Abstract

IMPORTANCE The evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is inconclusive. OBJECTIVE To determine whether convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The ongoing Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial, Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) enrolled and randomized 4763 adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 between March 9, 2020, and January 18, 2021, within at least 1 domain; 2011 critically ill adults were randomized to open-label interventions in the immunoglobulin domain at 129 sites in 4 countries. Follow-up ended on April 19, 2021. INTERVENTIONS The immunoglobulin domain randomized participants to receive 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma (total volume of 550 mL ± 150 mL) within 48 hours of randomization (n = 1084) or no convalescent plasma (n = 916). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary ordinal end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based organ support) up to day 21 (range, -1 to 21 days; patients who died were assigned -1 day). The primary analysis was an adjusted bayesian cumulative logistic model. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Futility was defined as the posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 (threshold for trial conclusion of futility >95%). An OR greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. The prespecified secondary outcomes included in-hospital survival; 28-day survival; 90-day survival; respiratory support-free days; cardiovascular support-free days; progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation, or death; intensive care unit length of stay; hospital length of stay; World Health Organization ordinal scale score at day 14; venous thromboembolic events at 90 days; and serious adverse events. RESULTS Among the 2011 participants who were randomized (median age, 61 [IQR, 52 to 70] years and 645/1998 [32.3%] women), 1990 (99%) completed the trial. The convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after the prespecified criterion for futility was met. The median number of organ support-free days was 0 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the convalescent plasma group and 3 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the no convalescent plasma group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 37.3% (401/1075) for the convalescent plasma group and 38.4% (347/904) for the no convalescent plasma group and the median number of days alive and free of organ support was 14 (IQR, 3 to 18) and 14 (IQR, 7 to 18), respectively. The median-adjusted OR was 0.97 (95% credible interval, 0.83 to 1.15) and the posterior probability of futility (OR <1.2) was 99.4% for the convalescent plasma group compared with the no convalescent plasma group. The treatment effects were consistent across the primary outcome and the 11 secondary outcomes. Serious adverse events were reported in 3.0% (32/1075) of participants in the convalescent plasma group and in 1.3% (12/905) of participants in the no convalescent plasma group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among critically ill adults with confirmed COVID-19, treatment with 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Abstract

The efficacy of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Although most randomized controlled trials have shown negative results, uncontrolled studies have suggested that the antibody content could influence patient outcomes. We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma for adults with COVID-19 receiving oxygen within 12 d of respiratory symptom onset ( NCT04348656 ). Patients were allocated 2:1 to 500 ml of convalescent plasma or standard of care. The composite primary outcome was intubation or death by 30 d. Exploratory analyses of the effect of convalescent plasma antibodies on the primary outcome was assessed by logistic regression. The trial was terminated at 78% of planned enrollment after meeting stopping criteria for futility. In total, 940 patients were randomized, and 921 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Intubation or death occurred in 199/614 (32.4%) patients in the convalescent plasma arm and 86/307 (28.0%) patients in the standard of care arm-relative risk (RR) = 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.43, P = 0.18). Patients in the convalescent plasma arm had more serious adverse events (33.4% versus 26.4%; RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.02-1.57, P = 0.034). The antibody content significantly modulated the therapeutic effect of convalescent plasma. In multivariate analysis, each standardized log increase in neutralization or antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity independently reduced the potential harmful effect of plasma (odds ratio (OR) = 0.74, 95% CI 0.57-0.95 and OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.87, respectively), whereas IgG against the full transmembrane spike protein increased it (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.14-2.05). Convalescent plasma did not reduce the risk of intubation or death at 30 d in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Transfusion of convalescent plasma with unfavorable antibody profiles could be associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to standard care.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) are an important problem in critically ill children. Studies show associations between the transfusion of non-leukoreduced red blood cell units (RBC) and increased HAI incidence rates (IRs). We hypothesize that transfusing pre-storage leukoreduced RBC is also associated with increased HAI IR. We aim to evaluate the associations between (1) a leukoreduced RBC restrictive transfusion strategy and HAI IR, (2) leukoreduced RBC transfusions and HAI IR, and (3) the number or volume of leukoreduced RBC transfusions and HAI IR in critically ill children. MATERIALS AND METHODS This post hoc secondary analysis of the "Transfusion Requirement in Paediatric Intensive Care Units" (TRIPICU) randomized controlled trial (637 patients) used quasi-Poisson multivariable regression models to estimate HAI incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS A restrictive transfusion strategy yielded an IRR of 0.88 (95% CI 0.67, 1.16). The association between transfusing leukoreduced RBCs (IRR 1.25; 95% CI 0.73, 2.13) and HAI IR was not statistically significant. However, we observed significant associations between patients who received >20 cc/kg volume of leukoreduced RBC transfusions (IRR 2.14; 95% CI 1.15, 3.99) and ≥3 leukoreduced RBC transfusions (IRR 2.40; 95% CI 1.15, 4.99) and HAI IR. CONCLUSION Exposing critically ill children to >20 cc/kg or ≥3 leukoreduced RBC transfusions were associated with higher HAI IR, suggesting dose-response patterns.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE The objective of this work was to carry out a meta-analysis of RCTs comparing intraoperative RBC transfusion strategies to determine their impact on postoperative morbidity, mortality, and blood product use. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA RBC transfusions are common in surgery and associated with widespread variability despite adjustment for casemix. Evidence-based recommendations guiding RBC transfusion in the operative setting are limited. METHODS The search strategy was adapted from a previous Cochrane Review. Electronic databases were searched from January 2016 to February 2021. Included studies from the previous Cochrane Review were considered for eligibility from before 2016. RCTs comparing intraoperative transfusion strategies were considered for inclusion. Co-primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and morbidity. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative and perioperative RBC transfusion. Meta-analysis was carried out using random-effects models. RESULTS Fourteen trials (8641 patients) were included. One cardiac surgery trial accounted for 56% of patients. There was no difference in 30-day mortality [relative risk (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.29] and pooled postoperative morbidity among the studied outcomes when comparing restrictive and liberal protocols. Two trials reported worse composite outcomes with restrictive triggers. Intraoperative (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43-0.64) and perioperative (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62-0.79) blood transfusions were significantly lower in the restrictive group compared to the liberal group. CONCLUSIONS Intraoperative restrictive transfusion strategies decreased perioperative transfusions without added postoperative morbidity and mortality in 12/14 trials. Two trials reported worse outcomes. Given trial design and generalizability limitations, uncertainty remains regarding the safety of broad application of restrictive transfusion triggers in the operating room. Trials specifically designed to address intraoperative transfusions are urgently needed.

Abstract

BACKGROUND The optimal haemoglobin threshold for use of red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in anaemic patients remains an active field of research. Blood is a scarce resource, and in some countries, transfusions are less safe than in others because of inadequate testing for viral pathogens. If a liberal transfusion policy does not improve clinical outcomes, or if it is equivalent, then adopting a more restrictive approach could be recognised as the standard of care. OBJECTIVES The aim of this review update was to compare 30-day mortality and other clinical outcomes for participants randomised to restrictive versus liberal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion thresholds (triggers) for all clinical conditions. The restrictive transfusion threshold uses a lower haemoglobin concentration as a threshold for transfusion (most commonly, 7.0 g/dL to 8.0 g/dL), and the liberal transfusion threshold uses a higher haemoglobin concentration as a threshold for transfusion (most commonly, 9.0 g/dL to 10.0 g/dL). SEARCH METHODS We identified trials through updated searches: CENTRAL (2020, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to November 2020), Embase (1974 to November 2020), Transfusion Evidence Library (1950 to November 2020), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index (1990 to November 2020), and trial registries (November 2020). We checked the reference lists of other published reviews and relevant papers to identify additional trials. We were aware of one trial identified in earlier searching that was in the process of being published (in February 2021), and we were able to include it before this review was finalised. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised trials of surgical or medical participants that recruited adults or children, or both. We excluded studies that focused on neonates. Eligible trials assigned intervention groups on the basis of different transfusion schedules or thresholds or 'triggers'. These thresholds would be defined by a haemoglobin (Hb) or haematocrit (Hct) concentration below which an RBC transfusion would be administered; the haemoglobin concentration remains the most commonly applied marker of the need for RBC transfusion in clinical practice. We included trials in which investigators had allocated participants to higher thresholds or more liberal transfusion strategies compared to more restrictive ones, which might include no transfusion. As in previous versions of this review, we did not exclude unregistered trials published after 2010 (as per the policy of the Cochrane Injuries Group, 2015), however, we did conduct analyses to consider the differential impact of results of trials for which prospective registration could not be confirmed. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We identified trials for inclusion and extracted data using Cochrane methods. We pooled risk ratios of clinical outcomes across trials using a random-effects model. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We conducted predefined analyses by clinical subgroups. We defined participants randomly allocated to the lower transfusion threshold as being in the 'restrictive transfusion' group and those randomly allocated to the higher transfusion threshold as being in the 'liberal transfusion' group. MAIN RESULTS A total of 48 trials, involving data from 21,433 participants (at baseline), across a range of clinical contexts (e.g. orthopaedic, cardiac, or vascular surgery; critical care; acute blood loss (including gastrointestinal bleeding); acute coronary syndrome; cancer; leukaemia; haematological malignancies), met the eligibility criteria. The haemoglobin concentration used to define the restrictive transfusion group in most trials (36) was between 7.0 g/dL and 8.0 g/dL. Most trials included only adults; three trials focused on children. The included studies were generally at low risk of bias for key domains including allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data. Restrictive transfusion strategies reduced the risk of receiving at least one RBC transfusion by 41% across a broad range of clinical contexts (risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.66; 42 studies, 20,057 participants; high-quality evidence), with a large amount of heterogeneity between trials (I² = 96%). Overall, restrictive transfusion strategies did not increase or decrease the risk of 30-day mortality compared with liberal transfusion strategies (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.15; 31 studies, 16,729 participants; I² = 30%; moderate-quality evidence) or any of the other outcomes assessed (i.e. cardiac events (low-quality evidence), myocardial infarction, stroke, thromboembolism (all high-quality evidence)). High-quality evidence shows that the liberal transfusion threshold did not affect the risk of infection (pneumonia, wound infection, or bacteraemia). Transfusion-specific reactions are uncommon and were inconsistently reported within trials. We noted less certainty in the strength of evidence to support the safety of restrictive transfusion thresholds for the following predefined clinical subgroups: myocardial infarction, vascular surgery, haematological malignancies, and chronic bone-marrow disorders. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Transfusion at a restrictive haemoglobin concentration decreased the proportion of people exposed to RBC transfusion by 41% across a broad range of clinical contexts. Across all trials, no evidence suggests that a restrictive transfusion strategy impacted 30-day mortality, mortality at other time points, or morbidity (i.e. cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stroke, pneumonia, thromboembolism, infection) compared with a liberal transfusion strategy. Despite including 17 more randomised trials (and 8846 participants), data remain insufficient to inform the safety of transfusion policies in important and selected clinical contexts, such as myocardial infarction, chronic cardiovascular disease, neurological injury or traumatic brain injury, stroke, thrombocytopenia, and cancer or haematological malignancies, including chronic bone marrow failure. Further work is needed to improve our understanding of outcomes other than mortality. Most trials compared only two separate thresholds for haemoglobin concentration, which may not identify the actual optimal threshold for transfusion in a particular patient. Haemoglobin concentration may not be the most informative marker of the need for transfusion in individual patients with different degrees of physiological adaptation to anaemia. Notwithstanding these issues, overall findings provide good evidence that transfusions with allogeneic RBCs can be avoided in most patients with haemoglobin thresholds between the range of 7.0 g/dL and 8.0 g/dL. Some patient subgroups might benefit from RBCs to maintain higher haemoglobin concentrations; research efforts should focus on these clinical contexts.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19. METHODS In an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. RESULTS The trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS In critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. (REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT04372589.).

Abstract

Many parallel studies of convalescent plasma with modest enrolment projections have been launched for the treatment of COVID-19. By pooling data from multiple parallel studies that are similar, we can increase the effective sample size and achieve enough statistical power to determine effectiveness more quickly through meta-analysis. A scoping review of registered clinical trials of convalescent plasma for COVID-19 was conducted to assess the feasibility of performing a rapid and timely meta-analysis that will support accelerated review for approval and implementation. ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched April 23, 2020. Trials were included if they utilized convalescent plasma to treat or prevent COVID-19. Forty-eight registered trials (projected to enroll more than 5000 subjects) of convalescent plasma were identified and included for analysis. The majority of studies (33 studies with 4440 projected enrolment) will address the treatment of severe and/or critical cases of COVID-19. Twenty-nine studies are controlled and 17 of these are reported as actively recruiting. The combined enrolment of patients from similar studies should be sufficient to determine meaningful improvements in mortality, rates of admission to intensive care and need for mechanical ventilation by the end of 2020-sooner than any individual study could determine effectiveness. Accessing supplemental outcome data from investigators may be needed; however, to align reporting of some outcomes from these studies. Heterogeneity in product potency due to different antibody titers is anticipated and studies using conventional treatment as controls instead of placebo may complicate our understanding of efficacy. Convalescent plasma is being tested in ongoing controlled studies, largely to treat severe and/or critical cases of COVID-19. Sufficient combined power to detect clinically important reductions in multiple outcomes, including mortality, is expected by September 2020. Regulatory approval, funding and implementation by blood operators could be accelerated by planned meta-analysis as study results become available.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Mortality from COVID-19 is high among hospitalized patients and effective therapeutics are lacking. Hypercoagulability, thrombosis and hyperinflammation occur in COVID-19 and may contribute to severe complications. Therapeutic anticoagulation may improve clinical outcomes through anti-thrombotic, anti-inflammatory and anti-viral mechanisms. Our primary objective is to evaluate whether therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin prevents mechanical ventilation and/or death in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared to usual care. METHODS An international, open-label, adaptive randomized controlled trial. Using a Bayesian framework, the trial will declare results as soon as pre-specified posterior probabilities for superiority, futility, or harm are reached. The trial uses response-adaptive randomization to maximize the probability that patients will receive the more beneficial treatment approach, as treatment effect information accumulates within the trial. By leveraging a common data safety monitoring board and pooling data with a second similar international Bayesian adaptive trial (REMAP-COVID anticoagulation domain), treatment efficacy and safety will be evaluated as efficiently as possible. The primary outcome is an ordinal endpoint with three possible outcomes based on the worst status of each patient through day 30: no requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation or death. CONCLUSION Using an adaptive trial design, the Anti-Thrombotic Therapy To Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 trial will establish whether therapeutic anticoagulation can reduce mortality and/or avoid the need for mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Leveraging existing networks to recruit sites will increase enrollment and mitigate enrollment risk in sites with declining COVID-19 cases.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES The objective of this work was to carry out a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) pertaining to intraoperative red blood cell (RBC) transfusions, in terms of indications, decision-making, and supporting evidence base. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA Red blood cell (RBC) transfusions are common during surgery and there is evidence of wide variability in practice. METHODS Major electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL), guideline clearinghouses and Google Scholar were systematically searched from inception to January 2019 for CPGs pertaining to indications for intraoperative RBC transfusion. Eligible guidelines were retrieved and their quality assessed using AGREE II. Relevant recommendations were abstracted and synthesized to allow for a comparison between guidelines. RESULTS Ten guidelines published between 1992 and 2018 provided indications for intraoperative transfusions. No guideline addressed intraoperative transfusion decision-making as its primary focus. Six guidelines provided criteria for transfusion based on hemoglobin (range 6.0-10.0 g/dL) or hematocrit (<30%) triggers. In the absence of objective transfusion rules, CPGs recommended considering other parameters such as blood loss (n = 7), signs of end organ ischemia (n = 5), and hemodynamics (n = 4). Evidence supporting intraoperative recommendations was extrapolated primarily from the non-operative setting. There was wide variability in the quality of included guidelines based on AGREE II scores. CONCLUSION This review has identified several clinical practice guidelines providing recommendations for intraoperative transfusion. The existing guidelines were noted to be highly variable in their recommendations and to lack a sufficient evidence base from the intraoperative setting. This represents a major knowledge gap in the literature.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Major liver resection is associated with blood loss and transfusion. Observational data suggest that hypovolaemic phlebotomy can reduce these risks. This feasibility RCT compared hypovolaemic phlebotomy with the standard of care, to inform a future multicentre trial. METHODS Patients undergoing major liver resections were enrolled between June 2016 and January 2018. Randomization was done during surgery and the surgeons were blinded to the group allocation. For hypovolaemic phlebotomy, 7-10 ml per kg whole blood was removed, without intravenous fluid replacement. Co-primary outcomes were feasibility and estimated blood loss (EBL). RESULTS A total of 62 patients were randomized to hypovolaemic phlebotomy (31) or standard care (31), at a rate of 3.1 patients per month, thus meeting the co-primary feasibility endpoint. The median EBL difference was -111 ml (P = 0.456). Among patients at high risk of transfusion, the median EBL difference was -448 ml (P = 0.069). Secondary feasibility endpoints were met: enrolment, blinding and target phlebotomy (mean(s.d.) 7.6(1.9) ml per kg). Blinded surgeons perceived that parenchymal resection was easier with hypovolaemic phlebotomy than standard care (16 of 31 versus 10 of 31 respectively), and guessed that hypovolaemic phlebotomy was being used with an accuracy of 65 per cent (20 of 31). There was no significant difference in overall complications (10 of 31 versus 15 of 31 patients), major complications or transfusion. Among those at high risk, transfusion was required in two of 15 versus three of nine patients (P = 0.326). CONCLUSION Endpoints were met successfully, but no difference in EBL was found in this feasibility study. A multicentre trial (PRICE-2) powered to identify a difference in perioperative blood transfusion is justified. Registration number: NCT02548910 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).