Convalescent plasma therapy: Helpful treatment of COVID-19 in a kidney transplant recipient presenting with severe clinical manifestations and complex complications

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Potential use of convalescent plasma for SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis and treatment in immunocompromised and vulnerable populations

INTRODUCTION

: The ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is a serious threat for the health of immunocompromised patients. Among neutralizing antibody-based therapeutics, convalescent plasma containing polyclonal anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulins has promising results in both congenital and iatrogenic immunodeficiencies in oncohematological and transplant patients.

AREAS COVERED

: This article discusses case reports, case series and controlled studies detailing the efficacy of convalescent plasma in immunocompromised patients.

EXPERT OPINION

: Convalescent plasma, when administered at high neutralizing antibody titers, is a safe and effective treatment for frail immunocompromised patients. Genetic monitoring of refractory patients is recommended to intercept intra-host emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Perplexing issues for convalescent immune plasma therapy in COVID-19

Convalescent immune plasma (CIP) therapy in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is presently a trendy choice of treatment. On March 24, 2020, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved of CIP treatment for seriously ill COVID-19 patients as an emergency investigational new drug. The precise mechanisms of action for CIP in COVID-19 have not yet been undoubtedly recognized. However, earlier research demonstrated that the main mechanism of CIP such as in other viral infections is viral neutralization. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the CIP transfusion in severe infectious diseases have shown that CIP has some beneficial effects and it is a harmless process to cure infectious diseases early after symptom beginning. It is suggested that SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers in CIP should be ideally higher than 1:320, but lower thresholds could also be useful. The suggested minimum dose for one individual is one unit (200 mL) of CIP. The second unit can be given 48 h succeeding the end of the transfusion of the first unit of CIP. Moreover, CIP can be applied up to a maximum of three units (600 mL). CIP could be administered in other systemic diseases, viral infections coincidentally associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as well as other therapeutic approaches for COVID-19. There are generally no serious adverse events described from CIP transfusion in these recipients. CIP may have a significant role as one of the therapeutic modalities for various viral infections when enough vaccines or other specific therapeutic agents are not on hand.

Immunological effects of convalescent plasma therapy for coronavirus: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Preliminary studies revealed the safety and effectiveness of convalescent plasma (CP) therapy for patients with coronavirus. In this study, we aimed to evaluate and summarize the available evidence on CP therapy, identify the research gap regarding the immunological response to CP therapy and pave the road for future studies.

METHODS

This study was conducted according to the Hilary Arksey and Lisa O'Malley framework. To find out the relevant studies, we searched PubMed, Scopus and Embase databases up to 30th May 2021. Data have been extracted according to three categories: (1) patients' characteristics, (2) clinical and immunological responses to CP therapy and (3) pre-infusion screening of the CP samples.

RESULTS

A total of 12,553 articles were identified. One hundred fifty-four studies met the inclusion criteria for full-text review. More than half of the included studies (112 studies, (75.6%)) concluded satisfactory outcomes and or safety of CP infusion in patients. Results of studies showed the efficacy of CP therapy in clinical improvement (101 studies), decreasing in the level of inflammatory factors (62 studies), elimination or decreasing in viral load (60 studies), and induction or increase in antibody response (37 studies). Despite these promising results, the results of the 49 studies revealed that CP therapy was ineffective in the survival of patients, clinical improvement, viral infection elimination or decrease in the inflammatory factor levels. Furthermore, the adaptive immune response was evaluated in 3 studies. Information related to the pre-infusion screening for human leukocyte antigen/human neutrophil antigen (HLA/HNA) antibodies was not reported in most of the studies. Our gap analysis revealed that the influence of the CP infusion on the adaptive immune and inflammatory responses in patients with coronavirus needs further investigation.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of most included studies, CP infusion was safe and resulted in clinical improvement of patients and decreasing the viral load. The effect of the CP infusion on adaptive immune response and inflammatory cytokines in patients with coronavirus needs further investigation.

Immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 infection - where do we stand and where are we heading?

The appropriate immunosuppressive regimen in kidney transplant recipients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19) infection remains unclear. The impact of direct virus injury complicated by dysregulated hyperimmune response with overwhelming release of various cytokines in COVID-19 infected subjects contributes to the complexity of management. The largest concern of the practicing clinicians at current time is how to tailor maintenance immune-modulating therapy during active viral infection and the efficacy of the soon-to-be upcoming immunization for COVID-19. This targeted review aims to cover most of the current evidence on the effect of key maintenance immunosuppressive agents in COVID-19 infection and proposes a line of management to specific scenarios on this very rapidly evolving subject.

SARS-CoV-2 in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: A Structured Review of 2020

BACKGROUND

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is challenging health systems all over the world. Particularly high-risk groups show considerable mortality rates after infection. In 2020, a huge number of case reports, case series, and consecutively various systematic reviews have been published reporting on morbidity and mortality risk connected with SARS-CoV-2 in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. However, this vast array of publications resulted in an increasing complexity of the field, overwhelming even for the expert reader.

METHODS

We performed a structured literature review comprising electronic databases, transplant journals, and literature from previous systematic reviews covering the entire year 2020. From 164 included articles, we identified 3451 cases of SARS-CoV-2-infected SOT recipients.

RESULTS

Infections resulted in a hospitalization rate of 84% and 24% intensive care unit admissions in the included patients. Whereas 53.6% of patients were reported to have recovered, cross-sectional overall mortality reported after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was at 21.1%. Synoptic data concerning immunosuppressive medication attested to the reduction or withdrawal of antimetabolites (81.9%) and calcineurin inhibitors (48.9%) as a frequent adjustment. In contrast, steroids were reported to be increased in 46.8% of SOT recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 in SOT recipients is associated with high morbidity and mortality worldwide. Conforming with current guidelines, modifications of immunosuppressive therapies mostly comprised a reduction or withdrawal of antimetabolites and calcineurin inhibitors, while frequently maintaining or even increasing steroids. Here, we provide an accessible overview to the topic and synoptic estimates of expectable outcomes regarding in-hospital mortality of SOT recipients with COVID-19.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Liver Transplantation: Lessons from the First Year of the Pandemic

Over the last year, the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has continued to spread across the globe, causing significant morbidity and mortality among transplantation candidates and recipients. Patients with end-stage liver disease awaiting liver transplantation and patients with a history of liver transplantation represent vulnerable populations, especially given the high rates of associated medical comorbidities in these groups and their immunosuppressed status. In addition, concerns surrounding COVID-19 risk in this patient population have affected rates of transplantation and general transplantation practices. Here, we explore what we have learned about the impact of COVID-19 on liver transplantation candidates and recipients as well as the many key knowledge gaps that remain.

The solid organ transplant recipient with SARS-CoV-2 infection

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The COVID-19 pandemic is a major challenge to global health, particularly among vulnerable populations. Here, we describe the emerging epidemiology and relevant data on treatment options for COVID-19. We discuss the implications of current knowledge for solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Risk factors and outcomes of COVID-19 among SOT recipients remain uncertain, but recent data suggest similar outcomes to the general population. Case reports of donor-derived SARS-CoV-2 infection are emerging. Few studies on treatment of COVID-19 among SOT recipients are available, and therefore, general recommendations are similar to the general population. Vaccine efficacy in the SOT population is uncertain.

SUMMARY

COVID-19 remains a significant threat to SOT recipients and studies on treatment and prevention specific to this population are urgently needed. Although vaccines represent the greatest hope to control this pandemic, their efficacy in this immunocompromised population is uncertain.

Use of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients with immunosuppression

In the absence of effective countermeasures, human convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the causative agent of novel coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), including among patients with innate or acquired immunosuppression. However, the association between COVID-19-associated mortality in patients with immunosuppression and therapeutic use of convalescent plasma is unknown. We review 75 reports, including one large matched-control registry study of 143 COVID-19 patients with hematological malignancies, and 51 case reports and 23 case series representing 238 COVID-19 patients with immunosuppression. We review clinical features and treatment protocols of COVID-19 patients with immunosuppression after treatment with human convalescent plasma. We also discuss the time course and clinical features of recovery. The available data from case reports and case series provide evidence suggesting a mortality benefit and rapid clinical improvement in patients with several forms of immunosuppression following COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion. The utility of convalescent plasma or other forms of antibody therapy in immune-deficient and immune-suppressed patients with COVID-19 warrants further investigation.

COVID-19 neutralizing antibody-based therapies in humoral immune deficiencies: A narrative review

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2), generated an unprecedented global health and social emergency. Despite many efforts from clinicians to develop effective anti-COVID-19 treatment protocols, no specific therapy is currently available. Among anti-viral agents, convalescent plasma (CP) from recovered patients is the object of intense research following the first positive reports in severe COVID-19 patients. Passive immunotherapy the rationale to provide higher benefits in COVID-19 patients with humoral immune deficiencies, such as those with solid and hematologic cancers, patients with primary and acquired immunodeficiencies, and recipients of solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplants. The aim of this narrative review will be to critically discuss the literature evidence on CP use in these categories of patients.

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.

SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cellular immunity in two renal transplants and two hemodialysis patients treated with convalescent plasma

When patients with chronic kidney disease are infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) they can face two specific problems: virus-specific immune responses may be impaired and remdesivir, an antiviral drug described to shorten recovery, is contraindicated. Antiviral treatment with convalescent plasma (CP) could be an alternative treatment option. In this case report, we present two kidney transplant recipients and two hemodialysis patients who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and received CP. Antibodies against the receptor-binding domain in the S1 subunit of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were determined sequentially by immunoglobulin G (IgG) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and neutralization assay and specific cellular responses by interferon-gamma ELISpot. Before treatment, in both kidney transplant recipients and one hemodialysis patient antibodies were undetectable by ELISA (ratio < 1.1), corresponding to low neutralizing antibody titers (≤1:40). ELISpot responses in the four patients were either weak or absent. After CP treatment, we observed an increase of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies (IgG ratio and neutralization titer) and of specific cellular responses. After intermittent clinical improvement, one kidney transplant recipient again developed typical symptoms on Day 12 after treatment and received a second cycle of CP treatment. Altogether, three patients clinically improved and could be discharged from the hospital. However, one 83-year-old multimorbid patient deceased. Our data suggest that the success of CP therapy may only be temporary in patients with chronic kidney disease; which requires close monitoring of viral load and antiviral immunity and possibly an adaptation of the treatment regimen.

The Course of SARS-CoV-2 in a Patient After a Recent Kidney Transplant: A Literature Review on COVID-19 Therapy

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplant recipients are at high risk of severe complications and death due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

The first part of the article describes a case of COVID-19 in our patient after a recent kidney transplant. The second part of the article presents the outcome of literature search from multiple resources from April 2020 until March 2021. Abstracts were screened, followed by full-text review with data extraction. Part 2 discusses current treatment options of COVID-19, and part 3 refers to this treatment application in patients after solid organ transplant.

RESULTS

We have summarized 45 studies from China, France, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Mortality rates from published studies were variable. Based on early data from Spain, 42% of patients who developed COVID-19 within 60 days of transplant died. According to results of the European Renal Association COVID-19 Database collaboration group, the 28-day COVID-19-related mortality is 21.3% for kidney transplant recipients, which is still markedly higher than what is observed in other populations. Acute kidney injury was common, and mycophenolate mofetil and mammalian target of rapamycin were discontinued in most patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective therapy has been sought since the outbreak of the pandemic, and at the same time intensive work has been done to produce a vaccine that could effectively protect against the disease. Summing up the efforts of numerous groups of researchers from around the world that have been continued since the beginning of 2020, we may assume the following: (1) we still do not have causal drugs that would reduce severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication and allow its complete elimination, but antispike monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 seem to be very promising, and (2) the withdrawal of antiproliferative and antimetabolic drugs and the continuation of steroids and calcineurin inhibitors is now a commonly accepted approach in patients after organ transplant.

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

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

The Management of Immunosuppression in Kidney Transplant Recipients with COVID-19 Disease: An Update and Systematic Review of the Literature

Background and Objectives: In the era of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the management of immunosuppressive (IS) therapy in kidney transplant (KT) recipients affected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) requires attention. It is not yet understood whether IS therapy may protect from the cytokine storm induced by SARS-CoV-2 infection or a temporary adjustment/withdrawal of IS therapy to restore the immune system may be necessary. We performed a systematic literature review to investigate the current management of IS therapy in KT recipients with COVID-1. Materials and Methods: Out of 71 articles published from 1 February 2020 until 30 October 2020, 554 KT recipients with SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified. Results: Modifications of IS therapy were based on the clinical conditions. For asymptomatic patients or those with mild COVID-19 symptoms, a "wait and see approach" was mostly used; a suspension of antimetabolites drugs (347/461, 75.27%) or mTOR inhibitors (38/48, 79.2%) was adopted in the majority of patients with symptomatic COVID-19 infections. For CNIs, the most frequent attitude was their maintenance (243/502, 48.4%) or dose-reduction (99/502, 19.72%) in patients asymptomatic or with mild COVID-19 symptoms, while drug withdrawal was the preferred choice in severely symptomatic patients (160/450, 31.87%). A discontinuation of all IS drugs was used only in severely symptomatic COVID-19 patients on invasive mechanical ventilation. Renal function remained stable in 422(76.17%) recipients, while 49(8.84%) patients experienced graft loss. Eight (1.44%) patients experienced a worsening of renal function. The overall mortality was 21.84%, and 53(9.56%) patients died with functioning grafts. Conclusion: A tailored approach to the patient has been the preferred strategy for the management of IS therapy in KT recipients, taking into account the clinical conditions of patients and the potential interactions between IS and antiviral drugs, in the attempt to balance the risks of COVID-19-related complications and those due to rejection or graft loss.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Successful pulsed methylprednisolone and convalescent plasma treatment in a case of a renal transplant recipient with COVID-19 positive pneumonia: a case report

Coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) is a deadly disease that was first seen in Wuhan, China, and primarily affects the respiratory system, but also has different systemic involvements. It has caused 89 million cases and 1.9 million deaths worldwide. COVID-19 positive renal transplant recipients have a higher mortality rate than COVID-19 patients in the normal population. There is no specific treatment and follow-up protocol for COVID-19 infection in transplant recipients. COVID-19 treatment and immunosuppressive therapy choices are controversial. Recently, pulse steroid therapies have been used in cases with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Convalescent plasma therapy is used limitedly in COVID-19 patients. Our 49-year-old male patient has been a recipient of a renal transplant from a cadaver for 6 years. We aimed to make an additional contribution by presenting our patient to the literature whose COVID-19 PCR-RT test performed in the emergency department due to the complaints of fever, shortness of breath, and cough for five days was positive and had moderate COVID-19 pneumonia in thorax tomography and had serious clinical and radiological improvement after pulsed methylprednisolone and convalescent plasma therapy in the early period.

Predictors of disease severity and outcome of hospitalized renal transplant recipients with COVID-19 infection: a systematic review of a globally representative sample

Introduction. COVID-19 presents a special challenge to the kidney transplant population.Methods. A systematic review of articles that examined COVID-19 in kidney transplant recipients was performed. Patients' demographics, clinical, laboratory and radiological presentations, immunosuppression modification, and COVID-19 specific management were abstracted and analyzed. COVID-19 severity was classified into mild, moderate, and severe. Disease outcome was classified by whether the patient was discharged, still hospitalized, or died.Results. 44 articles reporting individual data and 13 articles reporting aggregated data on 149 and 561 kidney transplant recipients respectively with COVID-19 from Asia, Europe and America fulfilled all inclusion and exclusion criteria. Among studies reporting case specific data, 76% of cases had severe disease. Compared to patients with mild/moderate disease, patients with severe disease had higher CRP, LDH, Ferritin, D-dimer and were more likely to have bilateral lung involvement at presentation and longer time since transplantation (P < 0.05 for all). Recipients' age, gender and comorbidities did not impact disease severity. Patients with severe disease had a more aggressive CNI reduction and more antiviral medications utilization. Outcome was reported on 145 cases, of those 34 (23%) died all with severe disease. Longer duration from transplant to disease diagnosis, hypoxia and higher LDH were associated with mortality (P < 0.05). Different immunosuppression reduction strategies, high dose parenteral corticosteroids use and various antiviral combinations did not demonstrate survival advantage. Similar finding was observed for studies reporting aggregated data.Conclusion. COVID-19 in kidney transplant patients is associated with high rate of disease severity and fatality. Higher LDH and longer time since transplantation predicted both disease severity and mortality. None of the COVID-19 specific treatment correlated with, or improved disease outcome in kidney transplant recipients.

COVID-19 in immunocompromised patients: A systematic review of cancer, hematopoietic cell and solid organ transplant patients

BACKGROUND

The clinical impact of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), in immunocompromised patients has not been systematically evaluated.

METHODS

We reviewed current literature reporting on COVID-19 in cancer (CA), hematopoietic cell (HCT), and solid organ transplant (SOT) patients and compared their clinical data and outcomes to the general population. For adult CA, HCT and SOT patients, an extensive search strategy retrieved all articles published until July 20, 2020 by combining the terms coronavirus, coronavirus infection, COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2 in PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science, and following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. For the pediatric CA cohort, a global COVID-19 registry was used. For the general population cohort, a large meta-analysis was used to compare pooled prevalence estimates, and two large meta-analyses were utilized to serve as pooled comparators for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

FINDINGS

Compared to the general population, adult CA and SOT patients with COVID-19 had higher comorbidities, greater levels of inflammatory markers at diagnosis, and higher rates of intensive care and hospital mortality. Pediatric CA patients and HCT patients with COVID-19 tended to have clinical presentations and outcomes similar to the general population.

INTERPRETATION

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review evaluating COVID-19 phenotype and outcomes in immunocompromised patients and comparing them to the general population, which shows that hospital outcomes appear to be worse in adult CA and SOT patients, potentially due to their higher co-morbidity burden.

FUNDING

None.

Effect of immunosuppression maintenance in solid organ transplant recipients with COVID-19: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of continuing immune suppressive therapy in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19).

Methods

Systematic review and meta‐analysis of data on 202 SOTR with COVID‐19, published as case reports or case series. We extracted clinical, hemato‐chemical, imaging, treatment, and outcome data.

Results

Most patients were kidney recipients (61.9%), males (68.8%), with median age of 57 years. The majority was on tacrolimus (73.5%) and mycophenolate (65.8%). Mortality was 18.8%, but an equal proportion was still hospitalized at last follow up. Immune suppressive therapy was withheld in 77.2% of patients, either partially or completely. Tacrolimus was continued in 50%. One third of survivors that continued immunosuppressants were on dual therapy plus steroids. None of those who continued immunosuppressants developed critical COVID‐19 disease. Age (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1‐1.11, P = .001) and lopinavir/ritonavir use (OR 3.3, 95%CI 1.2‐8.5, P = .013) were independent predictors of mortality while immunosuppression maintenance (OR 0.067, 95% CI 0.008‐0.558, P = .012) and tacrolimus continuation (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1‐0.7, P = .013) were independent predictors of survival.

Conclusions

Our data suggest that maintaining immune suppression might be safe in SOTR with moderate and severe COVID‐19. Specifically, receiving tacrolimus could be beneficial for COVID‐19 SOTR. Because of the quality of the available evidence, no definitive guidance on how to manage SOTR with COVID‐19 can be derived from our data.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

COVID-19 in Liver Transplant Recipients - A Series with Successful Recovery

The severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus-2 (referred to as SARS CoV2) pandemic had a great impact on public life in general as well as on populations with pre-existing disease and co-morbidities. Liver transplant and immunosuppressant medication predisposes to more severe disease and is often associated with poor outcome. The clinical features, disease course, treatment and process of modulating the immunosuppression is challenging. Here, we describe the clinical presentation, treatment and outcomes in six liver transplant recipients. Out of those six patients, three had mild, one had moderate and one had severe COVID-19, and one was asymptomatic. The immunosuppression minimization or withdrawal was done based upon the clinical severity. Consideration of tocilizumab and/o convalescent plasma as well as antivirals i.e. remdesvir done in severe cases. The routine practice of prophylactic anticoagulation, consideration of repurposed drugs (i.e. teicoplanin and doxycycline), and watchful monitoring of asymptomatic recipients helped to achieve an uneventful recovery.

Convalescent plasma therapy and remdesivir duo successfully salvaged an early liver transplant recipient with severe COVID-19 pneumonia

The impact and clinical spectrum of COVID-19 infection in liver transplant recipients/solid organ transplants are being unveiled during this recent pandemic. The clinical experience of use of current antiviral drugs and immunomodulators are sparse in solid organ transplantation. We present the clinical course of a 49-year-old male recipient who underwent living donor liver transplant for recurrent gastrointestinal bleed and contracted severe COVID-19 pneumonia during the third postoperative week. Herein we report the successful management of severe COVID-19 pneumonia using convalescent plasma therapy and remdesivir. Recipient’s clinical deterioration was halted after three consecutive convalescent plasma transfusions with improvement in hypoxia and inflammatory markers (interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein). The use of convalescent plasma therapy along with remdesivir may be an ideal combination in the management of severe COVID-19 pneumonia in solid organ transplant recipients.

Antivirals for COVID-19 in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To evaluate the critical studies published so far on the most promising antiviral therapies for COVID-19, with particular emphasis on any solid organ transplant-specific information.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although the literature is increasing exponentially, most clinical trials have been preliminary, thus lacking robust evidence to support many of the drugs discussed here. The main exception is remdesivir, for which several trials have been published supporting its use for patients with severe COVID-19. No solid organ transplant-specific data on remdesivir or other antiviral therapies have been published so far.

SUMMARY

While further studies are urgently needed, in particular those specific to solid organ transplant recipients, the evidence so far only supports the use of remdesivir for patients with severe COVID-19.

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 currently being investigated in trials as potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required.  OBJECTIVES: To continually assess, as more evidence becomes available, whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in treatment of people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trial registries to identify completed and ongoing studies on 19 August 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of study design, disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and 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' 2.0 tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), and the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-controlled NRSIs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at hospital discharge, mortality (time to event), improvement of clinical symptoms (7, 15, and 30 days after transfusion), grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs).

MAIN RESULTS

This is the second living update of our review. We included 19 studies (2 RCTs, 8 controlled NRSIs, 9 non-controlled NRSIs) with 38,160 participants, of whom 36,081 received convalescent plasma. Two completed RCTs are awaiting assessment (published after 19 August 2020). We identified a further 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are randomised (3 reported in a study registry as already being completed, but without results). We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We did not include data from controlled NRSIs in data synthesis because of critical risk of bias. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low, due to study limitations and results including both potential benefits and harms.  Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19  We included results from two RCTs (both stopped early) with 189 participants, of whom 95 received convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.34; 1 RCT, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence).  We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases mortality (time to event) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.25; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may result in little to no difference in improvement of clinical symptoms (i.e. need for respiratory support) at seven days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19; 1 RCT, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may increase improvement of clinical symptoms at up to 15 days (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.11; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence), and at up to 30 days (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43; 2 studies, 188 participants; low-certainty evidence).  No studies reported on quality of life.  Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from two RCTs, eight controlled NRSIs and nine non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of safety data and duration of follow-up was variable. The controlled studies reported on AEs and SAEs only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. Some, but not all, studies included death as a SAE.  The studies did not report the grade of AEs. Fourteen studies (566 participants) reported on AEs of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these AEs were allergic or respiratory events. We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe AEs (very low-certainty evidence).  17 studies (35,944 participants) assessed SAEs for 20,622 of its participants. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (20,000 participants), which reported on SAEs within the first four hours and within an additional seven days after transfusion. There were 63 deaths, 12 were possibly and one was probably related to transfusion. There were 146 SAEs within four hours and 1136 SAEs within seven days post-transfusion. These were predominantly allergic or respiratory, thrombotic or thromboembolic and cardiac events. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy results in a clinically relevant increased risk of SAEs (low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. There was limited information regarding grade 3 and 4 AEs to determine the effect of convalescent plasma therapy on clinically relevant SAEs. In the absence of a control group, we are unable to assess the relative safety of convalescent plasma therapy.  While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies is problematic. The early termination of the first two RCTs investigating convalescent plasma, and the lack of data from 20 studies that have completed or were due to complete at the time of this update illustrate these challenges. Well-designed studies should be prioritised. Moreover, studies should report outcomes in the same way, and should consider the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms.  There are 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are RCTs (three already completed). This is the second living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. Future updates may show different results to those reported here.

A Systematic Review of COVID-19 Infection in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Universal Effort to Preserve Patients' Lives and Allografts

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed a significant challenge to physicians and healthcare systems worldwide. Evidence about kidney transplant (KTx) recipients is still limited. A systematic literature review was performed. We included 63 articles published from 1 January until 7 July 2020, reporting on 420 adult KTx recipients with confirmed COVID-19. The mean age of patients was 55 ± 15 years. There was a male predominance (67%). The majority (74%) were deceased donor recipients, and 23% were recently transplanted (<1 year). Most patients (88%) had at least one comorbidity, 29% had two, and 18% three. Ninety-three percent of cases were hospitalized. Among them, 30% were admitted to the intensive care unit, 45% developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, and 44% had acute kidney injury with 23% needing renal replacement therapy. From the hospitalized patients a total of 22% died, 59% were discharged, and 19% were still in hospital at the time of publication. Immunosuppression was reduced in 27%, discontinued in 31%, and remained unchanged in 5%. Hydroxychloroquine was administered to 78% of patients, antibiotics to 73%, and antivirals to 30% while 25% received corticosteroid boluses, 28% received anti-interleukin agents, and 8% were given immunoglobulin. The main finding of our analysis was that the incidence of COVID-19 among kidney transplant patients is not particularly high, but when they do get infected, this is related to significant morbidity and mortality.

Convalescent Plasma Therapy for COVID-19: State of the Art

Convalescent plasma (CP) therapy has been used since the early 1900s to treat emerging infectious diseases; its efficacy was later associated with the evidence that polyclonal neutralizing antibodies can reduce the duration of viremia. Recent large outbreaks of viral diseases for which effective antivirals or vaccines are still lacking has renewed the interest in CP as a life-saving treatment. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has led to the scaling up of CP therapy to unprecedented levels. Compared with historical usage, pathogen reduction technologies have now added an extra layer of safety to the use of CP, and new manufacturing approaches are being explored. This review summarizes historical settings of application, with a focus on betacoronaviruses, and surveys current approaches for donor selection and CP collection, pooling technologies, pathogen inactivation systems, and banking of CP. We additionally list the ongoing registered clinical trials for CP throughout the world and discuss the trial results published thus far.