Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

Evaluation of the efficacy of convalescent plasma in moderate to severe COVID-19 during 2020-2021: a retrospective observational study

Convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) is one of the treatment modalities used for COVID-19. Initial smaller studies showed the usefulness of CPT in COVID-19, but larger studies showed that it is not effective. This is a retrospective observational study conducted between 1st June 2020 and 31st July 2021 at a tertiary hospital in Noida, India. Our analysis was done on 213 COVID-19 patients, comprising 170 cases who were given convalescent plasma and 43 controls who did not get CPT. Outcomes analyzed were improvement in PaO2:FiO2 ratio (PFR) by day 5 of CPT, 28-day mortality, and level of inflammatory markers. Mean PFR before plasma transfusion was comparable between CPT and control groups (142.11±73.99 vs. 151.11±88.87, p=0.56). There was no significant difference in mean PFR after 5 days of CPT between cases and the control group (187.02±102.34 vs. 160.29±83.39, p=0.206). 28-day mortality was 47.05% in the CPT group and 37.20% in the control group (p=0.246). Mortality amongst the subgroup of patients on invasive mechanical ventilation was 89.74% in cases and 80% in controls (p=0.518). No significant difference was found in levels of serum ferritin, interleukin-6, and C-reactive protein between the two groups. Convalescent plasma does not have a significant effect on day 5 PFR and 28-day mortality. Our study could not find any subgroup of patients who would benefit from CPT. This study reinforces that CPT does not benefit moderate to severe patients with COVID-19.

A real-world pharmacovigilance study of polatuzumab vedotin based on the FDA adverse event reporting system (FAERS)

Background

Polatuzumab vedotin, the first FDA-approved antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) targeting CD79b, is utilized in the treatment of previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or high-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL), as well as relapsed or refractory (R/R) DLBCL. Despite its approval, concerns persist regarding the long-term safety profile of polatuzumab vedotin. This study aims to evaluate the adverse events (AEs) associated with polatuzumab vedotin since its approval in 2019, utilizing data mining strategies applied to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).

Methods

Signal detection employed four methodologies, including reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio (PRR), bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN), and multi-item gamma poisson shrinker (MGPS), to evaluate and quantify the signals of polatuzumab vedotin-associated AEs. Additionally, subgroup analyses based on patients age, gender, and fatal cases were conducted to investigate AEs occurrences in specific subpopulations.

Results

A total of 1,521 reports listing polatuzumab vedotin as a "principal suspect (PS)" drug were collected from the FAERS database. Through concurrent compliance with four algorithms, 19 significant Standardized MedDRA Query (SMQ) AEs and 92 significant Preferred Term (PT) AEs were detected. Subgroup analyses revealed a higher incidence of PTs in male patients compared to female patients, increased likelihood of polatuzumab vedotin-associated AEs in elder patients (>65 years), and AEs with a high risk of fatal cases include: blood lactate dehydrogenase increased, cytopenia, and hydronephrosis. The median time to AEs occurrence following polatuzumab vedotin initiation was 18.5 (5∼57.75) days, with 95% of AEs occurred within 162 days.

Conclusion

This study identified various AEs associated with polatuzumab vedotin, offering critical insights for clinical monitoring and risk identification in patients receiving polatuzumab vedotin therapy.

Utility of COVID-19 Seropositive Plasma as Convalescent Plasma: An Immune and Neutralization Antibody Seroprevalence Analysis in Blood Donors for Future Potential Pandemic Readiness

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies and neutralizing antibodies in blood donors during the second wave of the pandemic and to explore the utility of COVID-19 seropositive plasma as convalescent plasma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, 696 blood donors were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies using a chemiluminescence assay. By blinding, 271 samples were chosen randomly for testing of neutralizing antibodies by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in duplicate among the 696 blood donors tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies, irrespective of the positivity or negativity of the result of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies by chemiluminescence assay. IgG antibody levels were analyzed in signal-to-cutoff (S/Co), while neutralizing antibody levels were analyzed in percentage inhibition.

RESULTS

The seroprevalence of IgG antibodies based on the S/Co for the positive results ≥ 1.00 was 82.75%, while the seroprevalence of neutralizing antibodies based on the percentage inhibition for the positive results ≥ 30% was 89.59%. Frontline workers (FLWs) and Covishield-vaccinated individuals showed higher levels of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies regarding higher S/Co. In comparison, levels of neutralization antibodies regarding percentage inhibition were higher only in FLWs. Covishield-vaccinated donors elicited a statistically higher seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies compared to the Covaxin-vaccinated, while the seroprevalence of neutralizing antibodies was not statistically different among this group. There was a positive correlation (0.762) between anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies and neutralizing antibodies, and almost all donors' of S/Co ≥ 9.5 had neutralizing antibodies.

CONCLUSION

This study showed higher seroprevalence in the blood donor population compared to published seroprevalence in India's second wave of the pandemic. In the current study, 328 donors (47.12%) of the 696 screened donors were neither vaccinated nor had previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, but many had antibodies. The seroprevalence of neutralizing antibodies (96.42%) was higher than the seroprevalence of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies (85.71%) in the donors who had previous infection of COVID-19. On the other hand, vaccinated donors showed similar immune responses for neutralizing antibodies and the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. Higher IgG immune reactivity in S/Co showed a good correlation with neutralizing antibodies and can be used to screen whole blood donors for convalescent plasma donations.

Early versus late tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

The role of early tracheostomy as an intervention for critically ill COVID-19 patients is unclear. Previous reports have described prolonged intensive care stays and difficulty weaning from mechanical ventilation in critically ill COVID-19 patients, particularly in those developing acute respiratory distress syndrome. Pre-pandemic evidence on the benefits of early tracheostomy is conflicting but suggests shorter hospital stays and lower mortality rates compared to late tracheostomy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of early tracheostomy compared to late tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, which comprises CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv, as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 14 June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) evaluating early tracheostomy compared to late tracheostomy during SARS-CoV-2 infection in critically ill adults irrespective of gender, ethnicity, or setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs and the ROBINS-I tool for NRSIs. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for outcomes of our prioritized categories: mortality, clinical status, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. As the timing of tracheostomy was very heterogeneous among the included studies, we applied GRADE only to studies that defined early tracheostomy as 10 days or less, which was chosen according to clinical relevance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one RCT with 150 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and 24 NRSIs with 6372 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. All participants were admitted to the ICU, orally intubated and mechanically ventilated. The RCT was a multicenter, parallel, single-blinded study conducted in Sweden. Of the 24 NRSIs, which were mostly conducted in high- and middle-income countries, eight had a prospective design and 16 a retrospective design. We did not find any ongoing studies. RCT-based evidence We judged risk of bias for the RCT to be of low or some concerns regarding randomization and measurement of the outcome. Early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in overall mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.29; RD 67 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 178 fewer to 108 more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). As an indicator of improvement of clinical status, early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation (MD 1.50 days fewer, 95%, CI 5.74 days fewer to 2.74 days more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). As an indicator of worsening clinical status, early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in the incidence of adverse events of any grade (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.13; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 164 fewer to 102 more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence); little to no difference in the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.23 to 5.20; RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 30 fewer to 162 more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported need for renal replacement therapy. Early tracheostomy may result in little benefit to no difference in ICU length of stay (MD 0.5 days fewer, 95% CI 5.34 days fewer to 4.34 days more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). NRSI-based evidence We considered risk of bias for NRSIs to be critical because of possible confounding, study participant enrollment into the studies, intervention classification and potentially systematic errors in the measurement of outcomes. We are uncertain whether early tracheostomy (≤ 10 days) increases or decreases overall mortality (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.00; RD 143 more per 1000, 95% CI 174 less to 1218 more; I2 = 79%; 2 studies, 719 participants) or duration to liberation from mechanical ventilation (MD 1.98 days fewer, 95% CI 0.16 days fewer to 4.12 more; 1 study, 50 participants), because we graded the certainty of evidence as very low. Three NRSIs reported ICU length of stay for 519 patients with early tracheostomy (≤ 10 days) as a median value, which we could not include in the meta-analyses. We are uncertain whether early tracheostomy (≤ 10 days) increases or decreases the ICU length of stay, because we graded the certainty of evidence as very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low-certainty evidence that early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in overall mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation compared with late tracheostomy. In terms of clinical improvement, early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in duration to liberation from mechanical ventilation compared with late tracheostomy. We are not certain about the impact of early tracheostomy on clinical worsening in terms of the incidence of adverse events, need for renal replacement therapy, ventilator-associated pneumonia, or the length of stay in the ICU. Future RCTs should provide additional data on the benefits and harms of early tracheostomy for defined main outcomes of COVID-19 research, as well as of comparable diseases, especially for different population subgroups to reduce clinical heterogeneity, and report a longer observation period. Then it would be possible to draw conclusions regarding which patient groups might benefit from early intervention. Furthermore, validated scoring systems for more accurate predictions of the need for prolonged mechanical ventilation should be developed and used in new RCTs to ensure safer indication and patient safety. High-quality (prospectively registered) NRSIs should be conducted in the future to provide valuable answers to clinical questions. This could enable us to draw more reliable conclusions about the potential benefits and harms of early tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

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.

Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

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.

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This led to widespread implementation, although the available evidence remains inconsistent. This update aims to fill current knowledge gaps by identifying, describing, evaluating, and synthesising all evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of remdesivir on clinical outcomes in COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of remdesivir and standard care compared to standard care plus/minus placebo on clinical outcomes in patients treated for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv) as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies, without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 31 May 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included RCTs evaluating remdesivir and standard care for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to standard care plus/minus placebo irrespective of disease severity, gender, ethnicity, or setting. We excluded studies that evaluated remdesivir for the treatment of other coronavirus diseases.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for outcomes that were reported according to our prioritised categories: all-cause mortality, in-hospital mortality, clinical improvement (being alive and ready for discharge up to day 28) or worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28), quality of life, serious adverse events, and adverse events (any grade). We differentiated between non-hospitalised individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 and hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs with 11,218 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and a mean age of 53.6 years, of whom 5982 participants were randomised to receive remdesivir. Most participants required low-flow oxygen at baseline. Studies were mainly conducted in high- and upper-middle-income countries. We identified two studies that are awaiting classification and five ongoing studies. Effects of remdesivir in hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19 With moderate-certainty evidence, remdesivir probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.06; risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 6 more; 4 studies, 7142 participants), day 60 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; RD 35 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 73 fewer to 12 more; 1 study, 1281 participants), or in-hospital mortality at up to day 150 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03; RD 11 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 25 fewer to 5 more; 1 study, 8275 participants). Remdesivir probably increases the chance of clinical improvement at up to day 28 slightly (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.17; RD 68 more per 1000, 95% CI 37 more to 105 more; 4 studies, 2514 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening within 28 days (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.82; RD 135 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 198 fewer to 69 fewer; 2 studies, 1734 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Remdesivir may make little or no difference to the rate of adverse events of any grade (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.18; RD 23 more per 1000, 95% CI 46 fewer to 104 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.07; RD 44 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 96 fewer to 19 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low, with some concerns for mortality and clinical course. We had some concerns for safety outcomes because participants who had died did not contribute information. Without adjustment, this leads to an uncertain amount of missing values and the potential for bias due to missing data. Effects of remdesivir in non-hospitalised individuals with mild COVID-19 One of the nine RCTs was conducted in the outpatient setting and included symptomatic people with a risk of progression. No deaths occurred within the 28 days observation period. We are uncertain about clinical improvement due to very low-certainty evidence. Remdesivir probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening (hospitalisation) at up to day 28 (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.75; RD 46 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 57 fewer to 16 fewer; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not find any data for quality of life. Remdesivir may decrease the rate of serious adverse events at up to 28 days (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.70; RD 49 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 60 fewer to 20 fewer; 562 participants; low-certainty evidence), but it probably makes little or no difference to the risk of adverse events of any grade (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.10; RD 42 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 111 fewer to 46 more; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low for mortality, clinical improvement, and safety outcomes. We identified a high risk of bias for clinical worsening.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence up to 31 May 2022, remdesivir probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality or in-hospital mortality of individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19. The hospitalisation rate was reduced with remdesivir in one study including participants with mild to moderate COVID-19. It may be beneficial in the clinical course for both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients, but certainty remains limited. The applicability of the evidence to current practice may be limited by the recruitment of participants from mostly unvaccinated populations exposed to early variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus at the time the studies were undertaken.  Future studies should provide additional data on the efficacy and safety of remdesivir for defined core outcomes in COVID-19 research, especially for different population subgroups.

One-year follow-up of the CAPSID randomized trial for high-dose convalescent plasma in severe COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUNDResults 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.METHODSOf 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.RESULTSThe median follow-up of patients was 396 days, and the estimated 1-year survival was 78.7% in the CCP group and 60.2% in the control (P = 0.08). The subgroup treated with a higher cumulative amount of neutralizing antibodies showed a better 1-year survival compared with 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 in neutralizing antibodies after vaccination between the CCP and control groups.CONCLUSIONThe trial demonstrated a trend toward better outcome in the CCP group without reaching statistical significance. A predefined subgroup analysis showed a significantly 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 with the control group. A substantial long-term disease burden remains after severe COVID-19.Trial registrationEudraCT 2020-001310-38 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04433910.FundingBundesministerium für Gesundheit (German Federal Ministry of Health).

Therapeutic Strategies in the Fight against COVID-19: From Bench to Bedside

In December 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in China. This virus rapidly spread worldwide and was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2020. High incidence, long incubation period, and diverse clinical signs of the disease posed a huge challenge globally. The efforts of health systems have been focused on repurposing existing drugs or developing innovative therapies to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2. In addition, most of the large pharmaceutical companies are intensely working on vaccine development to swiftly deliver safe and effective vaccines to prevent further spread of the virus. In this review, we will discuss the latest data on therapeutic strategies undergoing clinical trials. Additionally, we will provide a summary of vaccines currently under development.

Past, present and future of living systematic review: a bibliometrics analysis

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the concept of living systematic review (LSR) has attracted the attention of many scholars and institutions. A growing number of studies have been conducted based on LSR methodology, but their focus direction is unclear. The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive review of existing LSR-related studies and to analyse their whole picture and future trends with bibliometrics.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was used to construct a representative dataset of LSRs up to October 2021. GraphPad V.8.2.1 and Mindmaster Pro presented the basic information of the included studies and the timeline of LSR development, respectively. The author and country cooperation network, hotspot distribution clustering, historical citation network and future development trend prediction related to LSR were visualised by VOSviewer V.1.6.16 and R-Studio V.1.4.

RESULTS

A total of 213 studies were eventually included. The concept of LSR was first proposed in 2014, and the number of studies has proliferated since 2020. There was a closer collaboration between author teams and more frequent LSR research development and collaboration in Europe, North America and Australia. Numerous LSR studies have been published in high-impact journals. COVID-19 is the predominant disease of concern at this stage, and the rehabilitation of its patients and virological studies are possible directions of research in LSR for a long time to come. A review of existing studies found that more than half of the LSR series had not yet been updated and that the method needed to be more standardised in practice.

CONCLUSION

Although LSR has a relatively short history, it has received much attention and currently has a high overall acceptance. The LSR methodology was further practised in COVID-19, and we look forward to seeing it applied in more areas.

Immunomodulatory therapies for COVID-19

Purpose

As COVID-19 disease progresses, the host inflammatory response contributes to hypoxemia and severe and critical illness. In these latter stages of disease, patients may benefit from immunomodulatory therapies to control the aberrant host inflammatory response. In this review, we provide an overview of these therapies and provide summaries of the studies that led to issuance of FDA Emergency Use Authorization or recommendation by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

Materials and methods

We reviewed English-language studies, Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs), and guidelines from March 2020 to present.

Conclusion and relevance

There are several therapies with proposed benefit in severe and critical COVID-19 disease. Few have been issued FDA EUA or recommendation by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). Physicians should be familiar with the evidence supporting use of these therapies and the patient populations most likely to benefit from each.

Immunomodulatory therapy for the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19: A narrative review

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Understanding the physiological and immunological processes underlying the clinical manifestations of COVID-19 is vital for the identification and rational design of effective therapies.

AIM

To describe the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 with the immune system and the subsequent contribution of hyperinflammation and abnormal immune responses to disease progression together with a complete narrative review of the different immunoadjuvant treatments used so far in COVID-19 and their indication in severe and life-threatening subsets.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was developed. Authors reviewed the selected manuscripts following the PRISMA recommendations for systematic review and meta-analysis documents and selected the most appropriate. Finally, a recommendation of the use of each treatment was established based on the level of evidence of the articles and documents reviewed. This recommendation was made based on the consensus of all the authors.

RESULTS

A brief rationale on the SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis, immune response, and inflammation was developed. The usefulness of 10 different families of treatments related to inflammation and immunopathogenesis of COVID-19 was reviewed and discussed. Finally, based on the level of scientific evidence, a recommendation was established for each of them.

CONCLUSION

Although several promising therapies exist, only the use of corticosteroids and tocilizumab (or sarilumab in absence of this) have demonstrated evidence enough to recommend its use in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Endotypes including both, clinical and biological characteristics can constitute specific targets for better select certain therapies based on an individualized approach to treatment.

SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence Among Whole Blood Donors During First Wave of Covid-19 Pandemic in India

The current study aimed to estimate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG (S-protein) antibodies along with neutralizing assay (RBD-domain) among the whole blood donors without any prior Covid-19 history or symptoms visiting Blood Centre at a Tertiary care institution, South India amidst the ongoing pandemic. During September 2020 to March 2021, 1034 whole blood donors were enrolled into the study and were screened for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies using Chemiluminescence assay followed by neutralizing antibodies using surrogate neutralization ELISA. The study reported seroprevalence of 49.4%, (95% CI 46.3-52.5) among whole blood donors, with test sensitivity and specificity adjusted prevalence of 54.9% (95% CI 51.5-58.3). Seroprevalence was similar across age groups, gender, voluntary/replacement donations, area of residence, ABO and Rh groups without any statistical significance. However higher IgG antibody responses were found to be elicited in the 30-45 years age group when compared with 18-29 years age group (p value 0.046). This study also analysed the mean neutralizing capacity of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among 97 blood donors which was 71.9 (SD: + 21.03, range 15.5 to 97.3). Donor samples with SARS-CoV-2 IgG S/Co > 9.5 had significantly higher neutralising capacity (> 68%) when compared with donor samples of S/Co < 9.5 (p value 0.000). Real-time seroprevalence studies will help to know the herd immunityamong the blood donors which will assist in knowing the Covid-19 transmission dynamics, distribution of immunity levels at a particular point in time, immunity gaps, development of novel therapeutics and prioritize the vaccination programmes to high risk individuals.

2021 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Update, With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Focus

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a heterogeneous lung disease responsible for significant morbidity and mortality among critically ill patients, including those infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the virus responsible for coronavirus disease 2019. Despite recent advances in pathophysiology, diagnostics, and therapeutics, ARDS is dangerously underdiagnosed, and supportive lung protective ventilation and prone positioning remain the mainstay interventions. Rescue therapies, including neuromuscular blockade and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, remain a key component of clinical practice, although benefits are unclear. Even though coronavirus disease 2019 ARDS has some distinguishing features from traditional ARDS, including delayed onset, hyperinflammatory response, and pulmonary microthrombi, it clinically is similar to traditional ARDS and should be treated with established supportive therapies.

Convalescent plasma in COVID-19: renewed focus on the timing and effectiveness of an old therapy

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is responsible for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic that has strained health care systems worldwide and resulted in high mortality. The current COVID-19 treatment is based on supportive and symptomatic care. Therefore, convalescent plasma (CP), which provides passive immunization against many infectious diseases, has been studied for COVID-19 management. To date, a large number of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials as well as many systematic reviews have revealed conflicting results. This article summarizes the basic principles of passive immunization, particularly addressing CP in COVID-19. It also evaluates the effectiveness of CP as a therapy in patients with COVID-19, clinical trial reports and systematic reviews, regulatory considerations and different protocols that are authorized in different countries to use it safely and effectively. An advanced search was carried out in major databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE) and Google Scholar using the following key words: SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, convalescent plasma, and the applied query was "convalescent plasma" AND "COVID-19 OR SARS-CoV-2". The results were filtered and duplicate data were removed. Collective evidence indicates that two cardinal players determine the effectiveness of CP use, time of infusion, and quality of CP. Early administration of CP with high neutralizing anti-spike IgG titer is hypothesized to be effective in improving clinical outcome, prevent progression, decrease the length of hospital stay, and reduce mortality. However, more reliable, high quality, well-controlled, double-blinded, randomized, international and multicenter collaborative trials are still needed.

Perplexing issues for convalescent immune plasma therapy in COVID-19

Convalescent immune plasma (CIP) therapy in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is presently a trendy choice of treatment. On March 24, 2020, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved of CIP treatment for seriously ill COVID-19 patients as an emergency investigational new drug. The precise mechanisms of action for CIP in COVID-19 have not yet been undoubtedly recognized. However, earlier research demonstrated that the main mechanism of CIP such as in other viral infections is viral neutralization. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the CIP transfusion in severe infectious diseases have shown that CIP has some beneficial effects and it is a harmless process to cure infectious diseases early after symptom beginning. It is suggested that SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers in CIP should be ideally higher than 1:320, but lower thresholds could also be useful. The suggested minimum dose for one individual is one unit (200 mL) of CIP. The second unit can be given 48 h succeeding the end of the transfusion of the first unit of CIP. Moreover, CIP can be applied up to a maximum of three units (600 mL). CIP could be administered in other systemic diseases, viral infections coincidentally associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as well as other therapeutic approaches for COVID-19. There are generally no serious adverse events described from CIP transfusion in these recipients. CIP may have a significant role as one of the therapeutic modalities for various viral infections when enough vaccines or other specific therapeutic agents are not on hand.

Clinical Efficacy of Early Administration of Convalescent Plasma among COVID-19 Cases in Egypt

Background: The rapid worldwide spread of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) or COVID-19 pandemic from its epicentre; Wuhan has led to an epidemiological breakdown. Egypt reported its first COVID-19 case on Feb 14, 20202,3. Thereafter, Egypt scaled-up preventive measures, with a partial lockdown starting on March 25. Several therapeutic agents along with Convalescent Plasma Transfusion are under investigation and data from Convalescent Plasma Transfusions (CPT) have been receiving a lot of attention, after Emergency approvals from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suggesting that it may provide a clinical effect in the treatment of SARS-COV-2 Importance: Early and effective treatment of COVID-19 is vital for control of SARS-CoV-2 infection Methods: -Designs: An interventional, single-arm, non-randomized clinical trial conducted in Egypt from April 15 to July 21, 2020.   -Settings: This was a multi-centre study conducted in 3 hospitals in Egypt.   -Participants: a total of 94 COVID-19 laboratory-confirmed patients using qRT-PCR were enrolled in the study.   -Intervention: All patients were administered with two plasma units (each unit is 200cc). The volume of donated plasma was 800cc.   -Main Outcome and Measures: Primary measure was the degree of clinical improvement among the COVID-19 patients who received CPT within seven days   Results: A total of 94 patients were enrolled who received CPT either within seven days or after seven days of hospitalization. 82 were severely ill, 12 were critically ill. The average age remained 58 years (±SD 15.1 years). Male were 69% and 49% patients got cured while 51% died with CFR 51%. 75% deaths were above 45years of age. The symptoms were dyspnoea (55%), fever (52%), cough (46%), and loss of taste and smell (21%), and cyanosis (15%). The most common co-morbidities among the <40 years remained Diabetes Mellitus (21%) and Asthma (14%). Among 40-60 years Hypertension (56%), Diabetes Mellitus (39%) and among >60 years age group Hypertension (57%) and Chronic Heart Disease (24%) were reported. CPT within seven days remained significant as compared with the  CPT after seven days with the number of days to cure (p=0.007) and ICU stay (P=0.008) among severely ill cured cases.   Conclusions: Among patients with COVID-19 and severe or critical illness, the use of CPT along with routine standard therapy resulted in a statistically significant improvement when administered within seven days of hospital admission. However, plasma transfusion, irrespective of days to transfusion may not help treat critically ill patients. The overall mean time to cure in severely ill patients was 15 days if CPT provided within seven days with 65% cure rate.   Trial Registration: Clinical Intervention identifier: MOHP_COVID-19_Ver1.1 registered April 2020 Keywords: Covid 19 pandemic, Convalescent plasma, SARS-CoV-2,

Therapeutic antibodies under development for SARS-CoV-2

The world is experiencing one of the most difficult moments in history with COVID-19, which has rapidly developed into a worldwide pandemic with a significant health and economic burden. Efforts to fight the virus, including prevention and treatment, have never stopped. However, no specific drugs or treatments have yet been found. Antibody drugs have never been absent in epidemics such as SARS, MERS, HIV, Ebola, and so on in the past two decades. At present, while research on the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is in full swing, antibody drugs are also receiving widespread attention. Several antibody drugs have successfully entered clinical trials and achieved impressive therapeutic effects. Here, we summarize the therapeutic antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, as well as the research using ACE2 recombinant protein or ACE2-Ig fusion protein.

Success rate of Remdesivir, Convalescent Plasma, and Tocilizumab in moderate to severe Covid-19 pneumonia: our experience in a tertiary care center

INTRODUCTION

After the first case of Covid-19 was identified in Wuhan City, China, the numbers increased rapidly all over the world putting a huge burden on the entire healthcare system. Managing these cases posed a great challenge to the treating clinicians in the absence of targeted therapy. At this juncture, few modalities got approved as EUA (Emergency use under authorization) drugs namely Remdesivir, Convalescent Plasma (CP), and Tocilizumab (TCZ) to treat this deadly disease.

AIM

To analyze the success rates of EUA therapies for Covid-19 pneumonia in our hospital.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective observational study conducted from April 2020 to October 2020 in the department of Medicine at Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. All adults with moderate to severe Covid-19 as per the WHO criteria were enrolled in the study with their informed consent. Patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min, deranged liver function tests, electrocardiographic abnormalities, and deranged hematological parameters were excluded from the study. Thorough clinical evaluation was done in all cases. Routine investigations together with CRP, LDH, serum Ferritin, D Dimer and IL6, Chest X-Ray, and HRCT thorax were done in all cases. ECG was done in all cases and 2D-ECHO in selected ones. Depending on their clinical and radiological criteria, patients were treated with various modalities approved under EUA with close monitoring of clinical, biochemical, and radiological parameters. Presenting symptoms, clinical findings, co-morbidities, laboratory parameters, and radiological assessment were analyzed, and statistical analysis was done. The survival rate and in-hospital mortality was analyzed.

OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS

We had a total of 448 patients who were included in our study, out of which 326 were males and 122 were females with a male to female ratio of 2.7:1. Their age varied between 16 and 91 years with an average age of 51.4 years with a standard deviation (SD) of +/- 6.4 years. About 255 patients (57%) received only Remdesivir (176 males, 79 females), 139 (105 males, 35 females) patients (31%) received Remdesivir along with two units of CP, and 38 (32 males, 6 females) patients received a combination of Remdesivir, CP, and TCZ. All patients in our study tolerated the drugs well. About 5% of cases who received CP had minor transfusion reactions. One patient had TRALI and three patients had TACO, which was managed aggressively. Asymptomatic transaminitis was seen in 36% patients. The survival rate in patients treated with Remdesivir was 78%, those with Remdesivir and CP was 44%, and those with all three was 13%. The mean length of stay was 14.23 days with a SD of 9.06 days in patients treated with TCZ in comparison to other two modalities, which was 13.88 days with a standard variation of +/- 8.71 days in Remdesivir and 13.88 days with a SD of 8.73 days in patients treated with CP that was stastically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Though the success rate of various drugs under EUA varies in different studies from all over the world, the data to support their use are encouraging. We also observed satisfying results in our study specially with the use of Remdesivir. Therefore, EUA agents should be used early to fight against COVID-19 along with the other measures as per the protocol laid by ICMR and MoHFW.

Convalescent plasma for SARS-CoV-2 infection: win or learn

At the end of the 19th century, Emil von Behring (figure 1) demonstrated that serum from horses infected with diphtheria or tetanus was useful in treating people affected by these diseases, inaugurating passive immunisation as a new therapeutic strategy. He received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1901. This finding opened the door to the use of plasma from convalescent patients to treat infectious diseases; and throughout history, convalescent plasma has been used to treat many diseases, such as Spanish influenza, poliomyelitis, Korean haemorrhagic fever and, more recently, Ebola virus disease and influenza A (influenza H1N1 virus).

Current evidence does not support the use of convalescent plasma in the standard therapy for COVID-19 https://bit.ly/3DGyz6t

The Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: What worked, what didn't and why, a mixed methods process evaluation

Introduction

The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is producing living, evidence-based, national guidelines for treatment of people with COVID-19 which are updated each week. To continually improve the process and outputs of the Taskforce, and inform future living guideline development, we undertook a concurrent process evaluation examining Taskforce activities and experience of team members and stakeholders during the first 5 months of the project.

Methods

The mixed-methods process evaluation consisted of activity and progress audits, an online survey of all Taskforce participants; and semi-structured interviews with key contributors. Data were collected through five, prospective 4-weekly timepoints (beginning first week of May 2020) and three, fortnightly retrospective timepoints (March 23, April 6 and 20). We collected and analysed quantitative and qualitative data.

Results

An updated version of the guidelines was successfully published every week during the process evaluation. The Taskforce formed in March 2020, with a nominal start date of March 23. The first version of the guideline was published two weeks later and included 10 recommendations. By August 24, in the final round of the process evaluation, the team of 11 staff, working with seven guideline panels and over 200 health decision-makers, had developed 66 recommendations addressing 58 topics. The Taskforce website had received over 200,000 page views. Satisfaction with the work of the Taskforce remained very high (>90% extremely or somewhat satisfied) throughout. Several key strengths, challenges and methods questions for the work of the Taskforce were identified.

Conclusions

In just over 5 months of activity, the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce published 20 weekly updates to the evidence-based national treatment guidelines for COVID-19. This process evaluation identified several factors that enabled this achievement (e.g. an extant skill base in evidence review and convening), along with challenges that needed to be overcome (e.g. managing workloads, structure and governance) and methods questions (pace of updating, and thresholds for inclusion of evidence) which may be useful considerations for other living guidelines projects. An impact evaluation is also being conducted separately to examine awareness, acceptance and use of the guidelines.

Malin J, Fichtner F, J. Müller O, Skoetz N, Karagiannidis C. Clinical Practice Guideline: Recommendations on the In-hospital Treatment of Patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The mortality of COVID-19 patients who are admitted to a hospital because of the disease remains high. The implementation of evidence-based treatments can improve the quality of care.

METHODS

The new clinical practice guideline is based on publications retrieved by a systematic search in the Medline databases via PubMed and in the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, followed by a structured consensus process leading to the adoption of graded recommendations.

RESULTS

Therapeutic anticoagulation can be considered in patients who do not require intensive care and have an elevated risk of thromboembolism (for example, those with D-dimer levels ≥ 2 mg/L). For patients in intensive care, therapeutic anticoagulation has no benefit. For patients with hypoxemic respiratory insufficiency, prone positioning and an early therapy attempt with CPAP/noninvasive ventilation (CPAP, continuous positive airway pressure) or high-flow oxygen therapy is recommended. Patients with IgG-seronegativity and, at most, low-flow oxygen should be treated with SARS-CoV-2-specific monoclonal antibodies (at present, casirivimab and imdevimab). Patients needing no more than low-flow oxygen should additionally be treated with janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. All patients who need oxygen (low-flow, high-flow, noninvasive ventilation/CPAP, invasive ventilation) should be given systemic corticosteroids. Tocilizumab should be given to patients with a high oxygen requirement and progressively severe COVID-19 disease, but not in combination with JAK inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Noninvasive ventilation, high-flow oxygen therapy, prone positioning, and invasive ventilation are important elements of the treatment of hypoxemic patients with COVID-19. A reduction of mortality has been demonstrated for the administration of monoclonal antibodies, JAK inhibitors, corticosteroids, tocilizumab, and therapeutic anticoagulation to specific groups of patients.

Immunological effects of convalescent plasma therapy for coronavirus: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Preliminary studies revealed the safety and effectiveness of convalescent plasma (CP) therapy for patients with coronavirus. In this study, we aimed to evaluate and summarize the available evidence on CP therapy, identify the research gap regarding the immunological response to CP therapy and pave the road for future studies.

METHODS

This study was conducted according to the Hilary Arksey and Lisa O'Malley framework. To find out the relevant studies, we searched PubMed, Scopus and Embase databases up to 30th May 2021. Data have been extracted according to three categories: (1) patients' characteristics, (2) clinical and immunological responses to CP therapy and (3) pre-infusion screening of the CP samples.

RESULTS

A total of 12,553 articles were identified. One hundred fifty-four studies met the inclusion criteria for full-text review. More than half of the included studies (112 studies, (75.6%)) concluded satisfactory outcomes and or safety of CP infusion in patients. Results of studies showed the efficacy of CP therapy in clinical improvement (101 studies), decreasing in the level of inflammatory factors (62 studies), elimination or decreasing in viral load (60 studies), and induction or increase in antibody response (37 studies). Despite these promising results, the results of the 49 studies revealed that CP therapy was ineffective in the survival of patients, clinical improvement, viral infection elimination or decrease in the inflammatory factor levels. Furthermore, the adaptive immune response was evaluated in 3 studies. Information related to the pre-infusion screening for human leukocyte antigen/human neutrophil antigen (HLA/HNA) antibodies was not reported in most of the studies. Our gap analysis revealed that the influence of the CP infusion on the adaptive immune and inflammatory responses in patients with coronavirus needs further investigation.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of most included studies, CP infusion was safe and resulted in clinical improvement of patients and decreasing the viral load. The effect of the CP infusion on adaptive immune response and inflammatory cytokines in patients with coronavirus needs further investigation.

Passive immune therapies: another tool against COVID-19

Passive immune therapy consists of several different therapies, convalescent plasma, hyperimmune globulin, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) neutralizing monoclonal antibodies. Although these treatments were not part of any pandemic planning prior to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), due to the absence of high-quality evidence demonstrating benefit in other severe respiratory infections, a large amount of research has now been performed to demonstrate their benefit or lack of benefit in different patient groups. This review summarizes the evidence up to July 2021 on their use and also when they should not be used or when additional data are required. Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is the most important method of preventing severe and fatal COVID-19 in people who have an intact immune system. Passive immune therapy should only be considered for patients at high risk of severe or fatal COVID-19. The only therapy that has received full regulatory approval is the casirivimab/imdevimab monoclonal cocktail; all other treatments are being used under emergency use authorizations. In Japan, it has been licensed to treat patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, and in the United Kingdom, it has also been licensed to prevent infection.

Antibody therapy for COVID-19

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an update of the current state of antibody therapy for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 infection that has progressed immensely in a very short time period.

RECENT FINDINGS

Limited clinical effect of classical passive immunotherapy (plasma therapy, hyperimmune immunoglobulin [IgG] preparations) whereas monoclonal antibody therapy, if initiated early in the disease process, shows promising results.

SUMMARY

Although antibody therapy still remains to be fully explored in patients with COVID-19, a combination of IgG monoclonal antibodies against the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein currently appears to provide the best form of antibody therapy, Immunoglobulin A dimers and Immunoglobulin M pentamers also show promising preliminary therapeutic results.

Comparative Safety and Efficacy of Remdesivir Versus Remdesivir Plus Convalescent Plasma Therapy (CPT) and the Effect of Timing of Initiation of Remdesivir in COVID-19 Patients: An Observational Study From North East India

Introduction

As per the COVID-19 treatment guidelines of India, remdesivir and convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) are indicated in moderate and severe patients. In this study, we have evaluated the comparative safety and efficacy of remdesivir versus remdesivir CPT combination and effect of early versus late initiation of remdesivir.

Materials and methods

A hospital-based observational study was conducted among hospitalized moderate and severe COVID-19 patients treated with either remdesivir and/or CPT as per national guidelines. Response to therapy was evaluated in terms of mortality, mechanical ventilation requirement, ICU requirement, and safety.

Results and observations

A total of 95 moderate and severe COVID-19 patients on remdesivir (n=35) or remdesivir + CPT combination (n=60) were included. Both the remdesivir and remdesivir + CPT groups were comparable in terms of baseline characteristics, however, proportion of patients with baseline serum creatinine >1.5 was higher in the remdesivir group. No difference was seen between both the groups in terms of mortality, mechanical ventilation requirement, ICU requirement, and safety parameters in the overall moderate and severe COVID-19 populations and when each of these severity categories (moderate and severe) were analyzed separately. Early initiation (<9 days from symptom onset) of remdesivir was associated with better treatment outcome in terms of mortality and requirement of ICU. Post-therapy shortness of breath and LFTs (liver function tests) elevation was more in the late initiation of remdesivir group, which may be due to the lack of efficacy and subsequent disease progression or a direct effect of the drug. The beneficial effect of remdesivir was maintained even after adjustment for important prognostic factors and baseline imbalances (age, sex, disease severity, CPT use, and serum creatinine level).

Conclusions

Early initiation of remdesivir was associated with clinical benefit in terms of mortality and mechanical ventilation requirement. However, addition of convalescent plasma therapy as an additional therapeutic modality to remdesivir was not found to be beneficial.

Effect of famotidine on hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Famotidine is a competitive histamine H2-receptor antagonist most commonly used for gastric acid suppression but thought to have potential efficacy in treating patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis are to summarize the current literature and report clinical outcomes on the use of famotidine for treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Methods

Five databases were searched through February 12, 2021 to identify observational studies that reported on associations of famotidine use with outcomes in COVID-19. Meta-analysis was conducted for composite primary clinical outcome (e.g. rate of death, intubation, or intensive care unit admissions) and death separately, where either aggregate odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) was calculated.

Results

Four studies, reporting on 46,435 total patients and 3,110 patients treated with famotidine, were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant association between famotidine use and composite outcomes in patients with COVID-19: HR 0.63 (95% CI: 0.35, 1.16). Across the three studies that reported mortality separated from other endpoints, there was no association between famotidine use during hospitalization and risk of death—HR 0.67 (95% CI: 0.26, 1.73) and OR 0.79 (95% CI: 0.19, 3.34). Heterogeneity ranged from 83.69% to 88.07%.

Conclusion

Based on the existing observational studies, famotidine use is not associated with a reduced risk of mortality or combined outcome of mortality, intubation, and/or intensive care services in hospitalized individuals with COVID-19, though heterogeneity was high, and point estimates suggested a possible protective effect for the composite outcome that may not have been observed due to lack of power. Further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may help determine the efficacy and safety of famotidine as a treatment for COVID-19 patients in various care settings of the disease.

A randomized clinical trial evaluating the immunomodulatory effect of convalescent plasma on COVID-19-related cytokine storm

Evaluating the effect of convalescent plasma (CP) on some cytokine storm indices in severe COVID-19 patients. Totally, 62 patients were randomly assigned into two groups for this clinical trial. Patients in the intervention group received one unit (500 mL) plasma on the admission day plus standard drugs while the controls merely received standard treatments. Eventually, primary and secondary outcomes were evaluated. In the CP group, compared with controls, the mean levels of lymphocytes and IL-10 significantly increased while the levels of IL-6, TNF-α, and IFN-γ decreased (p < 0.05). The length of in-hospital stay, and mortality rate did not significantly reduce in the CP group compared with controls (p > 0.05) while WHO severity scores remarkably improved (p = 0.01), despite the higher frequency of underlying diseases among the CP group (66.7%) vs. controls (33.3%). Although CP has a remarkable immunomodulatory and antiviral potential to improve the cytokine storm and disease severity in COVID-19 patients, it did not considerably affect the mortality rate.

COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned from more than a century of pandemics and current vaccine development for pandemic control

Pandemic dynamics and health care responses are markedly different during the COVID-19 pandemic than in earlier outbreaks. Compared with established infectious disease such as influenza, we currently know relatively little about the origin, reservoir, cross-species transmission and evolution of SARS-CoV-2. Health care services, drug availability, laboratory testing, research capacity and global governance are more advanced than during 20th century pandemics, although COVID-19 has highlighted significant gaps. The risk of zoonotic transmission and an associated new pandemic is rising substantially. COVID-19 vaccine development has been done at unprecedented speed, with the usual sequential steps done in parallel. The pandemic has illustrated the feasibility of this approach and the benefits of a globally coordinated response and infrastructure. Some of the COVID-19 vaccines recently developed or currently in development might offer flexibility or sufficiently broad protection to swiftly respond to antigenic drift or emergence of new coronaviruses. Yet many challenges remain, including the large-scale production of sufficient quantity of vaccines, delivery of vaccines to all countries and ensuring vaccination of relevant age groups. This wide vaccine technology approach will be best employed in tandem with active surveillance for emerging variants or new pathogens using antigen mapping, metagenomics and next generation sequencing.

Convalescent Plasma-A Light at the End of the Tunnel: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

In the absence of a definitive therapy during this ongoing unprecedented crisis, coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, convalescent plasma transfusion (CPT) has shown some promising results. This review summarizes the existing evidence of the efficacy of CPT in COVID-19 patients based upon scientific publications to date. We have included only the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through an extensive screening of electronic databases up to July 31, 2021. In 19 RCTs, with a total of 16,476 COVID-19 patients we found low-quality evidence of significant reduction in mortality (odds ratio (OR) = 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66-0.96, I2 = 40%), better clinical outcome when applied <7 days (OR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.28-3.53, I2 = 0%), and improved viral clearance (OR = 2.6, 95% CI: 1.3-5.45, I2 = 74%). Meta-regression analysis found that as a covariate, intubation on admission (p = 0.007) had a significant impact. However, there was any significant reduction neither in duration for clinical improvement (MD = -0.79, 95% CI: -2.76-1.18, I2 = 98%), nor in total period of hospital stay (MD = 0.02, 95% CI: -0.75-0.78, I2 = 81%). Early application of CPT is still relevant in reducing morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients and is too early to write it off as a potential therapeutic modality for COVID-19 patients.

HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE

Sarkar S, Khanna P, Singh AK. Convalescent -Plasma-A Light at the End of the Tunnel: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(11):1292-1300.

Results of the CAPSID randomized trial for high-dose convalescent plasma in patients with severe COVID-19

BACKGROUNDCOVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been considered a treatment option for COVID-19. This trial assessed the efficacy of a neutralizing antibody containing high-dose CCP in hospitalized adults with COVID-19 requiring respiratory support or intensive care treatment.METHODSPatients (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. The primary outcome was a dichotomous composite outcome of survival and no longer fulfilling criteria for severe COVID-19 on day 21.ResultsThe primary outcome occurred in 43.4% of patients in the CCP group 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). The median time to discharge from the hospital was 31 days in the CCP group 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% of the patients (vs. 32.1%), with significantly shorter intervals to clinical improvement (20 vs. 66 days, P < 0.05) and to hospital discharge (21 vs. 51 days, P = 0.03) and better survival (day-60 probability of survival 91.6% vs. 68.1%, P = 0.02) in comparison with the control group.ConclusionCCP added to standard treatment was not associated with a significant improvement in the primary and secondary outcomes. A predefined subgroup analysis showed a significant benefit of CCP among patients who received a larger amount of neutralizing antibodies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04433910.FundingBundesministerium für Gesundheit (German Federal Ministry of Health): ZMVI1-2520COR802.

Convalescent plasma associates with reduced mortality and improved clinical trajectory in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

BACKGROUNDEvidence supporting convalescent plasma (CP), one of the first investigational treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has been inconclusive, leading to conflicting recommendations. The primary objective was to perform a comparative effectiveness study of CP for all-cause, in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19.METHODSThe multicenter, electronic health records-based, retrospective study included 44,770 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in one of 176 HCA Healthcare-affiliated community hospitals. Coarsened exact matching (1:k) was employed, resulting in a sample of 3774 CP and 10,687 comparison patients.RESULTSExamination of mortality using a shared frailty model, controlling for concomitant medications, date of admission, and days from admission to transfusion, demonstrated a significant association of CP with lower mortality risk relative to the comparison group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59-0.86; P < 0.001). Examination of patient risk trajectories, represented by 400 clinico-demographic features from our real-time risk model (RTRM), indicated that patients who received CP recovered more quickly. The stratification of days to transfusion revealed that CP within 3 days after admission, but not within 4 to 7 days, was associated with a significantly lower mortality risk (aHR = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.47-0.60; P < 0.001). CP serology level was inversely associated with mortality when controlling for its interaction with days to transfusion (HR = 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997-0.999; P = 0.013), yet it did not reach univariable significance.CONCLUSIONSThis large, diverse, multicenter cohort study demonstrated that CP, compared with matched controls, is significantly associated with reduced risk of in-hospital mortality. These observations highlight the utility of real-world evidence and suggest the need for further evaluation prior to abandoning CP as a viable therapy for COVID-19.FUNDINGThis research was supported in whole by HCA Healthcare and/or an HCA Healthcare-affiliated entity, including Sarah Cannon and Genospace.

Results of the CAPSID randomized trial for high-dose convalescent plasma in patients with severe COVID-19

BACKGROUNDCOVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been considered a treatment option for COVID-19. This trial assessed the efficacy of a neutralizing antibody containing high-dose CCP in hospitalized adults with COVID-19 requiring respiratory support or intensive care treatment.METHODSPatients (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. The primary outcome was a dichotomous composite outcome of survival and no longer fulfilling criteria for severe COVID-19 on day 21.ResultsThe primary outcome occurred in 43.4% of patients in the CCP group 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). The median time to discharge from the hospital was 31 days in the CCP group 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% of the patients (vs. 32.1%), with significantly shorter intervals to clinical improvement (20 vs. 66 days, P < 0.05) and to hospital discharge (21 vs. 51 days, P = 0.03) and better survival (day-60 probability of survival 91.6% vs. 68.1%, P = 0.02) in comparison with the control group.ConclusionCCP added to standard treatment was not associated with a significant improvement in the primary and secondary outcomes. A predefined subgroup analysis showed a significant benefit of CCP among patients who received a larger amount of neutralizing antibodies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04433910.FundingBundesministerium für Gesundheit (German Federal Ministry of Health): ZMVI1-2520COR802.

V.I.T.A.M. in COVID 19: A Systematic Approach to a Global Pandemic

Introduction

In the unprecedented era of COVID-19, ongoing research and evolution of evidence has led to ever-changing guidelines for clinical monitoring and therapeutic options. Formulating treatment protocols requires the understanding and application of the evolving research.

Objective

The primary objective of this study is to present a systematic evidence-based approach to synthesize the necessary data in order to optimize the management of COVID-19.

Methods

At Mayo Clinic Florida, we developed a multidisciplinary centralized COVID Treatment Review Panel (TRP) of expert pulmonologists, intensivists, infectious disease specialists, anesthesiologists, hematologists, rheumatologists, and hospitalists that in real-time reviews the latest evidence in peer-reviewed journals, the available clinical trials, and help guide the rapid application of therapeutics or interventions to the patient and the bedside provider.

Results/Conclusions

The multi-disciplinary team approach of synthesizing clinical data and coordinating care is effective in responding to rapidly evolving and changing evidence. Systematic data collection and evidence-based treatment algorithms enable physicians to rapidly translate the current literature to clinical practice, and improve care and outcomes of patients.

Scientific evidence in the COVID-19 treatment: A comprehensive review

In December 2019, cases of unknown origin pneumonia appeared in Wuhan, China; the causal agent of this pneumonia was a new virus of the coronaviridae family called severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). According to the clinical severity, symptoms and response to the different treatments, the evolution of the disease is divided in three phases. We analysed the most used treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 and the phase in which they are supposed to be effective. In the viral phase, remdesivir has demonstrated reduction in recovery time but no mortality reduction. Other drugs proposed for viral phase such as convalescent plasma and lopinavir/ritonavir did not demonstrate to be effective. In the inflammatory phase, corticosteroids demonstrated reduction of 28-d mortality in patients who needed oxygen, establishing that a corticosteroid regimen should be part of the standard treatment of critically ill patients. There are other immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory treatments such as anakinra, sarilumab, tocilizumab, colchicine or baricitinib that are being studied. Other treatments that were proposed at the beginning, like hydroxichloroquine or azithromycin, demonstrated no efficacy and increased mortality when combined.

SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibodies for treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory-produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs for treating patients with COVID-19, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention. To maintain the currency of the evidence, we will use a living systematic review approach. A secondary objective is to track newly developed SARS-CoV-2-targeting mAbs from first tests in humans onwards.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and three other databases on 17 June 2021. We also checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. Between submission and publication, we conducted a shortened randomised controlled trial (RCT)-only search on 30 July 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that evaluated SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, alone or combined, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, to treat people with COVID-19. We excluded studies on prophylactic use of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). Prioritised outcomes were all-cause mortality by days 30 and 60, clinical progression, quality of life, admission to hospital, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six RCTs that provided results from 17,495 participants with planned completion dates between July 2021 and December 2031. Target sample sizes varied from 1020 to 10,000 participants. Average age was 42 to 53 years across four studies of non-hospitalised participants, and 61 years in two studies of hospitalised participants. Non-hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 Four studies evaluated single agents bamlanivimab (N = 465), sotrovimab (N = 868), regdanvimab (N = 307), and combinations of bamlanivimab/etesevimab (N = 1035), and casirivimab/imdevimab (N = 799). We did not identify data for mortality at 60 days or quality of life. Our certainty of the evidence is low for all outcomes due to too few events (very serious imprecision).  Bamlanivimab compared to placebo No deaths occurred in the study by day 29. There were nine people admitted to hospital by day 29 out of 156 in the placebo group compared with one out of 101 in the group treated with 0.7 g bamlanivimab (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.33), 2 from 107 in the group treated with 2.8 g (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.47) and 2 from 101 in the group treated with 7.0 g (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.56). Treatment with 0.7 g, 2.8 g and 7.0 g bamlanivimab may have similar rates of AEs as placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.50; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.38; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.27). The effect on SAEs is uncertain. Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Bamlanivimab/etesevimab compared to placebo There were 10 deaths in the placebo group and none in bamlanivimab/etesevimab group by day 30 (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.81). Bamlanivimab/etesevimab may decrease hospital admission by day 29 (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.59), may result in a slight increase in any grade AEs (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.59) and may increase SAEs (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.37). Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab compared to placebo Casirivimab/imdevimab may reduce hospital admissions or death (2.4 g: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.19; 8.0 g: RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.79). We are uncertain of the effect on grades 3-4 AEs (2.4 g: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.73) and SAEs (2.4 g: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.65). Mortality by day 30 and clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Sotrovimab compared to placebo We are uncertain whether sotrovimab has an effect on mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.18) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) requirement or death (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.76). Treatment with sotrovimab may reduce the number of participants with oxygen requirement (RR 0.11, 95 % CI 0.02 to 0.45), hospital admission or death by day 30 (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.48), grades 3-4 AEs (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.60), SAEs (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.63) and may have little or no effect on any grade AEs (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.16).  Regdanvimab compared to placebo Treatment with either dose (40 or 80 mg/kg) compared with placebo may decrease hospital admissions or death (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.60, 206 participants), but may increase grades 3-4 AEs (RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.52 to 13.12; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.37 to 10.70). 80 mg/kg may reduce any grade AEs (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.22) but 40 mg/kg may have little to no effect (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.43). There were too few events to allow meaningful judgment for the outcomes mortality by 30 days, IMV requirement, and SAEs.  Hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 Two studies evaluating bamlanivimab as a single agent (N = 314) and casirivimab/imdevimab as a combination therapy (N = 9785) were included.   Bamlanivimab compared to placebo  We are uncertain whether bamlanivimab has an effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83) and SAEs by day 28 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.14). Bamlanivimab may have little to no effect on time to hospital discharge (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.20) and mortality by day 90 (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.43). The effect of bamlanivimab on the development of severe symptoms at day 5 (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85) is uncertain. Bamlanivimab may increase grades 3-4 AEs at day 28 (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.98). We assessed the evidence as low certainty for all outcomes due to serious imprecision, and very low certainty for severe symptoms because of additional concerns about indirectness. Casirivimab/imdevimab with usual care compared to usual care alone Treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab compared to usual care probably has little or no effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.02), IMV requirement or death (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04), nor alive at hospital discharge by day 30 (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04). We assessed the evidence as moderate certainty due to study limitations (lack of blinding). AEs and SAEs were not reported.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for each comparison is based on single studies. None of these measured quality of life. Our certainty in the evidence for all non-hospitalised individuals is low, and for hospitalised individuals is very low to moderate. We consider the current evidence insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding treatment with SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. Further studies and long-term data from the existing studies are needed to confirm or refute these initial findings, and to understand how the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants may impact the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. Publication of the 36 ongoing studies may resolve uncertainties about the effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs for the treatment of COVID-19 and possible subgroup differences.

Antibody Affinity Governs the Inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 Spike/ACE2 Binding in Patient Serum

The humoral immune response plays a key role in suppressing the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2. The molecular determinants underlying the neutralization of the virus remain, however, incompletely understood. Here, we show that the ability of antibodies to disrupt the binding of the viral spike protein to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor on the cell, the key molecular event initiating SARS-CoV-2 entry into host cells, is controlled by the affinity of these antibodies to the viral antigen. By using microfluidic antibody-affinity profiling, we were able to quantify the serum-antibody mediated inhibition of ACE2-spike binding in two SARS-CoV-2 seropositive individuals. Measurements to determine the affinity, concentration, and neutralization potential of antibodies were performed directly in human serum. Using this approach, we demonstrate that the level of inhibition in both samples can be quantitatively described using the dissociation constants (KD) of the binary interactions between the ACE2 receptor and the spike protein as well as the spike protein and the neutralizing antibody. These experiments represent a new type of in-solution receptor binding competition assay, which has further potential applications, ranging from decisions on donor selection for convalescent plasma therapy, to identification of lead candidates in therapeutic antibody development, and vaccine development.

Promising Immunotherapies against COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has led to a severe pandemic and deeply affected the livelihood of people worldwide. In response to the pandemic, researchers have been rapidly studying different aspects of COVID-19, such as virus detection, vaccinations, and epidemiological aspects of the disease. It has been reported that SARS-CoV-2 can induce uncontrolled inflammation and cause a lack of antiviral response, thereby aggravating the disease. Therefore, recovery of immune functions is key to COVID-19 treatment. Many clinical trials are exploring suitable therapies, and some progress has been made. Early administration of interferons may prevent COVID-19 exacerbation and/or promotes recovery from the diseases. Inhibitors of inflammation can prevent cytokine storms and multi-organ damage. Convalescent plasma containing neutralizing antibodies has played an important role in therapeutic options at the beginning of the pandemic owing to the lack of other effective methods. To aid the development of treatment options for COVID-19, this review focuses on immunotherapies, including treatment with interferons, inhibition of pro-inflammatory mechanisms, and the use of convalescent plasma.

Effect of time and titer in convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19

The clinical benefit of convalescent plasma (CP) for patients with coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 is still debated. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we selected 10 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 15 non-randomized studies (total number of patients = 22,591) of CP treatment and evaluated two different scenarios: (1) disease stage of plasma recipients and (2) donated plasma antibody titer, considering all-cause mortality at the latest follow-up. Our results show that, when provided at early stages of the disease, CP significantly reduced mortality: risk ratio (RR) 0.72 (0.68, 0.77), p < 0.00001, while provided in severe or critical conditions, it did not (RR: 0.94 [0.86, 1.04], p = 0.22). On the other hand, the benefit on mortality was not increased by using plasma with a high-antibody titer compared with unselected plasma. This meta-analysis might promote CP usage in patients with early-stage COVID-19 in further RCTs to maximize its benefit in decreasing mortality, especially in less affluent countries.

•

The benefit of convalescent plasma (CP) for patients with COVID-19 is still debated

•

Only when provided at early disease stages, CP reduced COVID-19 mortality

•

CP benefit on mortality does not increase when selecting high-antibody titers

•

Early treatment with CP may maximize its clinical benefit

Convalescent Plasma for Patients With Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear.

METHODS

In a matched cohort analysis of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19, the impact of CP treatment on in-hospital mortality was evaluated using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional-hazards models, and the impact of CP treatment on time to hospital discharge was assessed using a stratified log-rank analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 64 patients who received CP a median of 7 days after symptom onset were compared to a matched control group of 177 patients. The incidence of in-hospital mortality was 12.5% and 15.8% in the CP and control groups, respectively (P = .52). There was no significant difference in the risk of in-hospital mortality between the 2 groups (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] .39-2.20). The overall rate of hospital discharge was not significantly different between the 2 groups (rate ratio [RR] 1.28, 95% CI .91-1.81), although there was a significantly increased rate of hospital discharge among patients 65-years-old or greater who received CP (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.03-3.36). There was a greater than expected frequency of transfusion reactions in the CP group (2.8% reaction rate observed per unit transfused).

CONCLUSIONS

We did not demonstrate a significant difference in risk of mortality or rate of hospital discharge between the CP and control groups. There was a signal for improved outcomes among the elderly, and further adequately powered randomized studies should target this subgroup when assessing the efficacy of CP treatment.

Hyperimmune plasma in three immuno-deficient patients affected by non-severe, prolonged COVID-19: a single-center experience

Background

Convalescent plasma (CP) and hyperimmune plasma (HP) are passive immunotherapies consisting in the infusion of plasma from recovered people into infected patients. Following pre-existing evidence in many other viral diseases, such as SARS, MERS and Ebola, CP and HP have also been proposed for the treatment of COVID-19. Nevertheless, due to the lack of large, well-designed, clinical trials, no clear-cut guidelines exist about what subtype of patient CP and HP should be administered to.

Case presentation

We have reported the cases of 3 patients, all immunosuppressed and affected by non-severe, prolonged COVID-19. They were treated with HP, whose neutralizing titer was higher than 1/80. The first patient was a 55-year-old male, who had undergone lung transplant. He was under therapy with Tacrolimus and developed non-neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV2. The second patient was a 77-year-old female, affected by follicular lymphoma. She had tested positive for SARS-CoV2 after 6 months. The third was a 60-year-old patient, affected by chronic leukemia. He did not develop antibodies after 2-month disease. All 3 patients received HP and had tested negative for SARS-CoV2 within 2 weeks.

Conclusion

Despite encouraging initial data, no strong evidence exist in support of CP and HP to treat COVID-19. In our experience, although limited due to the reduced number of patients, we found a good safety and efficacy of HP in 3 immuno-deficient subjects. Further data are needed in order to assess whether this subtype of patients may particularly benefit from passive immunization.

Immunological Approaches to the Treatment of New Coronavirus Infection (Review)

The pandemic of the new coronavirus infection (COVID-19) caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has spread all over the world. The large amount of information that appears every day requires comprehension and systematization. The immunological aspects of the virus-host interaction are the core issues in the effective treatment and prevention of COVID-19' development. The review analyzes the known pathways of the viral invasion and evasion, the mechanisms of the cytokine storm, endothelial damage, and hypercoagulability associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Clinical data from previous SARS and MERS epidemics is discussed here. We also address the therapeutic approaches based on the basic knowledge of immune response and the blood cells' immune functions, as well as the ways to reduce their hyperactivation. The use of interferon therapy, anti-inflammatory therapy, anti-cytokine therapy, neutralizing antibodies, convalescent plasma, and mesenchymal stem cells, as well as prophylactic vaccines, is discussed.

Convalescent Plasma Therapy for COVID-19: A Graphical Mosaic of the Worldwide Evidence

Convalescent plasma has been used worldwide to treat patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and prevent disease progression. Despite global usage, uncertainty remains regarding plasma efficacy, as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have provided divergent evidence regarding the survival benefit of convalescent plasma. Here, we argue that during a global health emergency, the mosaic of evidence originating from multiple levels of the epistemic hierarchy should inform contemporary policy and healthcare decisions. Indeed, worldwide matched-control studies have generally found convalescent plasma to improve COVID-19 patient survival, and RCTs have demonstrated a survival benefit when transfused early in the disease course but limited or no benefit later in the disease course when patients required greater supportive therapies. RCTs have also revealed that convalescent plasma transfusion contributes to improved symptomatology and viral clearance. To further investigate the effect of convalescent plasma on patient mortality, we performed a meta-analytical approach to pool daily survival data from all controlled studies that reported Kaplan-Meier survival plots. Qualitative inspection of all available Kaplan-Meier survival data and an aggregate Kaplan-Meier survival plot revealed a directionally consistent pattern among studies arising from multiple levels of the epistemic hierarchy, whereby convalescent plasma transfusion was generally associated with greater patient survival. Given that convalescent plasma has a similar safety profile as standard plasma, convalescent plasma should be implemented within weeks of the onset of future infectious disease outbreaks.

Effectiveness of convalescent plasma therapy in a patient with severe COVID-19-associated acute kidney injury

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly evolved into a global pandemic. Recent findings indicate an increased risk for kidney involvement, including progressive acute kidney injury (AKI) during COVID-19 infection, specifically in critically ill patients, and associated with high mortality rates. As no specific treatment options exist for AKI secondary to COVID-19, intensive care is largely supportive with a frequent need for renal replacement therapy (RRT). Convalescent plasma (CP) has been approved as an emergency investigational drug with clinical benefits in observational studies. We described a first case of a patient with severe COVID-19 and AKI who had remarkable improvement in his respiratory status and in kidney function following CP therapy. Our findings demonstrate important therapeutic implications of effective multimodality therapy including CP when treating patients with COVID-19 and AKI.

SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics: how far do we stand from a remedy?

The SARS-CoV-2 has affected millions worldwide and has posed an immediate need for effective pharmacological interventions. Ever since the outbreak was declared, the medical fraternity across the world is facing a unique situation of offering assistance and simultaneously generating reliable data with high-quality evidence to extend the scope of finding a treatment. With no proven vaccine or other interventions available hitherto, there is a frenzied urgency of sharing preliminary data from laboratories and trials to shape a global response against the virus. Several clinical trials with investigational and approved repurposed therapeutics have shown promising results. This review aims to compile the information of the reported molecules approved for emergency use and those under clinical trials and still others with good results in the studies conducted so far. Being an RNA virus, SARS-CoV-2 is prone to mutation; thus, the possibility of gaining resistance to available drugs is high. Consequently, a cocktail therapy based on drug interaction with different stages of its replicative cycle is desirable to reduce the chances of evolving drug resistance. Since this virus encodes several proteins, including 16 nonstructural and 4 structural proteins, this review also offers an insight into potential drug targets within SARS-CoV-2.

Effects of potent neutralizing antibodies from convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection

In a randomized clinical trial of 86 hospitalized COVID-19 patients comparing standard care to treatment with 300mL convalescent plasma containing high titers of neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, no overall clinical benefit was observed. Using a comprehensive translational approach, we unravel the virological and immunological responses following treatment to disentangle which COVID-19 patients may benefit and should be the focus of future studies. Convalescent plasma is safe, does not improve survival, has no effect on the disease course, nor does plasma enhance viral clearance in the respiratory tract, influence SARS-CoV-2 antibody development or serum proinflammatory cytokines levels. Here, we show that the vast majority of patients already had potent neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at hospital admission and with comparable titers to carefully selected plasma donors. This resulted in the decision to terminate the trial prematurely. Treatment with convalescent plasma should be studied early in the disease course or at least preceding autologous humoral response development.

Severe T cell hyporeactivity in ventilated COVID-19 patients correlates with prolonged virus persistence and poor outcomes

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to pneumonia and hyperinflammation. Here we show a sensitive method to measure polyclonal T cell activation by downstream effects on responder cells like basophils, plasmacytoid dendritic cells, monocytes and neutrophils in whole blood. We report a clear T cell hyporeactivity in hospitalized COVID-19 patients that is pronounced in ventilated patients, associated with prolonged virus persistence and reversible with clinical recovery. COVID-19-induced T cell hyporeactivity is T cell extrinsic and caused by plasma components, independent of occasional immunosuppressive medication of the patients. Monocytes respond stronger in males than females and IL-2 partially restores T cell activation. Downstream markers of T cell hyporeactivity are also visible in fresh blood samples of ventilated patients. Based on our data we developed a score to predict fatal outcomes and identify patients that may benefit from strategies to overcome T cell hyporeactivity.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are being investigated as potential therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of these interventions is required.  OBJECTIVES: Using a living systematic review approach, to assess whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence.

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, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform, and trial registries. Searches were done on 17 March 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. For safety assessments, we also included non-controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) if 500 or more participants were included. 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 the Cochrane 'Risk of Bias 2' tool for RCTs, and for NRSIs, the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer. We rated the certainty of evidence, using the GRADE approach, for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, improvement and worsening of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), development of severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms (for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease), quality of life (including fatigue and functional independence), grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies (12 RCTs, 1 NRSI) with 48,509 participants, of whom 41,880 received convalescent plasma. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We identified a further 100 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, and 33 studies reporting as being completed or terminated. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease Eleven RCTs and one NRSI investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 48,349 participants with moderate to severe disease. Nine RCTs compared convalescent plasma to placebo treatment or standard care alone, and two compared convalescent plasma to standard plasma (results not included in abstract). Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We included data on nine RCTs (12,875 participants) to assess the effectiveness of convalescent plasma compared to 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 1.05; 7 RCTs, 12,646 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on clinical improvement for all participants when assessed by liberation from respiratory support (RR not estimable; 8 RCTs, 12,682 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on the chance of being weaned or liberated from invasive mechanical ventilation for the subgroup of participants requiring invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.93; 2 RCTs, 630 participants; low-certainty evidence). It does not reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.08; 4 RCTs, 11,765 participants; high-certainty evidence). We did not identify any subgroup differences.  We did not identify any studies reporting quality of life, and therefore, do not know whether convalescent plasma has any impact on quality of life. One RCT assessed resolution of fatigue on day 7, but we are very uncertain about the effect (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.42; 309 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Safety of convalescent plasma We included results from eight RCTs, and one NRSI, to assess the safety of convalescent plasma. Some of the RCTs reported on safety data only for the convalescent plasma group.  We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma increases or reduces the risk of grade 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.41; 4 RCTs, 905 participants; low-certainty evidence), and serious adverse events (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.90; 2 RCTs, 414 participants; low-certainty evidence).  A summary of reported events of the NRSI (reporting safety data for 20,000 of 35,322 transfused participants), and four RCTs reporting safety data only for transfused participants (6125 participants) are included in the full text. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and asymptomatic or mild disease We identified one RCT reporting on 160 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo treatment (saline).  Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We are very uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on all-cause mortality (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.65; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on developing severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR not estimable; low-certainty evidence).  We identified no study reporting quality of life.  Safety of convalescent plasma We do not know whether convalescent plasma is associated with a higher risk of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (very low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). This is a living systematic review. We search weekly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have high certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for the treatment of individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on measures of clinical improvement. We are uncertain about the adverse effects of convalescent plasma. While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, heterogeneous reporting of outcomes is still problematic. There are 100 ongoing studies and 33 studies reporting in a study registry as being completed or terminated. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around hyperimmune immunoglobulin therapy for people with any disease severity, and convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.