Abstract

We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the existing evidence and to quantitatively synthesise evidence on the impact of therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) on severe COVID-19 patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022316331). We systemically searched six electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, clinicaltrial.gov, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from inception until 1 June 2022. We included studies comparing patients who received TPE versus those who received the standard treatment. For risk of bias assessment, we used the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool, the ROBINS1 tool, and the Newcastle Ottawa scale for RCTs, non-RCTs, and observational studies, respectively. Continuous data were pooled as standardized mean difference (SMD), and dichotomous data were pooled as risk ratio in the random effect model with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Thirteen studies (one randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 12 non-RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 829 patients. There is a moderate-quality evidence from one RCT that TPE reduces the lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) levels (SMD -1.09, 95% CI [-1.59 to -0.60]), D-dimer (SMD -0.86, 95% CI [-1.34 to -0.37]), and ferritin (SMD -0.70, 95% CI [-1.18 to -0.23]), and increases the absolute lymphocyte count (SMD 0.54, 95% CI [0.07-1.01]), There is low-quality evidence from mixed-design studies that TPE was associated with lower mortality (relative risk 0.51, 95% CI [0.35-0.74]), lower IL-6 (SMD -0.91, 95% CI [-1.19 to -0.63]), and lower ferritin (SMD -0.51, 95% CI [-0.80 to -0.22]) compared to the standard control. Among severely affected COVID-19 patients, TPE might provide benefits such as decreasing the mortality rate, LDH, D-dimer, IL-6, and ferritin, in addition to increasing the higher absolute lymphocyte count. Further well-designed RCTs are needed.

Abstract

The aim of this review was to update evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma transfusion (CPT) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing CPT plus standard treatment versus standard treatment only in adults with COVID-19. Primary outcome measures were mortality and need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Twenty-Six RCT involving 19,816 patients were included in meta-analysis for mortality. Quantitative synthesis showed no statistically significant benefit of adding CPT to standard treatment (RR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.92 to 1.02) with unimportant heterogeneity (Q(25) = 26.48, p = .38, I(2) = 0.00%). Trim-and-fill-adjusted effect size was unimportantly changed and level of evidence was graded as high. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) indicated information size was adequate and CPT was futile. Seventeen trials involving 16,083 patients were included in meta-analysis for need of IMV. There was no statistically significant effect of CPT (RR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.10) with unimportant heterogeneity (Q(16) = 9.43, p = .89, I(2) = 3.30%). Trim-and-fill-adjusted effect size was trivially changed and level of evidence was graded as high. TSA showed information size was adequate and indicated futility of CPT. It is concluded with high level of certainty that CPT added to standard treatment of COVID-19 is not associated with reduced mortality or need of IMV compared with standard treatment alone. In view of these findings, further trials on efficacy of CPT in COVID-19 patients are probably not needed.

Abstract

The risk of thromboembolism in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients remains uncertain and was assessed in this review to better weigh benefits vs. risks of prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. A search was performed through three databases: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library until 2022. Self-controlled case series, case-control and cohort studies were included, and findings summarized narratively. Meta-analyses for risk of thromboembolism including deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and myocardial infarction (MI) between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 non-hospitalized patients were conducted. Frequency, incidence rate ratio (IRR), and risk ratio (RR) of stroke were used to assess risk in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients considering the lack of studies to conduct a meta-analysis. Ten studies met inclusion criteria characterized by adult non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Risk of bias was relatively low. Risk of DVT (RR: 1.98 with 95% CI: 1.03-3.83) and PE (OR: 6.72 with 95% CI: 4.81-9.39 and RR: 4.44 with 95% CI: 1.98-9.99) increased in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to controls. Risk of MI (OR: 1.91 with 95% CI: 0.89-4.09) is possibly increased in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients with moderate certainty when compared to controls. A trend in favor of stroke was documented in the first week following infection. Our meta-analyses support the increase in risk of DVT and PE, and likely increase of MI, in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The risk of stroke appears significant in the first week following infection but drops to insignificance two weeks later. More studies are needed to establish evidence-based recommendations for prophylactic anticoagulation therapy in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION The treatment of COVID-19 is still challenge. So convalescent plasma can be an important alternative of treatment. Protocols with nursing care during infusion is very important to guide an effective and safety care. OBJECTIVE to analyze the evidence in the literature on the action of convalescent plasma, of the use of protocols with nursing care to use convalescent plasma and build a nursing care protocol for transfusion in patients with COVID-19. METHODS Methodological study carried out in two stages: scoping review. The search was done using the descriptors: convalescent plasma transfusion, convalescent plasma, and acute respiratory syndromes or COVID-19, to found protocols and effectiveness of convalescent plasm. Beside was done a specialist panel to build the protocol. RESULTS Low-evidence studies have shown improvement in the clinical signs of COVID-19 using Convalescent Plasma, reduction or elimination of viral load, benefits in the production of lymphocytes, decreases C-reactive protein, increases titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, positive evolution in lung involvement identified by X-rays, decrease in hospitalization. No studies were found in the databases on the protocol for clinical nursing care in plasma transfusion. Therefore, a protocol was developed with the description of clinical nursing care to be performed before, during and after the transfusion by plasma: checking of vital signs and indicative signs of transfusion reaction, measurement of oxygen saturation, assessment of venous access and checking of the level of consciousness. CONCLUSION There are no evidence studies to support the use of plasma, nor anything related to bundles.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIVIG) contains polyclonal antibodies, which can be prepared from large amounts of pooled convalescent plasma or prepared from animal sources through immunisation. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This review was previously part of a parent review addressing convalescent plasma and hIVIG for people with COVID-19 and was split to address hIVIG and convalescent plasma separately. OBJECTIVES To assess the benefits and harms of hIVIG therapy for 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 Research Database, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform and Medline and Embase from 1 January 2019 onwards. We carried out searches on 31 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated hIVIG 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 that evaluated standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used RoB 2. 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), quality of life, adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS We included five RCTs with 947 participants, of whom 688 received hIVIG prepared from humans, 18 received heterologous swine glyco-humanised polyclonal antibody, and 241 received equine-derived processed and purified F(ab')(2) fragments. All participants were hospitalised with moderate-to-severe disease, most participants were not vaccinated (only 12 participants were vaccinated). The studies were conducted before or during the emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. There are no data for people with COVID-19 with no symptoms (asymptomatic) or people with mild COVID-19. We identified a further 10 ongoing studies evaluating hIVIG. Benefits of hIVIG prepared from humans We included data on one RCT (579 participants) that assessed the benefits and harms of hIVIG 0.4 g/kg compared to saline placebo. hIVIG may have little to no impact on all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.44; absolute effect 77 per 1000 with placebo versus 61 per 1000 (33 to 111) with hIVIG; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on worsening of clinical status at day 7 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.23; very low-certainty evidence). It probably has little to no impact on improvement of clinical status on day 28 (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.08; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify any studies that reported quality-of-life outcomes, so we do not know if hIVIG has any impact on quality of life. Harms of hIVIG prepared from humans hIVIG may have little to no impact on adverse events at any grade on day 1 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.18; 431 per 1000; 1 study 579 participants; low-certainty evidence). Patients receiving hIVIG probably experience more adverse events at grade 3-4 severity than patients who receive placebo (RR 4.09, 95% CI 1.39 to 12.01; moderate-certainty evidence). hIVIG may have little to no impact on the composite outcome of serious adverse events or death up to day 28 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence). We also identified additional results on the benefits and harms of other dose ranges of hIVIG, not included in the summary of findings table, but summarised in additional tables. Benefits of animal-derived polyclonal antibodies We included data on one RCT (241 participants) to assess the benefits and harms of receptor-binding domain-specific polyclonal F(ab´)(2) fragments of equine antibodies (EpAbs) compared to saline placebo. EpAbs may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.37; absolute effect 114 per 1000 with placebo versus 68 per 1000 (30 to 156) ; low-certainty evidence). EpAbs may reduce worsening of clinical status up to day 28 (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.18; absolute effect 203 per 1000 with placebo versus 136 per 1000 (77 to 240); low-certainty evidence). It may have some effect on improvement of clinical status on day 28 (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.17; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any studies that reported quality-of-life outcomes, so we do not know if EpAbs have any impact on quality of life. Harms of animal-derived polyclonal antibodies EpAbs may have little to no impact on the number of adverse events at any grade up to 28 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events at grade 3-4 severity were not reported. Individuals receiving EpAbs may experience fewer serious adverse events than patients receiving placebo (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.19; low-certainty evidence). We also identified additional results on the benefits and harms of other animal-derived polyclonal antibody doses, not included in the summary of findings table, but summarised in additional tables. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We included data from five RCTs that evaluated hIVIG compared to standard therapy, with participants with moderate-to-severe disease. As the studies evaluated different preparations (from humans or from various animals) and doses, we could not pool them. hIVIG prepared from humans may have little to no impact on mortality, and clinical improvement and worsening. hIVIG may increase grade 3-4 adverse events. Studies did not evaluate quality of life. RBD-specific polyclonal F(ab´)(2) fragments of equine antibodies may reduce mortality and serious adverse events, and may reduce clinical worsening. However, the studies were conducted before or during the emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and prior to widespread vaccine rollout. As no studies evaluated hIVIG for participants with asymptomatic infection or mild disease, benefits for these individuals remains uncertain. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

Abstract

Background: While passive immunotherapy has been considered beneficial for patients with severe respiratory viral infections, the treatment of COVID-19 cases with convalescent plasma produced mixed results. Thus, there is a lack of certainty and consensus regarding its effectiveness. This meta-analysis aims to assess the role of convalescent plasma treatment on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients enrolled in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed database (end-of-search: 29 December 2022) for RCTs on convalescent plasma therapy compared to supportive care\standard of care. Pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated with random-effects models. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were also performed, in order to address heterogeneity and examine any potential association between the factors that varied, and the outcomes reported. The present meta-analysis was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: A total of 34 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Per overall analysis, convalescent plasma treatment was not associated with lower 28-day mortality [RR = 0.98, 95% CI (0.91, 1.06)] or improved 28-day secondary outcomes, such as hospital discharge [RR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.97, 1.03)], ICU-related or score-related outcomes, with effect estimates of RR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.98, 1.05) and RR = 1.06, 95% CI (0.95, 1.17), respectively. However, COVID-19 outpatients treated with convalescent plasma had a 26% less risk of requiring hospital care, when compared to those treated with the standard of care [RR = 0.74, 95% CI (0.56, 0.99)]. Regarding subgroup analyses, COVID-19 patients treated with convalescent plasma had an 8% lower risk of ICU-related disease progression when compared to those treated with the standard of care (with or without placebo or standard plasma infusions) [RR = 0.92, 95% CI (0.85, 0.99)] based on reported outcomes from RCTs carried out in Europe. Finally, convalescent plasma treatment was not associated with improved survival or clinical outcomes in the 14-day subgroup analyses. Conclusions: Outpatients with COVID-19 treated with convalescent plasma had a statistically significantly lower risk of requiring hospital care when compared to those treated with placebo or the standard of care. However, convalescent plasma treatment was not statistically associated with prolonged survival or improved clinical outcomes when compared to placebo or the standard of care, per overall analysis in hospitalized populations. This hints at potential benefits, when used early, to prevent progression to severe disease. Finally, convalescent plasma was significantly associated with better ICU-related outcomes in trials carried out in Europe. Well-designed prospective studies could clarify its potential benefit for specific subpopulations in the post-pandemic era.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Immune-based therapies are standard-of-care treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients requiring hospitalization. However, safety concerns related to the potential risk of secondary infections may limit their use. METHODS We searched OVID Medline, Ovid EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, and PROSPERO in October 2020 and updated the search in November 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Pairs of reviewers screened abstracts and full studies and extracted data in an independent manner. We used RevMan to conduct a meta-analysis using random-effects models to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI for the incidence of infection. Statistical heterogeneity was determined using the I (2) statistic. We assessed risk of bias for all studies and rated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. We conducted a meta-regression using the R package to meta-explore whether age, sex, and invasive mechanical ventilation modified risk of infection with immune-based therapies. The protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021229406). RESULTS This was a meta-analysis of 37 RCTs including 32 621 participants (mean age, 60 years; 64% male). The use of immune-based therapy for COVID-19 conferred mild protection for the occurrence of secondary infections (711/15 721, 4.5%, vs 616/16 900, 3.6%; RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.95; P = .008; I (2) = 28%). A subgroup analysis did not identify any subgroup effect by type of immune-based therapies (P = .85). A meta-regression revealed no impact of age, sex, or mechanical ventilation on the effect of immune-based therapies on risk of infection. CONCLUSIONS We identified moderate-certainty evidence that the use of immune-based therapies in COVID-19 requiring hospitalization does not increase the risk of secondary infections.

Abstract

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.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Outpatient monoclonal antibodies are no longer effective and antiviral treatments for COVID-19 disease remain largely unavailable in many countries worldwide. Although treatment with COVID-19 convalescent plasma is promising, clinical trials among outpatients have shown mixed results. METHODS We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis from outpatient trials to assess the overall risk reduction for all-cause hospitalizations by day 28 in transfused participants. Relevant trials were identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase, MedRxiv, World Health Organization, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from January 2020 to September 2022. RESULTS Five included studies from four countries enrolled and transfused 2,620 adult patients. Comorbidities were present in 1,795 (69%). The virus neutralizing antibody dilutional titer levels ranged from 8 to 14,580 in diverse assays. 160 (12.2%) of 1315 control patients were hospitalized, versus 111 (8.5%) of 1305 COVID-19 convalescent plasma treated patients, yielding a 3.7% (95%CI: 1.3%-6.0%; p=.001) absolute risk reduction and 30.1% relative risk reduction for all-cause hospitalization. The hospitalization reduction was greatest in those with both early transfusion and high titer with a 7.6% absolute risk reduction (95%CI: 4.0%-11.1%; p=.0001) accompanied by at 51.4% relative risk reduction. No significant reduction in hospitalization was seen with treatment > 5 days after symptom onset or in those receiving COVID-19 convalescent plasma with antibody titers below the median titer. CONCLUSIONS Among outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with COVID-19 convalescent plasma reduced the rate of all-cause hospitalization and may be most effective when given within 5 days of symptom onset and when antibody titer is higher.

Abstract

AIM: We aimed to study the effect of COVID-19 on the in-hospital outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHOD A systematic literature search was performed in 2nd February 2022 updated in 12(th) December 2022 for recruiting relevant papers. The effect size was computed via the odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous data or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous data along with the 95% confidence interval (95%CI). RESULTS After the screening of 1075 records, we found 11 relevant papers that included 2018 COVID-19 patients and negative controls 21207. ACS patients with COVID-19 had a significant higher mortality rate (OR: 4.95; 95%CI: 3.92-6.36; p <0.01), long hospital stay (days) 19 (SMD: 1.17; 95%CI: 0.92-1.42; p <0.01) and reduced post TIMI 3 score (OR: 0.55; 95%CI: 0.41-0.73; p <0.01) rather than controls. However, we found no significant differences in terms of thrombus aspiration prevalence (OR: 1.88; 95%CI: 0.97-3.65; p =0.06) or door to balloon time (SMD: 0.11; 95%CI: -0.43-0.66; p =0.7). CONCLUSION Despite that we found a significant association between COVID-19 and high mortality, more length of hospital stay and reduced post TIMI 3 score, in ACS patients after PCI, a rigorous analysis of the adjusted hazard ratio -that was absent in all the included studies- by further meta-analysis is recommended to confirm this association. However, close monitoring of COVID-19 in patients with a high risk of developing ACS, is recommended due to the associated hypercoagulability of COVID-19 infection.