Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Convalescent Plasma Versus Standard Plasma in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infected Hospitalized Patients in New York: A Double-Blind Randomized Trial

A Rapid Systematic Review of U.S. Food and Drug Administration-Authorized COVID-19 Treatments

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic era saw numerous treatments authorized for emergency use by the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The purpose of the review was to determine if convalescent plasma, antivirals, or monoclonal antibodies are associated with serious adverse events (SAEs) and, if so, which specific populations are at risk.

Methods

PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the FDA submission database were searched through December 2023, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines, international COVID Network Meta-analysis database, and systematic reviews were reference mined to identify controlled studies with at least 1 US site. Reviewers abstracted study characteristics, number of patients experiencing each type of SAE, and methods of adverse event collection and reporting.

Results

Fifty-four studies met inclusion criteria, including 31 randomized controlled trials. We found insufficient evidence of association of any SAE with antivirals and spike protein receptor-binding antibodies. In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the monoclonal antibody tocilizumab, an interleukin 6 inhibitor, may be associated with elevated risk of neutropenia (moderate certainty) and infection (limited certainty). Convalescent plasma may be associated with thrombotic events (limited certainty) as well as bleeding events and infection in patients with hematologic cancers (moderate certainty). Inclusion of studies without a US site could potentially change the findings.

Conclusions

Severe COVID-19 infection may have serious consequences, especially in hospitalized patients with comorbidities. These consequences may be confused with toxicities of the interventions. Based on our analysis, approved treatments for COVID-19 should be prescribed as clinically indicated, although continued vigilance is warranted to identify rare and potentially significant toxicities that may arise in clinical practice.

Clinical Trials Registration

PROSPERO (CRD42023467821).

Composite endpoints in COVID-19 randomized controlled trials: a systematic review

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This study aimed to determine the prevalence of ordinal, binary, and numerical composite endpoints among coronavirus disease 2019 trials and the potential bias attributable to their use.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to assess the prevalence, characteristics, and bias associated with using composite endpoints in coronavirus disease 2019 randomized clinical trials. We compared the effect measure (relative risk) of composite outcomes and that of its most critical component (i.e. death) by estimating the Bias Attributable to Composite Outcomes index [ln(relative risk for the composite outcome)/ln(relative risk for death)].

RESULTS

Composite endpoints accounted for 152 out of 417 primary endpoints in coronavirus disease 2019 randomized trials, being more frequent among studies published in high-impact journals. Ordinal endpoints were the most common (54% of all composites), followed by binary or time-to-event (34%), numerical (11%), and hierarchical (1%). Composites predominated among trials enrolling patients with severe disease when compared to trials with a mild or moderate case mix (odds ratio = 1.72). Adaptations of the seven-point World Health Organization scale occurred in 40% of the ordinal primary endpoints, which frequently underwent dichotomization for the statistical analyses. Mortality accounted for a median of 24% (interquartile range: 6%-48%) of all events when included in the composite. The median point estimate of the Bias Attributable to Composite Outcomes index was 0.3 (interquartile range: -0.1 to 0.7), being significantly lower than 1 in 5 of 24 comparisons.

DISCUSSION

Composite endpoints were used in a significant proportion of coronavirus disease 2019 trials, especially those involving severely ill patients. This is likely due to the higher anticipated rates of competing events, such as death, in such studies. Ordinal composites were common but often not fully appreciated, reducing the potential gains in information and statistical efficiency. For studies with binary composites, death was the most frequent component, and, unexpectedly, composite outcome estimates were often closer to the null when compared to those for mortality death. Numerical composites were less common, and only two trials used hierarchical endpoints. These newer approaches may offer advantages over traditional binary and ordinal composites; however, their potential benefits warrant further scrutiny.

CONCLUSION

Composite endpoints accounted for more than a third of coronavirus disease 2019 trials' primary endpoints; their use was more common among studies that included patients with severe disease and their point effect estimates tended to underestimate those for mortality.

Convalescent plasma and predictors of mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Plasma collected from recovered patients with COVID-19 (COVID-19 convalescent plasma [CCP]) was the first antibody-based therapy employed to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. While the therapeutic effect of early administration of CCP in COVID-19 outpatients has been recognized, conflicting data exist regarding the efficacy of CCP administration in hospitalized patients.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effect of CCP compared to placebo or standard treatment, and to evaluate whether time from onset of symptoms to treatment initiation influenced the effect.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases were searched for studies published from January 2020 to January 2024.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of CCP on COVID-19 mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

PARTICIPANTS

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

INTERVENTIONS

CCP versus no CCP.

ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS

Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs.

METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS

The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI for the pooled effect estimates of CCP treatment. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven RCTs were included, representing 18,877 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. When transfused within 7 days from symptom onset, CCP significantly reduced the risk of death compared to standard therapy or placebo (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.95), while later CCP administration was not associated with a mortality benefit (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.06). The certainty of the evidence was graded as moderate. Meta-regression analysis demonstrated increasing mortality effects for longer interval to transfusion or worse initial clinical severity.

CONCLUSIONS

In-hospital transfusion of CCP within 7 days from symptom onset conferred a mortality benefit.

Efficacy of COVID-19 Treatments in Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objectives: Examining the cumulative evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), evaluating the use of pharmacological agents for the treatment of COVID-19 infections in patients with critical illness. Data Sources: Databases Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane. Study Selection: Inclusion criteria were RCTs that enrolled patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection who are critically ill. Only RCTs that examined therapeutic agents against one another or no intervention, placebo, or standard of care, were included. Data Extraction: Pairs of reviewers extracted data independently. Outcomes of interest included the overall reported mortality defined as either the ICU mortality, hospital mortality, mortality within 28 days or mortality within 90 days. Data Synthesis: A total of 40 studies (11,613 patients) evaluated 50 therapeutic intervention arms divided into five main therapy categories; steroids, antiviral medications, immunomodulators, plasma therapies [intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), convalescent plasma and/or, therapeutic plasma exchange], and therapeutic anticoagulation. Immunomodulators was the only group with possible mortality benefit, risk ratio (RR) 0.83 (95% CI 0.73; 0.95), with nonsignificant heterogeneity (I 2 = 8%, p=0.36). In contrast, the other therapy groups showed no significant impact on mortality, as indicated by their respective pooled RRs: steroids [RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.82; 1.01), I 2 = 31%], antiviral medications [RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.82; 1.49), I 2 = 57%], plasma therapies [RR 0.77 (95% CI 0.58; 1.01), I 2 = 36%], and anticoagulation [RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.95; 1.18), I 2 = 0%]. Conclusions: This meta-analysis highlights both the heterogeneity and a lack of benefit from therapies evaluated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of the RCTs were developed based on limited observational data. Future RCTs investigating pharmaceutical interventions in critically ill patients during pandemics need to be designed based on better evidence.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients With COVID-19 (September 2022)

There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials. The objective was to develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Based on the most recent search conducted on 31 May 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 32 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and postexposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, and hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines. At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were conducted that provided much-needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved, which we hope future trials can answer.

Exploring Study Design Foibles in Randomized Controlled Trials on Convalescent Plasma in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

Background: Sample size estimation is an essential step in the design of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating a treatment effect. Sample size is a critical variable in determining statistical significance and, thus, it significantly influences RCTs' success or failure. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many RCTs tested the efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in hospitalized patients but reported different efficacies, which could be attributed to, in addition to timing and dose, inadequate sample size estimates. Methods: To assess the sample size estimation in RCTs evaluating the effect of treatment with CCP in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, we searched the medical literature between January 2020 and March 2024 through PubMed and other electronic databases, extracting information on expected size effect, statistical power, significance level, and measured efficacy. Results: A total of 32 RCTs were identified. While power and significance level were highly consistent, heterogeneity in the expected size effect was relevant. Approximately one third of the RCTs did not reach the planned sample size for various reasons, with the most important one being slow patient recruitment during the pandemic's peaks. RCTs with a primary outcome in favor of CCP treatment had a significant lower median absolute difference in the expected size effect than unfavorable RCTs (20.0% versus 33.9%, P = 0.04). Conclusions: The analyses of sample sizes in RCTs of CCP treatment in hospitalized COVID-19 patients reveal that many underestimated the number of participants needed because of excessively high expectations on efficacy, and thus, these studies had low statistical power. This, in combination with a lower-than-planned recruitment of cases and controls, could have further negatively influenced the primary outcomes of the RCTs.

Hyperimmune Plasma and Immunoglobulins against COVID-19: A Narrative Review

Since late 2019, the new SARS-CoV-2 virus belonging to the Coronaviridae family has been responsible for COVID-19 pandemic, a severe acute respiratory syndrome. Several antiviral therapies, mostly derived from previous epidemics, were initially repurposed to fight this not rarely life-threatening respiratory illness. Among them, however, the only specific antibody-based therapy available against SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first year of the pandemic was represented by COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). CCP, collected from recovered individuals, contains high levels of polyclonal antibodies of different subclasses able to neutralize SARS-CoV-2 infection. Tens of randomized controlled trials have been conducted during the last three years of the pandemic to evaluate the safety and the clinical efficacy of CCP in both hospitalized and ambulatory COVID-19 patients, whose main results will be summarized in this narrative review. In addition, we will present the current knowledge on the development of anti-SARS-CoV-2 hyperimmune polyclonal immunoglobulins.

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.

Convalescent plasma and all-cause mortality of COVID-19 patients: systematic review and meta-analysis

Insight into the clinical potential of convalescent plasma in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is important given the severe clinical courses in unvaccinated and seronegative individuals. The aim of the study was to investigate whether there is a survival benefit of convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients. The authors independently assessed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified by the search strategy for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The binary primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Risk ratio (RR) of the convalescent plasma treatment (vs. best standard care) and its associated standard error (effect size) were calculated. A random-effects model was employed to statistically pool the effect sizes of the selected studies. We included 19 RCTs with 17,021 patients. The random-effects model resulted in an estimated pooled RR of 0.94 (95% CI 0.81-1.08, p = 0.33), showing no statistical evidence of the benefit of convalescent plasma therapy on all-cause mortality. Convalescent plasma therapy was not found to be effective in reducing all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients. Further studies are needed to determine in which patients convalescent plasma therapy may lead to a reduction in mortality.

Sample size estimation in clinical trials using ventilator-free days as the primary outcome: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Ventilator-free days (VFDs) are a composite endpoint increasingly used as the primary outcome in critical care trials. However, because of the skewed distribution and competitive risk between components, sample size estimation remains challenging. This systematic review was conducted to systematically assess whether the sample size was congruent, as calculated to evaluate VFDs in trials, with VFDs' distribution and the impact of alternative methods on sample size estimation.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted within the PubMed and Embase databases for randomized clinical trials in adults with VFDs as the primary outcome until December 2021. We focused on peer-reviewed journals with 2021 impact factors greater than five. After reviewing definitions of VFDs, we extracted the sample size and methods used for its estimation. The data were collected by two independent investigators and recorded in a standardized, pilot-tested forms tool. Sample sizes were calculated using alternative statistical approaches, and risks of bias were assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

RESULTS

Of the 26 clinical trials included, 19 (73%) raised "some concerns" when assessing risks of bias. Twenty-four (92%) trials were two-arm superiority trials, and 23 (89%) were conducted at multiple sites. Almost all the trials (96%) were unable to consider the unique distribution of VFDs and death as a competitive risk. Moreover, significant heterogeneity was found in the definitions of VFDs, especially regarding varying start time and type of respiratory support. Methods for sample size estimation were also heterogeneous, and simple models, such as the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon rank-sum test, were used in 14 (54%) trials. Finally, the sample sizes calculated varied by a factor of 1.6 to 17.4.

CONCLUSIONS

A standardized definition and methodology for VFDs, including the use of a core outcome set, seems to be required. Indeed, this could facilitate the interpretation of findings in clinical trials, as well as their construction, especially the sample size estimation which is a trade-off between cost, ethics, and statistical power. Systematic review registration PROSPERO ID: CRD42021282304. Registered 15 December 2021 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021282304 ).

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.

Effect of convalescent plasma transfusion on outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019: a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

The aim of this review was to update evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma transfusion (CPT) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing CPT plus standard treatment versus standard treatment only in adults with COVID-19. Primary outcome measures were mortality and need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Twenty-Six RCT involving 19,816 patients were included in meta-analysis for mortality. Quantitative synthesis showed no statistically significant benefit of adding CPT to standard treatment (RR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.92 to 1.02) with unimportant heterogeneity (Q(25) = 26.48, p = .38, I² = 0.00%). Trim-and-fill-adjusted effect size was unimportantly changed and level of evidence was graded as high. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) indicated information size was adequate and CPT was futile. Seventeen trials involving 16,083 patients were included in meta-analysis for need of IMV. There was no statistically significant effect of CPT (RR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.10) with unimportant heterogeneity (Q(16) = 9.43, p = .89, I² = 3.30%). Trim-and-fill-adjusted effect size was trivially changed and level of evidence was graded as high. TSA showed information size was adequate and indicated futility of CPT. It is concluded with high level of certainty that CPT added to standard treatment of COVID-19 is not associated with reduced mortality or need of IMV compared with standard treatment alone. In view of these findings, further trials on efficacy of CPT in COVID-19 patients are probably not needed.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma (CCP) During the Pandemic Era: A Literature Review

Worldwide pandemic with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) was caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). As November 2, 2022, World Health Organization (WHO) received 628,035,553 reported incidents on COVID-19, with 6,572,800 mortalities and, with a total 12,850,970,971 vaccine doses have been delivered as of October 31, 2022. The infection can cause mild or self-limiting symptoms of pulmonary and severe infections or death may be caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Simultaneously, antivirals, corticosteroids, immunological treatments, antibiotics, and anticoagulants have been proposed as potential medicines to cure COVID-19 affected patients. Among these initial treatments, COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP), which was retrieved from COVID-19 recovered patients to be used as passive immune therapy, in which antibodies from cured patients were given to infected patients to prevent illness. Such treatment has yielded the best results in earlier with preventative or early stages of illness. Convalescent plasma (CP) is the first treatment available when infectious disease initially appears, although few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to evaluate its effectiveness. The historical record suggests with potential benefit for other respiratory infections, as coronaviruses like Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-CoV-I (SARS-CoV-I) and Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), though the analysis of such research is constrained by some non-randomized experiments (NREs). Rigorous studies on CP are made more demanding by the following with the immediacy of the epidemics, CP use may restrict the ability to utilize it for clinical testing, non-homogenous nature of product, highly decentralized manufacturing process; constraints with capacity to measure biologic function, ultimate availability of substitute therapies, as antivirals, purified immune globulins, or monoclonal antibodies. Though, it is still not clear how effectively CCP works among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The current review tries to focus on its efficiency and usage in clinical scenarios and identifying existing benefits of implementation during pandemic or how it may assist with future pandemic preventions.

Differential efficacy and safety of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody therapies for the management of COVID-19: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess and compare the relative efficacy and safety of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody regimens for COVID-19.

METHODS

This systematic review and random-effects network meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA-NMA. Literature searches were conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and CNKI up to February 20th, 2022. Interventions were ranked using P scores.

RESULTS

Fifty-five RCTs (N = 45,005) were included in the review. Bamlanivimab + etesevimab (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.77) was associated with a significant reduction in mortality compared to standard of care/placebo. Casirivimab + imdevimab reduced mortality (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50-0.91) in baseline seronegative patients only. Four different regimens led to a significant decrease in the incidence of hospitalization compared to standard of care/placebo with sotrovimab ranking first in terms of efficacy (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.08-0.48). No treatment improved incidence of mechanical ventilation, duration of hospital/ICU stay, and time to viral clearance. Convalescent plasma and anti-COVID IVIg both led to a significant increase in adverse events compared to standard of care/placebo, but no treatment increased the odds of serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs are safe, and could be effective in improving mortality and incidence of hospitalization. Convalescent plasma and anti-COVID IVIg were not efficacious and could increase odds of adverse events. Future trials should further examine the effect of baseline seronegativity, disease severity, patient risk factors, and SARS-CoV-2 strain variation on the efficacy of these regimes.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO-CRD42021289903.

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.

A data-informed system to manage scarce blood product allocation in a randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma

BACKGROUND

Equitable allocation of scarce blood products needed for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is a complex decision-making process within the blood supply chain. Strategies to improve resource allocation in this setting are lacking.

METHODS

We designed a custom-made, computerized system to manage the inventory and allocation of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in a multi-site RCT, CONCOR-1. A hub-and-spoke distribution model enabled real-time inventory monitoring and assignment for randomization. A live CCP inventory system using REDCap was programmed for spoke sites to reserve, assign, and order CCP from hospital hubs. A data-driven mixed-integer programming model with supply and demand forecasting was developed to guide the equitable allocation of CCP at hubs across Canada (excluding Québec).

RESULTS

18/38 hospital study sites were hubs with a median of 2 spoke sites per hub. A total of 394.5 500-ml doses of CCP were distributed; 349.5 (88.6%) doses were transfused; 9.5 (2.4%) were wasted due to mechanical damage sustained to the blood bags; 35.5 (9.0%) were unused at the end of the trial. Due to supply shortages, 53/394.5 (13.4%) doses were imported from Héma-Québec to Canadian Blood Services (CBS), and 125 (31.7%) were transferred between CBS regional distribution centers to meet demand. 137/349.5 (39.2%) and 212.5 (60.8%) doses were transfused at hubs and spoke sites, respectively. The mean percentages of total unmet demand were similar across the hubs, indicating equitable allocation, using our model.

CONCLUSION

Computerized tools can provide efficient and immediate solutions for equitable allocation decisions of scarce blood products in RCTs.

Use of convalescent plasma therapy in hospitalised adult patients with non-critical COVID-19: a focus on the elderly from Hungary

Convalescent plasma therapy might be a feasible option for treatment of novel infections. During the early phases of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, several promising results were published with convalescent plasma therapy, followed by more disappointing findings of randomised controlled trials. In our single-centre, open-label, prospective, cohort study, we assessed the findings of 180 patients treated with convalescent plasma during the first four waves of the pandemic in Hungary. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were clinical improvement and need for intensive care unit admission by day 28. Subgroup analysis comparing elderly and non-elderly (less than 65 years of age) was performed. Twenty (11.4%) patients died by day 28, at significantly higher rates in the elderly subgroup (3 vs. 17, p < 0.01). One hundred twenty-eight (72.7%) patients showed clinical improvement, and 15 (8.5%) were transferred to the intensive care unit until day 28. Non-elderly patients showed clinical improvement by day 28 in significantly higher rates (improvement 74 vs. 54, no improvement 15 vs. 11, worsening or death 4 vs. 18 patients, p < 0.01). In conclusion, we found similar clinical outcome results as randomised controlled trials, and the impact of risk factors for unfavourable clinical outcomes among patients in the elderly population.

A Comprehensive Review on the Efficacy of Several Pharmacologic Agents for the Treatment of COVID-19

SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), and the cause of the pandemic is extremely contagious among people and has spread around the world. Antivirals, immunomodulators, and other medications, such as antibiotics, stem cells, and plasma therapy, have all been utilized in the treatment of COVID-19. To better understand the clinical efficacy of these agents and to aid in the selection of effective COVID-19 therapies in various countries, this study reviewed the effectiveness of the various pharmacologic agents that have been used for COVID-19 therapy globally by summarizing the clinical outcomes that have been obtained from the clinical trials published on each drug related to COVID-19 infection. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized the use of remdesivir, paxlovid, molnupiravir, baricitinib, tixagevimab-cilgavimab, and bebtelovimab for the management of COVID-19. On the other hand, most research advises against using chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients because they are not beneficial. Although the FDA has given emergency use authorization for some monoclonal antibodies, including bamlanivimab, etesevimab, casirivimab, and imdevimab for managing COVID-19, they are not currently approved for use because the Omicron variant has significantly reduced their in vitro susceptibility. In this study, we also included a wide range of alternative therapy strategies that effectively treat COVID-19 patients, although further randomized studies are necessary to support and assess their applicability.

Outcomes of Convalescent Plasma with Defined High versus Lower Neutralizing Antibody Titers against SARS-CoV-2 among Hospitalized Patients: CoronaVirus Inactivating Plasma (CoVIP) Study

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) was an early and widely adopted putative therapy for severe COVID-19. Results from randomized control trials and observational studies have failed to demonstrate a clear therapeutic role for CCP for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Underlying these inconclusive findings is a broad heterogeneity in the concentrations of neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) between different CCP donors. We conducted this study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of nAb titer-defined CCP in adults admitted to an academic referral hospital. Patients positive by a SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test and with symptoms for <10 days were eligible. Participants received either CCP with nAb titers of >1:640 (high-titer group) or ≥1:160 to 1:640 (standard-titer group) in addition to standard of care treatments. The primary clinical outcome was time to hospital discharge, with mortality and respiratory support evaluated as secondary outcomes. Adverse events were contrasted by CCP titer. Between 28 August and 4 December 2020, 316 participants were screened, and 55 received CCP, with 14 and 41 receiving high- versus standard-titer CCP, respectively. Time to hospital discharge was shorter among participants receiving high- versus standard-titer CCP, accounting for death as a competing event (hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 3.58; Gray's P = 0.02). Severe adverse events (SAEs) (≥grade 3) occurred in 4 (29%) and 23 (56%) of participants receiving the high versus standard titer, respectively, by day 28 (risk ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.21 to 1.22; Fisher's P = 0.12). There were no observed treatment-related AEs. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT04524507). IMPORTANCE In this study, in a high-risk population of patients admitted for COVID-19, we found an earlier time to hospital discharge among participants receiving CCP with nAb titers of >1:640 compared with participants receiving CCP with a lower nAb titer and no CCP-related AEs. The significance of our research is in identifying a dose response of CCP and clinical outcomes based on nAb titer. Although limited by a small study size, these findings support further study of high-nAb-titer CCP defined as >1:640 in the treatment of COVID-19.

Efficacy and Safety of Convalescence Plasma Therapy in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has outbroken into a global pandemic. The death rate for hospital patients varied between 11% and 15%. Although COVID-19 is extremely contagious and has a high fatality rate, the amount of knowledge available in the published literature and public sources is rapidly growing. The efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) therapy for COVID-19 is controversial.

Objective

This meta-analysis was designed to assess the efficacy of CP therapy for COVID-19 through a literature survey.

Methods

Until August 30, 2021, a literature search was undertaken in Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlling Trials (Central), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases. The Risk Ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a fixed or random effect model in dichotomous data. Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a fixed or random effect model in continuous data. Studies with missing or unsuitable data were presented descriptively in the outcomes.

Results

In total, thirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected for the present meta-analysis, which included a total of 13232 participants. Our results revealed that the CP group has lower mortality compared to the control group, and there was a statistically significant difference (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.55, 0.89, Z = 2.92, P = 0.004 < 0.01); other secondary outcomes such as the shortness of breath symptom improved significantly in CP group (RR:1.48, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.93, Z = 2.85, P = 0.004 < 0.01), as well as Interleukin-6 (IL-6) (MD: -4.46, 95% CI: -8.28, -0.63, Z = 2.28, P = 0.02 < 0.05) and Ferritin (MD: -447.68, 95% CI: -501.75, -393.6, Z = 16.23, P < 0.00001) are reduced significantly in CP group. However, there was no statistically significant change in the ventilator withdrawal rate, imaging results improvement, or days to hospital discharge. There was also no substantial difference in viral nucleic acid negative conversion rate and neutralizing antibody-positive conversion rate, as well as the incidence of adverse reactions.

Conclusions

The safety and potential efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy offer a promising treatment strategy for COVID-19. CP therapy can reduce mortality and improve breath and inflammatory cytokines IL-6 and Ferritin in COVID-19 with no significant increase in adverse reactions. However, it does not affect improving virology indicators. In summary, more high-quality clinical trials are needed to verify the conclusion of the present study.

COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma and Clinical Trials: Understanding Conflicting Outcomes

Convalescent plasma (CP) recurs as a frontline treatment in epidemics because it is available as soon as there are survivors. The COVID-19 pandemic represented the first large-scale opportunity to shed light on the mechanisms of action, safety, and efficacy of CP using modern evidence-based medicine approaches. Studies ranging from observational case series to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported highly variable efficacy results for COVID-19 CP (CCP), resulting in uncertainty. We analyzed variables associated with efficacy, such as clinical settings, disease severity, CCP SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) antibody levels and function, dose, timing of administration (variously defined as time from onset of symptoms, molecular diagnosis, diagnosis of pneumonia, or hospitalization, or by serostatus), outcomes (defined as hospitalization, requirement for ventilation, clinical improvement, or mortality), CCP provenance and time for collection, and criteria for efficacy. The conflicting trial results, along with both recent WHO guidelines discouraging CCP usage and the recent expansion of the FDA emergency use authorization (EUA) to include outpatient use of CCP, create confusion for both clinicians and patients about the appropriate use of CCP. A review of 30 available RCTs demonstrated that signals of efficacy (including reductions in mortality) were more likely if the CCP neutralizing titer was >160 and the time to randomization was less than 9 days. The emergence of the Omicron variant also reminds us of the benefits of polyclonal antibody therapies, especially as a bridge to the development and availability of more specific therapies.

Clinical Practice Guidelines From the Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB): COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma

DESCRIPTION

Coronavirus disease 2019 convalescent plasma (CCP) has emerged as a potential treatment of COVID-19. However, meta-analysis data and recommendations are limited. The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB) developed clinical practice guidelines for the appropriate use of CCP.

METHODS

These guidelines are based on 2 living systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CCP from 1 January 2019 to 26 January 2022. There were 33 RCTs assessing 21 916 participants. The results were summarized using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. An expert panel reviewed the data using the GRADE framework to formulate recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION 1 (OUTPATIENT)

The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for outpatients with COVID-19 who are at high risk for disease progression (weak recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 2 (INPATIENT)

The AABB recommends against CCP transfusion for unselected hospitalized persons with moderate or severe disease (strong recommendation, high-certainty evidence). This recommendation does not apply to immunosuppressed patients or those who lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.

RECOMMENDATION 3 (INPATIENT)

The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detected at admission (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 4 (INPATIENT)

The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting immunosuppression (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 5 (PROPHYLAXIS)

The AABB suggests against prophylactic CCP transfusion for uninfected persons with close contact exposure to a person with COVID-19 (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).

GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE STATEMENT

CCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers to infected patients early after symptom onset.

Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Treatment Using Convalescent Plasma Transfusion: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

This study investigated the efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma (CP) transfusion against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) via a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A total of 5467 articles obtained from electronic databases were assessed; however, only 34 RCTs were eligible after manually screening and eliminating unnecessary studies. The beneficial effect was addressed by assessing the risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) of the meta-analysis. It was demonstrated that CP therapy is not effective in improving clinical outcomes, including reducing mortality with an RR of 0.88 [0.76; 1.03] (I2 = 68% and p = 0.10) and length of hospitalization with SMD of -0.47 [-0.95; 0.00] (I2 = 99% and p = 0.05). Subgroup analysis provided strong evidence that CP transfusion does not significantly reduce all-cause mortality compared to standard of care (SOC) with an RR of 1.01 [0.99; 1.03] (I2 = 70% and p = 0.33). In addition, CP was found to be safe for and well-tolerated by COVID-19 patients as was the SOC in healthcare settings. Overall, the results suggest that CP should not be applied outside of randomized trials because of less benefit in improving clinical outcomes for COVID-19 treatment.

Convalescent Plasma for COVID-19: A Single Center Prospective Experience with Serial Antibody Measurements and Review of the Literature

Background: High-titer convalescent plasma given early for COVID-19 may decrease progression into a severe infection. Here, we reported a study of serial antibody measurements in patients who received CP at our center and performed a systematic review of randomized trials on CP. Methods: Our center participated in the Mayo Clinic Expanded Access Program for COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma. Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 by nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction at our center between April and August 2020 were included in the study if staffing was available for specimen collection. Through a colloidal gold immunochromatography assay, these patients’ IgM and IgG antibody responses were measured at baseline (Day 0) and after transfusion (Day 1, 2, etc.). Donor CP antibody levels were measured as well. Results: 110 serum specimens were obtained from 21 COVID-19 patients, 16 of whom received CP. The median time from developing symptoms to receiving CP was 11 days (range 4−21). In 9 of 14 (64%) cases where both recipient and donor CP antibody levels were tested, donor COVID-19 IgG was lower than that of the recipient. Higher donor antibody levels compared with the recipient (R = 0.71, p < 0.01) and low patient IgG before CP transfusion (p = 0.0108) correlated with increasing patient IgG levels from baseline to Day 1. Among all patients, an increased COVID-19 IgG in the short-term and longitudinally was positively correlated with improved clinical outcomes (ρ = 0.69, p = 0.003 and ρ = 0.58, p < 0.006, respectively). Conclusions: In a real-world setting where donor CP was not screened for the presence of antibodies, CP in donors might have less COVID-19 IgG than in recipients. An increase in patient antibody levels in the short term and longitudinally was associated with improved clinical outcomes.

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.

Current advances in transfusion medicine 2021: A critical review of selected topics by the AABB Clinical Transfusion Medicine Committee

BACKGROUND

Each year the AABB Clinical Transfusion Medicine Committee (CTMC) procures a synopsis highlighting new, important, and clinically relevant studies in the field of transfusion medicine (TM). This has been made available as a publication in Transfusion since 2018.

METHODS

CTMC members reviewed and identified original manuscripts covering TM-related topics published electronically (ahead-of-print) or in print from December 2020 to December 2021. Selection of publications was discussed at committee meetings and chosen based on perceived relevance and originality. Next, committee members worked in pairs to create a synopsis of each topic, which was then reviewed by additional committee members. The first and senior authors assembled the final manuscript. Although this synopsis is extensive, it is not exhaustive, and some articles may have been excluded or missed.

RESULTS

The following topics are included: blood products; convalescent plasma; donor collections and testing; hemoglobinopathies; immunohematology and genomics; hemostasis; patient blood management; pediatrics; therapeutic apheresis; and cell therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This synopsis highlights and summarizes recent key developments in TM and may be useful for educational purposes.

Early administration of COVID-19 convalescent plasma with high titer antibody content by live viral neutralization assay is associated with modest clinical efficacy

The efficacy of COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) as a treatment for hospitalized patients with COVID‐19 remains somewhat controversial; however, many studies have not evaluated CCP documented to have high neutralizing antibody titer by a highly accurate assay. To evaluate the correlation of the administration of CCP with titer determined by a live viral neutralization assay with 7‐ and 28‐day death rates during hospitalization, a total of 23 118 patients receiving a single unit of CCP were stratified into two groups: those receiving high titer CCP (>250 50% inhibitory dilution, ID50; n = 13 636) or low titer CCP (≤250 ID50; n = 9482). Multivariable Cox regression was performed to assess risk factors. Non‐intubated patients who were transfused with high titer CCP showed 1.1% and 1.7% absolute reductions in overall 7‐ and 28‐day death rates, respectively, compared to those non‐intubated patients receiving low titer CCP. No benefit of CCP was observed in intubated patients. The relative benefit of high titer CCP was confirmed in multivariable Cox regression. Administration of CCP with high titer antibody content determined by live viral neutralization assay to non‐intubated patients is associated with modest clinical efficacy. Although shown to be only of modest clinical benefit, CCP may play a role in the future should viral variants develop that are not neutralized by other available therapeutics.

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.

Convalescent Plasma Treatment in Patients with Covid-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Convalescent plasma is a suggested treatment for Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), but its efficacy is uncertain. We aimed to evaluate whether the use of convalescent plasma is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with Covid-19.In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched randomized controlled trials investigating the use of convalescent plasma in patients with Covid-19 in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and medRxiv from inception to October 17th, 2021. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method were used. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021284861. Of the 8874 studies identified in the initial search, sixteen trials comprising 16 317 patients with Covid-19 were included. In the overall population, the all-cause mortality was 23.8% (2025 of 8524) with convalescent plasma and 24.4% (1903 of 7769) with standard of care (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.90-1.04) (high-certainty evidence). All-cause mortality did not differ in the subgroups of noncritically ill (21.7% [1288 of 5929] vs. 22.4% [1320 of 5882]) and critically ill (36.9% [518 of 1404] vs. 36.4% [455 of 1247]) patients with Covid-19. The use of convalescent plasma in patients who tested negative for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline was not associated with significantly improved survival (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87-1.02). In the overall study population, initiation of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88-1.07), time to clinical improvement (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91-1.30), and time to discharge (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89-1.02) were similar between the two groups. In patients with Covid-19, treatment with convalescent plasma, as compared with control, was not associated with lower all-cause mortality or improved disease progression, irrespective of disease severity and baseline antibody status.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier PROSPERO (CRD42021284861).

Effect of convalescent plasma as complementary treatment in patients with moderate COVID-19 infection

INTRODUCTION

South America is one of the regions most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Specific and affordable treatments are needed to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection. Evidence regarding the use of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients is still limited. We compared the safety and efficacy of COVID-19-convalescent plasma administration as a complement to standard treatment in the early management of patients with moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

We carried out a random double blinded, placebo-controlled trial that compared standard treatment plus convalescent plasma (CP) or plus non-convalescent plasma in the management of COVID-19 patients. The main outcome was survival and secondary endpoints included: length of hospitalisation (LOH), days from treatment to discharge, time to clinical improvement or death within a 28-day period, and adverse reactions to treatment.

RESULTS

Administration of CP with antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 did not affect patient survival, RR = 1.003, 95% CI (0.3938, 2.555). These results led to terminate the RCT prematurely. However, early treatment of COVID-19 patients with CP tended to decrease the LOH while the delay in CP treatment was associated with longer hospitalisation. In addition, delay in CP treatment negatively affected the recovery of the respiratory rate.

CONCLUSION

Use of CP for the treatment of COVID-19 patients is safe and its early use can decrease the LOH and improve respiratory function. Early administration of antibody-rich CP could contribute to decrease the negative impact of COVID-19 pandemic in patients with impaired immune response.

Convalescent Plasma for Patients Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Current evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews on the utility of convalescent plasma (CP) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suggests a lack of benefit. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of RCTs with trial sequential analysis to investigate whether convalescent plasma is futile in reducing mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We searched 6 databases from December 1, 2019 to August 1, 2021 for RCTs comparing the use of CP with standard of care or transfusion of non-CP standard plasma in patients with COVID-19. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 Tool. Random effects (DerSimonian and Laird) meta-analyses were conducted. The primary outcome was the aggregate risk for in-hospital mortality between both arms. We conducted a trial sequential analysis (TSA) based on the pooled relative risks (RRs) for in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included the pooled RR for receipt of mechanical ventilation and mean difference in hospital length of stay. We included 18 RCTs (8702 CP, 7906 control). CP was not associated with a significant mortality benefit (RR: 0.95, 95%-CI: 0.86-1.04, P = .27, high certainty). Subgroup analysis did not find any significant differences (pinteraction = 0.30) between patients who received CP within 8 days of symptom onset (RR: 0.97, 95%-CI: 0.79-1.19, P = .80), or after 8 days (RR: 0.79, 95%-CI: 0.57-1.10, P = .16). TSA based on a RR reduction of 10% from a baseline mortality of 20% found that CP was not effective, with the pooled effect within the boundary for futility. CP did not significantly reduce the requirement for mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.00, 95%-CI: 0.91-1.10, P = .99, moderate certainty) or hospital length of stay (+1.32, 95%-CI: -1.86 to +4.52, P = .42, low certainty). CP does not improve relevant clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, especially in severe disease. The pooled effect of mortality was within the boundary of futility, suggesting the lack of benefit of CP in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Passive immune therapies: another tool against COVID-19

Passive immune therapy consists of several different therapies, convalescent plasma, hyperimmune globulin, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) neutralizing monoclonal antibodies. Although these treatments were not part of any pandemic planning prior to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), due to the absence of high-quality evidence demonstrating benefit in other severe respiratory infections, a large amount of research has now been performed to demonstrate their benefit or lack of benefit in different patient groups. This review summarizes the evidence up to July 2021 on their use and also when they should not be used or when additional data are required. Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is the most important method of preventing severe and fatal COVID-19 in people who have an intact immune system. Passive immune therapy should only be considered for patients at high risk of severe or fatal COVID-19. The only therapy that has received full regulatory approval is the casirivimab/imdevimab monoclonal cocktail; all other treatments are being used under emergency use authorizations. In Japan, it has been licensed to treat patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, and in the United Kingdom, it has also been licensed to prevent infection.

Is SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance in nasopharyngeal swabs an appropriate surrogate marker for clinical efficacy of neutralising antibody-based therapeutics?

Viral clearance is likely the best way to assess the efficacy of antibody-based therapies. Although antibodies can mediate a variety of effects that include modulation of inflammation, the demonstration of viral clearance provides an accessible and measurable parameter that can be used to evaluate efficacy and determine dosing. Therefore, it is important to ascertain the ability of monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma to effect viral clearance. For COVID-19, which is caused by the respiratory virus SARS-CoV-2, the most common assay to assess viral clearance is via a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS). However, assessment of antibody efficacy by sampling this site may be misleading because it may not be as accessible to serum antibodies as respiratory secretions or circulating blood. Adding to the complexity of assessing the efficacy of administered antibody, particularly in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enroled patients at different times after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms, viral clearance may also be mediated by endogenous antibody. In this article we critically review available data on viral clearance in RCTs, matched control studies, case series and case reports of antibody therapies in an attempt to identify variables that contribute to antibody efficacy and suggest optimal strategies for future studies.

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.

Efficacy of COVID-19 Treatments: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: We provided a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy of available treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods: We searched for candidate COVID-19 studies in WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database up to August 19, 2021. Randomized controlled trials for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients published on peer-reviewed journals were included, regardless of demographic characteristics. Outcome measures included mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Bayesian network meta-analysis with fixed effects was conducted to estimate the effect sizes using posterior means and 95% equal-tailed credible intervals (CrIs). Odds ratio (OR) was used as the summary measure for treatment effect. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate effect sizes of treatments grouped by the treatment classifications.

Results: We identified 222 eligible studies with a total of 102,950 patients. Compared with the standard of care, imatinib, intravenous immunoglobulin and tocilizumab led to lower risk of death; baricitinib plus remdesivir, colchicine, dexamethasone, recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor and tocilizumab indicated lower occurrence of mechanical ventilation; tofacitinib, sarilumab, remdesivir, tocilizumab and baricitinib plus remdesivir increased the hospital discharge rate; convalescent plasma, ivermectin, ivermectin plus doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide and proxalutamide resulted in better viral clearance. From the treatment class level, we found that the use of antineoplastic agents was associated with fewer mortality cases, immunostimulants could reduce the risk of mechanical ventilation and immunosuppressants led to higher discharge rates.

Conclusions: This network meta-analysis identified superiority of several COVID-19 treatments over the standard of care in terms of mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Tocilizumab showed its superiority compared with SOC on preventing severe outcomes such as death and mechanical ventilation as well as increasing the discharge rate, which might be an appropriate treatment for patients with severe or mild/moderate illness. We also found the clinical efficacy of antineoplastic agents, immunostimulants and immunosuppressants with respect to the endpoints of mortality, mechanical ventilation and discharge, which provides valuable information for the discovery of potential COVID-19 treatments.

The Effectiveness of Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Novel Corona Virus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), sweeping across the world, has created a worldwide pandemic. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are extremely urgent. Objective: To analyze the efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma (CCP) on patients with COVID-19. Methods: All the relevant studies were searched from PubMed, EMBASE,Cochrane library, Scopus, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, Wan fang, VIP, Medrxiv, Biorxiv, and SSRN on July 19, 2021. PICOS criteria were as follows: (P) the study interests were human subjects with the infection of COVID-19; (I) the intervention of interest was CCP; (C) comparator treatments contained placebo, sham therapy, and standard treatment; (O) the primary outcome was mortality rates by the novel coronavirus. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of serious adverse events, the rate of ICU admission and mechanical ventilation (MV); the length of hospital stay; the duration of MV and ICU stay; the antibody levels, inflammatory factor levels, and viral loads. (S) Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CCP were included. Subanalysis, quality assessment, sensitive analysis, and publication bias were conducted by two reviewers independently. Results: Sixteen RCTs were included and enrolled a total of 16,296 participants in this meta-analysis. The pooled data showed that no significant difference was observed in reducing the rate of overall mortality between CCP treatment group and placebo group (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03; p = 0.30; I 2 = 6%). According to the results of subgroup analysis, severe or critical patients with CCP showed significant difference in reducing the 28-day mortality of compared with placebo (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.93, p = 0.02, I 2 = 0%). CCP groups have a significantly shorter duration of MV compared with the control group (weighted MD -1.00, 95% CI -1.86 to -0.14 d p = 0.02, I 2 = 0%). No significant difference was observed in the length of hospital stay, the duration of ICU, and the rate of ICU and MV. There is no conclusive evidence about the safety of CCP. Conclusion: Convalescent plasma can significantly reduce the 28-day mortality of severe or critical COVID-19 patients and the duration of MV. However, more evidence was needed to prove the safety of convalescent plasma.

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).

Early Convalescent Plasma Therapy and Mortality Among US Veterans Hospitalized With Nonsevere COVID-19: An Observational Analysis Emulating a Target Trial

BACKGROUND

Early convalescent plasma transfusion may reduce mortality in patients with nonsevere coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

This study emulates a (hypothetical) target trial using observational data from a cohort of US veterans admitted to a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facility between 1 May and 17 November 2020 with nonsevere COVID-19. The intervention was convalescent plasma initiated within 2 days of eligibility. Thirty-day mortality was compared using cumulative incidence curves, risk differences, and hazard ratios estimated from pooled logistic models with inverse probability weighting to adjust for confounding.

RESULTS

Of 11 269 eligible person-trials contributed by 4755 patients, 402 trials were assigned to the convalescent plasma group. Forty and 671 deaths occurred within the plasma and nonplasma groups, respectively. The estimated 30-day mortality risk was 6.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.0%-9.7%) in the plasma group and 6.2% (95% CI, 5.6%-7.0%) in the nonplasma group. The associated risk difference was 0.30% (95% CI, -2.30% to 3.60%) and the hazard ratio was 1.04 (95% CI, .64-1.62).

CONCLUSIONS

Our target trial emulation estimated no meaningful differences in 30-day mortality between nonsevere COVID-19 patients treated and untreated with convalescent plasma. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04545047.

Convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: an open-label, randomized controlled trial

The efficacy of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Although most randomized controlled trials have shown negative results, uncontrolled studies have suggested that the antibody content could influence patient outcomes. We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma for adults with COVID-19 receiving oxygen within 12 d of respiratory symptom onset (NCT04348656). Patients were allocated 2:1 to 500 ml of convalescent plasma or standard of care. The composite primary outcome was intubation or death by 30 d. Exploratory analyses of the effect of convalescent plasma antibodies on the primary outcome was assessed by logistic regression. The trial was terminated at 78% of planned enrollment after meeting stopping criteria for futility. In total, 940 patients were randomized, and 921 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Intubation or death occurred in 199/614 (32.4%) patients in the convalescent plasma arm and 86/307 (28.0%) patients in the standard of care arm—relative risk (RR) = 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94–1.43, P = 0.18). Patients in the convalescent plasma arm had more serious adverse events (33.4% versus 26.4%; RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.02–1.57, P = 0.034). The antibody content significantly modulated the therapeutic effect of convalescent plasma. In multivariate analysis, each standardized log increase in neutralization or antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity independently reduced the potential harmful effect of plasma (odds ratio (OR) = 0.74, 95% CI 0.57–0.95 and OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.50–0.87, respectively), whereas IgG against the full transmembrane spike protein increased it (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.14–2.05). Convalescent plasma did not reduce the risk of intubation or death at 30 d in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Transfusion of convalescent plasma with unfavorable antibody profiles could be associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to standard care.

A randomized trial in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 showed no benefit and potentially increased harm associated with the use of convalescent plasma, with subgroup analyses suggesting that the antibody profile in donor plasma is critical in determining clinical outcomes.

Convalescent plasma use in the USA was inversely correlated with COVID-19 mortality

Background

The US Food and Drug Administration authorized COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) therapy for hospitalized COVID-19 patients via the Expanded Access Program (EAP) and the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), leading to use in about 500,000 patients during the first year of the pandemic for the USA.

Methods

We tracked the number of CCP units dispensed to hospitals by blood banking organizations and correlated that usage with hospital admission and mortality data.

Results

CCP usage per admission peaked in Fall 2020, with more than 40% of inpatients estimated to have received CCP between late September and early November 2020. However, after randomized controlled trials failed to show a reduction in mortality, CCP usage per admission declined steadily to a nadir of less than 10% in March 2021. We found a strong inverse correlation (r = -0.52, p=0.002) between CCP usage per hospital admission and deaths occurring 2 weeks after admission, and this finding was robust to examination of deaths taking place 1, 2, or 3 weeks after admission. Changes in the number of hospital admissions, SARS-CoV-2 variants, and age of patients could not explain these findings. The retreat from CCP usage might have resulted in as many as 29,000 excess deaths from mid-November 2020 to February 2021.

Conclusions

A strong inverse correlation between CCP use and mortality per admission in the USA provides population-level evidence consistent with the notion that CCP reduces mortality in COVID-19 and suggests that the recent decline in usage could have resulted in excess deaths.

Funding

There was no specific funding for this study. AC was supported in part by RO1 HL059842 and R01 AI1520789; MJJ was supported in part by 5R35HL139854. This project has been funded in whole or in part with Federal funds from the Department of Health and Human Services; Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response; Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority under Contract No. 75A50120C00096.

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.

Management of hospitalised adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a European Respiratory Society living guideline

INTRODUCTION

Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection have a high mortality rate and frequently require noninvasive respiratory support or invasive ventilation. Optimising and standardising management through evidence-based guidelines may improve quality of care and therefore patient outcomes.

METHODS

A task force from the European Respiratory Society and endorsed by the Chinese Thoracic Society identified priority interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for the initial version of this "living guideline" using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) format. The GRADE approach was used for assessing the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Systematic literature reviews were performed, and data pooled by meta-analysis where possible. Evidence tables were presented and evidence to decision frameworks were used to formulate recommendations.

RESULTS

Based on the available evidence at the time of guideline development (20 February, 2021), the panel makes a strong recommendation in favour of the use of systemic corticosteroids in patients requiring supplementary oxygen or ventilatory support, and for the use of anticoagulation in hospitalised patients. The panel makes a conditional recommendation for interleukin (IL)-6 receptor antagonist monoclonal antibody treatment and high-flow nasal oxygen or continuous positive airway pressure in patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure. The panel make strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir. Conditional recommendations are made against the use of azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin, colchicine, and remdesivir, in the latter case specifically in patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. No recommendation was made for remdesivir in patients requiring supplemental oxygen. Further recommendations for research are made.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base for management of COVID-19 now supports strong recommendations in favour and against specific interventions. These guidelines will be regularly updated as further evidence becomes available.