0
selected
-
1.
ABO blood group influence COVID-19 infection: a meta-analysis
Wang H, Zhang J, Jia L, Ai J, Yu Y, Wang M, Li P
Journal of infection in developing countries. 2021;15(12):1801-1807
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Previous studies have linked the relationship between ABO blood group and COVID-19 infection. However, existing evidence is preliminary and controversial. This meta-analysis sought to identify studies that describe COVID-19 and ABO blood group. METHODOLOGY A literature search was conducted from PubMed, Web of Science, MedRxiv, BioRxiv and Google Scholar databases. Members of cases and controls were extracted from collected studies. Pooled Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were calculated and interpreted from extracted data. Publication bias and sensitivity analysis were also applied to confirm our discovery. RESULTS Total 13,600 patients and 3,445,047 controls were included in the study. Compared to other ABO blood group, blood group O was associated with a lower risk of COVID-19 infection (OR = 0.76, 95%CI 0.66-0.84), while blood group A and AB was associated with a higher risk (OR = 1.25, 95%CI 1.10-1.41; OR = 1.13, 95%CI 1.04-1.23, respectively). In the subgroup analysis, the relationship between blood group A, O and COVID-19 infection remained stable among Chinese, European and Eastern Mediterranean populations. In American population, blood groups B was linked with increased risk of COVID-19 infection (OR = 1.21, 95%CI 1.09-1.35). CONCLUSIONS Our data suggested that individuals with blood types A and AB are more susceptible to COVID-19, while people with blood type O are less susceptible to infection. More research is needed to clarify the precise role of the ABO blood group in COVID-19 infection to address the global question.
-
2.
Effect of Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Time to Clinical Improvement in Patients With Severe and Life-threatening COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Li L, Zhang W, Hu Y, Tong X, Zheng S, Yang J, Kong Y, Ren L, Wei Q, Mei H, et al
Jama. 2020
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Importance: Convalescent plasma is a potential therapeutic option for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but further data from randomized clinical trials are needed. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of convalescent plasma therapy for patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed in 7 medical centers in Wuhan, China, from February 14, 2020, to April 1, 2020, with final follow-up April 28, 2020. The trial included 103 participants with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 that was severe (respiratory distress and/or hypoxemia) or life-threatening (shock, organ failure, or requiring mechanical ventilation). The trial was terminated early after 103 of a planned 200 patients were enrolled. Intervention: Convalescent plasma in addition to standard treatment (n = 52) vs standard treatment alone (control) (n = 51), stratified by disease severity. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was time to clinical improvement within 28 days, defined as patient discharged alive or reduction of 2 points on a 6-point disease severity scale (ranging from 1 [discharge] to 6 [death]). Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, time to discharge, and the rate of viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results turned from positive at baseline to negative at up to 72 hours. Results: Of 103 patients who were randomized (median age, 70 years; 60 [58.3%] male), 101 (98.1%) completed the trial. Clinical improvement occurred within 28 days in 51.9% (27/52) of the convalescent plasma group vs 43.1% (22/51) in the control group (difference, 8.8% [95% CI, -10.4% to 28.0%]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [95% CI, 0.79-2.49]; P = .26). Among those with severe disease, the primary outcome occurred in 91.3% (21/23) of the convalescent plasma group vs 68.2% (15/22) of the control group (HR, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.07-4.32]; P = .03); among those with life-threatening disease the primary outcome occurred in 20.7% (6/29) of the convalescent plasma group vs 24.1% (7/29) of the control group (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.30-2.63]; P = .83) (P for interaction = .17). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (15.7% vs 24.0%; OR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.29-1.46]; P = .30) or time from randomization to discharge (51.0% vs 36.0% discharged by day 28; HR, 1.61 [95% CI, 0.88-2.93]; P = .12). Convalescent plasma treatment was associated with a negative conversion rate of viral PCR at 72 hours in 87.2% of the convalescent plasma group vs 37.5% of the control group (OR, 11.39 [95% CI, 3.91-33.18]; P < .001). Two patients in the convalescent plasma group experienced adverse events within hours after transfusion that improved with supportive care. Conclusion and Relevance: Among patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, convalescent plasma therapy added to standard treatment, compared with standard treatment alone, did not result in a statistically significant improvement in time to clinical improvement within 28 days. Interpretation is limited by early termination of the trial, which may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000029757.
-
3.
Effect of Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Time to Clinical Improvement in Patients With Severe and Life-threatening COVID-19
Li L, Zhang W, Hu Y, Tong X, Zheng S, Yang J, Kong Y, Ren L, Wei Q, Mei H, et al
Jama. 2020
Abstract
ImportanceConvalescent plasma is a potential therapeutic option for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but further data from randomized clinical trials are needed ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of convalescent plasma therapy for patients with COVID-19 Design, Setting, and ParticipantsOpen-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed in 7 medical centers in Wuhan, China, from February 14, 2020, to April 1, 2020, with final follow-up April 28, 2020 The trial included 103 participants with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 that was severe (respiratory distress and/or hypoxemia) or life-threatening (shock, organ failure, or requiring mechanical ventilation) The trial was terminated early after 103 of a planned 200 patients were enrolled InterventionConvalescent plasma in addition to standard treatment (n = 52) vs standard treatment alone (control) (n = 51), stratified by disease severity Main Outcomes and MeasuresPrimary outcome was time to clinical improvement within 28 days, defined as patient discharged alive or reduction of 2 points on a 6-point disease severity scale (ranging from 1 [discharge] to 6 [death]) Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, time to discharge, and the rate of viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results turned from positive at baseline to negative at up to 72 hours ResultsOf 103 patients who were randomized (median age, 70 years;60 [58 3%] male), 101 (98 1%) completed the trial Clinical improvement occurred within 28 days in 51 9% (27/52) of the convalescent plasma group vs 43 1% (22/51) in the control group (difference, 8 8% [95% CI, −10 4% to 28 0%];hazard ratio [HR], 1 40 [95% CI, 0 79-2 49];P = 26) Among those with severe disease, the primary outcome occurred in 91 3% (21/23) of the convalescent plasma group vs 68 2% (15/22) of the control group (HR, 2 15 [95% CI, 1 07-4 32];P = 03);among those with life-threatening disease the primary outcome occurred in 20 7% (6/29) of the convalescent plasma group vs 24 1% (7/29) of the control group (HR, 0 88 [95% CI, 0 30-2 63];P = 83) (Pfor interaction = 17) There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (15 7% vs 24 0%;OR, 0 65 [95% CI, 0 29-1 46];P = 30) or time from randomization to discharge (51 0% vs 36 0% discharged by day 28;HR, 1 61 [95% CI, 0 88-2 93];P = 12) Convalescent plasma treatment was associated with a negative conversion rate of viral PCR at 72 hours in 87 2% of the convalescent plasma group vs 37 5% of the control group (OR, 11 39 [95% CI, 3 91-33 18];P < 001) Two patients in the convalescent plasma group experienced adverse events within hours after transfusion that improved with supportive care Conclusion and RelevanceAmong patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, convalescent plasma therapy added to standard treatment, compared with standard treatment alone, did not result in a statistically significant improvement in time to clinical improvement within 28 days Interpretation is limited by early termination of the trial, which may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference Trial RegistrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry:ChiCTR2000029757
-
4.
Corticosteroids and Intravenous Immunoglobulin in Pediatric Myocarditis: A Meta-Analysis
Li Y, Yu Y, Chen S, Liao Y, Du J
Frontiers in pediatrics. 2019;7:342
Abstract
Background: The efficacy of corticosteroids and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in pediatric myocarditis remains controversial. Objectives: The authors performed a meta-analysis to assess the therapeutic efficacy of corticosteroids and IVIG in children with myocarditis. Methods: We retrieved the trials on corticosteroids and IVIG therapy, respectively, in pediatric myocarditis from nine databases up to December 2018. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. Results: Our analysis included 8 studies and 334 pediatric patients. The data demonstrated that children receiving corticosteroids showed no significant improvement on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from 1 to 8 month-follow-up (MD = 5.17%, 95% CI = -0.26% to 10.60%, P = 0.06), and no significant improvement in death or heart transplantation incidence at the end of follow-up (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 0.27-6.70, P = 0.73). However, children receiving IVIG revealed a statistically remarkable increase in LVEF at a follow-up over the course of 6 months to 1 year (MD = 18.91%, 95% CI = 11.74-26.08%, P < 0.00001), and a decrease in death or heart transplantation at the end of follow-up (OR = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.12-0.75, P = 0.01). Further comparisons showed that the mortality and heart transplantation rate of children with myocarditis treated with IVIG were significantly lower than those with corticosteroid therapy (t' = 11.336, P < 0.001). Conclusions: IVIG might be beneficial to improve LVEF and survival for myocarditis in children. However, the present evidence does not support corticosteroids as superior to conventional therapy in children with myocarditis. Further randomized controlled trials with a larger sample size are required.