Abstract

BACKGROUND COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) reduces hospitalizations among outpatients treated early after symptom onset. It is unknown if CCP reduces time to symptom resolution among outpatients. METHODS We evaluated symptom resolution at day 14 by trial arm using an adjusted sub-distribution hazard model, with hospitalization as a competing risk. Additionally, we assessed prevalence of symptom clusters at day 14 between treatments. Clusters were defined based on biologic clustering, impact on ability to work, and an algorithm. RESULTS Among 1,070 outpatients followed after transfusion, 381 of 538 (70.8%) receiving CCP and 381 of 532 (71.6%) receiving control plasma were still symptomatic (p = 0.78) at day 14. Associations between CCP and symptom resolution by day 14 were not statistically different from those in controls after adjusting for baseline characteristics (adjusted sub-distribution hazard ratio: 0.99; p = 0.62). The most common cluster consisted of cough, fatigue, shortness of breath, and headache, found in 308 (57.2%) and 325 (61.1%) of CCP and control plasma recipients, respectively (p = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS In this trial of outpatients with early COVID-19, CCP was not associated with faster resolution of symptoms compared to control. Overall, there were no differences in the prevalence of each symptom or symptom clusters at day 14 by treatment.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Polyclonal convalescent plasma may be obtained from donors who have recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). The efficacy of this plasma in preventing serious complications in outpatients with recent-onset Covid-19 is uncertain. METHODS In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of Covid-19 convalescent plasma, as compared with control plasma, in symptomatic adults (≥18 years of age) who had tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, regardless of their risk factors for disease progression or vaccination status. Participants were enrolled within 8 days after symptom onset and received a transfusion within 1 day after randomization. The primary outcome was Covid-19-related hospitalization within 28 days after transfusion. RESULTS Participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, through October 1, 2021. A total of 1225 participants underwent randomization, and 1181 received a transfusion. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a transfusion, the primary outcome occurred in 17 of 592 participants (2.9%) who received convalescent plasma and 37 of 589 participants (6.3%) who received control plasma (absolute risk reduction, 3.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 1.0 to 5.8; P = 0.005), which corresponded to a relative risk reduction of 54%. Evidence of efficacy in vaccinated participants cannot be inferred from these data because 53 of the 54 participants with Covid-19 who were hospitalized were unvaccinated and 1 participant was partially vaccinated. A total of 16 grade 3 or 4 adverse events (7 in the convalescent-plasma group and 9 in the control-plasma group) occurred in participants who were not hospitalized. CONCLUSIONS In participants with Covid-19, most of whom were unvaccinated, the administration of convalescent plasma within 9 days after the onset of symptoms reduced the risk of disease progression leading to hospitalization. (Funded by the Department of Defense and others; CSSC-004 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04373460.).

Abstract

BACKGROUND The efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma (CCP) for preventing infection in exposed, uninfected individuals is unknown. CCP might prevent infection when administered before symptoms or laboratory evidence of infection. METHODS This double-blinded, phase 2 randomized, controlled trial (RCT) compared the efficacy and safety of prophylactic high titer (≥1:320 by Euroimmun ELISA) CCP with standard plasma. Asymptomatic participants aged ≥18 years with close contact exposure to a person with confirmed COVID-19 in the previous 120 hours and negative SARS-CoV-2 test within 24 hours before transfusion were eligible. The primary outcome was new SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS 180 participants were enrolled; 87 were assigned to CCP and 93 to control plasma, and 170 transfused at 19 sites across the United States from June 2020 to March 2021. Two were excluded for screening SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positivity. Of the remaining 168 participants, 12/81 (14·8%) CCP and 13/87 (14·9%) control recipients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection; 6 (7·4%) CCP and 7 (8%) control recipients developed COVID-19 (infection with symptoms). There were no COVID-19-related hospitalizations in CCP and 2 in control recipients. Efficacy by restricted mean infection free time (RMIFT) by 28 days for all SARS-CoV-2 infections (25·3 vs. 25·2 days; p = 0·49) and COVID-19 (26·3 vs. 25·9 days; p = 0·35) was similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS Administration of high-titer CCP as post-exposure prophylaxis, while appearing safe, did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Abstract

BACKGROUND The efficacy of polyclonal high titer convalescent plasma to prevent serious complications of COVID-19 in outpatients with recent onset of illness is uncertain. METHODS This multicenter, double-blind randomized controlled trial compared the efficacy and safety of SARS-CoV-2 high titer convalescent plasma to placebo control plasma in symptomatic adults ≥18 years positive for SARS-CoV-2 regardless of risk factors for disease progression or vaccine status. Participants with symptom onset within 8 days were enrolled, then transfused within the subsequent day. The measured primary outcome was COVID-19-related hospitalization within 28 days of plasma transfusion. The enrollment period was June 3, 2020 to October 1, 2021. RESULTS A total of 1225 participants were randomized and 1181 transfused. In the pre-specified modified intention-to-treat analysis that excluded those not transfused, the primary endpoint occurred in 37 of 589 (6.3%) who received placebo control plasma and in 17 of 592 (2.9%) participants who received convalescent plasma (relative risk, 0.46; one-sided 95% upper bound confidence interval 0.733; P=0.004) corresponding to a 54% risk reduction. Examination with a model adjusting for covariates related to the outcome did not change the conclusions. CONCLUSION Early administration of high titer SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma reduced outpatient hospitalizations by more than 50%. High titer convalescent plasma is an effective early outpatient COVID-19 treatment with the advantages of low cost, wide availability, and rapid resilience to variant emergence from viral genetic drift in the face of a changing pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04373460 .

Abstract

BACKGROUND The efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma (CCP) for preventing infection in exposed, uninfected individuals is unknown. We hypothesized that CCP might prevent infection when administered before symptoms or laboratory evidence of infection. METHODS This double-blinded, phase 2 randomized, controlled trial (RCT) compared the efficacy and safety of prophylactic high titer (≥1:320) CCP with standard plasma. Asymptomatic participants aged ≥18 years with close contact exposure to a person with confirmed COVID-19 in the previous 120 hours and negative SARS-CoV-2 test within 24 hours before transfusion were eligible. The primary outcome was development of SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS 180 participants were enrolled; 87 were assigned to CCP and 93 to control plasma, and 170 transfused at 19 sites across the United States from June 2020 to March 2021. Two were excluded for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positivity at screening. Of the remaining 168 participants, 12/81 (14.8%) CCP and 13/87 (14.9%) control recipients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection; 6 (7.4%) CCP and 7 (8%) control recipients developed COVID-19 (infection with symptoms). There were no COVID-19-related hospitalizations in CCP and 2 in control recipients. There were 28 adverse events in CCP and 58 in control recipients. Efficacy by restricted mean infection free time (RMIFT) by 28 days for all SARS-CoV-2 infections (25.3 vs. 25.2 days; p=0.49) and COVID-19 (26.3 vs. 25.9 days; p=0.35) were similar for both groups. CONCLUSION In this trial, which enrolled persons with recent exposure to a person with confirmed COVID-19, high titer CCP as post-exposure prophylaxis appeared safe, but did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrial.gov number NCT04323800 .

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Filariae are parasitic worms that include the pathogens Loa loa, Onchocerca volvulus, Wuchereria bancrofti, Brugia spp. and Mansonella spp. which are endemic in parts of Africa, Asia, Asia-Pacific, South and Central America. Filariae have a wide clinical spectrum spanning asymptomatic infection to chronic debilitating disease including blindness and lymphedema. Despite successful eradication programmes, filarial infections remain an important -albeit neglected - source of morbidity. We sought to characterize the risk of transfusion transmission of microfilaria with a view to guide mitigation practices in both endemic and non-endemic countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS A scoping review of scientific publications as well as grey literature was carried out by a group of domain experts in microbiology, transfusion medicine and infectious diseases, representing the parasite subgroup of the International Society of Blood Transfusion. RESULTS Cases of transfusion-transmitted filariasis are rare and confined to case reports of variable quality. Transfusion-associated adverse events related to microfilariae are confined to isolated reports of transfusion reactions. Serious outcomes have not been reported. No known strategies have been implemented, specifically, to mitigate transfusion-transmitted filariasis yet routine blood donor screening for other transfusion-transmissible infections (e.g. hepatitis B, malaria) may indirectly defer donors with microfilaremia in endemic areas. CONCLUSION Rare examples of transfusion-transmitted filariasis, without serious clinical effect, suggest that filariasis poses low transfusion risk. Dedicated mitigation strategies against filarial transfusion transmission are not recommended. Given endemicity in low-resource regions, priority should be on the control of filariasis with public health measures.

Abstract

Globally, obstetric haemorrhage (OH) remains the leading cause of maternal mortality. Much of the associated mortality is ascribed to challenges surrounding deployment of innovations rather than lack of availability. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where the burden is highest, there is a growing interest in implementation research as a means to bridge the 'know-do' gap between proven interventions and their reliable implementation at scale. In this systematic review, we identified and synthesized qualitative and quantitative data across the implementation outcomes of OH prevention innovations in LMICs using a taxonomy developed by Proctor et al. We also identified service outcomes for the included innovations, as well as implementation strategies and implementation facilitators and barriers. Eligible studies were empirical, focused on the implementation of OH prevention programmes or policies and occurred in an LMIC. Eight databases were searched. Two authors independently assessed studies for selection and extracted data; the first author resolved discrepancies. Narrative synthesis was used to analyse and interpret the findings. Studies were predominantly focused in Africa and on primary prevention. Interventions included prophylactic use of uterotonics (n = 7), clinical provider skills training (n = 4) and provision of clinical guidelines (n = 1); some (n = 3) were also part of a multi-component quality improvement bundle. Various barriers were reported, including challenges among intervention beneficiaries, providers and within the health system; however, studies reported the development and testing of practical implementation solutions. These included training and monitoring of implementers, community and stakeholder engagement and guidance by external mentors. Some studies linked successful delivery to implementation outcomes, most commonly adoption and acceptability, but also feasibility, penetration and sustainability. Findings suggest that innovations to prevent OH can be acceptable, appropriate and feasible in LMIC settings; however, more research is needed to better evaluate these and other under-reported implementation outcomes.

Abstract

BACKGROUND The pathogenesis of alloimmunization is not well understood, and initiatives that aim to reduce the incidence of alloimmunization are generally expensive and either ineffective or unproven. In this review, we summarize the current medical literature regarding alloimmunization in the sickle cell disease (SCD) population, with a special focus on the financial implications of different approaches to prevent alloimmunization. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS A review of EMBASE and MEDLINE data from January 2006 through January 2016 was conducted to identify articles relating to complications of SCD. The search was specifically designed to capture articles that evaluated the costs of various strategies to prevent alloimmunization and its sequelae. RESULTS Currently, there is no proven, inexpensive way to prevent alloimmunization among individuals with SCD. Serologic matching programs are not uniformly successful in preventing alloimmunization, particularly to Rh antigens, because of the high frequency of variant Rh alleles in the SCD population. A genotypic matching program could offer some cost savings compared to a serologic matching program, but the efficacy of gene matching for the prevention of alloimmunization is largely unproven, and large-scale implementation could be expensive. CONCLUSIONS Future reductions in the costs associated with genotype matching could make a large-scale program economically feasible. Novel techniques to identify patients at highest risk for alloimmunization could improve the cost effectiveness of antigen matching programs. A clinical trial comparing the efficacy of serologic matching to genotype matching would be informative.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Historical estimates have attributed 5% to 10% of new human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) to unsafe blood transfusions. Although frequently cited, the validity of this statistic is uncertain or outdated. Recent estimates suggest blood transfusion's contribution to new HIV infections in the region may be much lower. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS We searched the peer-reviewed and gray literature for quantitative estimates of the specific contribution of unsafe blood transfusion to the proportion of new HIV infections occurring in SSA. The sources and methods used to generate attribution estimates were evaluated against published country-specific HIV prevalence data. RESULTS Despite multiple secondary citations, a primary published source attributing 5% to 10% of new HIV infections to blood transfusions in SSA could not be established for the current era. The United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS (UNAIDS) modes of transmission (MOT) reports representing 15 countries suggest that between 0 and 1.1% of new HIV infections per year (median, 0.2% or approx. two out of 1000 new infections each year) may be attributable to blood transfusions. CONCLUSION Recent modeled estimates suggest that blood transfusions account for a very low proportion of new HIV infections in SSA, likely an order of magnitude lower than 5% to 10%. Direct quantification of risk is challenging given the paucity of data on the variables that impact transfusion-associated HIV. Specifically, data on HIV incidence in blood donors, blood bank laboratory test performance, and posttransfusion surveillance are lacking. Findings suggest an urgent need for improved surveillance and modeling of transfusion-associated HIV transmission in the region. Copyright © 2016 AABB.