Abstract

BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma has been proposed as an early treatment to interrupt the progression of early COVID-19 to severe disease, but there is little definitive evidence. We aimed to assess whether early treatment with convalescent plasma reduces the risk of hospitalisation and reduces SARS-CoV-2 viral load among outpatients with COVID-19. METHODS We did a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in four health-care centres in Catalonia, Spain. Adult outpatients aged 50 years or older with the onset of mild COVID-19 symptoms 7 days or less before randomisation were eligible for enrolment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive one intravenous infusion of either 250-300 mL of ABO-compatible high anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titres (EUROIMMUN ratio ≥6) methylene blue-treated convalescent plasma (experimental group) or 250 mL of sterile 0·9% saline solution (control). Randomisation was done with the use of a central web-based system with concealment of the trial group assignment and no stratification. To preserve masking, we used opaque tubular bags that covered the investigational product and the infusion catheter. The coprimary endpoints were the incidence of hospitalisation within 28 days from baseline and the mean change in viral load (in log(10) copies per mL) in nasopharyngeal swabs from baseline to day 7. The trial was stopped early following a data safety monitoring board recommendation because more than 85% of the target population had received a COVID-19 vaccine. Primary efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, safety was assessed in all patients who received the investigational product. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04621123. FINDINGS Between Nov 10, 2020, and July 28, 2021, we assessed 909 patients with confirmed COVID-19 for inclusion in the trial, 376 of whom were eligible and were randomly assigned to treatment (convalescent plasma n=188 [serum antibody-negative n=160]; placebo n=188 [serum antibody-negative n=166]). Median age was 56 years (IQR 52-62) and the mean symptom duration was 4·4 days (SD 1·4) before random assignment. In the intention-to-treat population, hospitalisation within 28 days from baseline occurred in 22 (12%) participants who received convalescent plasma versus 21 (11%) who received placebo (relative risk 1·05 [95% CI 0·78 to 1·41]). The mean change in viral load from baseline to day 7 was -2·41 log(10) copies per mL (SD 1·32) with convalescent plasma and -2·32 log(10) copies per mL (1·43) with placebo (crude difference -0·10 log(10) copies per mL [95% CI -0·35 to 0·15]). One participant with mild COVID-19 developed a thromboembolic event 7 days after convalescent plasma infusion, which was reported as a serious adverse event possibly related to COVID-19 or to the experimental intervention. INTERPRETATION Methylene blue-treated convalescent plasma did not prevent progression from mild to severe illness and did not reduce viral load in outpatients with COVID-19. Therefore, formal recommendations to support the use of convalescent plasma in outpatients with COVID-19 cannot be concluded. FUNDING Grifols, Crowdfunding campaign YoMeCorono.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Casirivimab and imdevimab are non-competing monoclonal antibodies that bind to two different sites on the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein, blocking viral entry into host cells. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of casirivimab and imdevimab administered in combination in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. METHODS RECOVERY is a randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial comparing several possible treatments with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. 127 UK hospitals took part in the evaluation of casirivimab and imdevimab. Eligible participants were any patients aged at least 12 years admitted to hospital with clinically suspected or laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual care plus casirivimab 4 g and imdevimab 4 g administered together in a single intravenous infusion. Investigators and data assessors were masked to analyses of the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality assessed by intention to treat, first only in patients without detectable antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 infection at randomisation (ie, those who were seronegative) and then in the overall population. Safety was assessed in all participants who received casirivimab and imdevimab. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). FINDINGS Between Sept 18, 2020, and May 22, 2021, 9785 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible for casirivimab and imdevimab, of which 4839 were randomly assigned to casirivimab and imdevimab plus usual care and 4946 to usual care alone. 3153 (32%) of 9785 patients were seronegative, 5272 (54%) were seropositive, and 1360 (14%) had unknown baseline antibody status. 812 (8%) patients were known to have received at least one dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In the primary efficacy population of seronegative patients, 396 (24%) of 1633 patients allocated to casirivimab and imdevimab versus 452 (30%) of 1520 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio [RR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·69-0·91; p=0·0009). In an analysis of all randomly assigned patients (regardless of baseline antibody status), 943 (19%) of 4839 patients allocated to casirivimab and imdevimab versus 1029 (21%) of 4946 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (RR 0·94, 95% CI 0·86-1·02; p=0·14). The proportional effect of casirivimab and imdevimab on mortality differed significantly between seropositive and seronegative patients (p value for heterogeneity=0·002). There were no deaths attributed to the treatment, or meaningful between-group differences in the pre-specified safety outcomes of cause-specific mortality, cardiac arrhythmia, thrombosis, or major bleeding events. Serious adverse reactions reported in seven (<1%) participants were believed by the local investigator to be related to treatment with casirivimab and imdevimab. INTERPRETATION In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, the monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab reduced 28-day mortality in patients who were seronegative (and therefore had not mounted their own humoral immune response) at baseline but not in those who were seropositive at baseline. FUNDING UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma has been one of the most common treatments for COVID-19, but most clinical trial data to date have not supported its efficacy. RESEARCH QUESTION Is rigorously selected COVID-19 convalescent plasma with neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies an efficacious treatment for adults hospitalized with COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS This was a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial among adults hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection and acute respiratory symptoms for <14 days. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned to receive one unit of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (n=487) or placebo (n=473). The primary outcome was clinical status (illness severity) 14 days after study infusion measured with a seven-category ordinal scale ranging from discharged from the hospital with resumption of normal activities (lowest score) to death (highest score). The primary outcome was analyzed with a multivariable ordinal regression model, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) <1.0 indicating more favorable outcomes with convalescent plasma than placebo. In secondary analyses, trial participants were stratified by the presence of endogenous anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies ("serostatus") at randomization. The trial included 13 secondary efficacy outcomes, including 28-day mortality. RESULTS Among 974 randomized patients, 960 were included in the primary analysis. Clinical status on the ordinal outcome scale at 14 days did not differ between the convalescent plasma and placebo groups in the overall population (aOR: 1.04; 1/7 support interval (SI): 0.82-1.33), in patients without endogenous antibodies (aOR: 1.15; 1/7 SI: 0.74-1.80), or in patients with endogenous antibodies (aOR: 0.96; 1/7 SI: 0.72-1.30). None of the 13 secondary efficacy outcomes were different between groups. At 28 days, 89/482 (18.5%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and 80/465 (17.2%) patients in the placebo group had died (aOR: 1.04, 1/7 SI: 0.69-1.58). INTERPRETATION Among adults hospitalized with COVID-19, including those seronegative for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, treatment with convalescent plasma did not improve clinical outcomes.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Administration of convalescent plasma may serve as an adjunct to supportive treatment to prevent COVID-19 progression and death. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 2 volumes of intravenous convalescent plasma (CP) with high antibody titers for the treatment of severe cases of COVID-19. METHODS We conducted a Bayesian, randomized, open-label, multicenter, controlled clinical trial in 7 Brazilian hospitals. Adults admitted to hospital with positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV2, within 10 days of the symptom onset, were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive standard of care (SoC) alone, or in combination with 200 mL (150-300 mL) of CP (Low-volume), or 400 mL (300-600 mL) of CP (High-volume); infusion had to be performed within 24 h of randomization. Randomization was centralized, stratified by center. The primary outcome was the time until clinical improvement up to day 28, measured by the WHO ten-point scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Interim and terminal analyses were performed in a Bayesian framework. Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04415086. FINDINGS Between June 2, 2020, and November 18, 2020, 129 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to SoC (n = 42), Low-volume (n = 43) or High-volume (n = 44) CP. Donors presented a median titer of neutralizing antibodies of 1:320 (interquartile range, 1:160 to 1:1088). No evidence of any benefit of convalescent plasma was observed, with Bayesian estimate of 28-day clinical improvement of 72.7% (95%CI, 58.8 to 84.7) in the SoC versus 64.1% (95%ci, 53.8 to 73.7) in the pooled experimental groups (mean difference of -8.7%, 95%CI, -24.6 to 8.2). There was one case of cutaneous mild allergic reaction related to plasma transfusion and one case of suspected transfusion-related acute lung injury but deemed not to be related to convalescent plasma infusion. INTERPRETATION In this prospective, randomized trial of adult hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19, convalescent plasma was not associated with clinical benefits. FUNDING Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo.

Abstract

A single center open label phase 2 randomised control trial (Clinical Trial Registry of India No. CTRI/2020/05/025209) was done to assess clinical and immunological benefits of passive immunization using convalescent plasma therapy. At the Infectious Diseases and Beleghata General Hospital in Kolkata, India, 80 patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 disease and fulfilling the inclusion criteria (aged more than 18 years, with either mild ARDS having PaO2/FiO2 200-300 or moderate ARDS having PaO2/FiO2 100-200, not on mechanical ventilation) were recruited and randomized into either standard of care (SOC) arm (N = 40) or the convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) arm (N = 40). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality by day 30 of enrolment and immunological correlates of response to therapy if any, for which plasma abundance of a large panel of cytokines was quantitated before and after intervention to assess the effect of CPT on the systemic hyper-inflammation encountered in these patients. The secondary outcomes were recovery from ARDS and time taken to negative viral RNA PCR as well as to report any adverse reaction to plasma therapy. Transfused convalescent plasma was characterized in terms of its neutralizing antibody content as well as proteome. The trial was completed and it was found that primary outcome of all-cause mortality was not significantly different among severe COVID-19 patients with ARDS randomized to two treatment arms (Mantel-Haenszel Hazard Ratio 0.6731, 95% confidence interval 0.3010-1.505, with a P value of 0.3424 on Mantel-Cox Log-rank test). No adverse effect was reported with CPT. In severe COVID-19 patients with mild or moderate ARDS no significant clinical benefit was registered in this clinical trial with convalescent plasma therapy in terms of prespecified outcomes.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION South America is one of the regions most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Specific and affordable treatments are needed to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection. Evidence regarding the use of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients is still limited. We compared the safety and efficacy of COVID-19-convalescent plasma administration as a complement to standard treatment in the early management of patients with moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS We carried out a random double blinded, placebo-controlled trial that compared standard treatment plus convalescent plasma (CP) or plus non-convalescent plasma in the management of COVID-19 patients. The main outcome was survival and secondary endpoints included: length of hospitalisation (LOH), days from treatment to discharge, time to clinical improvement or death within a 28-day period, and adverse reactions to treatment. RESULTS Administration of CP with antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 did not affect patient survival, RR = 1.003, 95% CI (0.3938, 2.555). These results led to terminate the RCT prematurely. However, early treatment of COVID-19 patients with CP tended to decrease the LOH while the delay in CP treatment was associated with longer hospitalisation. In addition, delay in CP treatment negatively affected the recovery of the respiratory rate. CONCLUSION Use of CP for the treatment of COVID-19 patients is safe and its early use can decrease the LOH and improve respiratory function. Early administration of antibody-rich CP could contribute to decrease the negative impact of COVID-19 pandemic in patients with impaired immune response.

Abstract

BACKGROUND The outbreak of COVID-19 has resulted in more than 200 million infections and 4 million deaths. The blood derivative therapy represented by intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and convalescent plasma (CP) therapy may be the promising therapeutics for COVID-19. METHODS A systematic article search was performed for eligible studies published up to August 3, 2021, through the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library. The included articles were screened by using rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria. All analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4. Quality of studies and risk of bias were evaluated. RESULTS A total of 5 IVIG therapy and 13 CP therapy randomized controlled trials were included with a sample size of 13,696 subjects diagnosed with COVID-19. IVIG could reduce the mortality compared with the control group (RR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.46-0.93, p = 0.02). The use of CP did not effectively reduce the mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.91-1.03, p = 0.38), the length of hospital stay (MD -0.47, 95% CI: -4.13 to 3.20, p = 0.80), and the mechanical ventilation use (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.89-1.07, p = 0.62) of the patients with COVID-19. Treatment with IVIG or CP was not significantly associated with an increase in reported adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI: 0.94-1.22, p = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS Treatment with IVIG could be effective and safe to improve survival for patients with COVID-19. But the benefit of CP in the treatment of COVID-19 is limited. The certainty of the evidence was moderate for all outcomes.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is a potentially beneficial treatment for COVID-19 that requires rigorous testing. OBJECTIVE To compile individual patient data from randomized clinical trials of CCP and to monitor the data until completion or until accumulated evidence enables reliable conclusions regarding the clinical outcomes associated with CCP. DATA SOURCES From May to August 2020, a systematic search was performed for trials of CCP in the literature, clinical trial registry sites, and medRxiv. Domain experts at local, national, and international organizations were consulted regularly. STUDY SELECTION Eligible trials enrolled hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19, not receiving mechanical ventilation, and randomized them to CCP or control. The administered CCP was required to have measurable antibodies assessed locally. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS A minimal data set was submitted regularly via a secure portal, analyzed using a prespecified bayesian statistical plan, and reviewed frequently by a collective data and safety monitoring board. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Prespecified coprimary end points-the World Health Organization (WHO) 11-point ordinal scale analyzed using a proportional odds model and a binary indicator of WHO score of 7 or higher capturing the most severe outcomes including mechanical ventilation through death and analyzed using a logistic model-were assessed clinically at 14 days after randomization. RESULTS Eight international trials collectively enrolled 2369 participants (1138 randomized to control and 1231 randomized to CCP). A total of 2341 participants (median [IQR] age, 60 [50-72] years; 845 women [35.7%]) had primary outcome data as of April 2021. The median (IQR) of the ordinal WHO scale was 3 (3-6); the cumulative OR was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.74-1.19; posterior probability of OR <1 of 71%). A total of 352 patients (15%) had WHO score greater than or equal to 7; the OR was 0.94 (95% CrI, 0.69-1.30; posterior probability of OR <1 of 65%). Adjusted for baseline covariates, the ORs for mortality were 0.88 at day 14 (95% CrI, 0.61-1.26; posterior probability of OR <1 of 77%) and 0.85 at day 28 (95% CrI, 0.62-1.18; posterior probability of OR <1 of 84%). Heterogeneity of treatment effect sizes was observed across an array of baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This meta-analysis found no association of CCP with better clinical outcomes for the typical patient. These findings suggest that real-time individual patient data pooling and meta-analysis during a pandemic are feasible, offering a model for future research and providing a rich data resource.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma treatment for severe and critically ill Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients remains controversial. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the clinical improvement and mortality risk of convalescent plasma treatment in patients with severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS A literature search was conducted in the electronic databases for the randomized controlled studies about convalescent plasma therapy in severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients. Two reviewers independently extracted relevant data. The primary outcomes were clinical improvement and mortality risk of severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients that were therapied by convalescent plasma. RESULTS A total of 14 randomized controlled trials with 4543 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to control, no significant difference was observed for either clinical improvement (6 studies, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.17, p = 0.16, moderate certainty) or mortality risk (14 studies, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03, p= 0.18, low certainty) in patients of convalescent plasma therapy group. CONCLUSION Convalescent plasma did not increase the clinical improvement or reduce the mortality risk in the severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Abstract

BACKGROUND When the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic began, no uniform treatment and care strategies for critically ill COVID-19 patients were yet available. National and international treatment recommendations were formulated under time pressure, initially on the basis of indirect evidence from the treatment of similar diseases. In this article, we give an overview of the content, currency, and methodological quality of the existing national and international guidelines, with special attention to the care of critically ill patients. METHODS Guidelines were identified by a comprehensive search, the included guidelines were assessed in standardized fashion with the AGREE II guideline assessment instrument and according to the AMWF rulebook criteria, and the core recommendations of the included and methodologically high-quality guidelines were compared. RESULTS Nine of the 97 guidelines that were identified fulfilled the content criteria for inclusion, and 6 of these fulfilled the qualitative criteria; these 6 guidelines still differed, however, in the topics to which they devoted the most attention, as well as in their methodological quality and currency. The treatment strategies for patients with severe respiratory failure (lung-protective ventilation strategies and rescue measures) deviated little from established standards. Uniform recommendations were made, among other things, for the administration of dexamethasone, which was recommended in all of the guidelines for patients requiring oxygen treatment, as well as for antithrombotic drug prophylaxis and for the prone positioning of ventilated patients. Many recommendations were based on insufficient evidence, and some were contradictory, e.g., those regarding antibiotic treatment or the choice between high-flow oxygen administration via nasal canula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV). CONCLUSION The consultation of multiple high-quality international guidelines and guideline recommendations shared in online portals such as MagicApp are helpful sources of information for clinicians. In view of the continuing lack of strong evidence, further research on intensive care treatments is needed (aspects of ventilation, positioning therapy, and the role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]).