Abstract

BACKGROUND The emergence of paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2 (PIMS-TS) led to the widespread use of anti-inflammatory treatments in the absence of evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to assess the effectiveness of intravenous methylprednisolone compared with intravenous immunoglobulins. METHODS This is an open-label, multicentre, two-arm RCT done at ten hospitals in Switzerland in children younger than 18 years hospitalised with PIMS-TS (defined as age <18 years; fever and biochemical evidence of inflammation, and single or multiorgan dysfunction; microbiologically proven or putative contact with SARS-CoV-2; and exclusion of any other probable disease). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to intravenous methylprednisolone (10 mg/kg per day for 3 days) or intravenous immunoglobulins (2 g/kg as a single dose). The primary outcome was length of hospital stay censored at day 28, death, or discharge. Secondary outcomes included proportion and duration of organ support. Analyses were done by intention-to-treat. The study was registered with Swiss National Clinical Trials Portal (SNCTP000004720) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04826588). FINDINGS Between May 21, 2021, and April 15, 2022, 75 patients with a median age of 9·1 years (IQR 6·2-12·2) were included in the intention-to-treat population (37 in the methylprednisolone group and 38 in the intravenous immunoglobulins group). The median length of hospital stay was 6·0 days (IQR 4·0-8·0) in the methylprednisolone group and 6·0 days (IQR 5·0-8·8) in the intravenous immunoglobulins group (estimated effect size -0·037 of the log(10) transformed times, 95% CI -0·13 to 0·065, p=0·42). Fewer patients in the methylprednisolone group (ten [27%] of 37) required respiratory support compared with the intravenous immunoglobulin group (21 [55%] of 38, p=0·025). Need and duration of inotropes, admission to intensive care units, cardiac events after baseline, and major bleeding and thrombotic events were not significantly different between the study groups. INTERPRETATION In this RCT, treatment with methylprednisolone in children with PIMS-TS did not significantly affect the length of hospital stay compared with intravenous immunoglobulins. Intravenous methylprednisolone could be an acceptable first-line treatment in children with PIMS-TS. FUNDING NOMIS Foundation, Vontobel Foundation, and Gaydoul Foundation.

Abstract

BACKGROUND To describe the existing pharmacological managements for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) in a systematic way, to identify the available pharmacological managements in MIS-C, evaluate its safety and efficacy and identify the best treatment procedures for practice recommendation. METHODS A systematic search using six databases was conducted on August 18, 2021, updated in January 26th 2023. Terminologies that were used in this search are children, MIS-C/PIMS and SARS-CoV-2. A PRISMA flow diagram was used to report the study selection process. Quality analysis was done based on NOS and GRADE tools. Data synthesis was conducted by extracting the information on drugs used, efficacy and side effects. RESULTS From the 32 articles included, a total of 2331 children with MIS-C were studied. The main pharmacological approaches were immunomodulatory therapy, i.e., intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) (77.3%), steroids (60.5%), and a combination of IVIG and steroids (41.3%). IVIG and steroids were found to be potentially effective and safe treatments for MIS-C. Combination of IVIG and steroids was found favorable in severe cases with higher recovery rate. Refractory treatments include second dose of initial treatment and biological response modifier drugs like anakinra, tocilizumab, infliximab. A small number of studies investigating supportive treatment consisted of vasoactive, inotropic and anticoagulation. The mortality rate was 1.28% and only three studies reported side effects from the treatment. Evidence of outcome from GRADE were mostly at moderate, low and very low levels. CONCLUSIONS This review provides preliminary evidence to support the current standard treatment practices in managing MIS-C pharmacologically. However, comprehensive investigation is required using clinical trials to provide stronger outcome evidence.

Abstract

CONTEXT Studies comparing initial therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) provided conflicting results. OBJECTIVE To compare outcomes in MIS-C patients treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), glucocorticoids, or the combination thereof. DATA SOURCES Medline, Embase, CENTRAL and WOS, from January 2020 to February 2022. STUDY SELECTION Randomized or observational comparative studies including MIS-C patients <21 years. DATA EXTRACTION Two reviewers independently selected studies and obtained individual participant data. The main outcome was cardiovascular dysfunction (CD), defined as left ventricular ejection fraction < 55% or vasopressor requirement ≥ day 2 of initial therapy, analyzed with a propensity score-matched analysis. RESULTS Of 2635 studies identified, 3 nonrandomized cohorts were included. The meta-analysis included 958 children. IVIG plus glucocorticoids group as compared with IVIG alone had improved CD (odds ratio [OR] 0.62 [0.42-0.91]). Glucocorticoids alone group as compared with IVIG alone did not have improved CD (OR 0.57 [0.31-1.05]). Glucocorticoids alone group as compared with IVIG plus glucocorticoids did not have improved CD (OR 0.67 [0.24-1.86]). Secondary analyses found better outcomes associated with IVIG plus glucocorticoids compared with glucocorticoids alone (fever ≥ day 2, need for secondary therapies) and better outcomes associated with glucocorticoids alone compared with IVIG alone (left ventricular ejection fraction < 55% ≥ day 2). LIMITATIONS Nonrandomized nature of included studies. CONCLUSIONS In a meta-analysis of MIS-C patients, IVIG plus glucocorticoids was associated with improved CD compared with IVIG alone. Glucocorticoids alone was not associated with improved CD compared with IVIG alone or IVIG plus glucocorticoids.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Though controversial, many clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) in COVID-19 cases. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis have been performed to evaluate the efficacy of IVIG in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH A systematic search was performed in electronic databases and preprint servers up to November 20, 2021. Since substantial heterogeneity was expected, a random-effects model was applied to pool effect size from included studies to calculate the standardized mean differences (SMDs) for the continuous variables and relative risks (RRs) for the dichotomous variable with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). FINDINGS/RESULTS Five randomized clinical trials and seven cohort studies were analyzed among the 12 eligible studies with a total of 2,156 patients. The pooled RR of mortality was 0.77 (CI 0.59-1.01, P-value = 0.06), and of mechanical ventilation was 1.50 (CI 0.29-7.83; P-value = 0.63) in the IVIG group compared with the standard care group. The pooled SMD of hospital length of stay was 0.84 (CI -0.43-2.11; P-value = 0.20) and of ICU length of stay was -0.07 (CI -0.92-0.78; P-value = 0.86) in the IVIG group compared with the standard care group. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS This meta-analysis found that the IVIG therapy was not statistically different from the standard care group. Mortality, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay, and length of ICU stay were not significantly improved among IVIG recipients. However, statistical indifference is not equal to clinical indifference.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIG) can provide standardized and controlled antibody content. Data from controlled clinical trials using hIG for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outpatients have not been reported. We assessed the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin 20% (C19-IG20%) compared to placebo in preventing development of symptomatic COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS We did a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in asymptomatic unvaccinated adults (≥18 years of age) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 5 days between April 28 and December 27, 2021. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a blinded subcutaneous infusion of 10 mL with 1 g or 2 g of C19-IG20%, or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who remained asymptomatic through day 14 after infusion. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of individuals who required oxygen supplementation, any medically attended visit, hospitalisation, or ICU, and viral load reduction and viral clearance in nasopharyngeal swabs. Safety was assessed as the proportion of patients with adverse events. The trial was terminated early due to a lack of potential benefit in the target population in a planned interim analysis conducted in December 2021. ClinicalTrials.gov registry: NCT04847141. FINDINGS 461 individuals (mean age 39.6 years [SD 12.8]) were randomized and received the intervention within a mean of 3.1 (SD 1.27) days from a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a subcutaneous infusion, the primary outcome occurred in 59.9% (91/152) of participants receiving 1 g C19-IG20%, 64.7% (99/153) receiving 2 g, and 63.5% (99/156) receiving placebo (difference in proportions 1 g C19-IG20% vs. placebo, -3.6%; 95% CI -14.6% to 7.3%, p = 0.53; 2 g C19-IG20% vs placebo, 1.1%; -9.6% to 11.9%, p = 0.85). None of the secondary clinical efficacy endpoints or virological endpoints were significantly different between study groups. Adverse event rate was similar between groups, and no severe or life-threatening adverse events related to investigational product infusion were reported. INTERPRETATION Our findings suggested that administration of subcutaneous human hyperimmune immunoglobulin C19-IG20% to asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection was safe but did not prevent development of symptomatic COVID-19. FUNDING Grifols.

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a huge obstacle to the health system due to the high rate of contagion. It is postulated that intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) can lower the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-related inflammation and prevent the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The main advantages of IVIG treatment might be targeting cytokine storm in severe and critical COVID-19 by influences on complement, innate immune cells, effector T-cells, and Tregs. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs evaluating the safety and efficacy of IVIG in patients with severe/critical COVID-19 were performed. It seems that early administration of high-dose IVIG (in the acceleration phase of the disease) in severe or especially critical COVID-19 may be an effective therapeutic option, but there are no strong data to use it routinely. The results regarding mortality reduction are inconclusive. Additionally, IVIG treatment carries a risk of complications that should be considered when initiating treatment. However, given the COVID-19 mortality rate and limited therapeutic options, the use of IVIG is worth considering. This review summarizes the development and highlights recent advances in treatment with IVIG of severe/critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Abstract

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

Abstract

BACKGROUND The clinical benefits of high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) in treating COVID-19 remained controversial. METHODS We systematically searched databases up to February 17, 2022, for studies examining the efficacy of IVIg compared to routine care. Meta-analyses were conducted using the random-effects model. Subgroup analysis, meta-regression, and trial series analysis w ere performed to explore heterogeneity and statistical significance. RESULTS A total of 4,711 hospitalized COVID-19 patients (1,925 IVIg treated and 2786 control) were collected from 17 studies, including five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 cohort studies. The application of IVIg was not associated with all-cause mortality (RR= 0.89 [0.63, 1.26], P= 0.53; I(2) = 75%), the length of hospital stays (MD= 0.29 [-3.40, 6.44] days, P= 0.88; I2 = 96%), the needs for mechanical ventilation (RR= 0.93 ([0.73, 1.19], P= 0.31; I2 = 56%), or the incidence of adverse events (RR= 1.15 [0.99, 1.33], P= 0.06; I2 = 20%). Subgroup analyses showed that overall mortality among patients with severe COVID-19 was reduced in the high-dose IVIg subgroup (RR= 0.33 [0.13, 0.86], P= 0.02, I(2) = 68%; very low certainty). CONCLUSIONS Results of this study suggest that severe hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with high-dose IVIg would have a lower risk of death than patients with routine care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021231040, identifier CRD42021231040.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Passive immunotherapy using hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) to SARS-CoV-2, derived from recovered donors, is a potential rapidly available, specific therapy for an outbreak infection such as SARS-CoV-2. Findings from randomised clinical trials of hIVIG for the treatment of COVID-19 are limited. METHODS In this international randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who had been symptomatic for up to 12 days and did not have acute end-organ failure were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either hIVIG or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo, in addition to remdesivir, when not contraindicated, and other standard clinical care. Randomisation was stratified by site pharmacy; schedules were prepared using a mass-weighted urn design. Infusions were prepared and masked by trial pharmacists; all other investigators, research staff, and trial participants were masked to group allocation. Follow-up was for 28 days. The primary outcome was measured at day 7 by a seven-category ordinal endpoint that considered pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications and ranged from no limiting symptoms to death. Deaths and adverse events, including organ failure and serious infections, were used to define composite safety outcomes at days 7 and 28. Prespecified subgroup analyses were carried out for efficacy and safety outcomes by duration of symptoms, the presence of anti-spike neutralising antibodies, and other baseline factors. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received all or part of the assigned study product infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04546581. FINDINGS From Oct 8, 2020, to Feb 10, 2021, 593 participants (n=301 hIVIG, n=292 placebo) were enrolled at 63 sites in 11 countries; 579 patients were included in the mITT analysis. Compared with placebo, the hIVIG group did not have significantly greater odds of a more favourable outcome at day 7; the adjusted OR was 1·06 (95% CI 0·77-1·45; p=0·72). Infusions were well tolerated, although infusion reactions were more common in the hIVIG group (18·6% vs 9·5% for placebo; p=0·002). The percentage with the composite safety outcome at day 7 was similar for the hIVIG (24%) and placebo groups (25%; OR 0·98, 95% CI 0·66-1·46; p=0·91). The ORs for the day 7 ordinal outcome did not vary for subgroups considered, but there was evidence of heterogeneity of the treatment effect for the day 7 composite safety outcome: risk was greater for hIVIG compared with placebo for patients who were antibody positive (OR 2·21, 95% CI 1·14-4·29); for patients who were antibody negative, the OR was 0·51 (0·29-0·90; p(interaction)=0·001). INTERPRETATION When administered with standard of care including remdesivir, SARS-CoV-2 hIVIG did not demonstrate efficacy among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. The safety of hIVIG might vary by the presence of endogenous neutralising antibodies at entry. FUNDING US National Institutes of Health.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are statements that should be rigorously developed to guide clinicians' decision-making. However, given the scarce evidence for certain vulnerable groups like children, CPGs' recommendations formulation could be challenging. METHODS We conducted a scoping review of CPGs for COVID-19 management in children. Documents were included if they claimed to be a "clinical practice guideline", published between January and October 2021, and described the process followed to issue their recommendations. We assessed the quality using the "Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II" (AGREE-II) and described how the recommendations were reached. RESULTS We found five CPGs that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The median score on the overall AGREE-II evaluation was 61% (range: 49%-72%), and the score on the third domain referred to the rigor of methodological development was 52% (range: 25%-88%). Recommendations for remdesivir, tocilizumab, and intravenous immunoglobulin were heterogeneous across CPGs (in favor, against, no recommendation), as well as the methodologies used to present the evidence, perform the benefits/harms balance, and issue the recommendation. CONCLUSIONS Heterogeneous recommendations and justifications across CPGs were found in the three assessed topics. Future CPGs should describe in detail their evidence-to-decision process to issue reliable and transparent recommendations.