Abstract

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

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Covid Convalescent Plasma (CCP) failed to demonstrate its efficacy in severe and life-threatening coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. However, the role of CCP in hospitalized moderate cases is unclear. This study aims to examine the efficacy of administering CCP to hospitalized moderate coronavirus disease 2019 patients. METHODOLOGY An open-label randomized controlled clinical trial design was used from November 2020 - August 2021 at two referral hospitals in Jakarta, Indonesia, and the primary outcome was mortality at 14 days. The secondary outcomes were mortality at 28 days, the time-to-discontinuation of supplemental oxygen, and the time-to-hospital discharge. RESULTS This study recruited 44 subjects, and the intervention arm consisted of 21 respondents who received CCP. The control arm consisted of 23 subjects who received standard-of-care treatment. All subjects survived during the fourteen-day follow-up period, and the 28-day mortality rate in the intervention group was lower than the control (4.8% vs 13.0%; p = 0.16, HR = 4.39 (95% CI = 0.45-42.71). There was no statistically significant difference in the time-to-discontinuation of supplemental oxygen and time-to-hospital discharge. During the total follow-up period (41 days), the mortality rate in the intervention group was also lower than the control (4.8% vs 17.4%, p = 0.13, HR = 5.47, 95% CI = 0.60-49.55). CONCLUSIONS This study concluded that in hospitalized moderate COVID-19 patients, CCP did not reduce 14-day mortality compared to the control. Mortality during 28 days and total length of stay (41 days) were lower in the CCP group compared to the control, although they did not reach statistical significance.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have low certainty evidence for our primary outcomes. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Abstract

BACKGROUND 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.

Abstract

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.

Abstract

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

Abstract

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

Abstract

AIM: This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of convalescent plasma therapy in children who are confirmed positive for coronavirus disease-2019. This study focuses on the mechanism of treatment administration and the prognosis after convalescent plasma transfusion. METHOD Article searches were conducted using a combination of keywords, namely, "COVID-19," "convalescent plasma," and "children" or "pediatric." Databases used were from Pubmed, ScienceDirect, Wiley Online, Springerlink, and Ebsco and 501 articles were found. The articles submitted are articles with low bias, where the selection of reports follows the inclusion and exclusion criteria according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis protocol. RESULTS A total of 8 articles were selected. Convalescent plasma transfusion was given to 11 children whose condition worsened starting with signs of tachypnea and decreased saturation, then the children were admitted to intensive care. The dose of convalescent plasma is based on the child's weight. All children had a good prognosis after the transfusion, and 7 children had recovered and were discharged from the hospital. CONCLUSION Convalescent plasma transfusion in children who are confirmed positive for coronavirus disease-2019 effectively improves the clinical condition of children. However, it must be noted that the blood from the donor has gone through the correct protocol.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Evaluate the safety and effectiveness of convalescent plasma (CP) or hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIVIG) in severe respiratory disease caused by coronaviruses or influenza, in patients of all ages requiring hospital admission. METHODS We searched multiple electronic databases for all publications to 12th October 2020, and RCTs only to 28th June 2021. Two reviewers screened, extracted, and analysed data. We used Cochrane ROB (Risk of Bias)1 for RCTs, ROBINS-I for non-RCTs, and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS Data from 30 RCTs and 2 non-RCTs showed no overall difference between groups for all-cause mortality and adverse events in four comparisons. Certainty of the evidence was downgraded for high ROB and imprecision. (1) CP versus standard care (SoC) (20 RCTS, 2 non-RCTs, very-low to moderate-high certainty); (2) CP versus biologically active control (6 RCTs, very-low certainty); (3) hIVIG versus SoC (3 RCTs, very-low certainty); (4) early CP versus deferred CP (1 RCT, very-low certainty). Subgrouping by titre improved precision in one outcome (30-day mortality) for the 'COVID high-titre' category in Comparison 1 (no difference, high certainty) and Comparison 2 (favours CP, very-low certainty). Post hoc analysis suggests a possible benefit of CP in patients testing negative for antibodies at baseline, compared with those testing positive. CONCLUSION A minimum titre should be established and ensured for a positive biological response to the therapy. Further research on the impact of CP/hIVIG in patients who have not yet produced antibodies to the virus would be useful to target therapies at groups who will potentially benefit the most.

Abstract

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