1.
Convalescent Plasma Therapy for COVID-19 in Ambulatory vs Hospitalized Patients: Efficacy and Risk of Thromboembolism
Li PY, Yu P, Li A, Khalid F, Laureano ML, Crowther MA
Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis. 2023;:100068
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.
2.
The effect of blood storage duration on in-hospital mortality: a randomized controlled pilot feasibility trial
Heddle NM, Cook RJ, Arnold DM, Crowther MA, Warkentin TE, Webert KE, Hirsh J, Barty RL, Liu Y, Lester C, et al
Transfusion. 2012;52((6):):1203-12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Whether the duration of storage of blood has an impact on patient outcomes remains controversial. The objective was to determine feasibility of a comparative effectiveness trial to evaluate duration of storage of blood before transfusion on in-hospital mortality. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS A single-center randomized controlled trial was performed at an acute care hospital in Canada between June and December 2010, involving consecutive hospitalized patients needing blood transfusion. Patients (n=910) were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio to receive freshest available versus standard-issue (oldest available) blood. Four feasibility criteria were measured: proportion of eligible patients randomized, contrast in age of blood between treatment groups, real-time data acquisition, and trial impact on blood outdating. In-hospital mortality was also reported. RESULTS A total of 1075 of 1129 patients (95.2%) were eligible and 910 of 1075 (84.7%) were randomized: 309 received freshest available blood (1157 units), and 601 received standard-age blood (2369 units). Contrast in mean age of the oldest blood transfused between groups was 14.6 days: 12.0 (standard deviation [SD], 6.8) days in the fresh arm and 26.6 (SD, 7.8) days in the standard arm. Weekly recruitment and event reporting were achieved for all patients. The blood outdate rate was 0.10%. In-hospital mortality was 10.5%: 35 deaths (11.3%) in the fresh arm and 61 deaths (10.1%) in the standard arm (odds ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73, 1.76). CONCLUSION It is feasible to conduct a large comparative effectiveness trial comparing the effect of freshest available versus standard-issue blood on in-hospital mortality. The wide CI around the estimate for in-hospital mortality supports the need for a large trial. 2012 American Association of Blood Banks.