SARS-CoV-2. The limited experience with the severe pediatric COVID-19 and MIS-C does not allow conclusions about the role of the immune pharmacological approach, and therefore the treatment of these conditions represents a considerable clinical challenge. The use of chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and colchicine in the early disease stages is not sufficiently supported by evidence, and there is an increasing interest in the role of biologic agents, including anti-IL-1 and anti-IL-6 agents, in the prevention and treatment of the severe manifestations of COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

The therapeutic approach to pediatric COVID-19 is multidisciplinary, and anti-rheumatic agents have a prominent role in severe disease. This paper reviews the rationale for the use of anti-rheumatic agents in pediatric COVID-19 and MIS-C and the clinical experience with the single drugs. Finally, the areas of potential improvement in the use of anti-rheumatic agents, including the optimization of the drug choice and the timing of administration, are discussed.

The Effect of Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Mortality Among Patients With COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

To determine the effect of COVID-19 convalescent plasma on mortality, we aggregated patient outcome data from 10 randomized clinical trials, 20 matched control studies, 2 dose-response studies, and 96 case reports or case series. Studies published between January 1, 2020, and January 16, 2021, were identified through a systematic search of online PubMed and MEDLINE databases. Random effects analyses of randomized clinical trials and matched control data demonstrated that patients with COVID-19 transfused with convalescent plasma exhibited a lower mortality rate compared with patients receiving standard treatments. Additional analyses showed that early transfusion (within 3 days of hospital admission) of higher titer plasma is associated with lower patient mortality. These data provide evidence favoring the efficacy of human convalescent plasma as a therapeutic agent in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Donors for SARS-CoV-2 Convalescent Plasma for a Controlled Clinical Trial: Donor Characteristics, Content and Time Course of SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibodies

Background

Convalescent plasma is one of the treatment options for COVID-19 which is currently being investigated in many clinical trials. Understanding of donor and product characteristics is important for optimization of convalescent plasma.

Methods

Patients who had recovered from CO­VID-19 were recruited as donors for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) for a randomized clinical trial of CCP for treatment of severe COVID-19 (CAPSID Trial). Titers of neutralizing antibodies were measured by a plaque-reduction neutralization test (PRNT). Correlation of antibody titers with host factors and evolution of neutralizing antibody titers over time in repeat donors were analysed.

Results

A series of 144 donors (41% females, 59% males; median age 40 years) underwent 319 plasmapheresis procedures providing a median collection volume of 850 mL and a mean number of 2.7 therapeutic units per plasmapheresis. The majority of donors had a mild or moderate course of COVID-19. The titers of neutralizing antibodies varied greatly between CCP donors (from <1:20 to >1:640). Donor factors (gender, age, ABO type, body weight) did not correlate significantly with the titer of neutralizing antibodies. We observed a significant positive correlation of neutralization titers with the number of reported COVID-19 symptoms and with the time from SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis to plasmapheresis. Neutralizing antibody levels were stable or increased over time in 58% of repeat CCP donors. Mean titers of neutralizing antibodies of first donation and last donation of repeat CCP donors did not differ significantly (1:86 at first compared to 1:87 at the last donation). There was a significant correlation of neutralizing antibodies measured by PRNT and anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA antibodies which were measured by ELISA. CCP donations with an anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody content above the 25th percentile were substantially enriched for CCP donations with higher neutralizing antibody levels.

Conclusion

We demonstrate the feasibility of collection of a large number of CCP products under a harmonized protocol for a randomized clinical trial. Titers of neutralizing antibodies were stable or increased over time in a subgroup of repeat donors. A history of higher number of COVID-19 symptoms and higher levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA antibodies in immunoassays can preselect donations with higher neutralizing capacity.

Convalescent plasma therapy - a silver lining for COVID-19 management?

The COVID-19 pandemic has pushed the world towards social, economic, and medical challenges. Scientific research in medicine is the only means to overcome novel and complex diseases like COVID-19. To sum up the therapeutic wild-goose chase, many available antivirals and repurposed drugs have failed to show successful clinical evidence in patient recovery, several vaccine candidates are still waiting in the trial pipelines and a few have become available to the common public for administration in record time.

However, with upcoming evidence of coronavirus mutations, available vaccines may thrive on the spirit of doubt about efficacy and effectiveness towards these new strains of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (SARS-CoV2). In all these collective uncertainties, plasma therapy has shown a ray of hope for critically ill patients.

To date, with very few published case studies of convalescent plasma in COVID-19, there are two school of thought process in the scientific community regarding plasma therapy efficiency and this leads to confusion due to the lack of optimal randomized and controlled studies.

Without undertaking any robust scientific studies, evidence or caution, accepting any therapy unanimously may cause more harm than good, but with a clearer understanding of SARS-CoV2 immunopathology and drug response, plasma therapy might be the silver lining against COVID-19 for the global community.

Mortality Benefit of Convalescent Plasma in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance/Background: With a scarcity of high-grade evidence for COVID-19 treatment, researchers and health care providers across the world have resorted to classical and historical interventions. Immunotherapy with convalescent plasma (CPT) is one such therapeutic option. Methods: A systematized search was conducted for articles published between December 2019 and 18th January 2021 focusing on convalescent plasma efficacy and safety in COVID-19. The primary outcomes were defined as mortality benefit in patients treated with convalescent plasma compared to standard therapy/placebo. The secondary outcome was pooled mortality rate and the adverse event rate in convalescent plasma-treated patients. Results: A total of 27,706 patients were included in the qualitative analysis, and a total of 3,262 (2,127 in convalescent plasma-treated patients and 1,135 in the non-convalescent plasma/control group) patients died. The quantitative synthesis in 23 studies showed that the odds of mortality in patients who received plasma therapy were significantly lower than those in patients who did not receive plasma therapy [odds ratio (OR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.80, p < 0.0001, I 2 = 15%). The mortality benefit remains the same even for 14 trials/prospective studies (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43-0.81, p = 0.001, I 2 = 22%) as well as for nine case series/retrospective observational studies (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-0.94, p = 0.01, I 2 = 0%). However, in a subgroup analysis for 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), there was no statistically significant reduction in mortality between the CPT group compared to the non-CPT group (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53-1.08, p = 0.13, I 2 = 7%). Furthermore, the sensitivity analysis of 10 RCTs, excluding the study with the highest statistical weight, displayed a lower mortality rate compared to that of non-CPT COVID-19 patients (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42-0.97, p = 0.04, I 2 = 0%). The observed pooled mortality rate was 12.9% (95% CI 9.7-16.9%), and the pooled adverse event rate was 6.1% (95% CI 3.2-11.6), with significant heterogeneity. Conclusions and Relevance: Our systemic review and meta-analysis suggests that CPT could be an effective therapeutic option with promising evidence on the safety and reduced mortality in concomitant treatment for COVID-19 along with antiviral/antimicrobial drugs, steroids, and other supportive care. Future exploratory studies could benefit from more standardized reporting, especially in terms of the timing of interventions and clinically relevant outcomes, like days until discharge from the hospital and improvement of clinical symptoms.

Convalescent Plasma for the Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by a novel coronavirus termed SARS-CoV-2, has spread quickly worldwide. Convalescent plasma (CP) obtained from patients following recovery from COVID-19 infection and development of antibodies against the virus is an attractive option for either prophylactic or therapeutic treatment, since antibodies may have direct or indirect antiviral activities and immunotherapy has proven effective in principle and in many clinical reports.

OBJECTIVE

We seek to characterize the latest advances and evidence in the use of CP for COVID-19 through a systematic review and quantitative analysis, identify knowledge gaps in this setting, and offer recommendations and directives for future research.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were continuously searched for studies assessing the use of CP for COVID-19, including clinical studies, commentaries, reviews, guidelines or protocols, and in vitro testing of CP antibodies. The screening process and data extraction were performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Quality appraisal of all clinical studies was conducted using a universal tool independent of study designs. A meta-analysis of case-control and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Substantial literature has been published covering various aspects of CP therapy for COVID-19. Of the references included in this review, a total of 243 eligible studies including 64 clinical studies, 79 commentary articles, 46 reviews, 19 guidance and protocols, and 35 in vitro testing of CP antibodies matched the criteria. Positive results have been mostly observed so far when using CP for the treatment of COVID-19. There were remarkable heterogeneities in the CP therapy with respect to patient demographics, donor antibody titers, and time and dose of CP administration. The studies assessing the safety of CP treatment reported low incidence of adverse events. Most clinical studies, in particular case reports and case series, had poor quality. Only 1 RCT was of high quality. Randomized and nonrandomized data were found in 2 and 11 studies, respectively, and were included for meta-analysis, suggesting that CP could reduce mortality and increase viral clearance. Despite promising pilot studies, the benefits of CP treatment can only be clearly established through carefully designed RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

There is developing support for CP therapy, particularly for patients who are critically ill or mechanically ventilated and resistant to antivirals and supportive care. These studies provide important lessons that should inform the planning of well-designed RCTs to generate more robust knowledge for the efficacy of CP in patients with COVID-19. Future research is necessary to fill the knowledge gap regarding prevention and treatment for patients with COVID-19 with CP while other therapeutics are being developed.

Assessment of the Safety and Therapeutic Benefits of Convalescent Plasma in COVID-19 Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), prompted a global health crisis, with no available specific treatments. Convalescent plasma (CP) with neutralizing antibodies could be a promising therapeutic approach to reduce mortality. Objectives: To evaluate the therapeutic potential of CP for COVID-19 and to assess its safety and efficacy in reducing the patients' mortality. Methods: We retrieved clinical trial references from multiple Databases (e.g., PubMed, B-On, SCOPUS), for complete studies until November 26th 2020. We included Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and controlled non-randomized trials (CNRT), that assessed the efficacy of CP to treat hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Trials were included regardless of concomitant medications in the intervention's arms. Eleven trials met our eligibility criteria. This study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We defined a methodological protocol to extract and evaluate all pertinent baseline demographics and interventions' characteristics from trials. The primary outcomes were the safety profile of CP, measured by the type, frequency and severity of adverse events, and CP effectiveness in reducing mortality, measured by the number of deaths registered for this therapy. Results: We assessed 11 trials (5 RCT and 6 CNRT) with 3,098 participants, of whom 923 patients were treated with CP. Only 32 (3.5%) of the treated patients suffered adverse events (from which 9.4% serious transfusion-related adverse events). The overall mortality rates were significantly decreased by CP administration {risk ratio (RR) 0.71, p = 0.005, 95% confidence interval (Cl) [0.57-0.90]}, with low heterogeneity. In the sub-analysis by period of transfusion, CP transfusion within a week of hospitalization contributed to diminished mortality rate (RR = 0.71, p = 0.03, 95%Cl [0.53-0.96]). CP therapy also led to significantly reduced viral loads at 72 h after transfusion (RR = 0.61, p = 0.04, 95%Cl [0.38-0.98]), despite high heterogeneity due to disease severity. Conclusion: This meta-analysis established CP as a safe and potentially effective therapy for COVID-19, decreasing the mortality rates and promoting a swift viral clearance. Further studies are necessary to provide stronger evidence.

How should we use convalescent plasma therapies for the management of COVID-19?

Convalescent plasma (CP) from blood donors with antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 may benefit patients with COVID-19 by providing immediate passive immunity via transfusion or by being used to manufacture hyperimmune immunoglobulin preparations. Optimal product characteristics (including neutralizing antibody titers), transfusion volume, and administration timing remain to be determined. Preliminary COVID-19 CP safety data are encouraging, but establishing the clinical efficacy of CP requires an ongoing international collaborative effort. Preliminary results from large, high-quality randomized trials have recently started to be reported.

Production of hyperimmune anti-SARS-CoV-2 intravenous immunoglobulin from pooled COVID-19 convalescent plasma

Background: This study assesses the feasibility of producing hyperimmune anti-COVID-19 intravenously administrable immunoglobulin (C-IVIG) from pooled convalescent plasma (PCP) to provide a safe and effective passive immunization treatment option for COVID-19. Materials & methods: PCP was fractionated by modified caprylic acid precipitation followed by ultrafiltration/diafiltration to produce hyperimmune C-IVIG. Results: In C-IVIG, the mean SARS-CoV-2 antibody level was found to be threefold (104 ± 30 cut-off index) that of the PCP (36 ± 8.5 cut-off index) and mean protein concentration was found to be 46 ± 3.7 g/l, comprised of 89.5% immunoglobulins. Conclusion: The current method of producing C-IVIG is feasible as it uses locally available PCP and simpler technology and yields a high titer of SARS-CoV-2 antibody. The safety and efficacy of C-IVIG will be evaluated in a registered clinical trial (NCT04521309).

Potential mechanisms of action of convalescent plasma in COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic will be remembered as one of the worst catastrophic events in human history. Unfortunately, no universally recognized effective therapeutic agents are currently available for the treatment of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this context, the use of convalescent plasma from recovered COVID-19 patients has gained increasing interest thanks to the initially positive clinical reports. A number of mechanisms of action have been proposed for convalescent plasma, including direct neutralization and suppression of viremia, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulation effects and mitigation of the COVID-19-associated hypercoagulable state. These immune and non-immune mechanisms will be critically discussed in this narrative review.

Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Severe COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 is one of the worst catastrophic events in human history. Several non-specific antiviral drugs have been tried to defeat the SARS-CoV-2, with mixed results. Convalescent plasma from patients who have recovered from COVID-19 is one of the specific biologic therapies being considered to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection. Preliminary studies have shown that convalescent plasma, containing antibodies able to neutralize SARS-CoV-2, is promising in blocking viral replication and improving patients’ clinical symptoms. The results of several ongoing randomized controlled trials are, however, keenly awaited to definitively elucidate the safety and efficacy of this blood component in COVID-19. In this narrative review, we summarize the current evidence from the literature on the treatment of severe COVID-19 with convalescent plasma. A concise overview of the hypothesized mechanisms of action is also presented.

Convalescent plasma may be a possible treatment for COVID-19: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has spread globally. Therapeutic options including antivirals, anti-inflammatory compounds, and vaccines are still under study. Convalescent plasma(CP) immunotherapy was an effective method for fighting against similar viral infections such as SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV. In the epidemic of COVID-19, a large number of literatures reported the application of CP. However, there is controversy over the efficacy of CP therapy for COVID-19. This systematic review was designed to evaluate the existing evidence and experience related to CP immunotherapy for COVID-19.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted on Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Clinical Key, Wanfang Database; China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI) were used to search for the proper keywords such as SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, plasma, serum, immunoglobulins, blood transfusion, convalescent, novel coronavirus, immune and the related words for publications published until 15.10.2020. Other available resources were also used to identify relevant articles. The present systematic review was performed based on PRISMA protocol. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed by two reviewers.

RESULTS

Based on the inclusions and exclusions criteria, 45 articles were included in the final review. First, meta-analysis results of RCTs showed that, there were no statistically significant differences between CP transfusion and the control group in terms of reducing mortality(OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52-1.19, I2 = 28%) and improving clinical symptoms(OR 1.21, 95%CI 0.68-2.16; I2 = 0%). The results of controlled NRSIs showed that CP therapy may reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients(RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.53-0.66, I2 = 0%). Second, limited safety data suggested that CP is a well-tolerated therapy with a low incidence of adverse events. But, due to lack of safety data for the control group, it is really not easy to determine whether CP transfusion has an impact on moderate to serious AEs. Thirdly, for children, pregnant, elderly, tumor and immunocompromised patients, CP may be a well-tolerated therapy, if the disease cannot be controlled and continues to progress. Studies were commonly of low or very low quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the results of limited RCTs showed that CP cannot significantly reduce mortality, some non-RCTs and case report(series) have found that CP may help patients improve clinical symptoms, clear the virus, and reduce mortality, especially for patients with COVID-19 within ten days of illness. We speculate that CP may be a possible treatment option. High-quality studies are needed for establishing stronger quality of evidence and pharmacists should also be actively involved in the CP treatment process and provide close pharmaceutical care.