Efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma therapy in severe COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

Advances in acute respiratory distress syndrome: focusing on heterogeneity, pathophysiology, and therapeutic strategies

In recent years, the incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has been gradually increasing. Despite advances in supportive care, ARDS remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. ARDS is characterized by acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure with diffuse pulmonary inflammation and bilateral edema due to excessive alveolocapillary permeability in patients with non-cardiogenic pulmonary diseases. Over the past seven decades, our understanding of the pathology and clinical characteristics of ARDS has evolved significantly, yet it remains an area of active research and discovery. ARDS is highly heterogeneous, including diverse pathological causes, clinical presentations, and treatment responses, presenting a significant challenge for clinicians and researchers. In this review, we comprehensively discuss the latest advancements in ARDS research, focusing on its heterogeneity, pathophysiological mechanisms, and emerging therapeutic approaches, such as cellular therapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy. Moreover, we also examine the pathological characteristics of COVID-19-related ARDS and discuss the corresponding therapeutic approaches. In the face of challenges posed by ARDS heterogeneity, recent advancements offer hope for improved patient outcomes. Further research is essential to translate these findings into effective clinical interventions and personalized treatment approaches for ARDS, ultimately leading to better outcomes for patients suffering from ARDS.

HemoClear: A Practical and Cost-Effective Alternative to Conventional Convalescent Plasma Retrieval Methods

Convalescent plasma has increasingly been used to treat various viral infections and confer post-exposure prophylactic protection during the last decade and has demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes in patients infected with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during the recent COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has highlighted the need for cost-effective, accessible, and easy-to-use alternatives to conventional blood plasmapheresis techniques, allowing hospitals to become more self-sufficient in harvesting and transfusing donor plasma into recipients in a single setting. To this end, the use of a membrane-based bedside plasmapheresis device (HemoClear) was evaluated in an open-label, non-randomized prospective trial in Suriname in 2021, demonstrating its practicality and efficacy in a low-to middle-income country. This paper will review the use of this method and its potential to expedite the process of obtaining convalescent plasma, especially during pandemics and in resource-constrained settings.

Characteristics and Motivational Factors of Whole Blood and Convalescent Plasma Donors during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic in Israel

Demands for whole blood (WB) and COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) donations during the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic presented unprecedented challenges for blood services throughout the world. This study aims to understand the motivating factors that drive WB and CCP donations in the context of the pandemic. This cross-sectional study is based on data extracted from surveys of the two volunteer donor cohorts. The findings reveal that when compared to CCP donors, WB donors were more likely to view donation as a form of social engagement (97.7% vs. 87.1%, p < 0.01), advantageous in the workplace (46.4% vs. 28.6%, p < 0.01), advantageous in their social network (58.6% vs. 47.0%, p = 0.01), and view their donation in the context of positive self-satisfaction (99% vs. 95.1%, p = 0.01). The average age of CCP donors was 7.1 years younger than those who donated WB (p < 0.01). Motivational factors were also analyzed by sex and religiosity. In conclusion, whereas both donor groups showed a high motivation to partake in these life-saving commitments, WB donors were more likely to be motivated by factors that, when better-understood and implemented in policies concerning plasma donations, may help to increase these donations.

Convalescent Plasma for Covid-19-Induced ARDS in Mechanically Ventilated Patients

BACKGROUND

Passive immunization with plasma collected from convalescent patients has been regularly used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Minimal data are available regarding the use of convalescent plasma in patients with Covid-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

METHODS

In this open-label trial, we randomly assigned adult patients with Covid-19-induced ARDS who had been receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for less than 5 days in a 1:1 ratio to receive either convalescent plasma with a neutralizing antibody titer of at least 1:320 or standard care alone. Randomization was stratified according to the time from tracheal intubation to inclusion. The primary outcome was death by day 28.

RESULTS

A total of 475 patients underwent randomization from September 2020 through March 2022. Overall, 237 patients were assigned to receive convalescent plasma and 238 to receive standard care. Owing to a shortage of convalescent plasma, a neutralizing antibody titer of 1:160 was administered to 17.7% of the patients in the convalescent-plasma group. Glucocorticoids were administered to 466 patients (98.1%). At day 28, mortality was 35.4% in the convalescent-plasma group and 45.0% in the standard-care group (P = 0.03). In a prespecified analysis, this effect was observed mainly in patients who underwent randomization 48 hours or less after the initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation. Serious adverse events did not differ substantially between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of plasma collected from convalescent donors with a neutralizing antibody titer of at least 1:160 to patients with Covid-19-induced ARDS within 5 days after the initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation significantly reduced mortality at day 28. This effect was mainly observed in patients who underwent randomization 48 hours or less after ventilation initiation. (Funded by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04558476.).

Rates Among Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 Treated With Convalescent Plasma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

To examine the association of COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion with mortality and the differences between subgroups in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Patients and Methods

On October 26, 2022, a systematic search was performed for clinical studies of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in the literature from January 1, 2020, to October 26, 2022. Randomized clinical trials and matched cohort studies investigating COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion compared with standard of care treatment or placebo among hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 were included. The electronic search yielded 3841 unique records, of which 744 were considered for full-text screening. The selection process was performed independently by a panel of 5 reviewers. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data were extracted by 5 independent reviewers in duplicate and pooled using an inverse-variance random effects model. The prespecified end point was all-cause mortality during hospitalization.

Results

Thirty-nine randomized clinical trials enrolling 21,529 participants and 70 matched cohort studies enrolling 50,160 participants were included in the systematic review. Separate meta-analyses reported that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with the control cohort for both randomized clinical trials (odds ratio [OR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.00) and matched cohort studies (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.88). The meta-analysis of subgroups revealed 2 important findings. First, treatment with convalescent plasma containing high antibody levels was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with convalescent plasma containing low antibody levels (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.99). Second, earlier treatment with COVID-19 convalescent plasma was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with the later treatment cohort (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.82).

Conclusion

During COVID-19 convalescent plasma use was associated with a 13% reduced risk of mortality, implying a mortality benefit for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, particularly those treated with convalescent plasma containing high antibody levels treated earlier in the disease course.

Leukopenia and leukocytosis as strong predictors of COVID-19 severity: A cross-sectional study of the hematologic abnormalities and COVID-19 severity in hospitalized patients

Background and Aims

Predicting severe disease is important in provocative decision-making for the management of patients with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); However, there are still some controversies about the COVID-19's severity predicting factors. This study aimed to investigate the relationships between clinical and laboratory findings regarding COVID-19's severity in patients admitted to a tertiary hospital in Mashhad, Iran.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted on patients with documented COVID-19 infection based on the reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test. Clinical symptoms, vital signs, and medical history of the patients were recorded from their medical records. Laboratory findings and computed tomography (CT) study findings were documented. Disease severity was defined based on CT scan findings.

Results

A total of 564 patients (58.8 ± 16.8 years old) were evaluated. The frequency of severe disease was 70.4%. There was a significant difference in heart rate (p = 0.0001), fever (p = 0.002), dyspnea (p = 0.0001), chest pain (p = 0.0001), diarrhea (p = 0.021), arthralgia (p = 0.0001), and chills (p = 0.044) as well as lymphopenia (p = 0.014), white blood cell count (p = 0.001), neutrophil count (p < 0.0001), lymphocyte count (p < 0.0001), and prothrombin time (p = 0.001) between disease severity groups. Predictors of severe COVID-19 were pulse rate (crude odds ratio [cOR] = 1.014, 95% confidence interval [CI] for cOR: 1.001, 1.027) and leukopenia (cOR = 3.910, 95% CI for cOR: 1.294, 11.809). Predictors for critical COVID-19 were pulse rate (cOR = 1.075, 95% CI for cOR: 1.046, 1.104), fever (cOR = 2.516, 95%CI for cOR: 1.020, 6.203), dyspnea (cOR = 4.190, 95% CI for cOR: 1.227, 14.306), and leukocytosis (cOR = 3.866, 95% CI for cOR: 1.815, 8.236).

Conclusions

Leukopenia and leukocytosis have the strongest correlation with the COVID-19 severity. These findings could be a valuable guild for clinicians in COVID-19 patient management in the inpatient setting.

COVID-19 induced ARDS: immunopathology and therapeutics

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a significant threat in the modern era. Clinical studies show that the most common symptom of severe COVID-19 is viral pneumonia-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The underlying mechanisms by which severe respiratory disease syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) results in ARDS and how certain host factors confer an increased risk of developing severe disease remain unknown. Therefore, identifying the distinctive features of this severe and fatal disease and the therapeutic approaches to COVID-19-induced ARDS remains an immediate need to serve as a basis for best practice models of standardized ARDS treatment. This review article aims to comprehensively discuss the immunopathology of ARDS and provides an overview of the precise role of both the innate and adaptive immune system, with emphasis on the current treatment strategies being tested in the COVID-19-induced ARDS patients. This knowledge will supposedly help in revealing further mechanistic insights into understanding COVID-19-induced ARDS.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Hospitalized Patients-An Open-Label Phase II Clinical Trial

Background: COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is an important antiviral option for selected patients with COVID-19. Materials and Methods: In this open-label, phase 2, clinical trial conducted from 30 April 2020 till 10 May 2021 in the Republic of North Macedonia, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of CCP in hospitalized patients. Treatment was with a single unit of CCP having an anti-RBD IgG concentration higher than 5 AU/mL. Results: There were 189 patients that completed the study, of which 65 (34.4%) had WHO 8-point clinical progression scale score of 3 (requiring hospital care but not oxygen support), 65 (34.4%) had a score of 4 (hospitalized and requiring supplemental oxygen by mask or nasal prongs), and 59 (31.2%) had a score of 5 (hospitalized and requiring supplemental oxygen by non-invasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen). Mean age was 57 years (range 22−94), 78.5% were males, 80.4% had elevated body mass index, and 70.9% had comorbidity. Following CCP transfusion, we observed clinical improvement with increase rates in oxygenation-free days of 32.3% and 58.5% at 24 h and seven days after CCP transfusion, a decline in WHO scores, and reduced progression to severe disease (only one patient was admitted to ICU after CCP transfusion). Mortality in the entire cohort was 11.6% (22/189). We recorded 0% mortality in WHO score 3 (0/65) and in patients that received CCP transfusion in the first seven days of disease, 4.6% mortality in WHO score 4 (3/65), and 30.5% mortality in WHO score 5 (18/59). Mortality correlated with WHO score (Chi-square 19.3, p < 0.001) and with stay in the ICU (Chi-square 55.526, p ≤ 0.001). No severe adverse events were reported. Conclusions: This study showed that early administration of CCP to patients with moderate disease was a safe and potentially effective treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04397523).

Convalescent Plasma in Older Adults with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Among all patients infected with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the older adult population was the most affected, with 80%–90% of fatalities occurring in this group. The effectiveness of convalescent plasma (CP) in older adults is considerably more restricted than that in adults, resulting in a demand for data on the efficacy of therapeutic CP in older adults. This meta-analysis of updated literature examined the effect of CP in older adults with COVID-19.

Methods

Relevant literature was identified from studies indexed in the Cochrane, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases between December 2019 and April 2022. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Risk estimates were pooled using a random-effects model. The risk of bias was assessed by regression-based Egger test using the relative risk (RR) and upper and lower confidence intervals (CIs) of the three included studies.

Results

Among 377 studies identified, three full-text studies that included 1,038 patients met the inclusion criteria. The results of our meta-analysis showed that CP administration lowered the mortality risk in older adults with COVID-19 (RR=0.47; 95% CI, 0.26–0.86; p=0.01; I²=0%, p<0.81). CP therapy was more useful if delivered early in the course of the disease (within 72 hours of onset) and in less severe stages of the disease. Mortality tended to be lower in the high-titer group.Conclusions: CP treatment was significantly associated with a lower risk of mortality in older adults with COVID-19 than in patients not administered CP. The timing of CP administration is critical since earlier treatment after disease onset was associated with a better prognosis.

The efficiency of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials

The objective of this study was to assess whether convalescent plasma therapy could offer survival advantages for patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). An electronic search of Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane library and MedRxiv was performed from January 1st, 2020 to April 1st, 2022. We included studies containing patients with COVID-19 and treated with CCP. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers and synthesized with a random-effect analysis model. The primary outcome was 28-d mortality. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, ventilation-free days, 14-d mortality, improvements of symptoms, progression of diseases and requirements of mechanical ventilation. Safety outcomes included the incidence of all adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). The Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool 2.0 was used to assess the potential risk of bias in eligible studies. The heterogeneity of results was assessed by I^2 test and Q statistic test. The possibility of publication bias was assessed by conducting Begg and Egger test. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method were used for quality of evidence. This study had been registered on PROSPERO, CRD42021273608. 32 RCTs comprising 21478 patients with Covid-19 were included. Compared to the control group, COVID-19 patients receiving CCP were not associated with significantly reduced 28-d mortality (CCP 20.0% vs control 20.8%; risk ratio 0.94; 95% CI 0.87-1.02; p = 0.16; I² = 8%). For all secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between CCP group and control group. The incidence of AEs (26.9% vs 19.4%,; risk ratio 1.14; 95% CI 0.99-01.31; p = 0.06; I² = 38%) and SAEs (16.3% vs 13.5%; risk ratio 1.03; 95% CI 0.87-1.20; p = 0.76; I² = 42%) tended to be higher in the CCP group compared to the control group, while the differences did not reach statistical significance. In all, CCP therapy was not related to significantly improved 28-d mortality or symptoms recovery, and should not be viewed as a routine treatment for COVID-19 patients.

Trial registration number

CRD42021273608. Registration on February 28, 2022.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, Identifier CRD42022313265.

A review of mass spectrometry-based analyses to understand COVID-19 convalescent plasma mechanisms of action

The spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) viral pneumonia caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) has become a worldwide pandemic claiming several thousands of lives worldwide. During this pandemic, several studies reported the use of COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) from recovered patients to treat severely or critically ill patients. Although this historical and empirical treatment holds immense potential as a first line of response against eventual future unforeseen viral epidemics, there are several concerns regarding the efficacy and safety of this approach. This critical review aims to pinpoint the possible role of mass spectrometry‐based analysis in the identification of unique molecular component proteins, peptides, and metabolites of CCP that explains the therapeutic mechanism of action against COVID‐19. Additionally, the text critically reviews the potential application of mass spectrometry approaches in the search for novel plasma biomarkers that may enable a rapid and accurate assessment of the safety and efficacy of CCP. Considering the relative low‐cost value involved in the CCP therapy, this proposed line of research represents a tangible scientific challenge that will be translated into clinical practice and help save several thousand lives around the world, specifically in low‐ and middle‐income countries.

Lessons learned from the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 and specific considerations for immunocompromised patients

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CovCP) infusions have been widely used for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The aims of this narrative review were to analyze the safety and efficacy of CovCP infusions in the overall population and in immunocompromised patients with COVID-19 and to identify the lessons learned concerning the use of convalescent plasma (CP) to fill treatment gaps for emerging viruses. Systematic searches (PubMed, Scopus, and COVID-19 Research) were conducted to identify peer-reviewed articles and pre-prints published between March 1, 2020 and May 1, 2021 on the use of CovCP for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. From 261 retrieved articles, 37 articles reporting robust controlled studies in the overall population of patients with COVID-19 and 9 articles in immunocompromised patients with COVID-19 were selected. While CovCP infusions are well tolerated in both populations, they do not seem to improve clinical outcomes in critically-ill patients with COVID-19 and no conclusion could be drawn concerning their potential benefits in immunocompromised patients with COVID-19. To be better prepared for future epidemics/pandemics and to evaluate potential benefits of CP treatment, only CP units with high neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) titers should be infused in patients with low NAb titers, patient eligibility criteria should be based on the disease pathophysiology, and measured clinical outcomes and methods should be comparable across studies. Even if CovCP infusions did not improve clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, NAb-containing CP infusions remain a safe, widely available and potentially beneficial treatment option for future epidemics/pandemics.

Efficacy of early transfusion of convalescent plasma with high-titer SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies in hospitalized patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Despite most controlled trials have shown no measurable benefit of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in patients with COVID-19, some studies suggest that early administration of CCP with high-titer anti-SARS-CoV-2 can be beneficial in selected patients. We investigated the efficacy of early administration of high-titer CCP to patients with COVID-19 who required hospitalization, STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Observational, propensity score (PS) matched case-control study of COVID-19 patients treated with CCP within 72 h of hospital admission and untreated controls from August 2020 to February 2021. All CCP donations had a Euroimmun anti-SARS-CoV-2 sample-to-cutoff ratio ≥3. PS matching was based on prognostic factors and presented features with high-standardized differences between the treated and control groups. The primary endpoint was mortality within 30 days of diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 1604 patients were analyzed, 261 of whom received CCP, most (82%) within 24 h after admission. Median age was 67 years (interquartile range: 56-79), and 953 (60%) were men. Presenting factors independently associated with higher 30-day mortality were increased age, cardiac disease, hypoxemic respiratory failure, renal failure, and plasma d-dimer >700 ng/ml. After PS matching, transfusion of CCP was associated with a significant reduction in the 30-day mortality rate (odds ratio [OR]; 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-0.98; p = .001) that extended to the 60th day after COVID-19 diagnosis (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.92-0.99; p = .01).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that CCP can still be helpful in selected patients with COVID-19 and call for further studies before withdrawing CCP from the COVID-19 therapeutic armamentarium.

Therapeutic role of immunomodulators during the COVID-19 pandemic- a narrative review

The emergency state caused by COVID-19 saw the use of immunomodulators despite the absence of robust research. To date, the results of relatively few randomized controlled trials have been published, and methodological approaches are riddled with bias and heterogeneity. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, convalescent plasma and the JAK inhibitor baricitinib have gained Emergency Use Authorizations and tentative recommendations for their use in clinical practice alone or in combination with other therapies. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are predominating the management of non-hospitalized patients, while the inpatient setting is seeing the use of convalescent plasma, baricitinib, tofacitinib, tocilizumab, sarilumab, and corticosteroids, as applicable. Available clinical data also suggest the potential clinical benefit of the early administration of blood-derived products (e.g. convalescent plasma, non-SARS-CoV-2-specific immunoglobins) and the blockade of factors implicated in the hyperinflammatory state of severe COVID-19 (Interleukin 1 and 6; Janus Kinase). Immune therapies seem to have a protective effect and using immunomodulators alone or in combination with viral replication inhibitors and other treatment modalities might prevent progression into severe COVID-19 disease, cytokine storm and death. Future trials should address existing gaps and reshape the landscape of COVID-19 management.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome in COVID-19: possible mechanisms and therapeutic management

COVID-19 pandemic is a serious concern in the new era. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and lung failure are the main lung diseases in COVID-19 patients. Even though COVID-19 vaccinations are available now, there is still an urgent need to find potential treatments to ease the effects of COVID-19 on already sick patients. Multiple experimental drugs have been approved by the FDA with unknown efficacy and possible adverse effects. Probably the increasing number of studies worldwide examining the potential COVID-19 related therapies will help to identification of effective ARDS treatment. In this review article, we first provide a summary on immunopathology of ARDS next we will give an overview of management of patients with COVID-19 requiring intensive care unit (ICU), while focusing on the current treatment strategies being evaluated in the clinical trials in COVID-19-induced ARDS patients.

Efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19: A non-randomized comparative study with historical control in a referral hospital in Indonesia

Background

Studies to confirm the efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma (CP) as an adjunctive treatment for COVID-19 are still required especially for the countries where standard treatments are unevenly distributed.

Methods

A non-randomized comparative study was done from June – September 2020 in Dr. Sardjito Hospital, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Plasma with anti-SARS-CoV-2 specific IgG titer of >1:320 were used. Primary end points were clinical and laboratory parameters outcome including BGA, chest X-ray, CT value, CRP, procalcitonin, IL-6, D-Dimer and ALC examined on day 1, 2 and 7 post-transfusion.

Results

The experimental arm of this study consisted of 15 patients who received CP: 3 (20%) with moderate COVID-19 and 12 (80%) with severe COVID-19. There were 15 historical controls in this study. Ten recipients survived and 5 deceased (survival rate was 66.7%). There were higher rate of pneumonia resolution (OR 1.54, CI95% 0.33–7.23), ARDS resolution (OR 1.20, CI95% 0.25–5.84) and shorter median length of stay (20 vs 22 days, p = 0.41) among recipients compared to controls. Lower mortality rate was observed in recipients vs controls (33.3% vs 46.7% (OR 0.75, CI95% 0.17–3.33)). Median death onset was longer in recipient vs control (7^th vs 1^st day, p = 0.13). Survival analysis showed protective effect of CP (HR 0.69, CI 95% 0.21–2.27, p = 0.545). Higher CT value improvement (p = 0.51) and negative conversion rate (OR1.20, CI95% 0.25–5.84) were observed in recipients compared to controls. Sub-analysis showed more number of comorbidities, higher procalcitonin and higher D-Dimer among CP recipients who did not survive (p = 0.02 and p = 0.02 respectively). Lower CRP and procalcitonin, and higher ALC were found in survivors compared to non-survivors (p = 0.0437; p = 0.0049; and p = 0.0002 respectively).

Conclusion

This study showed promising results for CP marked by improvements in clinical outcome, as well as significant reduction of inflammatory markers among recipients.

CONVALESCENT plasma for COVID-19: A meta-analysis of clinical trials and real-world evidence

BACKGROUND

There is still a lack of consensus on the efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) treatment in COVID-19 patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of CP vs standard treatment/non-CP on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from December 2019 to 16 July 2021, for data from clinical trials and observational studies. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Risk estimates were pooled using a random-effect model. Risk of bias was assessed by Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for clinical trials and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies.

RESULTS

In total, 18 peer-reviewed clinical trials, 3 preprints and 26 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. In the meta-analysis of 18 peer-reviewed trials, CP use had a 31% reduced risk of all-cause mortality compared with standard treatment use (pooled risk ratio [RR] = 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-0.86, P = .001, I2  = 50.1%). Based on severity and region, CP treatment significantly reduced risk of all-cause mortality in patients with severe and critical disease and studies conducted in Asia, pooled RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.47-0.81, P = .001, I2  = 0.0%; pooled RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.49-0.92, P = .013, I2  = 0.0%; and pooled RR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.48-0.80, P < .001, I2  = 20.3%, respectively. The meta-analysis of observational studies showed the similar results to the clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Convalescent plasma use was associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality in severe or critical COVID-19 patients. However, the findings were limited with a moderate degree of heterogeneity. Further studies with well-designed and larger sample size are needed.

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.

A Phase II Study on the Use of Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Severe COVID-19- A Propensity Score-Matched Control Analysis

COVID-19 is a global pandemic associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Convalescent plasma (CP) infusion is a strategy of potential therapeutic benefit. We conducted a multicenter phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CP in patients with COVID-19, grade 4 or higher. To evaluate the efficacy of CP, a matched propensity score analysis was used comparing the intervention (n = 59) to a control group (n = 59). Sixty patients received CP within a median time of 7 days from symptom onset. During a median follow-up of 28.5 days, 56/60 patients fully recovered and 1 patient remained in the ICU. The death rate in the CP group was 3.4% vs. 13.6% in the control group. By multivariate analysis, CP recipients demonstrated a significantly reduced risk of death [HR: 0.04 (95% CI: 0.004–0.36), p: 0.005], significantly better overall survival by Kaplan–Meir analysis (p < 0.001), and increased probability of extubation [OR: 30.3 (95% CI: 2.64–348.9), p: 0.006]. Higher levels of antibodies in the CP were independently associated with significantly reduced risk of death. CP infusion was safe with only one grade 3 adverse event (AE), which easily resolved. CP used early may be a safe and effective treatment for patients with severe COVID-19 (trial number NCT04408209).