1.
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.
2.
The use of whole blood in traumatic bleeding: a systematic review
Cruciani M, Franchini M, Mengoli C, Marano G, Pati I, Masiello F, Veropalumbo E, Pupella S, Vaglio S, Agostini V, et al
Internal and emergency medicine. 2020
-
-
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
Hemostatic resuscitation is currently considered a standard of care for the management of life-threatening hemorrhage, but in some critical settings the access to high quantities of blood components is problematic. Whole blood (WB) transfusion has been proposed as an alternative modality for hemostatic resuscitation of traumatic major bleeding. To assess the efficacy and safety of WB in trauma-associated massive bleeding, we performed a systematic review of the literature. We selected studies comparing WB transfusions to transfusion of blood components (COMP) in massive trauma bleeding; both randomized clinical trial (RCT) and observational studies were considered. The outcomes were mortality (30-day/in-hospital and 24-h mortality) and adverse events/transfusion reactions. The effect sizes were crude odds ratio (OR), adjusted OR and hazard ratio (HR). The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs, and the ROBIN-1 tool for observational studies. The overall quality of the available evidence was assessed with the GRADE system. One RCT (2 reports) and 6 cohort studies were included (3642 adult patients; 675 receiving WB, 2967 receiving COMP). Three studies were conducted in military setting, and 4 in civilian setting. In the overall analysis, 30-day/in-hospital and 24-h mortality did not differ significantly between groups (very low quality of the evidence due to high risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency). After adjustment for baseline covariates in three cohort studies, the OR for mortality was significantly lower in WB recipients compared to COMP (OR 0.22; 95% CIs 0.10/0.45) (moderate grade of evidence). Adverse events and transfusion reactions were overlooked and not consistently reported. The available evidence does not allow to draw definite conclusions on the short-term and long-term efficacy and safety of WB transfusion compared to COMP transfusion. Further well designed research is needed.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients with massive trauma bleeding (7 studies, n= 3642).
Intervention
Whole blood (WB) transfusion (n= 675).
Comparison
Blood components (COMP), (n= 2967).
Outcome
In the overall analysis, 30-day/in-hospital and 24-h mortality did not differ significantly between groups. After adjustment for baseline covariates in three cohort studies, the odds ratio for mortality was significantly lower in WB recipients compared to COMP. Adverse events and transfusion reactions were overlooked and not consistently reported.
3.
Red blood cell alloimmunisation in transfusion-dependent thalassaemia: a systematic review
Franchini M, Forni GL, Marano G, Cruciani M, Mengoli C, Pinto V, De Franceschi L, Venturelli D, Casale M, Amerini M, et al
Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue. 2019;17(1):4-15
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Chronic red blood cell transfusion is the first-line treatment for severe forms of thalassaemia. This therapy is, however, hampered by a number of adverse effects, including red blood cell alloimmunisation. The aim of this systematic review was to collect the current literature data on erythrocyte alloimmunisation. MATERIALS AND METHODS We performed a systematic search of the literature which identified 41 cohort studies involving 9,256 patients. RESULTS The prevalence of erythrocyte alloimmunisation was 11.4% (95% CI: 9.3-13.9%) with a higher rate of alloimmunisation against antigens of the Rh (52.4%) and Kell (25.6%) systems. Overall, alloantibodies against antigens belonging to the Rh and Kell systems accounted for 78% of the cases. A higher prevalence of red blood cell alloimmunisation was found in patients with thalassaemia intermedia compared to that among patients with thalassaemia major (15.5 vs 12.8%). DISCUSSION Matching transfusion-dependent thalassaemia patients and red blood cell units for Rh and Kell antigens should be able to reduce the risk of red blood cell alloimmunisation by about 80%.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia (41 studies, n= 9,256).
Intervention
Systematic review on the prevalence of red blood cell alloimmunisation.
Comparison
Outcome
The prevalence of erythrocyte alloimmunisation was 11.4% with a higher rate of alloimmunisation against antigens of the Rh (52.4%) and Kell (25.6%) systems. Overall, alloantibodies against antigens belonging to the Rh and Kell systems accounted for 78% of the cases. A higher prevalence of red blood cell alloimmunisation was found in patients with thalassaemia intermedia compared to that among patients with thalassaemia major (15.5 vs. 12.8%).