1.
One-year follow-up of the CAPSID randomized trial for high-dose convalescent plasma in severe COVID-19 patients
Körper S, Grüner B, Zickler D, Wiesmann T, Wuchter P, Blasczyk R, Zacharowski K, Spieth P, Tonn T, Rosenberger P, et al
The Journal of clinical investigation. 2022
Abstract
BACKGROUND Results of many randomized trials on COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) have been reported but information on long-term outcome after CCP treatment is limited. The objectives of this extended observation of the randomized CAPSID trial are to assess long-term outcome and disease burden in patients initially treated with or without CCP. METHODS Of 105 randomized patients, 50 participated in the extended observation. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed by questionnaires and a structured interview. CCP-donors (n=113) with asymptomatic to moderate COVID-19 were included as a reference group. RESULTS The median follow-up of patients was 396 days, the estimated 1-year survival was 78.7% in the CCP and 60.2% in the control group (p=0.08). The subgroup treated with a higher cumulative amount of neutralizing antibodies showed a better 1-year survival compared to the control group (91.5% versus 60.2%; p=0.01). Medical events and QoL assessments showed a consistent trend for better results in the CCP group without reaching statistical significance. There was no difference in the increase of neutralizing antibodies after vaccination between CCP and the control group. CONCLUSION The trial demonstrated a trend towards better outcome in the CCP group without reaching statistical significance. A pre-defined subgroup analysis showed a significant better outcome (long-term survival; time to discharge from ICU and time to hospital discharge) among those who received a higher amount of neutralizing antibodies compared to the control group. A substantial long-term disease burden remains after severe COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION EudraCT number 2020-001310-38FUNDING. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (German Federal Ministry of Health): ZMVI1-2520COR802/ZMI1-2521COR802.
2.
Results of the CAPSID randomized trial for high-dose convalescent plasma in severe COVID-19 patients
Körper S, Weiss M, Zickler D, Wiesmann T, Zacharowski K, Corman VM, Grüner B, Ernst L, Spieth P, Lepper PM, et al
The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2021
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been considered a treatment option in COVID-19. This trial assessed the efficacy of neutralizing antibody containing high-dose CCP in hospitalized adults with COVID-19 requiring respiratory support or intensive care treatment. METHODS Patients (n=105) were randomized 1:1 to either receive standard treatment and 3 units of CCP or standard treatment alone. Control group patients with progress on day 14 could cross over to the CCP group. Primary outcome was a dichotomous composite outcome of survival and no longer fulfilling criteria for severe COVID-19 on day 21. RESULTS The primary outcome occurred in 43.4% of patients in the CCP and 32.7% in the control group (p=0.32). The median time to clinical improvement was 26 days in the CCP group and 66 days in the control group (p=0.27). Median time to discharge from hospital was 31 days in the CCP and 51 days in the control group (p=0.24). In the subgroup that received a higher cumulative amount of neutralizing antibodies the primary outcome occurred in 56.0% (versus 32.1%), with significantly shorter intervals to clinical improvement (20 versus 66 days)(p<0.05), and to hospital discharge (21 versus 51 days, p=0.03) and better survival (day-60 probability of survival 91.6% versus 68.1%; p=0.02) compared to the control group. CONCLUSION CCP added to standard treatment was not associated with significant improvement in the primary and secondary outcomes. A pre-defined subgroup analysis showed a significant benefit for CCP among those who received a larger amount of neutralizing antibodies. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04433910FUNDING. German Federal Ministry of Health.
PICO Summary
Population
Hospitalized adults with COVID-19 in centres in Germany, enrolled in the CAPSID trial (n= 105).
Intervention
Convalescent plasma (CCP), (n= 53).
Comparison
Standard care (n= 52).
Outcome
The primary outcome occurred in 43.4% of patients in the CCP and 32.7% in the control group. The median time to clinical improvement was 26 days in the CCP group and 66 days in the control group. Median time to discharge from hospital was 31 days in the CCP and 51 days in the control group. In the subgroup that received a higher cumulative amount of neutralizing antibodies the primary outcome occurred in 56.0% (vs. 32.1%), with significantly shorter intervals to clinical improvement (20 vs. 66 days), and to hospital discharge (21 vs. 51 days) and better survival (day-60 probability of survival 91.6% vs. 68.1%) compared to the control group.
3.
A systematic review of neuroprotective strategies during hypovolemia and hemorrhagic shock
Nistor M, Behringer W, Schmidt M, Schiffner R
International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2017;18((11))
Abstract
Severe trauma constitutes a major cause of death and disability, especially in younger patients. The cerebral autoregulatory capacity only protects the brain to a certain extent in states of hypovolemia; thereafter, neurological deficits and apoptosis occurs. We therefore set out to investigate neuroprotective strategies during haemorrhagic shock. This review was performed in accordance to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Before the start of the search, a review protocol was entered into the PROSPERO database. A systematic literature search of Pubmed, Web of Science and CENTRAL was performed in August 2017. Results were screened and evaluated by two researchers based on a previously prepared inclusion protocol. Risk of bias was determined by use of SYRCLE's risk of bias tool. The retrieved results were qualitatively analysed. Of 9093 results, 119 were assessed in full-text form, 16 of them ultimately adhered to the inclusion criteria and were qualitatively analyzed. We identified three subsets of results: (1) hypothermia; (2) fluid therapy and/or vasopressors; and (3) other neuroprotective strategies (piracetam, NHE1-inhibition, aprotinin, human mesenchymal stem cells, remote ischemic preconditioning and sevoflurane). Overall, risk of bias according to SYRCLE's tool was medium; generally, animal experimental models require more rigorous adherence to the reporting of bias-free study design (randomization, etc.). While the individual study results are promising, the retrieved neuroprotective strategies have to be evaluated within the current scientific context-by doing so, it becomes clear that specific promising neuroprotective strategies during states of haemorrhagic shock remain sparse. This important topic therefore requires more in-depth research.