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

Hyperkalaemia following transfusion is widely reported in the literature. Our objective was to critically review recent evidence on hyperkalaemia in association with transfusion and to assess whether specific aspects of transfusion practice can affect the likelihood of developing hyperkalaemia. We searched 9 electronic databases (including MEDLINE, Embase, and Transfusion Evidence Library) using a predefined search strategy, from 2010 to April 8, 2021. Three reviewers performed dual screening, extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We used Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) 2 for assessment of RCTs, ROBINS-I for non-RCTs, and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We report 7 comparisons of interest in n = 3729 patients from 28 studies (11 RCTs, 4 prospective cohort studies, and 13 retrospective cohort studies): (1) age of blood, (2) washing, (3) filtration, (4) irradiation, (5) fluid type, (6) transfusion vs no transfusion, (7) blood volume/rate. Of the 28 studies included, 25 reported outcomes of potassium (K+) concentration, 17 the number developing hyperkalaemia, 13 mortality, 10 cardiac arrest, and 10 cardiac arrhythmia. Only 16 studies provided analysable data suitable for quantitative analysis. Evidence addressing our outcomes was of very low certainty (downgraded for incomplete outcome data, baseline imbalance, imprecision around the estimate, and small sample size). While 5 studies showed a difference in K+ concentration up to 6 hours posttransfusion for 3 comparisons (age of blood, washing, and transfusion volume/rate), and 3 studies showed a difference in the diagnosis of hyperkalaemia for 2 comparisons (age of blood, and transfusion volume/rate), the evidence was inconsistent across all included studies. There was no difference in any reported outcomes for 4 comparisons (filtration, irradiation, fluid type, or transfusion vs no transfusion). Overall, the reported evidence was too weak to support identification of groups most at risk of hyperkalaemia or to support recommendations on use of short-storage RBC. For other commonly used risk mitigations for hyperkalaemia in transfusion medicine, the (low certainty) evidence was either conflicting or not supportive.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Anaemia is a common sequela of advanced disease and is associated with significant symptom burden. No specific guidance exists for the investigation and management of anaemia in palliative care patients. AIM: We aim to offer a pragmatic overview of the approaches to investigate and manage anaemia in advanced disease, based on guidelines and evidence in disease specific patient groups, including cancer, heart failure and chronic kidney disease. DESIGN Scoping review methodology was used to determine the strength of evidence supporting the investigation and management of anaemia in patients with advanced disease. DATA SOURCES A search for guidelines was performed in 2020. National or international guidelines were examined if they described the investigation or management of anaemia in adult patients with health conditions seen by palliative care services written within the last 5 years in the English language. Searches of MEDLINE, the Cochrane library and WHO guidance were made in 2019 to identify key publications that provided additional primary data. RESULTS Evidence supports patient-centred investigation of anaemia, results of which should guide targeted intervention. Blanket use of blood transfusion should be avoided, with evidence supporting a more restrictive approach to transfusion. Routine use of oral iron and erythropoetin stimulating agents (ESAs) are not recommended. Insufficient evidence exists to determine the effectiveness of IV iron in this patient group. CONCLUSION We advocate early consideration and investigation of anaemia, guided by symptom burden and patient preferences. Correction of reversible causes should be the mainstay of treatment, with a restrictive approach to blood transfusion. Research is required to evaluate the efficacy of IV iron in these patients.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE The aim of this systematic scoping review is to identify and categorize the outcome measures that have been reported in clinical studies, where therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) has been used as an intervention in any clinical settings, excluding thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP). METHODS We searched electronic databases using a predefined search strategy from inception to October 9, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. RESULTS We included 42 studies (37 RCTs and 5 prospective cohort studies) grouped into six main categories (neurology, immunology, renal, rheumatology, hematology, and dermatology). Primary outcomes were defined in eight studies (19%, 8/42) and were categorized as efficacy (five studies) or patient reported outcomes (three studies). A power calculation was reported in six studies (75%, 6/8): five neurology studies (mainly patient reported outcomes) and a single immunological study (efficacy outcome). Disease-specific efficacy outcomes were dependent on the clinical setting of the population receiving TPE. Most of the trials (43%, 18/42) were undertaken in patients with neurology conditions where clear, disease-specific, clinical outcome measures were used, including neurological disability scales (11/18, 61%), change in neurological examination (9/18, 50%), and functional improvement scores (7/18, 39%). For other conditions, the reporting of disease-specific outcomes was poorly reported. Safety outcomes were mainly related to replacement fluid type rather than being disease-specific. The most common outcome reported was hypotension (19%, 8/42), and this was primarily in patients exchanged with albumin. CONCLUSION Future clinical studies to determine which fluid replacement option is most efficacious and safe should use disease-specific outcomes, as a trial in one therapeutic area may not necessarily translate to another therapeutic area. Patient reported outcomes are not universally reported for all disease areas. Safety measures focused primarily on fluid safety.

Abstract

Our objective was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) iron therapy for treating anaemia in critically ill adults (>16 years) admitted to intensive care or high dependency units. We excluded quasi-RCTs and other not truly randomised trials. We searched 7 electronic databases (including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase) using a pre-defined search strategy from inception to June 14, 2021. One reviewer screened, extracted, and analysed data, with verification by a second reviewer of all decisions. We used Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) 1 and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We reported 3 comparisons across 1198 patients, in 8 RCTs: (1) IV iron vs control (7 RCTs, 748 participants); our primary outcome (hemoglobin (Hb) concentration at 10 to 30 days) was reported in 7 of the 8 included trials. There was evidence of an effect (very-low certainty) in favour of IV iron over control in the main comparison only (6 RCTs, n = 528, mean difference (MD) 0.52g/dL [95%CI 0.23, 0.81], P = .0005). For the remaining outcomes there was no evidence of an effect in either direction (low certainty of evidence for Hb concentration at <10 days; very-low certainty of evidence for hospital duration, ICU duration, hospital readmission, infection, mortality; HRQoL outcomes were not GRADED). (2) IV iron + subcutaneous erythropoietin (EPO) vs control (2 RCTs, 104 participants); reported outcomes showed no evidence of effect in either direction, based on very-low certainty evidence (Hb concentration at 10-30 days, and <10 days, infection, mortality). (3) Hepcidin-guided treatment with IV iron or iron+ EPO vs standard care (1 RCT, 399 participants) reported evidence of an effect in favour of the intervention for 90-day mortality (low certainty of evidence), but no other group differences for the reported outcomes (low certainty evidence for Hb concentration at 10-30 days, hospital duration; HRQoL was not GRADED). The evidence across all comparisons was downgraded for high and unclear ROB for lack of blinding, incomplete outcome data, baseline imbalance, and imprecision around the estimate (wide CIs and small sample size). In conclusion, the current evidence continues to support further investigation into the role for iron therapy in increasing Hb in critically ill patients. Recent, small, trials have begun to focus on patient-centred outcomes but a large, well conducted, and adequately powered trial is needed to inform clinical practice.

Abstract

Our aim was to assess whether there is a difference in outcomes of potential "all-cause" harm in the transfusion of whole blood (WB) compared to blood components (BC) for any bleeding patient regardless of age or clinical condition. We searched multiple electronic databases using a pre-defined search strategy from inception to 2(nd) March 2021. 1 reviewer screened, extracted, and analysed data, with verification by a second reviewer of all decisions. We used Cochrane ROB1 and GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. We used predefined subgroups of trauma and non-trauma studies in the analysis. We included six RCTs (618 participants) which compared WB and BC transfusion therapy in major bleeding, one trauma trial (n = 107), and 5 surgical trials (non-trauma) (n = 511). We GRADED evidence as very-low for all outcomes (downgraded for high and unclear risk of bias, small sample size, and wide confidence intervals around the estimate). Our primary outcome (all-cause mortality at 24-hours and 30-days) was reported in 3 out of 6 included trials. There was no evidence of a difference in mortality of WB compared to BC therapy (very-low certainty evidence). There may be a benefit of WB therapy compared to BC therapy in the non-trauma subgroup, with a reduction in the duration of oxygen dependence (1 study; n = 60; mean difference 5.9 fewer hours [95% Confidence Interval [CI] -10.83, -0.99] in WB group), and a reduction in hospital stay (1 study, n = 64, median difference 6 fewer days in WB group) (very-low certainty evidence). For the remaining outcomes (organ injury, mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit requirement, infection, arterial/venous thrombotic events, and haemolytic transfusion reaction) there was no difference between WB and BC therapy (wide CI, crossing line of no effect), though many of these outcomes were based on small single studies (very-low certainty evidence). In conclusion, there appears to be little to no difference in harms between WB and BC therapy, based on small studies with very low certainty of the evidence. Further large trials are required to establish the overall safety of WB compared to BC, and to assess differences between trauma and non-trauma patients.

Abstract

Unclassified bleeding disorders account for 2.6% of all new bleeding disorder registrations in the UK. The management of the bleeding phenotype associated with these disorders is poorly described. Systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the bleeding rates associated with tranexamic acid, desmopressin, platelet transfusion, plasma transfusion and recombinant activated factor VII, for patients with unclassified bleeding disorders undergoing surgery, childbirth or with menorrhagia. We searched for randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, ISI Web of Science and the Transfusion Evidence Library from inception to 24 February 2020. Wherever appropriate, data were pooled using the metaprop function of STATA. Two studies with 157 participants with unclassified bleeding disorders were identified. The pooled risk of minor bleeding for patients undergoing surgery treated with peri-operative tranexamic acid was 11% (95% confidence interval 3--20%; n = 52; I2 = 0%); the risk for desmopressin and tranexamic acid in combination was 3% (95% confidence interval 0--7%; n = 71; I2 = 0%). There were no instances of major bleeding. In one procedure, 1 of 71 (1.4%), treated with a combination of desmopressin and tranexamic acid, the patient had a line-related deep vein thrombosis. There were too few patients treated to prevent postpartum haemorrhage or for menorrhagia to draw conclusions. The GRADE quality of evidence was very low suggesting considerable uncertainty over the results. However, both tranexamic acid, and the combination of tranexamic and desmopressin have high rates of haemostatic efficacy and have few adverse events. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42020169727.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are being investigated as potential therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of these interventions is required.  OBJECTIVES Using a living systematic review approach, to assess whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence. SEARCH METHODS To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform, and trial registries. Searches were done on 17 March 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. For safety assessments, we also included non-controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) if 500 or more participants were included. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of Bias 2' tool for RCTs, and for NRSIs, the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer. We rated the certainty of evidence, using the GRADE approach, for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, improvement and worsening of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), development of severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms (for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease), quality of life (including fatigue and functional independence), grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS We included 13 studies (12 RCTs, 1 NRSI) with 48,509 participants, of whom 41,880 received convalescent plasma. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We identified a further 100 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, and 33 studies reporting as being completed or terminated. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease Eleven RCTs and one NRSI investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 48,349 participants with moderate to severe disease. Nine RCTs compared convalescent plasma to placebo treatment or standard care alone, and two compared convalescent plasma to standard plasma (results not included in abstract). Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We included data on nine RCTs (12,875 participants) to assess the effectiveness of convalescent plasma compared to placebo or standard care alone.  Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 12,646 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on clinical improvement for all participants when assessed by liberation from respiratory support (RR not estimable; 8 RCTs, 12,682 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on the chance of being weaned or liberated from invasive mechanical ventilation for the subgroup of participants requiring invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.93; 2 RCTs, 630 participants; low-certainty evidence). It does not reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.08; 4 RCTs, 11,765 participants; high-certainty evidence). We did not identify any subgroup differences.  We did not identify any studies reporting quality of life, and therefore, do not know whether convalescent plasma has any impact on quality of life. One RCT assessed resolution of fatigue on day 7, but we are very uncertain about the effect (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.42; 309 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Safety of convalescent plasma We included results from eight RCTs, and one NRSI, to assess the safety of convalescent plasma. Some of the RCTs reported on safety data only for the convalescent plasma group.  We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma increases or reduces the risk of grade 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.41; 4 RCTs, 905 participants; low-certainty evidence), and serious adverse events (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.90; 2 RCTs, 414 participants; low-certainty evidence).  A summary of reported events of the NRSI (reporting safety data for 20,000 of 35,322 transfused participants), and four RCTs reporting safety data only for transfused participants (6125 participants) are included in the full text. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and asymptomatic or mild disease We identified one RCT reporting on 160 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo treatment (saline).  Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We are very uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on all-cause mortality (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.65; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on developing severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR not estimable; low-certainty evidence).  We identified no study reporting quality of life.  Safety of convalescent plasma We do not know whether convalescent plasma is associated with a higher risk of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (very low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). This is a living systematic review. We search weekly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We have high certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for the treatment of individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on measures of clinical improvement. We are uncertain about the adverse effects of convalescent plasma. While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, heterogeneous reporting of outcomes is still problematic. There are 100 ongoing studies and 33 studies reporting in a study registry as being completed or terminated. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around hyperimmune immunoglobulin therapy for people with any disease severity, and convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Abstract

Convalescent plasma (CP) from blood donors with antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 may benefit patients with COVID-19 by providing immediate passive immunity via transfusion or by being used to manufacture hyperimmune immunoglobulin preparations Optimal product characteristics (including neutralizing antibody titers), transfusion volume, and administration timing remain to be determined Preliminary COVID-19 CP safety data are encouraging, but establishing the clinical efficacy of CP requires an ongoing international collaborative effort Preliminary results from large, high-quality randomized trials have recently started to be reported

Abstract

BACKGROUND The optimal haemoglobin threshold for use of red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in anaemic patients remains an active field of research. Blood is a scarce resource, and in some countries, transfusions are less safe than in others because of inadequate testing for viral pathogens. If a liberal transfusion policy does not improve clinical outcomes, or if it is equivalent, then adopting a more restrictive approach could be recognised as the standard of care. OBJECTIVES The aim of this review update was to compare 30-day mortality and other clinical outcomes for participants randomised to restrictive versus liberal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion thresholds (triggers) for all clinical conditions. The restrictive transfusion threshold uses a lower haemoglobin concentration as a threshold for transfusion (most commonly, 7.0 g/dL to 8.0 g/dL), and the liberal transfusion threshold uses a higher haemoglobin concentration as a threshold for transfusion (most commonly, 9.0 g/dL to 10.0 g/dL). SEARCH METHODS We identified trials through updated searches: CENTRAL (2020, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to November 2020), Embase (1974 to November 2020), Transfusion Evidence Library (1950 to November 2020), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index (1990 to November 2020), and trial registries (November 2020). We checked the reference lists of other published reviews and relevant papers to identify additional trials. We were aware of one trial identified in earlier searching that was in the process of being published (in February 2021), and we were able to include it before this review was finalised. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised trials of surgical or medical participants that recruited adults or children, or both. We excluded studies that focused on neonates. Eligible trials assigned intervention groups on the basis of different transfusion schedules or thresholds or 'triggers'. These thresholds would be defined by a haemoglobin (Hb) or haematocrit (Hct) concentration below which an RBC transfusion would be administered; the haemoglobin concentration remains the most commonly applied marker of the need for RBC transfusion in clinical practice. We included trials in which investigators had allocated participants to higher thresholds or more liberal transfusion strategies compared to more restrictive ones, which might include no transfusion. As in previous versions of this review, we did not exclude unregistered trials published after 2010 (as per the policy of the Cochrane Injuries Group, 2015), however, we did conduct analyses to consider the differential impact of results of trials for which prospective registration could not be confirmed. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We identified trials for inclusion and extracted data using Cochrane methods. We pooled risk ratios of clinical outcomes across trials using a random-effects model. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We conducted predefined analyses by clinical subgroups. We defined participants randomly allocated to the lower transfusion threshold as being in the 'restrictive transfusion' group and those randomly allocated to the higher transfusion threshold as being in the 'liberal transfusion' group. MAIN RESULTS A total of 48 trials, involving data from 21,433 participants (at baseline), across a range of clinical contexts (e.g. orthopaedic, cardiac, or vascular surgery; critical care; acute blood loss (including gastrointestinal bleeding); acute coronary syndrome; cancer; leukaemia; haematological malignancies), met the eligibility criteria. The haemoglobin concentration used to define the restrictive transfusion group in most trials (36) was between 7.0 g/dL and 8.0 g/dL. Most trials included only adults; three trials focused on children. The included studies were generally at low risk of bias for key domains including allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data. Restrictive transfusion strategies reduced the risk of receiving at least one RBC transfusion by 41% across a broad range of clinical contexts (risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.66; 42 studies, 20,057 participants; high-quality evidence), with a large amount of heterogeneity between trials (I² = 96%). Overall, restrictive transfusion strategies did not increase or decrease the risk of 30-day mortality compared with liberal transfusion strategies (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.15; 31 studies, 16,729 participants; I² = 30%; moderate-quality evidence) or any of the other outcomes assessed (i.e. cardiac events (low-quality evidence), myocardial infarction, stroke, thromboembolism (all high-quality evidence)). High-quality evidence shows that the liberal transfusion threshold did not affect the risk of infection (pneumonia, wound infection, or bacteraemia). Transfusion-specific reactions are uncommon and were inconsistently reported within trials. We noted less certainty in the strength of evidence to support the safety of restrictive transfusion thresholds for the following predefined clinical subgroups: myocardial infarction, vascular surgery, haematological malignancies, and chronic bone-marrow disorders. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Transfusion at a restrictive haemoglobin concentration decreased the proportion of people exposed to RBC transfusion by 41% across a broad range of clinical contexts. Across all trials, no evidence suggests that a restrictive transfusion strategy impacted 30-day mortality, mortality at other time points, or morbidity (i.e. cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stroke, pneumonia, thromboembolism, infection) compared with a liberal transfusion strategy. Despite including 17 more randomised trials (and 8846 participants), data remain insufficient to inform the safety of transfusion policies in important and selected clinical contexts, such as myocardial infarction, chronic cardiovascular disease, neurological injury or traumatic brain injury, stroke, thrombocytopenia, and cancer or haematological malignancies, including chronic bone marrow failure. Further work is needed to improve our understanding of outcomes other than mortality. Most trials compared only two separate thresholds for haemoglobin concentration, which may not identify the actual optimal threshold for transfusion in a particular patient. Haemoglobin concentration may not be the most informative marker of the need for transfusion in individual patients with different degrees of physiological adaptation to anaemia. Notwithstanding these issues, overall findings provide good evidence that transfusions with allogeneic RBCs can be avoided in most patients with haemoglobin thresholds between the range of 7.0 g/dL and 8.0 g/dL. Some patient subgroups might benefit from RBCs to maintain higher haemoglobin concentrations; research efforts should focus on these clinical contexts.