Abstract

BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have very-low to low certainty evidence for most primary outcomes and moderate certainty for hospital admission or death. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have low certainty evidence for our primary outcomes. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS Continuous infusion of terlipressin is better tolerated, and equally effective at lower doses than intravenous boluses in type 1 hepatorenal syndrome. This approach in cirrhosis patients with acute esophageal variceal bleed was investigated by comparing the efficacy and adverse events of continuous versus bolus administration of terlipressin. METHODS One hundred ten consecutive cirrhosis patients with acute esophageal variceal bleed (AEVB) were randomized to receive either terlipressin as bolus (BOL, n = 55), 2 mg every 4 h, or, continuous infusion (CONI, n = 55), 4 mg/24 h for 5 days. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) was measured at baseline, 12 and 24 h and response to terlipressin was defined as > 10% decline from baseline. RESULTS Baseline demographics, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and HVPG were comparable between groups. The primary objective of HVPG response at 24 h was achieved in significantly more patients in CONI than BOL group {47/55(85.4%) vs. 32/55(58.2%), p = 0.002}. Early HVPG response at 12 h was also higher in CONI group (71.5 vs. 49.1%, p < 0.01). Median dose of terlipressin was significantly lower {4.25 ± 1.26 mg vs. 7.42 ± 1.42 mg/24 h, p < 0.001)} and adverse events were fewer {20/55(36.3%) vs. 31/55(56.4%), p = 0.03} in the CONI than BOL group. Significantly higher incidence of very early rebleed was noted in BOL group {8/55 (14.5%) vs. 1/55, (1.8%), p = 0.03}. Baseline HVPG (OR 1.90, 95% CI = 1.25-2.89, p = 0.002) and MELD (OR 1.18, 95% CI = 0.99-1.41, p = 0.05) were predictors of rebleed. CONCLUSION "HVPG-tailored" continuous terlipressin infusion is more effective than bolus administration in reducing HVPG at a lower dose with fewer adverse events in cirrhotic patients. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER NCT02695862.

Abstract

AIMS: Sepsis and septic shock are common causes of hospitalization and mortality in patients with cirrhosis. There is no data on the choice of fluid and resuscitation protocols in sepsis-induced hypotension in cirrhosis. METHODS In this open-label trial conducted at a single center, we enrolled 308 cirrhotics with sepsis-induced hypotension and randomized them to receive either 5% albumin or normal saline. The primary endpoint was a reversal of hypotension [mean arterial pressure, MAP, ≥ 65 mmHg] at 3 h. Secondary endpoints included serial effects on heart rate, arterial lactate and urine output. RESULTS 154 patients each received 5% albumin (males, 79.8%, mean MAP 52.9 ± 7.0 mm Hg) or 0.9% saline (85.1%, 53.4 ± 6.3 mm Hg) with comparable baseline parameters and liver disease severity. Reversal of hypotension was higher in patients receiving 5% albumin than saline at the end of one hour [25.3% and 11.7%, p = 0.03, Odds ratio (95% CI)-1.9 (1.08-3.42)] and at the end of three hours [11.7% and 3.2%, p = 0.008, 3.9 (1.42-10.9)]. Sustained reduction in heart rate and hyperlactatemia (p < 0.001) was better in the albumin group. At one week, the proportion of patients surviving was higher in the albumin group than those receiving saline (43.5% vs 38.3%, p = 0.03). Female gender and SOFA ≥ 11 were predictors of non-response to fluid. CONCLUSIONS 5% human albumin is safe and beneficial in reversing sepsis-induced hypotension compared to normal saline in patients with cirrhosis improving clinically assessable parameters of systemic hemodynamics, tissue perfusion and in-hospital short-term survival of cirrhosis patients with sepsis.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Beta-blockers are the mainstay agents for portal pressure reduction and to modestly reduce hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG). We studied whether addition of simvastatin to carvedilol in cirrhotic patients for primary prophylaxis improves the hemodynamic response. METHODS Cirrhotic patients with esophageal varices and with baseline HVPG > 12 mm Hg were prospectively randomized for primary prophylaxis to receive either carvedilol (group A, n = 110) or carvedilol plus simvastatin (group B, n = 110). Primary objective was to compare hemodynamic response (HVPG reduction of ≥20% or <12 mm Hg) at 3 months, and secondary objectives were to compare first bleed episodes, death, and adverse events. RESULTS The groups were comparable at baseline. The proportion of patients achieving HVPG response at 3 months was comparable between groups (group A-36/62 [58.1%], group B-36/59 [61%], P = 0.85). The degree of mean HVPG reduction (17.3% and 17.8%, respectively, P = 0.98) and hemodynamic response (odds ratio [OR]: 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43-1.83, P = 0.74) was also not different between the groups. Patients who achieved target heart rate with no hypotensive episodes in either group showed better hemodynamic response (77.8% vs 59.2%, P = 0.04). Failure to achieve target heart rate (OR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.22-1.06) and Child C cirrhosis (OR: 4.49; 95% CI: 1.20-16.8) predicted nonresponse. Three (3.7%) patients on simvastatin developed transient transaminitis and elevated creatine phosphokinase and improved with drug withdrawal. Two patients in each group bled (P = 0.99). Three patients and 1 patient, respectively, in group A and B died (P = 0.32), with sepsis being the cause of death. DISCUSSION Addition of simvastatin to carvedilol for 3 months for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding does not improve hemodynamic response over carvedilol monotherapy. Simvastatin usage should be closely monitored for adverse effects in Child C cirrhotic patients.

Abstract

Thromboelastography (TEG) provides a more comprehensive global coagulation assessment than routine tests (international normalized ratio [INR] and platelet [PLT] count), and its use may avoid unnecessary blood component transfusion in patients with advanced cirrhosis and significant coagulopathy who have nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. A total of 96 patients with significant coagulopathy (defined in this study as INR >1.8 and/or PLT count <50 x 10(9) /L) and nonvariceal upper GI bleed (diagnosed after doing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy [UGIE], which showed ongoing bleed from a nonvariceal source) were randomly allocated to TEG-guided transfusion strategy (TEG group; n = 49) or standard-of-care (SOC) group (n = 47). In the TEG group, only 26.5% patients were transfused with all three blood components (fresh frozen plasma [FFP], PLTs, and cryoprecipitate) versus 87.2% in the SOC group (P < 0.001). Whereas 7 (14.3%) patients in the TEG group received no blood component transfusion, there were no such patients in the SOC group (P = 0.012). Also, there was a significantly lower use of blood components (FFP, PLTs, and cryoprecipitate) in the TEG group compared to the SOC group. Failure to control bleed, failure to prevent rebleeds, and mortality between the two groups were similar. CONCLUSION In patients with advanced cirrhosis with coagulopathy and nonvariceal upper GI bleeding, TEG-guided transfusion strategy leads to a significantly lower use of blood components compared to SOC (transfusion guided by INR and PLT count), without an increase in failure to control bleed, failure to prevent rebleed, and mortality.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) carries a high short-term mortality in patients with cirrhosis and ACLF. Terlipressin and noradrenaline are routinely used in cirrhosis with HRS and have been found to be equally effective. There is no data comparing the efficacy of terlipressin with noradrenaline in ACLF patients with HRS. METHODS In an open-label RCT, consecutive patients with ACLF diagnosed with HRS-AKI, were randomised to albumin with infusion of terlipressin (2-12 mg/d) (n=60) or noradrenaline (0.5-3 mg/hr) (n=60). The response to treatment, course of AKI and outcome were studied. RESULTS Baseline characteristics including AKI stage and sepsis-related HRS-AKI were comparable between the groups. Compared to noradrenaline, terlipressin achieved greater day4 (26.1% vs.11.7%,p=0.03) and day 7 (41.7% vs. 20%,p=0.01) response. Reversal of HRS was also better with terlipressin (40% vs.16.7%,p=0.004) with a significant reduction in the requirement of renal replacement therapy(56.6% vs. 80%,p=0.006)and improved 28-day survival (48.3% vs. 20%,p=0.001). Adverse events limiting use of drugs were higher with terlipressin than noradrenaline[23.3% versus 8.3%,p=0.02], but were reversible. On multivariate analysis, high MELD (OR 1.10, CI=1.009-1.20,p=0.03) and noradrenaline compared to terlipressin (OR 3.05,CI=1.27-7.33,p=0.01)predicted non-response to therapy. Use ofnoradrenaline compared to terlipressin was also predictive of higher mortality (HR 2.08, CI=1.323.30,p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS Acute kidney injury in ACLF carries a high mortality. Infusion of terlipressin gives earlier and higher response than noradrenaline with improved survival in ACLF patients with HRS-AKI. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.