-
1.
Reporting Bias is Highly Prevalent in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Platelet Rich Plasma Injections for Hip Osteoarthritis
Kim, D., Bashrum, B. S., Kotlier, J. L., Mayfield, C. K., Thompson, A. A., Abu-Zahra, M., Hwang, M., Bolia, I. K., Petrigliano, F. A., Liu, J. N.
Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation. 2024;6(1):100851
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
PURPOSE To describe the incidence and types of spin in systematic reviews of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for hip osteoarthritis (OA) and to determine whether patterns in study characteristics could be identified among studies with identifiable spin. METHODS The PubMed, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases were queried. Inclusion criteria were systematic reviews or meta-analyses that included an assessment of intra-articular PRP injections as a stand-alone treatment for hip OA. Two authors independently assessed the presence of spin in the included studies and recorded general study characteristics. The prevalence of the 15 different categories of spin was quantified using descriptive statistics. RESULTS Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria for this study. All studies contained at least two types of spin (range 2-9), with a median of 2. The most common type of spin was type 14 ("Failure to report a wide confidence interval of estimates"), which was observed in 10 studies. The second most common type of spin was type 13 ("Failure to specify the direction of the effect when it favors the control intervention"), found in 6 studies. CONCLUSIONS Spin is highly prevalent in abstracts of systematic reviews of PRP in the treatment of hip OA. Several associations were found between spin types and the study characteristics of AMSTAR 2 rating, Scopus CiteScore, journal impact factor, and PROSPERO preregistration. When present, spin in the abstracts of reviewed studies tended to favor the use of PRP in hip osteoarthritis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE It is important to understand the prevalence of spin in published abstracts, especially in areas of great impact or interest, so authors and readers can have a greater awareness of this potential form of bias.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients with hip osteoarthritis (15 systematic reviews).
Intervention
Systematic review to describe the incidence and types of spin bias in systematic reviews of platelet-rich plasma injections for hip osteoarthritis and to determine whether patterns in study characteristics could be identified among studies with identifiable spin.
Comparison
Outcome
All studies contained at least two types of spin (range 2-9), with a median of 2. The most common type of spin was type 14 ("Failure to report a wide confidence interval of estimates"), which was observed in 10 studies. The second most common type of spin was type 13 ("Failure to specify the direction of the effect when it favors the control intervention"), found in 6 studies. Several associations were found between spin types and the study characteristics of AMSTAR 2 rating, Scopus CiteScore, journal impact factor, and PROSPERO preregistration.
-
2.
COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Outpatient Therapy to Prevent Outpatient Hospitalization: A Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data From Five Randomized Trials
Levine AC, Fukuta Y, Huaman MA, Ou J, Meisenberg BR, Patel B, Paxton JH, Hanley DF, Rijnders BJ, Gharbharan A, et al
Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2023
-
-
-
Free full text
-
-
Editor's Choice
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.
PICO Summary
Population
Adult COVID-19 outpatients (5 studies, n= 2,620).
Intervention
Intravenous COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) transfusion (n= 1,305).
Comparison
Non-convalescent plasma or normal saline (n= 1,315).
Outcome
The virus neutralizing antibody dilutional titre levels ranged from 8 to 14,580 in diverse assays. 160 (12.2%) of 1,315 control patients were hospitalized, versus 111 (8.5%) of 1,305 COVID-19 convalescent plasma treated patients, yielding a 3.7% (95% CI: 1.3% - 6.0%) 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 titre with a 7.6% absolute risk reduction (95% CI: 4.0% - 11.1%) 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 titres below the median titre.
-
3.
Restrictive or Liberal Transfusion Strategy in Myocardial Infarction and Anemia
Carson, J. L., Brooks, M. M., Hébert, P. C., Goodman, S. G., Bertolet, M., Glynn, S. A., Chaitman, B. R., Simon, T., Lopes, R. D., Goldsweig, A. M., et al
The New England journal of medicine. 2023
-
-
-
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND A strategy of administering a transfusion only when the hemoglobin level falls below 7 or 8 g per deciliter has been widely adopted. However, patients with acute myocardial infarction may benefit from a higher hemoglobin level. METHODS In this phase 3, interventional trial, we randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction and a hemoglobin level of less than 10 g per deciliter to a restrictive transfusion strategy (hemoglobin cutoff for transfusion, 7 or 8 g per deciliter) or a liberal transfusion strategy (hemoglobin cutoff, <10 g per deciliter). The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction or death at 30 days. RESULTS A total of 3504 patients were included in the primary analysis. The mean (±SD) number of red-cell units that were transfused was 0.7±1.6 in the restrictive-strategy group and 2.5±2.3 in the liberal-strategy group. The mean hemoglobin level was 1.3 to 1.6 g per deciliter lower in the restrictive-strategy group than in the liberal-strategy group on days 1 to 3 after randomization. A primary-outcome event occurred in 295 of 1749 patients (16.9%) in the restrictive-strategy group and in 255 of 1755 patients (14.5%) in the liberal-strategy group (risk ratio modeled with multiple imputation for incomplete follow-up, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99 to 1.34; P = 0.07). Death occurred in 9.9% of the patients with the restrictive strategy and in 8.3% of the patients with the liberal strategy (risk ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.47); myocardial infarction occurred in 8.5% and 7.2% of the patients, respectively (risk ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.49). CONCLUSIONS In patients with acute myocardial infarction and anemia, a liberal transfusion strategy did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent myocardial infarction or death at 30 days. However, potential harms of a restrictive transfusion strategy cannot be excluded. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; MINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02981407.).
PICO Summary
Population
Adult patients with myocardial infarction and anaemia enrolled in the Myocardial Ischemia and Transfusion (MINT) trial (n= 3,504).
Intervention
Restrictive transfusion strategy (haemoglobin cutoff, 7 or 8 g per deciliter), (n= 1,749).
Comparison
Liberal transfusion strategy (haemoglobin cutoff, <10 g per deciliter), (n= 1,755).
Outcome
The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction or death at 30 days. The mean (±SD) number of red-cell units that were transfused was 0.7±1.6 in the restrictive-strategy group and 2.5±2.3 in the liberal-strategy group. The mean haemoglobin level was 1.3 to 1.6 g per deciliter lower in the restrictive-strategy group than in the liberal-strategy group on days 1 to 3 after randomization. A primary-outcome event occurred in 295 of 1,749 patients (16.9%) in the restrictive-strategy group and in 255 of 1,755 patients (14.5%) in the liberal-strategy group (risk ratio modeled with multiple imputation for incomplete follow-up, 1.15; 95% confidence interval (CI), [0.99, 1.34]). Death occurred in 9.9% of the patients with the restrictive strategy and in 8.3% of the patients with the liberal strategy (risk ratio, 1.19; 95% CI [0.96, 1.47]); myocardial infarction occurred in 8.5% and 7.2% of the patients, respectively (risk ratio, 1.19; 95% CI [0.94, 1.49]).
-
4.
Convalescent Plasma for Covid-19-Induced ARDS in Mechanically Ventilated Patients
Misset, B., Piagnerelli, M., Hoste, E., Dardenne, N., Grimaldi, D., Michaux, I., De Waele, E., Dumoulin, A., Jorens, P. G., van der Hauwaert, E., et al
The New England journal of medicine. 2023;389(17):1590-1600
-
-
-
Free full text
-
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Passive immunization with plasma collected from convalescent patients has been regularly used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Minimal data are available regarding the use of convalescent plasma in patients with Covid-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS In this open-label trial, we randomly assigned adult patients with Covid-19-induced ARDS who had been receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for less than 5 days in a 1:1 ratio to receive either convalescent plasma with a neutralizing antibody titer of at least 1:320 or standard care alone. Randomization was stratified according to the time from tracheal intubation to inclusion. The primary outcome was death by day 28. RESULTS A total of 475 patients underwent randomization from September 2020 through March 2022. Overall, 237 patients were assigned to receive convalescent plasma and 238 to receive standard care. Owing to a shortage of convalescent plasma, a neutralizing antibody titer of 1:160 was administered to 17.7% of the patients in the convalescent-plasma group. Glucocorticoids were administered to 466 patients (98.1%). At day 28, mortality was 35.4% in the convalescent-plasma group and 45.0% in the standard-care group (P = 0.03). In a prespecified analysis, this effect was observed mainly in patients who underwent randomization 48 hours or less after the initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation. Serious adverse events did not differ substantially between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS The administration of plasma collected from convalescent donors with a neutralizing antibody titer of at least 1:160 to patients with Covid-19-induced ARDS within 5 days after the initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation significantly reduced mortality at day 28. This effect was mainly observed in patients who underwent randomization 48 hours or less after ventilation initiation. (Funded by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04558476.).
PICO Summary
Population
Adult patients with Covid-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (n= 475).
Intervention
Convalescent plasma (n= 237).
Comparison
Standard care (n= 238).
Outcome
At day 28, mortality was 35.4% in the convalescent-plasma group and 45.0% in the standard-care group. In a prespecified analysis, this effect was observed mainly in patients who underwent randomization 48 hours or less after the initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation. Serious adverse events did not differ substantially between the two groups.
-
5.
Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review
Iannizzi C, Chai KL, Piechotta V, Valk SJ, Kimber C, Monsef I, Wood EM, Lamikanra AA, Roberts DJ, McQuilten Z, et al
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2023;5(5):Cd013600
-
-
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
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 very-low to low certainty evidence for most primary outcomes and moderate certainty for hospital admission or death. 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.
PICO Summary
Population
People of any age with COVID-19 (33 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) n= 24,861).
Intervention
Convalescent plasma (n= 11,432).
Comparison
Standard plasma, human immunoglobulin, placebo or standard care alone.
Outcome
This living systematic review fourth review update version included 33 RCTs, of these 9 were single‐centre studies and 24 were multi‐centre studies. The authors identified 49 ongoing studies. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID‐19 and moderate to severe disease: 23 RCTs compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone; 5 RCTs compared convalescent plasma to standard plasma, and 1 RCT compared convalescent plasma to human immunoglobulin. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and mild disease: 2 RCTs compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and 2 RCTs compared convalescent plasma to standard plasma. When comparing convalescent plasma vs. placebo or standard care alone, authors’ 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. For individuals with mild disease, the authors have very-low to low certainty evidence for most primary outcomes and moderate certainty for hospital admission or death.
-
6.
Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review
Iannizzi C, Chai KL, Piechotta V, Valk SJ, Kimber C, Monsef I, Wood EM, Lamikanra AA, Roberts DJ, McQuilten Z, et al
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2023;2(2):Cd013600
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
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.
PICO Summary
Population
People of any age with mild, moderate or severe COVID-19 (33 randomised controlled trials, n= 24,861).
Intervention
Convalescent plasma (n= 11,432).
Comparison
Standard plasma, human immunoglobulin, placebo or standard care alone.
Outcome
This living systematic review was a fourth review update version and included 33 studies. The authors identified 49 ongoing studies. For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, the authors’ 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. For individuals with mild disease, the authors have low certainty evidence for the primary outcomes.
-
7.
Allogeneic Serum Eye Drops: A Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Clinical Effectiveness of Two Drop Sizes
Vermeulen, C., van der Burg, L. L. J., van Geloven, N., Eggink, C. A., Cheng, Y. Y. Y., Nuijts, Rmma, Wisse, R. P. L., van Luijk, C. M., Nieuwendaal, C., Remeijer, L., et al
Ophthalmology and therapy. 2023
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Allogeneic serum from blood donors is starting to be used to treat patients with dry eye disease (DED). However, the optimal dose is not known. We therefore aimed to evaluate the clinical efficaciousness and user-friendliness of micro-sized versus conventional-sized allogeneic serum eye drops (SEDs). METHODS In a randomized trial, patients with DED first receive micro-sized SEDs (7 µl/unit) for 1 month, followed by a 1-month washout, before receiving conventional-sized SEDs (50 µl/unit) for 1 month; or vice versa. The primary endpoint was the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) score. Secondary endpoints were tear break-up time (TBT), tear production (TP), and presence of corneal punctate lesions (CP). The user-friendliness of both application systems was also compared. A linear mixed model for cross-over design was applied to compare both treatments. RESULTS Forty-nine patients completed the trial. The mean OSDI score significantly improved from 52 ± 3 to 41 ± 3 for micro-sized SEDs, and from 54 ± 3 to 45 ± 3 for conventional-sized SEDs. Non-inferiority (margin = 6) of micro-sized SEDs was established. We demonstrate a significant improvement for TBT in case of conventional-sized SEDs and for CP in both treatment groups. TP trended towards an improvement in both treatment groups. The user-friendliness of the conventional drop system was significantly higher. CONCLUSIONS For the first time, non-inferiority of micro-sized allogeneic SEDs was established. The beneficial effect of both SED volumes was similar as measured by the OSDI score. Although user-friendliness of the micro drop system was significantly lower, it is an attractive alternative as it saves valuable donor serum. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03539159).
PICO Summary
Population
Patients with dry eye disease (n= 53).
Intervention
Allogeneic micro-sized serum eye drops (SEDs), (7 µl/unit), followed by allogeneic conventional-sized SEDs (50 µl/unit) after a washout period (n= 25).
Comparison
Conventional-sized SEDs followed by micro-sized SEDs after a washout period (n= 28).
Outcome
The on-study time per patient was 3 months. Forty-nine patients completed this randomised cross-over trial. The mean ocular surface disease index score significantly improved from 52 ± 3 to 41 ± 3 for micro-sized SEDs, and from 54 ± 3 to 45 ± 3 for conventional-sized SEDs. Non-inferiority (margin= 6) of micro-sized SEDs was established. Tear production trended towards an improvement in both treatment groups. The user-friendliness of the conventional drop system was significantly higher.
-
8.
Outpatient convalescent plasma therapy for high-risk patients with early COVID-19. A randomized placebo-controlled trial
Gharbharan A, Jordans C, Zwaginga L, Papageorgiou G, van Geloven N, van Wijngaarden P, den Hollander J, Karim F, van Leeuwen-Segarceanu E, Soetekouw R, et al
Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. 2022
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The potential benefit of convalescent plasma (CP) therapy for COVID-19 is highest when given early after symptom onset. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness of CP in improving the disease course of COVID-19 in high-risk outpatients. METHODS A multicentre double blind randomized trial was conducted comparing 300mL of CP with non-CP. Patients were 50 years or older, symptomatic for <8 days, had PCR or antigen-test confirmed COVID-19 and at least 1 risk factor for severe COVID-19. The primary endpoint was the highest score on a 5-point ordinal scale ranging from fully recovered (score=1) or not (2) on day 7, over hospital admission (3), ICU admission (4) and death (5) in the 28 days following randomization. Secondary endpoints were hospital admission, symptom duration and viral RNA excretion. RESULTS After enrolment of 421 patients and the transfusion of 416, recruitment was discontinued when the countrywide vaccination uptake in those aged >50 years was 80%. Patients had a median age of 60, symptoms for 5 days and 207 of 416 received CP. During the 28 days of follow-up, 28 patients were hospitalized and 2 died. The odds ratio (OR) for an improved disease severity score with CP was 0.86 (95%credible interval 0.59-1.22). The OR was 0.58 (95%confidence interval 0.33-1.02) for patients with ≤5 days of symptoms. The hazard ratio for hospital admission was 0.61 (95%confidence interval 0.28-1.34). No difference was found in viral RNA excretion nor in the duration of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS In patients with early COVID-19, CP did not improve the 5-point disease severity score. CLINICAL REGISTRY NUMBER NCT04589949.
PICO Summary
Population
High-risk outpatients with early COVID-19 (n= 416).
Intervention
Convalescent plasma (CP), (n= 207).
Comparison
Regular plasma (non-CP, n= 209).
Outcome
Patients had a median age of 60 years old, and symptoms for 5 days. During the 28 days of follow-up, 28 patients were hospitalized and two died. The odds ratio (OR) for an improved disease severity score with CP was 0.86 (95% credible interval: 0.59-1.22). The OR was 0.58 (95% confidence interval: 0.33-1.02) for patients with ≤5 days of symptoms. The hazard ratio for hospital admission was 0.61 (95% confidence interval: 0.28-1.34). No difference was found in viral RNA excretion nor in the duration of symptoms.
-
9.
Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody-containing plasma improves outcome in patients with hematologic or solid cancer and severe COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial
Denkinger CM, Janssen M, Schäkel U, Gall J, Leo A, Stelmach P, Weber SF, Krisam J, Baumann L, Stermann J, et al
Nature cancer. 2022
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
Patients with cancer are at high risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with high morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, impaired humoral response renders severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines less effective and treatment options are scarce. Randomized trials using convalescent plasma are missing for high-risk patients. Here, we performed a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001632-10/DE ) in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 (n = 134) within four risk groups ((1) cancer (n = 56); (2) immunosuppression (n = 16); (3) laboratory-based risk factors (n = 36); and (4) advanced age (n = 26)) randomized to standard of care (control arm) or standard of care plus convalescent/vaccinated anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma (plasma arm). No serious adverse events were observed related to the plasma treatment. Clinical improvement as the primary outcome was assessed using a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to discharge and overall survival. For the four groups combined, those receiving plasma did not improve clinically compared with those in the control arm (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.29; P = 0.205). However, patients with cancer experienced a shortened median time to improvement (HR = 2.50; P = 0.003) and superior survival with plasma treatment versus the control arm (HR = 0.28; P = 0.042). Neutralizing antibody activity increased in the plasma cohort but not in the control cohort of patients with cancer (P = 0.001). Taken together, convalescent/vaccinated plasma may improve COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer who are unable to intrinsically generate an adequate immune response.
PICO Summary
Population
Hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 within four risk groups: cancer, immunosuppression, laboratory-based risk factors, and advanced age (n = 134)
Intervention
Standard of care plus convalescent/vaccinated anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma (Plasma group, n= 68).
Comparison
Standard of care (Control group, n= 66).
Outcome
No serious adverse events were observed related to the plasma treatment. Clinical improvement as the primary outcome was assessed using a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to discharge and overall survival. For the four groups combined, those receiving plasma did not improve clinically compared with those in the control arm (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.29. However, patients with cancer experienced a shortened median time to improvement (HR = 2.50) and superior survival with plasma treatment versus the control arm (HR = 0.28). Neutralizing antibody activity increased in the plasma cohort but not in the control cohort of patients with cancer.
-
10.
Effective antiviral regimens to reduce COVID-19 hospitalizations: a systematic comparison of randomized controlled trials
Sullivan DJ, Focosi D, Hanley D, Franchini M, Ou J, Casadevall A, Paneth N
medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences. 2022
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Antiviral therapy has a greater impact when provided early in the disease to outpatients, potentially preventing hospitalization and subsequent deaths, while reducing healthcare system pressure. Controversies persist about the best treatment option for COVID-19 outpatients at risk of disease progression to hospital. No head-to-head RCT has been conducted to compare the three major modalities in current use-oral/intravenous antivirals, monoclonal antibodies and COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). METHODS We assembled data from March 2020 to April 2022 from published outpatient RCTs examining authorized COVID-19 therapies with hospitalization as the major endpoint, and that also assessed mortality, symptom resolution, underlying risk factors for progression, timing and dose of the intervention in relationship to evolving variants of concern (VOC). FINDINGS CCP, monoclonal antibodies and oral antivirals each had comparable efficacy converging to 80% hospital risk reduction dependent on the dose and the timing of the intervention. Most RCTs targeted populations with at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19. Control group hospitalizations were less than 10% in 16 of 20 RCTs. Amongst the effective two CCP trials, monoclonals and three antiviral small molecules, deaths were reduced by 90% from 44 total in combined control arm to 4 in intervention arms. The overall risk of bias was deemed low for nine studies and some concerns for eight. The I (2) statistic heterogeneity amongst the outpatient trials with endpoint hospitalization is 72% (p-< 0.01). INTERPRETATION The emerging resistance of Omicron BA.2 and related sublineages (XE, BA.2.12.1, BA.4, and BA.5) to monoclonal antibodies suggests a pressing need to reevaluate CCP (nowadays largely available from vaccinees with high neutralizing antibody levels) for COVID19 outpatients at risk of disease progression, especially in settings with constrained medical resources. FUNDING This study was funded by the US Department of Defense, in collaboration with the Defense Health Agency and NIH. RESEARCH IN CONTEXT Evidence before this study: To date no head-to-head randomized controlled trial (RCT) has ever compared treatment options for COVID-19 outpatients, making comparisons and treatment choices difficult. We assembled RCTs with hospitalization as the primary endpoint. A literature search of MEDLINE (through PubMed), medRxiv and bioRxiv databases was carried out inclusive of RCTs published from March 2020 to April 2022 inclusive, using the search terms ("COVID-19" OR "SARS-CoV-2" OR "coronavirus disease 2019") AND ("treatment" OR "therapy") AND ("outpatient" OR "hospitalization"). The risk of bias obtained at COVID-19-Network Meta-Analysis (NMA), was low in half of the studies with some concerns for the remaining.Added value of this study: This systematic review compared outcomes among RCTs of outpatient therapy for COVID-19, taking into account time between onset of symptoms and treatment administration. We found that small-chemical antivirals, convalescent plasma and anti-Spike monoclonal antibodies had comparable efficacy. Trials of monoclonals were performed prior to the recognition that they had become ineffective against the Omicron sublineages.Implications of all the available evidence: Monoclonal antibodies and small chemical antivirals each have drawbacks. Both take time to be developed and are expensive. Monoclonals can lose efficacy with viral mutation, and chemical antivirals have contraindications and adverse events. Convalescent plasma retains its potency and is likely to be the only accessible therapeutic option for low-and-middle income countries.
PICO Summary
Population
COVID-19 outpatients at risk of disease progression (20 studies).
Intervention
Convalescent plasma (CCP).
Comparison
Antiviral agents; monoclonal antibodies.
Outcome
CCP, monoclonal antibodies and oral antivirals each had comparable efficacy converging to 80% hospital risk reduction dependent on the dose and the timing of the intervention. Most randomised controlled trials (RCTs) targeted populations with at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19. Control group hospitalizations were less than 10% in 16 of 20 RCTs. Amongst the effective two CCP trials, monoclonals and three antiviral small molecules, deaths were reduced by 90% from 44 total in combined control arm to 4 in intervention arms. The overall risk of bias was deemed low for nine studies.