Association of substance use with outcomes in mildly ill COVID-19 outpatients
The American journal of emergency medicine. 2023;74:27-31
BACKGROUND Smoking, alcohol use, and non-prescription drug use are associated with worsened COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients. Whether there is an association between substance use and outcomes in patients with COVID-19 who visited the Emergency Department (ED) but did not require hospitalization has not been well established. We investigated whether smoking, alcohol, and non-prescription drug use were associated with worsened COVID-19 outcomes among such patients presenting to the ED. METHODS We conducted a secondary analysis of a clinical trial which sought to determine the effect of early convalescent plasma administration in patients presenting to the ED within 7 days of onset of mild COVID-19 symptoms. The study recruited 511 participants who were aged 50 years or older or had one or more risk factors for severe COVID-19. The primary outcome was disease progression within 15 days after randomization, which was defined as a composite of hospital admission for any reason, seeking emergency or urgent care, or death without hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included: no hospitalization within 30 days post-randomization, symptom worsening on the 5-category COVID-19 outpatient ordinal scale within 15 days post-randomization, and all-cause mortality. Substance use was categorized into either use or never use based on participant self-report. Logistic regression models were used to determine the association between substance use and outcomes. RESULTS The mean age of the 511 patients enrolled was 52 years and the majority were females (274, 54%). Approximately 213 (42%) were non-Hispanic Whites, 156 (30%) Hispanics, 100 (20%) non-Hispanic Blacks, 18 (4%) non-Hispanic Asian, 8 (1%) American Indian Alaskan, and 16 (3%) unknown race. Tobacco 152 (30%) was the most common substance use reported. Alcohol use 36 (7%) and non-prescription drug use 33 (6%) were less common. Tobacco use and non-prescription drug use were associated with an increased risk for meeting the primary outcome ((tobacco: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] =2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.37-3.15) and (drug: aOR =2.41; 95%CI: 1.17-5.00)) and increased risk for symptom worsening on the 5-category COVID-19 outpatient scale ((tobacco: aOR = 1.62; 95%CI: 1.09-2.42) and (drug: aOR = 2.32 95% CI: 1.10-4.87)) compared to non-use after adjusting for age, sex, plasma administration, and comorbidity. CONCLUSION Tobacco and non-prescription drug use but not alcohol use were associated with worsened COVID-19 outcomes in patients who did not require hospitalization on their initial presentation. Future studies should determine the quantity, duration, and type of drug/tobacco use that may worsen COVID-19.
Convalescent Plasma Therapy for COVID-19 in Ambulatory vs Hospitalized Patients: Efficacy and Risk of Thromboembolism
Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis. 2023;:100068
BACKGROUND While early evidence concluded a lack of clinical benefit of convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) in COVID-19 management, recent trials demonstrate the therapeutic potential of CPT in ambulatory care. CPT may also potentiate thromboembolic events given the presence of coagulation factors and the prothrombotic state of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE The present study aims to assess and compare the clinical efficacy and the risk of venous/arterial thromboembolism (VTE, ATE) of CPT in ambulatory vs hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from December 2019 to December 2022 for randomized controlled trials that investigated the use of CPT against placebo or standard of care in adult COVID-19 patients. The primary outcome was non-mortality disease progression. Secondary outcomes include VTE, ATE, 28-day mortality, clinical improvement, length of hospitalization (LOH), sepsis/fever, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). RESULTS Twenty randomized controlled trials, with 21340 patients, were included. CPT significantly reduced non-mortality disease progression in ambulatory patients (OR 0.72, 0.56-0.92, P = 0.009) but not in hospitalized patients (1.03, 0.94-1.12, P = 0.58). The risk of VTE and ATE did not differ between the CPT and the control group (1.15, 0.81 to 1.64, P = 0.44; 1.01, 0.37 to 2.79, P = 0.98). No conclusive differences between CPT and control were noted in 28-day mortality, clinical improvement, LOH, risk of sepsis/fever, and MACE. CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, treatment of COVID-19 with CPT prevents the progression of COVID-19 in the ambulatory care. It is not associated with an increased risk of VTE, ATE, or other adverse events.
Symptom duration and resolution with early outpatient treatment of convalescent plasma for COVID- 19: a randomized trial
The Journal of infectious diseases. 2023
BACKGROUND COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) reduces hospitalizations among outpatients treated early after symptom onset. It is unknown if CCP reduces time to symptom resolution among outpatients. METHODS We evaluated symptom resolution at day 14 by trial arm using an adjusted sub-distribution hazard model, with hospitalization as a competing risk. Additionally, we assessed prevalence of symptom clusters at day 14 between treatments. Clusters were defined based on biologic clustering, impact on ability to work, and an algorithm. RESULTS Among 1,070 outpatients followed after transfusion, 381 of 538 (70.8%) receiving CCP and 381 of 532 (71.6%) receiving control plasma were still symptomatic (p = 0.78) at day 14. Associations between CCP and symptom resolution by day 14 were not statistically different from those in controls after adjusting for baseline characteristics (adjusted sub-distribution hazard ratio: 0.99; p = 0.62). The most common cluster consisted of cough, fatigue, shortness of breath, and headache, found in 308 (57.2%) and 325 (61.1%) of CCP and control plasma recipients, respectively (p = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS In this trial of outpatients with early COVID-19, CCP was not associated with faster resolution of symptoms compared to control. Overall, there were no differences in the prevalence of each symptom or symptom clusters at day 14 by treatment.
Effects of 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone on thromboembolism and bleeding in patients with critical COVID-19 - a post hoc analysis of the randomized, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial
Annals of intensive care. 2023;13(1):12
BACKGROUND Thromboembolism is more common in patients with critical COVID-19 than in other critically ill patients, and inflammation has been proposed as a possible mechanism. The aim of this study was to investigate if 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone daily reduced the composite outcome of death or thromboembolism in patients with critical COVID-19. METHODS Using additional data on thromboembolism and bleeding we did a post hoc analysis of Swedish and Danish intensive care unit patients enrolled in the blinded randomized COVID STEROID 2 trial comparing 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone daily for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of death or thromboembolism during intensive care. Secondary outcomes were thromboembolism, major bleeding, and any bleeding during intensive care. RESULTS We included 357 patients. Whilst in intensive care, 53 patients (29%) in the 12 mg group and 53 patients (30%) in the 6 mg group met the primary outcome with an unadjusted absolute risk difference of - 0.5% (95% CI - 10 to 9.5%, p = 1.00) and an adjusted OR of 0.93 (CI 95% 0.58 to 1.49, p = 0.77). We found no firm evidence of differences in any of the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with critical COVID-19, 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone daily did not result in a statistically significant difference in the composite outcome of death or thromboembolism. However, uncertainty remains due to the limited number of patients.
Efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19 in Japan: An open-label, randomized, controlled trial
Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy. 2023
BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma is a potential therapeutic option for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Despite its use for treating several viral infections, we lack comprehensive data on its efficacy against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS We conducted a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma therapy with high neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 in high-risk patients within five days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. The primary endpoint was the time-weighted average change in the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs from days 0-5. RESULTS Between February 24, 2021, and November 30, 2021, 25 patients were randomly assigned to either convalescent plasma (n = 14) or standard of care (n = 11) groups. Four patients discontinued their allocated convalescent plasma, and 21 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The median interval between the symptom onset and plasma administration was 4.5 days (interquartile range, 3-5 days). The primary outcome of the time-weighted average change in the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs did not significantly differ between days 0-5 (1.2 log(10) copies/mL in the convalescent plasma vs. 1.2 log(10) copies/mL in the standard of care (effect estimate, 0.0 [95% confidence interval, -0.8-0.7]; P = 0.94)). No deaths were observed in either group. CONCLUSIONS The early administration of convalescent plasma with high neutralizing activity did not contribute to a decrease in the viral load within five days compared with the standard of care alone.
Long-term antibody titers variation in unvaccinated patients receiving convalescent plasma or placebo for severe SARS-CoV-2 pulmonary infection
Transfusion and apheresis science : official journal of the World Apheresis Association : official journal of the European Society for Haemapheresis. 2023;:103785
BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma (CP) became a prominent treatment in the early stages of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In Argentina, a randomized clinical trial was executed to compare the use of CP in inpatients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia versus placebo. No differences in clinical outcomes or overall mortality between groups were observed. We conducted a cohort study in outpatients enrolled in the trial to describe long-term antibody titer variations between CP and placebo recipients. METHODS Patients' total SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies against spike protein were collected 3, 6 and 12 months after hospital discharge from August 2020 to December 2021. In addition, reinfections, deaths and vaccination status were retrieved. Statistical analysis was performed using antibody geometric mean titers (GMT). All estimations were made considering the date of the trial infusion (placebo or CP) as time 0. RESULTS From the 93 patients included in the follow-up, 64 had received CP and 29 placebo. We excluded all 12-month measurements because they were collected after the patients' vaccination date. At 90 days post-infusion, patients had an antibody GMT of 8.1 (IQR 7.4-8.1) in the CP group and 8.8 (IQR 8.1-9.1) in the placebo group. At 180 days, both groups had a GMT of 8.1 (IQR 7.4-8.1). No statistical differences in GMT were found between CP and placebo groups at 90 days (p = 0.12) and 180 days (p = 0.25). No patients registered a new COVID-19 infection; one died in the CP group from an ischemic stroke. CONCLUSIONS No differences were observed in long-term antibody titers in unvaccinated patients that received CP or placebo after severe COVID-19 pneumonia.
Rates Among Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 Treated With Convalescent Plasma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes. 2023;7(5):499-513
OBJECTIVE To examine the association of COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion with mortality and the differences between subgroups in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. PATIENTS AND METHODS On October 26, 2022, a systematic search was performed for clinical studies of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in the literature from January 1, 2020, to October 26, 2022. Randomized clinical trials and matched cohort studies investigating COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion compared with standard of care treatment or placebo among hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 were included. The electronic search yielded 3841 unique records, of which 744 were considered for full-text screening. The selection process was performed independently by a panel of 5 reviewers. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data were extracted by 5 independent reviewers in duplicate and pooled using an inverse-variance random effects model. The prespecified end point was all-cause mortality during hospitalization. RESULTS Thirty-nine randomized clinical trials enrolling 21,529 participants and 70 matched cohort studies enrolling 50,160 participants were included in the systematic review. Separate meta-analyses reported that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with the control cohort for both randomized clinical trials (odds ratio [OR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.00) and matched cohort studies (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.88). The meta-analysis of subgroups revealed 2 important findings. First, treatment with convalescent plasma containing high antibody levels was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with convalescent plasma containing low antibody levels (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.99). Second, earlier treatment with COVID-19 convalescent plasma was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with the later treatment cohort (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.82). CONCLUSION During COVID-19 convalescent plasma use was associated with a 13% reduced risk of mortality, implying a mortality benefit for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, particularly those treated with convalescent plasma containing high antibody levels treated earlier in the disease course.
Effect of convalescent plasma transfusion on outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019: a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis
Journal of anesthesia. 2023;:1-14
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.
Overlapping research efforts in a global pandemic: a rapid systematic review of COVID-19-related individual participant data meta-analyses
BMC health services research. 2023;23(1):735
BACKGROUND Individual participant data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs), which involve harmonising and analysing participant-level data from related studies, provide several advantages over aggregate data meta-analyses, which pool study-level findings. IPD-MAs are especially important for building and evaluating diagnostic and prognostic models, making them an important tool for informing the research and public health responses to COVID-19. METHODS We conducted a rapid systematic review of protocols and publications from planned, ongoing, or completed COVID-19-related IPD-MAs to identify areas of overlap and maximise data request and harmonisation efforts. We searched four databases using a combination of text and MeSH terms. Two independent reviewers determined eligibility at the title-abstract and full-text stages. Data were extracted by one reviewer into a pretested data extraction form and subsequently reviewed by a second reviewer. Data were analysed using a narrative synthesis approach. A formal risk of bias assessment was not conducted. RESULTS We identified 31 COVID-19-related IPD-MAs, including five living IPD-MAs and ten IPD-MAs that limited their inference to published data (e.g., case reports). We found overlap in study designs, populations, exposures, and outcomes of interest. For example, 26 IPD-MAs included RCTs; 17 IPD-MAs were limited to hospitalised patients. Sixteen IPD-MAs focused on evaluating medical treatments, including six IPD-MAs for antivirals, four on antibodies, and two that evaluated convalescent plasma. CONCLUSIONS Collaboration across related IPD-MAs can leverage limited resources and expertise by expediting the creation of cross-study participant-level data datasets, which can, in turn, fast-track evidence synthesis for the improved diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION 10.17605/OSF.IO/93GF2.
Convalescent plasma and all-cause mortality of COVID-19 patients: systematic review and meta-analysis
Scientific reports. 2023;13(1):12904
Insight into the clinical potential of convalescent plasma in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is important given the severe clinical courses in unvaccinated and seronegative individuals. The aim of the study was to investigate whether there is a survival benefit of convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients. The authors independently assessed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified by the search strategy for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The binary primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Risk ratio (RR) of the convalescent plasma treatment (vs. best standard care) and its associated standard error (effect size) were calculated. A random-effects model was employed to statistically pool the effect sizes of the selected studies. We included 19 RCTs with 17,021 patients. The random-effects model resulted in an estimated pooled RR of 0.94 (95% CI 0.81-1.08, p = 0.33), showing no statistical evidence of the benefit of convalescent plasma therapy on all-cause mortality. Convalescent plasma therapy was not found to be effective in reducing all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients. Further studies are needed to determine in which patients convalescent plasma therapy may lead to a reduction in mortality.