Convalescent Plasma Therapy for Corona Virus Disease 2019: a Long Way to Go but Worth Trying

A Narrative Overview of Coronavirus Infection: Clinical Signs and Symptoms, Viral Entry and Replication, Treatment Modalities, and Management

The global pandemic known as coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is causing morbidity and mortality on a daily basis. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV- -2) virus has been around since December 2019 and has infected a high number of patients due to its idiopathic pathophysiology and rapid transmission. COVID-19 is now deemed a newly identified "syndrome" condition since it causes a variety of unpleasant symptoms and systemic side effects following the pandemic. Simultaneously, it always becomes potentially hazardous when new variants develop during evolution. Its random viral etiology prevents accurate and suitable therapy. Despite the fact that multiple preclinical and research studies have been conducted to combat this lethal virus, and various therapeutic targets have been identified, the precise course of therapy remains uncertain. However, just a few drugs have shown efficacy in treating this viral infection in its early stages. Currently, several medicines and vaccinations have been licensed following clinical trial research, and many countries are competing to find the most potent and effective immunizations against this highly transmissible illness. For this narrative review, we used PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus to obtain epidemiological data, pre-clinical and clinical trial outcomes, and recent therapeutic alternatives for treating COVID-19 viral infection. In this study, we discussed the disease's origin, etiology, transmission, current advances in clinical diagnostic technologies, different new therapeutic targets, pathophysiology, and future therapy options for this devastating virus. Finally, this review delves further into the hype surrounding the SARS-CoV-2 illness, as well as present and potential COVID-19 therapies.

Non-iterative learning machine for identifying CoViD19 using chest X-ray images

CoViD19 is a novel disease which has created panic worldwide by infecting millions of people around the world. The last significant variant of this virus, called as omicron, contributed to majority of cases in the third wave across globe. Though lesser in severity as compared to its predecessor, the delta variant, this mutation has shown higher communicable rate. This novel virus with symptoms of pneumonia is dangerous as it is communicable and hence, has engulfed entire world in a very short span of time. With the help of machine learning techniques, entire process of detection can be automated so that direct contacts can be avoided. Therefore, in this paper, experimentation is performed on CoViD19 chest X-ray images using higher order statistics with iterative and non-iterative models. Higher order statistics provide a way of analyzing the disturbances in the chest X-ray images. The results obtained are quite good with 96.64% accuracy using a non-iterative model. For fast testing of the patients, non-iterative model is preferred because it has advantage over iterative model in terms of speed. Comparison with some of the available state-of-the-art methods and some iterative methods proves efficacy of the work.

Convalescent plasma therapy against the emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants: Delineation of the potentialities and risks

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has resulted in a catastrophic pandemic and severely impacted people's livelihoods worldwide. In addition, the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants has posed a severe threat to humankind. Due to the dearth of therapeutic options during the commencement of the pandemic, convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) played a significant part in the management of patients with severe form of COVID-19. Several recent studies have proposed various protective effects of CPT, such as antiviral, anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombotic, and immunomodulatory actions, curtailing the devastating consequences of the SARS-CoV-2 infection. On the contrary, several clinical studies have raised some serious concerns about the effectiveness and reliability of CPT in the management of patients with COVID-19. The protective effects of CPT in severely ill patients are yet to be proved. Moreover, the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants has raised concerns about the effectiveness of CPT against COVID-19. Therefore, to establish concrete evidence of the efficacy of CPT and adjudicate its inclusion in the management of COVID-19, an updated review of present literature is required, which could help in the development of an efficient therapeutic regimen to treat COVID-19 amid the emergence of new viral variants.

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.

An evidence-based systematic review on emerging therapeutic and preventive strategies to treat novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) during an outbreak scenario

A novel coronavirus infection coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emerged from Wuhan, Hubei Province of China, in December 2019 caused by SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be originated from bats in the local wet markets. Later, animal to human and human-to-human transmission of the virus began and resulting in widespread respiratory illness worldwide to around more than 180 countries. The World Health Organization declared this disease as a pandemic in March 2020. There is no clinically approved antiviral drug or vaccine available to be used against COVID-19. Nevertheless, few broad-spectrum antiviral drugs have been studied against COVID-19 in clinical trials with clinical recovery. In the current review, we summarize the morphology and pathogenesis of COVID-19 infection. A strong rational groundwork was made keeping the focus on current development of therapeutic agents and vaccines for SARS-CoV-2. Among the proposed therapeutic regimen, hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, remdisevir, azithromycin, toclizumab and cromostat mesylate have shown promising results, and limited benefit was seen with lopinavir-ritonavir treatment in hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19. Early development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine started based on the full-length genome analysis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Several subunit vaccines, peptides, nucleic acids, plant-derived, recombinant vaccines are under pipeline. This article concludes and highlights ongoing advances in drug repurposing, therapeutics and vaccines to counter COVID-19, which collectively could enable efforts to halt the pandemic virus infection.

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 4 June 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' 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.  MAIN RESULTS: This is the first living update of our review. We included 20 studies (1 RCT, 3 controlled NRSIs, 16 non-controlled NRSIs) with 5443 participants, of whom 5211 received convalescent plasma, and identified a further 98 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 50 are randomised. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. Overall risk of bias of included studies was high, due to study design, type of participants, and other previous or concurrent treatments. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19  We included results from four controlled studies (1 RCT (stopped early) with 103 participants, of whom 52 received convalescent plasma; and 3 controlled NRSIs with 236 participants, of whom 55 received convalescent plasma) to assess effectiveness of convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge (1 controlled NRSI, 21 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma has any effect on all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.31; very low-certainty evidence). Time to death (1 RCT, 103 participants; 1 controlled NRSI, 195 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma prolongs time to death (RCT: hazard ratio (HR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.82; controlled NRSI: HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96; very low-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical symptoms, assessed by need for respiratory support (1 RCT, 103 participants; 1 controlled NRSI, 195 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma has any effect on improvement of clinical symptoms at seven days (RCT: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19), 14 days (RCT: RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.77; controlled NRSI: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.29), and 28 days (RCT: RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.81; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life No studies reported this outcome.  Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from 1 RCT, 3 controlled NRSIs and 10 non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of adverse events and serious adverse events was variable. The controlled studies reported on adverse events and serious adverse events only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. The duration of follow-up varied. Some, but not all, studies included death as a serious adverse event.  Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (13 studies, 201 participants) The studies did not report the grade of adverse events. Thirteen studies (201 participants) reported on adverse events of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these adverse events were allergic or respiratory events. We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe adverse events (very low-certainty evidence).  Serious adverse events (14 studies, 5201 participants)  Fourteen studies (5201 participants) reported on serious adverse events. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (5000 participants), which reported only on serious adverse events limited to the first four hours after convalescent plasma transfusion. This study included death as a serious adverse event; they reported 15 deaths, four of which they classified as potentially, probably or definitely related to transfusion. Other serious adverse events reported in all studies were predominantly allergic or respiratory in nature, including anaphylaxis, transfusion-associated dyspnoea, and transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI). We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma affects the number of serious adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. For safety outcomes we also included non-controlled NRSIs. There was limited information regarding adverse events. Of the controlled studies, none reported on this outcome in the control group. There is only very low-certainty evidence for safety of convalescent plasma for COVID-19.  While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, problems with recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies are conceivable. The early termination of the first RCT investigating convalescent plasma, and the multitude of studies registered in the past months illustrate this. It is therefore necessary to critically assess the design of these registered studies, and well-designed studies should be prioritised. Other considerations for these studies are the need to report outcomes for all study arms in the same way, and the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms.  There are 98 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 50 are RCTs. This is the first living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. These updates may show different results to those reported here.

Convalescent Plasma Therapy in Coronavirus Disease 2019: a Case Report and Suggestions to Overcome Obstacles

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is rapidly spreading around the world, causing much morbidity and mortality everywhere. However, effective treatments or vaccines are still not available. Although convalescent plasma (CP) therapy can be useful in the treatment of COVID-19, it has not been widely used in Korea because of the concerns about adverse effects and the difficulty in matching patients to donors. The use of ABO-incompatible plasma is not contraindicated in treatment, but can be hesitated due to the lack of experience of physicians. Here, we describe a 68-year old man with COVID-19 who was treated ABO-incompatible plasma therapy; additionally, we comment on the acute side effects associated with ABO mismatch transfusion. To overcome the obstacles of donor-recipient connections (schedule and distance), we propose the storage of frozen plasma, modification of the current Blood Management Law, and the establishment of a CP bank. We suggest that experience gained in CP therapy will be useful for not only the treatment of COVID-19, but also for coping with new emerging infectious diseases.

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

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with respiratory virus diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as a 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 assess whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

The protocol was pre-published with the Center for Open Science and can be accessed here: osf.io/dwf53  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 trials registries to identify ongoing studies and results of completed studies on 23 April 2020 for case-series, cohort, prospectively planned, and randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology and performed all steps regarding study selection in duplicate by two independent review authors (in contrast to the recommendations of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group). We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of 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 immunoglobulins.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed recommendations of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group regarding data extraction and assessment. To assess bias in included studies, we used the assessment criteria tool 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 at hospital discharge, improvement of clinical symptoms (7, 15, and 30 days after transfusion), grade 3 and 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.  MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies (seven case-series, one prospectively planned, single-arm intervention study) with 32 participants, and identified a further 48 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma (47 studies) or hyperimmune immunoglobulin (one study), of which 22 are randomised. Overall risk of bias of the eight included studies was high, due to: study design; small number of participants; poor reporting within studies; and varied type of participants with different severities of disease, comorbidities, and types of previous or concurrent treatments, including antivirals, antifungals or antibiotics, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine and respiratory support. We rated all outcomes as very low certainty, and we were unable to summarise numerical data in any meaningful way. As we identified case-series studies only, we reported results narratively. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 The following reported outcomes could all be related to the underlying natural history of the disease or other concomitant treatment, rather than convalescent plasma. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge All studies reported mortality. All participants were alive at the end of the reporting period, but not all participants had been discharged from hospital by the end of the study (15 participants discharged, 6 still hospitalised, 11 unclear). Follow-up ranged from 3 days to 37 days post-transfusion. We do not know whether convalescent plasma therapy affects mortality (very low-certainty evidence).  Improvement of clinical symptoms (assessed by respiratory support) Six studies, including 28 participants, reported the level of respiratory support required; most participants required respiratory support at baseline. All studies reported improvement in clinical symptoms in at least some participants. We do not know whether convalescent plasma improves clinical symptoms (very low-certainty evidence). Time to discharge from hospital Six studies reported time to discharge from hospital for at least some participants, which ranged from four to 35 days after convalescent plasma therapy.  Admission on the intensive care unit (ICU) Six studies included patients who were critically ill. At final follow-up the majority of these patients were no longer on the ICU or no longer required mechanical ventilation. Length of stay on the ICU Only one study (1 participant) reported length of stay on the ICU. The individual was discharged from the ICU 11 days after plasma transfusion. Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 Grade 3 or 4 adverse events  The studies did not report the grade of adverse events after convalescent plasma transfusion. Two studies reported data relating to participants who had experienced adverse events, that were presumably grade 3 or 4. One case study reported a participant who had moderate fever (38.9 °C). Another study (3 participants) reported a case of severe anaphylactic shock. Four studies reported the absence of moderate or severe adverse events (19 participants). We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events One study (3 participants) reported one serious adverse event. As described above, this individual had severe anaphylactic shock after receiving convalescent plasma. Six studies reported that no serious adverse events occurred. We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified eight studies (seven case-series and one prospectively planned single-arm intervention study) with a total of 32 participants (range 1 to 10). Most studies assessed the risks of the intervention; reporting two adverse events (potentially grade 3 or 4), one of which was a serious adverse event. We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma is effective for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19 as studies reported results inconsistently, making it difficult to compare results and to draw conclusions. We identified very low-certainty evidence on the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma therapy for people with COVID-19; all studies were at high risk of bias and reporting quality was low. No RCTs or controlled non-randomised studies evaluating benefits and harms of convalescent plasma have been completed. There are 47 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, of which 22 are RCTs, and one trial evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We will update this review as a living systematic review, based on monthly searches in the above mentioned databases and registries. These updates are likely to show different results to those reported here.