Transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) after intravenous immunoglobulins: French multicentre study and literature review

Transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) following intravenous immunoglobulin infusion in a rituximab immunosuppressed patient with long-shedding SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

Transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) is a rare life-threatening complication of blood product transfusion. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG)-related TRALI is scarcely reported.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 63-year-old male patient suffering from multiple sclerosis treated with half-yearly rituximab infusions, was hospitalized due to dry cough, daily fever and shivering for seven days despite antibiotic therapy. Because of the history of COVID-19 one month prior without the symptoms having improved since, persistent bilateral multifocal areas of ground glass opacities in chest computed tomography and positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR from bronchoalveolar lavage with a cycling time of 30.1 COVID-19 due to long-shedding SARS-CoV-2 under immunosuppression with rituximab was diagnosed. He received treatment with nirmatrelvir und ritonavir and because of diagnosed IgG deficiency additionally a single dose of 20 g IVIG. During the IVIG infusion, the patient acutely developed tachycardia, hypotension, fever, chills, and hypoxemic respiratory failure due to pulmonary edema. TRALI was promptly diagnosed, and the patient was transferred to the intensive care unit for non-invasive ventilation for less than 24 h. The patient was discharged home from regular ward 72 h later in a good general condition and no remaining symptoms of TRALI.

CONCLUSION

IVIG-related TRALI is a rare but life-threating condition and prompt recognition is lifesaving. Due to an increased use of IVIG not only in long-shedding SARS-CoV-2, an increase of TRALI incidence is expected.

Crosstalk between neutrophil extracellular traps and immune regulation: insights into pathobiology and therapeutic implications of transfusion-related acute lung injury

Transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) is the leading cause of transfusion-associated death, occurring during or within 6 hours after transfusion. Reports indicate that TRALI can be categorized as having or lacking acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) risk factors. There are two types of TRALI in terms of its pathogenesis: antibody-mediated and non-antibody-mediated. The key initiation steps involve the priming and activation of neutrophils, with neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) being established as effector molecules formed by activated neutrophils in response to various stimuli. These NETs contribute to the production and release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and participate in the destruction of pulmonary vascular endothelial cells. The significant role of NETs in TRALI is well recognized, offering a potential pathway for TRALI treatment. Moreover, platelets, macrophages, endothelial cells, and complements have been identified as promoters of NET formation. Concurrently, studies have demonstrated that the storage of platelets and concentrated red blood cells (RBC) can induce TRALI through bioactive lipids. In this article, recent clinical and pre-clinical studies on the pathophysiology and pathogenesis of TRALI are reviewed to further illuminate the mechanism through which NETs induce TRALI. This review aims to propose new therapeutic strategies for TRALI, with the hope of effectively improving its poor prognosis.

Intravenous immunoglobulin in kidney transplantation: Mechanisms of action, clinical applications, adverse effects, and hyperimmune globulin

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) has been developed for over 40 years. The mechanisms of action of IVIG are complex and diverse, and there may be multiple mechanisms that combine to influence it. IVIG has been used in kidney transplantation for desensitization, treatment of antibody-mediated rejection, and ABO-incompatible transplantation. and treatment or prevention of some infectious diseases. Hyperimmune globulins such as cytomegalovirus hyperimmune globulin (CMV-IG) and hepatitis B hyperimmune globulin (HBIG) have also been used to protect against cytomegalovirus and hepatitis B virus, respectively. However, IVIG is also associated with some rare but serious adverse effects and some application risks, and clinicians need to weigh the pros and cons and develop individualized treatment programs to benefit more patients. This review will provide an overview of the multiple mechanisms of action, clinical applications, adverse effects, and prophylactic measures of IVIG, and hyperimmune globulin will also be introduced in it.

Anti-Inflammatory and Immunomodulatory Effect of High-Dose Immunoglobulins in Children: From Approved Indications to Off-Label Use

BACKGROUND

The large-scale utilization of immunoglobulins in patients with inborn errors of immunity (IEIs) since 1952 prompted the discovery of their key role at high doses as immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory therapy, in the treatment of IEI-related immune dysregulation disorders, according to labelled and off-label indications. Recent years have been dominated by a progressive imbalance between the gradual but constant increase in the use of immunoglobulins and their availability, exacerbated by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To provide pragmatic indications for a need-based application of high-dose immunoglobulins in the pediatric context.

SOURCES

A literature search was performed using PubMed, from inception until 1st August 2023, including the following keywords: anti-inflammatory; children; high dose gammaglobulin; high dose immunoglobulin; immune dysregulation; immunomodulation; immunomodulatory; inflammation; intravenous gammaglobulin; intravenous immunoglobulin; off-label; pediatric; subcutaneous gammaglobulin; subcutaneous immunoglobulin. All article types were considered.

IMPLICATIONS

In the light of the current imbalance between gammaglobulins' demand and availability, this review advocates the urgency of a more conscious utilization of this medical product, giving indications about benefits, risks, cost-effectiveness, and administration routes of high-dose immunoglobulins in children with hematologic, neurologic, and inflammatory immune dysregulation disorders, prompting further research towards a responsible employment of gammaglobulins and improving the therapeutical decisional process.

Update on transfusion-related acute lung injury: an overview of its pathogenesis and management

Transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) is a severe adverse event and a leading cause of transfusion-associated death. Its poor associated prognosis is due, in large part, to the current dearth of effective therapeutic strategies. Hence, an urgent need exists for effective management strategies for the prevention and treatment of associated lung edema. Recently, various preclinical and clinical studies have advanced the current knowledge regarding TRALI pathogenesis. In fact, the application of this knowledge to patient management has successfully decreased TRALI-associated morbidity. This article reviews the most relevant data and recent progress related to TRALI pathogenesis. Based on the existing two-hit theory, a novel three-step pathogenesis model composed of a priming step, pulmonary reaction, and effector phase is postulated to explain the process of TRALI. TRALI pathogenesis stage-specific management strategies based on clinical studies and preclinical models are summarized with an explication of their models of prevention and experimental drugs. The primary aim of this review is to provide useful insights regarding the underlying pathogenesis of TRALI to inform the development of preventive or therapeutic alternatives.

Noncardiogenic pulmonary edema in small animals

OBJECTIVE

To review various types of noncardiogenic pulmonary edema (NCPE) in cats and dogs.

ETIOLOGY

NCPE is an abnormal fluid accumulation in the lung interstitium or alveoli that is not caused by cardiogenic causes or fluid overload. It can be due to changes in vascular permeability, hydrostatic pressure in the pulmonary vasculature, or a combination thereof. Possible causes include inflammatory states within the lung or in remote tissues (acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS]), airway obstruction (post-obstructive pulmonary edema), neurologic disease such as head trauma or seizures (neurogenic pulmonary edema), electrocution, after re-expansion of a collapsed lung or after drowning.

DIAGNOSIS

Diagnosis of NCPE is generally based on history, physical examination, and diagnostic imaging. Radiographic findings suggestive of NCPE are interstitial to alveolar pulmonary opacities in the absence of signs of left-sided congestive heart failure or fluid overload such as cardiomegaly or congested pulmonary veins. Computed tomography and edema fluid analysis may aid in the diagnosis, while some forms of NCPE require additional findings to reach a diagnosis.

THERAPY

The goal of therapy for all types of NCPE is to preserve tissue oxygenation and reduce the work of breathing. This may be achieved by removing the inciting cause (eg, airway obstruction) and cage rest in mild cases and supplemental oxygen in moderate cases and may require mechanical ventilation in severe cases.

PROGNOSIS

Prognosis is generally good for most causes of veterinary NCPE except for ARDS, although data are scarce for some etiologies of NCPE.

Hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIVIG) contains polyclonal antibodies, which can be prepared from large amounts of pooled convalescent plasma or prepared from animal sources through immunisation. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This review was previously part of a parent review addressing convalescent plasma and hIVIG for people with COVID-19 and was split to address hIVIG and convalescent plasma separately.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of hIVIG therapy for 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 Research Database, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform and Medline and Embase from 1 January 2019 onwards. We carried out searches on 31 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated hIVIG 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 that evaluated standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used RoB 2. 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), quality of life, adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs with 947 participants, of whom 688 received hIVIG prepared from humans, 18 received heterologous swine glyco-humanised polyclonal antibody, and 241 received equine-derived processed and purified F(ab')2 fragments. All participants were hospitalised with moderate-to-severe disease, most participants were not vaccinated (only 12 participants were vaccinated). The studies were conducted before or during the emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. There are no data for people with COVID-19 with no symptoms (asymptomatic) or people with mild COVID-19. We identified a further 10 ongoing studies evaluating hIVIG. Benefits of hIVIG prepared from humans We included data on one RCT (579 participants) that assessed the benefits and harms of hIVIG 0.4 g/kg compared to saline placebo. hIVIG may have little to no impact on all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.44; absolute effect 77 per 1000 with placebo versus 61 per 1000 (33 to 111) with hIVIG; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on worsening of clinical status at day 7 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.23; very low-certainty evidence). It probably has little to no impact on improvement of clinical status on day 28 (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.08; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify any studies that reported quality-of-life outcomes, so we do not know if hIVIG has any impact on quality of life. Harms of hIVIG prepared from humans hIVIG may have little to no impact on adverse events at any grade on day 1 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.18; 431 per 1000; 1 study 579 participants; low-certainty evidence). Patients receiving hIVIG probably experience more adverse events at grade 3-4 severity than patients who receive placebo (RR 4.09, 95% CI 1.39 to 12.01; moderate-certainty evidence). hIVIG may have little to no impact on the composite outcome of serious adverse events or death up to day 28 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence). We also identified additional results on the benefits and harms of other dose ranges of hIVIG, not included in the summary of findings table, but summarised in additional tables. Benefits of animal-derived polyclonal antibodies We included data on one RCT (241 participants) to assess the benefits and harms of receptor-binding domain-specific polyclonal F(ab´)2 fragments of equine antibodies (EpAbs) compared to saline placebo. EpAbs may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.37; absolute effect 114 per 1000 with placebo versus 68 per 1000 (30 to 156) ; low-certainty evidence). EpAbs may reduce worsening of clinical status up to day 28 (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.18; absolute effect 203 per 1000 with placebo versus 136 per 1000 (77 to 240); low-certainty evidence). It may have some effect on improvement of clinical status on day 28 (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.17; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any studies that reported quality-of-life outcomes, so we do not know if EpAbs have any impact on quality of life. Harms of animal-derived polyclonal antibodies EpAbs may have little to no impact on the number of adverse events at any grade up to 28 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events at grade 3-4 severity were not reported. Individuals receiving EpAbs may experience fewer serious adverse events than patients receiving placebo (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.19; low-certainty evidence). We also identified additional results on the benefits and harms of other animal-derived polyclonal antibody doses, not included in the summary of findings table, but summarised in additional tables.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We included data from five RCTs that evaluated hIVIG compared to standard therapy, with participants with moderate-to-severe disease. As the studies evaluated different preparations (from humans or from various animals) and doses, we could not pool them. hIVIG prepared from humans may have little to no impact on mortality, and clinical improvement and worsening. hIVIG may increase grade 3-4 adverse events. Studies did not evaluate quality of life. RBD-specific polyclonal F(ab´)2 fragments of equine antibodies may reduce mortality and serious adverse events, and may reduce clinical worsening. However, the studies were conducted before or during the emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and prior to widespread vaccine rollout. As no studies evaluated hIVIG for participants with asymptomatic infection or mild disease, benefits for these individuals remains uncertain. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

Clinical Factors of Blood Transfusion-Related Acute Lung Injury and Changes in Levels of Treg-Related Cytokines

Objective

Analysis of clinical factors and changes in regulatory T cell (Treg)-related cytokine levels in transfusion-associated acute lung injury (TRALI).

Methods

62 patients who underwent blood transfusion and developed TRALI (TRALI group) in our hospital between January 2018 and December 2021 and 58 patients who did not develop TRALI (non-TRALI group) from blood transfusion were selected to collect clinical data from patients and construct a logistic regression model to analyze clinical risk factors for TRALI. Based on the prognosis of TRALI patients, they were divided into survival group (50 cases) and death group (12 cases), and serum CD4 + CD25 + Treg and Treg-related cytokines (interleukin 10 (IL-10), transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β)) levels were compared between the two groups, and the correlation between CD4 + CD25 + Treg and IL-10 and TGF-β was analyzed by Pearson.

Results

The differences in smoking history, human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibody II, pretransfusion shock, and CD4 + CD25 + Treg between the TRALI group and non-TRALI group were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis showed that HLA antibody II and increased CD4 + CD25 + Treg were independent risk factors of TRALI (P < 0.05). The levels of CD4 + CD25 + Treg, IL-10, and TGF-β in the death group were significantly higher than those in the survival group (P < 0.05). CD4 + CD25 + Treg was positively correlated with levels of IL-10 and TGF-β (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Elevated HLA antibody II and CD4 + CD25 + Treg are the main clinical risk factors for TRALI, and CD4 + CD25 + Treg may be involved in immunosuppression by increasing the expression levels of IL-10 and TGF-β. Early clinical monitoring of changes in Treg-related cytokine levels can provide some guidance for prognostic assessment of TRALI patients.

Managing respiratory complications in Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis

In the recently published guidelines by the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists on the management of Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), a brief section was included on airway management. These recommendations provide an easy reference on how to manage respiratory complications of the disease. Understanding the evidence that underlies these recommendations would offer physicians greater clarity on the considerations behind every decision and treatment offered. We present a review of the literature on respiratory manifestations associated with SJS and TEN. In addition, we aim to address specific concerns regarding the respiratory management of these patients. These include issues such as the indications and optimal timing of intubation, tracheostomy, role of flexible nasoendoscopy, bronchoscopy, ventilation strategies, and management of chronic respiratory complications.

Rationale for Polyclonal Intravenous Immunoglobulin Adjunctive Therapy in COVID-19 Patients: Report of a Structured Multidisciplinary Consensus

Introduction: Adjunctive therapy with polyclonal intravenous immunoglobins (IVIg) is currently used for preventing or managing infections and sepsis, especially in immunocompromised patients. The pathobiology of COVID-19 and the mechanisms of action of Ig led to the consideration of this adjunctive therapy, including in patients with respiratory failure due to the SARS-CoV-2 infection. This manuscript reports the rationale, the available data and the results of a structured consensus on intravenous Ig therapy in patients with severe COVID-19. Methods: A panel of multidisciplinary experts defined the clinical phenotypes of COVID-19 patients with severe respiratory failure and, after literature review, voted for the agreement on the rationale and the potential role of IVIg therapy for each phenotype. Due to the scarce evidence available, a modified RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used. Results: Three different phenotypes of COVID-19 patients with severe respiratory failure were identified: patients with an abrupt and dysregulated hyperinflammatory response (early phase), patients with suspected immune paralysis (late phase) and patients with sepsis due to a hospital-acquired superinfection (sepsis by bacterial superinfection). The rationale for intravenous Ig therapy in the early phase was considered uncertain whereas the panelists considered its use in the late phase and patients with sepsis/septic shock by bacterial superinfection appropriate. Conclusion: As with other immunotherapies, IVIg adjunctive therapy may have a potential role in the management of COVID-19 patients. The ongoing trials will clarify the appropriate target population and the true effectiveness.

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.

Intensive Care and Treatment of Severe Guillain-Barré Syndrome

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute polyneuropathy mostly characterized by acute flaccid paralysis with or without sensory/autonomous nerve dysfunction. Current immuno therapies including intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), plasma exchange (PE), and newly developed biological drugs benefit patients by alleviating hyperreactive immune responses. Up to 30% of patients develop respiratory failure during hospitalization and require mechanical ventilation and intensive care. Immunotherapies, mechanical ventilation, supportive care, and complication management during the intensive care unit (ICU) stay are equally emphasized. The most important aspect of intensive care and treatment of severe GBS, that is, mechanical ventilation, has been extensively reviewed elsewhere. In contrast to immunotherapies, care and treatment of GBS in the ICU setting are largely empirical. In this review, we intend to stress the importance of intensive care and treatment, other than mechanical ventilation in patients with severe GBS. We summarize the up-to-date knowledge of pharmacological therapies and ICU management of patients with severe GBS. We aim to answer some key clinical questions related to the management of severe GBS patients including but not limited to: Is IVIg better than PE or vice versa? Whether combinations of immune therapies benefit more? How about the emerging therapies promising for GBS? When to perform tracheal intubation or tracheostomy? How to provide multidisciplinary supportive care for severe cases? How to avert life-threatening complications in severe cases?

Blood and blood treatments

During 2020, COVID-19 or CoV2-SARS dominated the public and medical community's discourse, thus prompting a preponderance of COVID-driven research. Despite the many resulting studies, few new insights emerged regarding blood components and blood treatments, the focus of this chapter. The pandemic led to a resurgence of interest in convalescent plasma and, by extension, freeze-dried plasma as treatment options for Coronavirus. Several such studies are summarized. Other research topics include blood coagulation, treatments for iron deficiency anemia, and newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. While this volume is devoted to exploring and reporting pharmacological side effects, most studies detailed few significant adverse events.

Transfusion-related acute lung injury associated to intravenous immunoglobulin infusion in a pediatric patient

Case report of a patient with an immunodeficiency who demands regular replacement of intravenous immunoglobulin. She presented an episode of transfusion-related acute lung injury shortly after using an immunoglobulin product different than the one she usually received. The patient evolved with respiratory changes (hypoxia, dyspnea, change in pulmonary auscultation) minutes after the end of the infusion, and received non-invasive respiratory support. She was discharged after 36 hours with good outcome. The patient achieved full recovery, showing no further reactions in subsequent immunoglobulin infusions (no longer receiving the product that was used when she had the episode of transfusion-related acute lung injury). Although rare, this reaction is potentially serious and has no specific treatment other than supportive therapy. The literature is scarce regarding the risk of recurrence. The decision on whether to proceed with immunoglobulin therapy after this adverse effect should be analyzed individually, assessing the possible risks and benefits for the patient.

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 currently being investigated in trials as potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required.  OBJECTIVES: To continually assess, as more evidence becomes available, whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in treatment of people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trial registries to identify completed and ongoing studies on 19 August 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of study design, disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and 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' 2.0 tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), and the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-controlled NRSIs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at hospital discharge, mortality (time to event), improvement of clinical symptoms (7, 15, and 30 days after transfusion), grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs).

MAIN RESULTS

This is the second living update of our review. We included 19 studies (2 RCTs, 8 controlled NRSIs, 9 non-controlled NRSIs) with 38,160 participants, of whom 36,081 received convalescent plasma. Two completed RCTs are awaiting assessment (published after 19 August 2020). We identified a further 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are randomised (3 reported in a study registry as already being completed, but without results). We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We did not include data from controlled NRSIs in data synthesis because of critical risk of bias. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low, due to study limitations and results including both potential benefits and harms.  Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19  We included results from two RCTs (both stopped early) with 189 participants, of whom 95 received convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.34; 1 RCT, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence).  We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases mortality (time to event) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.25; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may result in little to no difference in improvement of clinical symptoms (i.e. need for respiratory support) at seven days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19; 1 RCT, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may increase improvement of clinical symptoms at up to 15 days (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.11; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence), and at up to 30 days (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43; 2 studies, 188 participants; low-certainty evidence).  No studies reported on quality of life.  Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from two RCTs, eight controlled NRSIs and nine non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of safety data and duration of follow-up was variable. The controlled studies reported on AEs and SAEs only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. Some, but not all, studies included death as a SAE.  The studies did not report the grade of AEs. Fourteen studies (566 participants) reported on AEs of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these AEs were allergic or respiratory events. We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe AEs (very low-certainty evidence).  17 studies (35,944 participants) assessed SAEs for 20,622 of its participants. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (20,000 participants), which reported on SAEs within the first four hours and within an additional seven days after transfusion. There were 63 deaths, 12 were possibly and one was probably related to transfusion. There were 146 SAEs within four hours and 1136 SAEs within seven days post-transfusion. These were predominantly allergic or respiratory, thrombotic or thromboembolic and cardiac events. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy results in a clinically relevant increased risk of SAEs (low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. There was limited information regarding grade 3 and 4 AEs to determine the effect of convalescent plasma therapy on clinically relevant SAEs. In the absence of a control group, we are unable to assess the relative safety of convalescent plasma therapy.  While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies is problematic. The early termination of the first two RCTs investigating convalescent plasma, and the lack of data from 20 studies that have completed or were due to complete at the time of this update illustrate these challenges. Well-designed studies should be prioritised. Moreover, studies should report outcomes in the same way, and should consider the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms.  There are 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are RCTs (three already completed). This is the second living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. Future updates may show different results to those reported here.

Serum proteins may facilitate the identification of Kawasaki disease and promote in vitro neutrophil infiltration

Kawasaki disease (KD) usually affects the children younger than 5 years of age and subsequently causes coronary artery lesions (CALs) without timely identification and treatment. Developing a robust and fast prediction method may facilitate the timely diagnosis of KD, significantly reducing the risk of CALs in KD patients. The levels of inflammatory serum proteins dramatically vary during the onsets of many immune diseases, including in KD. However, our understanding of their pathogenic roles in KD is behind satisfaction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate candidate diagnostic serum proteins and the potential mechanism in KD using iTRAQ gel-free proteomics. We enrolled subjects and conducted iTRAQ gel-free proteomics to globally screen serum proteins followed by specific validation with ELISA. Further in vitro leukocyte trans-endothelial model was also applied to investigate the pathogenesis roles of inflammatory serum proteins. We identified six KD protein biomarkers, including Protein S100-A8 (S100A8), Protein S100-A9 (S100A9), Protein S100-A12 (S100A12), Peroxiredoxin-2 (PRDX2), Neutrophil defensin 1 (DEFA1) and Alpha-1-acid glycoprotein 1 (ORM1). They enabled us to develop a high-performance KD prediction model with an auROC value of 0.94, facilitating the timely identification of KD. Further assays concluded that recombinant S100A12 protein treatment activated neutrophil surface adhesion molecules responsible for adhesion to endothelial cells. Therefore, S100A12 promoted both freshly clinically isolated neutrophils and neutrophil-like cells to infiltrate through the endothelial layer in vitro. Finally, the antibody against S100A12 may attenuate the infiltration promoted by S100A12. Our result demonstrated that evaluating S100A8, S100A9, S100A12, PRDX2, DEFA1 and ORM1 levels may be a good diagnostic tool of KD. Further in vitro study implied that S100A12 could be a potential therapeutic target for KD.

Thrombosis in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) through the prism of Virchow's triad

The pathogenesis of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is gradually being comprehended. A high number of thrombotic episodes are reported, along with the mortality benefits of heparin. COVID-19 can be viewed as a prothrombotic disease. We overviewed the available evidence to explore this possibility. We identified various histopathology reports and clinical case series reporting thromboses in COVID-19. Also, multiple coagulation markers support this. COVID-19 can be regarded as a risk factor for thrombosis. Applying the principles of Virchow's triad, we described abnormalities in the vascular endothelium, altered blood flow, and platelet function abnormalities that lead to venous and arterial thromboses in COVID-19. Endothelial dysfunction, activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) with the release of procoagulant plasminogen activator inhibitor (PAI-1), and hyperimmune response with activated platelets seem to be significant contributors to thrombogenesis in COVID-19. Stratifying risk of COVID-19 thromboses should be based on age, presence of comorbidities, D-dimer, CT scoring, and various blood cell ratios. Isolated heparin therapy may not be sufficient to combat thrombosis in this disease. There is an urgent need to explore newer avenues like activated protein C, PAI-1 antagonists, and tissue plasminogen activators (tPA). These should be augmented with therapies targeting RAAS, antiplatelet drugs, repurposed antiinflammatory, and antirheumatic drugs. Key Points • Venous and arterial thromboses in COVID-19 can be viewed through the prism of Virchow's triad. • Endothelial dysfunction, platelet activation, hyperviscosity, and blood flow abnormalities due to hypoxia, immune reactions, and hypercoagulability lead to thrombogenesis in COVID-19. • There is an urgent need to stratify COVID-19 patients at risk for thrombosis using age, comorbidities, D-dimer, and CT scoring. • Patients with COVID-19 at high risk for thrombosis should be put on high dose heparin therapy.

Effects of Cell-Derived Microparticles on Immune Cells and Potential Implications in Clinical Medicine

In the past few years, interest has increased in cell-derived microparticles (MPs), which are defined by their size of from 0.1 to 1 μm, and can be derived from various cell types, including endothelial cells, leukocytes, red blood cells (RBCs), and platelets. These MPs carry negatively charged phosphatidylserine (PS) on their surfaces and proteins packaged from numerous cellular components. MPs that have been shed by the body can play important roles in the pathophysiology of diseases and can affect various biological systems. Among these systems, the immune components have been shown to be modulated by MPs. Therefore, understanding the roles of MPs in the immune system is crucial to developing alternative therapeutic treatments for diseases. This review describes the effects of MPs on various immune cells and provides plausible potential applications of the immune-modulating properties of MPs in clinical medicine.

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 currently being investigated in trials as potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required.  OBJECTIVES: To continually assess, as more evidence becomes available, whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in treatment of people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trial registries to identify completed and ongoing studies on 4 June 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of study design, disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and 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' tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), and the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-controlled NRSIs.  MAIN RESULTS: This is the first living update of our review. We included 20 studies (1 RCT, 3 controlled NRSIs, 16 non-controlled NRSIs) with 5443 participants, of whom 5211 received convalescent plasma, and identified a further 98 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 50 are randomised. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. Overall risk of bias of included studies was high, due to study design, type of participants, and other previous or concurrent treatments. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19  We included results from four controlled studies (1 RCT (stopped early) with 103 participants, of whom 52 received convalescent plasma; and 3 controlled NRSIs with 236 participants, of whom 55 received convalescent plasma) to assess effectiveness of convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge (1 controlled NRSI, 21 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma has any effect on all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.31; very low-certainty evidence). Time to death (1 RCT, 103 participants; 1 controlled NRSI, 195 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma prolongs time to death (RCT: hazard ratio (HR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.82; controlled NRSI: HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96; very low-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical symptoms, assessed by need for respiratory support (1 RCT, 103 participants; 1 controlled NRSI, 195 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma has any effect on improvement of clinical symptoms at seven days (RCT: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19), 14 days (RCT: RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.77; controlled NRSI: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.29), and 28 days (RCT: RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.81; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life No studies reported this outcome.  Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from 1 RCT, 3 controlled NRSIs and 10 non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of adverse events and serious adverse events was variable. The controlled studies reported on adverse events and serious adverse events only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. The duration of follow-up varied. Some, but not all, studies included death as a serious adverse event.  Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (13 studies, 201 participants) The studies did not report the grade of adverse events. Thirteen studies (201 participants) reported on adverse events of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these adverse events were allergic or respiratory events. We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe adverse events (very low-certainty evidence).  Serious adverse events (14 studies, 5201 participants)  Fourteen studies (5201 participants) reported on serious adverse events. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (5000 participants), which reported only on serious adverse events limited to the first four hours after convalescent plasma transfusion. This study included death as a serious adverse event; they reported 15 deaths, four of which they classified as potentially, probably or definitely related to transfusion. Other serious adverse events reported in all studies were predominantly allergic or respiratory in nature, including anaphylaxis, transfusion-associated dyspnoea, and transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI). We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma affects the number of serious adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. For safety outcomes we also included non-controlled NRSIs. There was limited information regarding adverse events. Of the controlled studies, none reported on this outcome in the control group. There is only very low-certainty evidence for safety of convalescent plasma for COVID-19.  While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, problems with recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies are conceivable. The early termination of the first RCT investigating convalescent plasma, and the multitude of studies registered in the past months illustrate this. It is therefore necessary to critically assess the design of these registered studies, and well-designed studies should be prioritised. Other considerations for these studies are the need to report outcomes for all study arms in the same way, and the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms.  There are 98 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 50 are RCTs. This is the first living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. These updates may show different results to those reported here.

A New Intravenous Immune Globulin: Novel or Not?

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical use and determine the place in therapy for immune globulin intravenous (IV), human-slra, a recently approved IV immune globulin for the treatment of primary immune deficiency diseases (PIDD).

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed and MEDLINE search (2010 to April 2020) was conducted for relevant articles. Data were also obtained from the package insert.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

English language publications regarding the clinical efficacy and safety of immune globulin-slra were analyzed. Publications focused on use of immune globulin products were also included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Immune globulin-slra is indicated for patients with PIDD and was specifically developed to include donor plasma with high respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) antibody titers. Efficacy was demonstrated through favorable incidence of infections and infection-related complications. Patients treated with immune globulin-slra had increases in anti-RSV neutralizing antibody titers compared with baseline. Adverse events occurred at rates similar to or less than other available immune globulin products.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

This review describes a new immune globulin product available for use in patients with PIDD. A novel approach to managing patients at risk of serious infections may be to utilize products with formulations proven to not only boost IgG levels, but also antibodies to specific pathogens.

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of which immune globulin product to select for a patient or formulary is complex. Each product is unique, and differences between products should be taken into consideration, along with cost and availability.

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

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with respiratory virus diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required.  OBJECTIVES: To assess whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

The protocol was pre-published with the Center for Open Science and can be accessed here: osf.io/dwf53  We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trials registries to identify ongoing studies and results of completed studies on 23 April 2020 for case-series, cohort, prospectively planned, and randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology and performed all steps regarding study selection in duplicate by two independent review authors (in contrast to the recommendations of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group). We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and studies evaluating standard immunoglobulins.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed recommendations of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group regarding data extraction and assessment. To assess bias in included studies, we used the assessment criteria tool 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 at hospital discharge, improvement of clinical symptoms (7, 15, and 30 days after transfusion), grade 3 and 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.  MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies (seven case-series, one prospectively planned, single-arm intervention study) with 32 participants, and identified a further 48 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma (47 studies) or hyperimmune immunoglobulin (one study), of which 22 are randomised. Overall risk of bias of the eight included studies was high, due to: study design; small number of participants; poor reporting within studies; and varied type of participants with different severities of disease, comorbidities, and types of previous or concurrent treatments, including antivirals, antifungals or antibiotics, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine and respiratory support. We rated all outcomes as very low certainty, and we were unable to summarise numerical data in any meaningful way. As we identified case-series studies only, we reported results narratively. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 The following reported outcomes could all be related to the underlying natural history of the disease or other concomitant treatment, rather than convalescent plasma. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge All studies reported mortality. All participants were alive at the end of the reporting period, but not all participants had been discharged from hospital by the end of the study (15 participants discharged, 6 still hospitalised, 11 unclear). Follow-up ranged from 3 days to 37 days post-transfusion. We do not know whether convalescent plasma therapy affects mortality (very low-certainty evidence).  Improvement of clinical symptoms (assessed by respiratory support) Six studies, including 28 participants, reported the level of respiratory support required; most participants required respiratory support at baseline. All studies reported improvement in clinical symptoms in at least some participants. We do not know whether convalescent plasma improves clinical symptoms (very low-certainty evidence). Time to discharge from hospital Six studies reported time to discharge from hospital for at least some participants, which ranged from four to 35 days after convalescent plasma therapy.  Admission on the intensive care unit (ICU) Six studies included patients who were critically ill. At final follow-up the majority of these patients were no longer on the ICU or no longer required mechanical ventilation. Length of stay on the ICU Only one study (1 participant) reported length of stay on the ICU. The individual was discharged from the ICU 11 days after plasma transfusion. Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 Grade 3 or 4 adverse events  The studies did not report the grade of adverse events after convalescent plasma transfusion. Two studies reported data relating to participants who had experienced adverse events, that were presumably grade 3 or 4. One case study reported a participant who had moderate fever (38.9 °C). Another study (3 participants) reported a case of severe anaphylactic shock. Four studies reported the absence of moderate or severe adverse events (19 participants). We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events One study (3 participants) reported one serious adverse event. As described above, this individual had severe anaphylactic shock after receiving convalescent plasma. Six studies reported that no serious adverse events occurred. We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified eight studies (seven case-series and one prospectively planned single-arm intervention study) with a total of 32 participants (range 1 to 10). Most studies assessed the risks of the intervention; reporting two adverse events (potentially grade 3 or 4), one of which was a serious adverse event. We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma is effective for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19 as studies reported results inconsistently, making it difficult to compare results and to draw conclusions. We identified very low-certainty evidence on the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma therapy for people with COVID-19; all studies were at high risk of bias and reporting quality was low. No RCTs or controlled non-randomised studies evaluating benefits and harms of convalescent plasma have been completed. There are 47 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, of which 22 are RCTs, and one trial evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We will update this review as a living systematic review, based on monthly searches in the above mentioned databases and registries. These updates are likely to show different results to those reported here.