Successful treatment of a centenarian with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using convalescent plasma

Unravelling humoral immunity in SARS-CoV-2: Insights from infection and vaccination

Following infection and vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, humoral components of the adaptive immune system play a key role in protecting the host. Specifically, B cells generate high-affinity antibodies against various antigens of the virus. In this review, we discuss the mechanisms of immunity initiation through both natural infection and vaccination, shedding light on the activation of B cell subsets in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination. The innate immune system serves as the initial line of primary and nonspecific defence against viruses. However, within several days following infection or a vaccine dose, a virus-specific immune response is initiated, primarily by B cells that produce antibodies. These antibodies contribute to the resolution of the disease. Subsequently, these B cells transition into memory B cells, which play a crucial role in providing long-term immunity against the virus. CD4+ T helper cells initiate a cascade, leading to B cell somatic hypermutation, germinal center memory B cells, and the production of neutralizing antibodies. B-cell dysfunction can worsen disease severity and reduce vaccine efficacy. Notably, individuals with B cell immunodeficiency show lower IL-6 production. Furthermore, this review delves into several aspects of immune responses, such as hybrid immunity, which has shown promise in boosting broad-spectrum protection. Cross-reactive immunity is under scrutiny as well, as pre-existing antibodies can offer protection against the disease. We also decipher breakthrough infection mechanisms, especially with the novel variants of the virus. Finally, we discuss some potential therapeutic solutions regarding B cells including convalescent plasma therapy, B-1 cells, B regulatory cell (Breg) modulation, and the use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies in combating the infection. Ongoing research is crucial to grasp population immunity trends and assess the potential need for booster doses in maintaining effective immune responses against potential viral threats.

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 (hyperimmune immunoglobulin) for COVID-19 management: An update

The pandemic COVID-19 has spread widely throughout the globe and has been responsible for millions of deaths worldwide. Recently, it has been identified that there is no specific and 100% effective treatment available to manage the infection especially for the severe cases. A significant amount of research efforts and clinical trials have been undertaken globally and many more are underway to find the potential treatment option. Earlier, convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin was effectively used in the treatment of many endemic or epidemic viral infections as a part of passive immunization. In this article, we have touched upon the immunopathology of COVID-19 infection, a basic understanding of convalescent plasma, it's manufacturing as well as evaluation, and have reviewed the scientific developments focussing on the potential of convalescent plasma vis-à-vis other modalities for the management of COVID-19. The article also covers various research approaches, clinical trials conducted globally, and the clinical trials which are at various stages for exploring the efficacy and safety of the convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) to predict its future perspective to manage COVID-19.

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.

Clinical nursing care protocol for convalescent plasma transfusion in patients with COVID-19

Introduction

The treatment of COVID-19 is still challenge. So convalescent plasma can be an important alternative of treatment. Protocols with nursing care during infusion is very important to guide an effective and safety care.

Objective

to analyze the evidence in the literature on the action of convalescent plasma, of the use of protocols with nursing care to use convalescent plasma and build a nursing care protocol for transfusion in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

Methodological study carried out in two stages: scoping review. The search was done using the descriptors: convalescent plasma transfusion, convalescent plasma, and acute respiratory syndromes or COVID-19, to found protocols and effectiveness of convalescent plasm. Beside was done a specialist panel to build the protocol.

Results

Low-evidence studies have shown improvement in the clinical signs of COVID-19 using Convalescent Plasma, reduction or elimination of viral load, benefits in the production of lymphocytes, decreases C-reactive protein, increases titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, positive evolution in lung involvement identified by X-rays, decrease in hospitalization. No studies were found in the databases on the protocol for clinical nursing care in plasma transfusion. Therefore, a protocol was developed with the description of clinical nursing care to be performed before, during and after the transfusion by plasma: checking of vital signs and indicative signs of transfusion reaction, measurement of oxygen saturation, assessment of venous access and checking of the level of consciousness.

Conclusion

There are no evidence studies to support the use of plasma, nor anything related to bundles.

The oldest unvaccinated Covid-19 survivors in South America

BACKGROUND

Although older adults are at a high risk of severe or critical Covid-19, there are many cases of unvaccinated centenarians who had a silent infection or recovered from mild or moderate Covid-19. We studied three Brazilian supercentenarians, older than 110 years, who survived Covid-19 in 2020 before being vaccinated.

RESULTS

Despite their advanced age, humoral immune response analysis showed that these individuals displayed robust levels of IgG and neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against SARS-CoV-2. Enrichment of plasma proteins and metabolites related to innate immune response and host defense was also observed. None presented autoantibodies (auto-Abs) to type I interferon (IFN). Furthermore, these supercentenarians do not carry rare variants in genes underlying the known inborn errors of immunity, including particular inborn errors of type I IFN.

CONCLUSION

These observations suggest that their Covid-19 resilience might be a combination of their genetic background and their innate and adaptive immunity.

Clinical and Molecular Relationships between COVID-19 and Feline Infectious Peritonitis (FIP)

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led the medical and scientific community to address questions surrounding the pathogenesis and clinical presentation of COVID-19; however, relevant clinical models outside of humans are still lacking. In felines, a ubiquitous coronavirus, described as feline coronavirus (FCoV), can present as feline infectious peritonitis (FIP)—a leading cause of mortality in young cats that is characterized as a severe, systemic inflammation. The diverse extrapulmonary signs of FIP and rapidly progressive disease course, coupled with a closely related etiologic agent, present a degree of overlap with COVID-19. This paper will explore the molecular and clinical relationships between FIP and COVID-19. While key differences between the two syndromes exist, these similarities support further examination of feline coronaviruses as a naturally occurring clinical model for coronavirus disease in humans.

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.

Clinical Management of Adult Patients with COVID-19 Outside Intensive Care Units: Guidelines from the Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA) and the Italian Society of Pulmonology (SIP)

INTRODUCTION

The Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA) and the Italian Society of Pulmonology (SIP) constituted an expert panel for developing evidence-based guidance for the clinical management of adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outside intensive care units.

METHODS

Ten systematic literature searches were performed to answer ten different key questions. The retrieved evidence was graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology (GRADE).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The literature searches mostly assessed the available evidence on the management of COVID-19 patients in terms of antiviral, anticoagulant, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)/non-invasive ventilation (NIV) treatment. Most evidence was deemed as of low certainty, and in some cases, recommendations could not be developed according to the GRADE system (best practice recommendations were provided in similar situations). The use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies may be considered for outpatients at risk of disease progression. For inpatients, favorable recommendations were provided for anticoagulant prophylaxis and systemic steroids administration, although with low certainty of evidence. Favorable recommendations, with very low/low certainty of evidence, were also provided for, in specific situations, remdesivir, alone or in combination with baricitinib, and tocilizumab. The presence of many best practice recommendations testified to the need for further investigations by means of randomized controlled trials, whenever possible, with some possible future research directions stemming from the results of the ten systematic reviews.

Systematic Review and Patient-Level Meta-Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Viral Dynamics to Model Response to Antiviral Therapies

Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral loads change rapidly following symptom onset, so to assess antivirals it is important to understand the natural history and patient factors influencing this. We undertook an individual patient-level meta-analysis of SARS-CoV-2 viral dynamics in humans to describe viral dynamics and estimate the effects of antivirals used to date. This systematic review identified case reports, case series, and clinical trial data from publications between January 1, 2020, and May 31, 2020, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards (Cox-PH) regression model of time to viral clearance was fitted to respiratory and stool samples. A simplified four parameter nonlinear mixed-effects (NLME) model was fitted to viral load trajectories in all sampling sites and covariate modeling of respiratory viral dynamics was performed to quantify time-dependent drug effects. Patient-level data from 645 individuals (age 1 month to 100 years) with 6,316 viral loads were extracted. Model-based simulations of viral load trajectories in samples from the upper and lower respiratory tract, stool, blood, urine, ocular secretions, and breast milk were generated. Cox-PH modeling showed longer time to viral clearance in older patients, men, and those with more severe disease. Remdesivir was associated with faster viral clearance (adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) = 9.19, P < 0.001), as well as interferon, particularly when combined with ribavirin (AHR = 2.2, P = 0.015; AHR = 6.04, P = 0.006). Combination therapy should be further investigated. A viral dynamic dataset and NLME model for designing and analyzing antiviral trials has been established.

SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Human Antibodies Protect Against Lower Respiratory Tract Disease in a Hamster Model

Effective clinical intervention strategies for COVID-19 are urgently needed. Although several clinical trials have evaluated the use of convalescent plasma containing virus-neutralizing antibodies, the levels of neutralizing antibodies are usually not assessed and the effectiveness has not been proven. We show that hamsters treated prophylactically with a 1:2560 titer of human convalescent plasma or a 1:5260 titer of monoclonal antibody were protected against weight loss, had a significant reduction of virus replication in the lungs and showed reduced pneumonia . Interestingly, this protective effect was lost with a titer of 1:320 of convalescent plasma. These data highlight the importance of screening plasma donors for high levels of neutralizing antibodies.

Our data show that prophylactic administration of high levels of neutralizing antibody, either monoclonal or from convalescent plasma, prevent severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in a hamster model, and could be used as an alternative or complementary to other antiviral treatments for COVID-19.

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.

Convalescent Plasma Transfusion for the Treatment of COVID-19 in Adults: A Global Perspective

More than one year into the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, healthcare systems across the world continue to be overwhelmed with soaring daily cases. The treatment spectrum primarily includes ventilation support augmented with repurposed drugs and/or convalescent plasma transfusion (CPT) from recovered COVID-19 patients. Despite vaccine variants being recently developed and administered in several countries, challenges in global supply chain logistics limit their timely availability to the wider world population, particularly in developing countries. Given the measured success of conventional CPT in treating several infections over the past decade, recent studies have reported its effectiveness in decreasing the duration and severity of COVID-19 symptoms. In this review, we conduct a literature search of published studies investigating the use of CPT to treat COVID-19 patients from January 2020 to January 2021. The literature search identified 181 records of which 39 were included in this review. A random-effects model was used to aggregate data across studies, and mortality rates of 17 vs. 32% were estimated for the CPT and control patient groups, respectively, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.49. The findings indicate that CPT shows potential in reducing the severity and duration of COVID-19 symptoms. However, early intervention (preferably within 3 days), recruitment of donors, and plasma potency introduce major challenges for its scaled-up implementation. Given the low number of existing randomized clinical trials (RCTs, four with a total of 319 patients), unanticipated risks to CPT recipients are highlighted and discussed. Nevertheless, CPT remains a promising COVID-19 therapeutic option that merits internationally coordinated RCTs to achieve a scientific risk-benefit consensus.

The Effect of Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Mortality Among Patients With COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

To determine the effect of COVID-19 convalescent plasma on mortality, we aggregated patient outcome data from 10 randomized clinical trials, 20 matched control studies, 2 dose-response studies, and 96 case reports or case series. Studies published between January 1, 2020, and January 16, 2021, were identified through a systematic search of online PubMed and MEDLINE databases. Random effects analyses of randomized clinical trials and matched control data demonstrated that patients with COVID-19 transfused with convalescent plasma exhibited a lower mortality rate compared with patients receiving standard treatments. Additional analyses showed that early transfusion (within 3 days of hospital admission) of higher titer plasma is associated with lower patient mortality. These data provide evidence favoring the efficacy of human convalescent plasma as a therapeutic agent in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Convalescent Plasma for the Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by a novel coronavirus termed SARS-CoV-2, has spread quickly worldwide. Convalescent plasma (CP) obtained from patients following recovery from COVID-19 infection and development of antibodies against the virus is an attractive option for either prophylactic or therapeutic treatment, since antibodies may have direct or indirect antiviral activities and immunotherapy has proven effective in principle and in many clinical reports.

OBJECTIVE

We seek to characterize the latest advances and evidence in the use of CP for COVID-19 through a systematic review and quantitative analysis, identify knowledge gaps in this setting, and offer recommendations and directives for future research.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were continuously searched for studies assessing the use of CP for COVID-19, including clinical studies, commentaries, reviews, guidelines or protocols, and in vitro testing of CP antibodies. The screening process and data extraction were performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Quality appraisal of all clinical studies was conducted using a universal tool independent of study designs. A meta-analysis of case-control and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Substantial literature has been published covering various aspects of CP therapy for COVID-19. Of the references included in this review, a total of 243 eligible studies including 64 clinical studies, 79 commentary articles, 46 reviews, 19 guidance and protocols, and 35 in vitro testing of CP antibodies matched the criteria. Positive results have been mostly observed so far when using CP for the treatment of COVID-19. There were remarkable heterogeneities in the CP therapy with respect to patient demographics, donor antibody titers, and time and dose of CP administration. The studies assessing the safety of CP treatment reported low incidence of adverse events. Most clinical studies, in particular case reports and case series, had poor quality. Only 1 RCT was of high quality. Randomized and nonrandomized data were found in 2 and 11 studies, respectively, and were included for meta-analysis, suggesting that CP could reduce mortality and increase viral clearance. Despite promising pilot studies, the benefits of CP treatment can only be clearly established through carefully designed RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

There is developing support for CP therapy, particularly for patients who are critically ill or mechanically ventilated and resistant to antivirals and supportive care. These studies provide important lessons that should inform the planning of well-designed RCTs to generate more robust knowledge for the efficacy of CP in patients with COVID-19. Future research is necessary to fill the knowledge gap regarding prevention and treatment for patients with COVID-19 with CP while other therapeutics are being developed.

Convalescent Blood: Current Perspective on the Efficacy of a Legacy Approach in COVID-19 Treatment

Since early 2020, COVID-19 has wreaked havoc in many societies around the world. As of the present, the SARS-CoV-2-borne disease is propagating in almost all countries, affecting hundreds of thousands of people in an unprecedented way. As the name suggests, the novel coronavirus, widely known as SARS-CoV-2, is a new emerging human pathogen. A novel disease of relatively unknown origin, COVID-19 does not seem to be amenable to the currently available medicines since there is no specific cure for the disease. In the absence of any vaccine or effective antiviral medication, we have no tools at our disposal, but the method of quarantine, be it domestic or institutional, to hinder any further progression of this outbreak. However, there is a record of physicians in the past who practiced convalescent blood transfusion. To their awe, the method seemed to be useful. It is anticipated that these contemporary methods will outdo any other vaccination process in the time being, as blood transfusion is instead a cost-effective and time-friendly technique. Following a successful trial, this new approach of contemporary nature to a viral disease may serve as an emergency intervention to intercept infectious outbreaks and prevent an impending epidemic/pandemic. In this review, we document the most recent evidence regarding the efficiency of convalescent plasma and serum therapy on SARS, MERS, and particularly COVID-19, while discussing potential advantages and possible risks of such practice.

Current views on the potentials of convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) as Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on recent studies and previous respiratory pandemics

Convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) has been investigated as a treatment for COVID-19. This review evaluates CPT in COVID-19 and other viral respiratory diseases, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and influenza. PubMed and Google scholar databases were used to collect eligible publications until 8 December 2020. Meta-analysis used Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and pooled analysis for individual patient data with inverse variance weighted average. The study is registered at PROSPERO with the number of CRD4200270579. Forty-four studies with 36,716 participants were included in the pooled analysis and 20 studies in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed reduction of mortality (RR 0.57, 95% CI [0.43, 0.76], z = 3.86 [p < 0.001], I²  = 44% [p = 0.03]) and higher number of discharged patients (RR 2.53, 95% CI [1.72, 3.72], z = 4.70 [p < 0.001], I²  = 3% [p = 0.39]) in patients receiving CPT compared to standard care alone. A possible mechanism of action is prompt reduction in viral titre. Serious transfusion-related adverse events were reported to be less than 1% of cases, suggesting the overall safety of CPT; nevertheless, the number of patients participating in the studies was still limited. It is also important to notice that in all the studies, the majority of patients were also given other medications, such as antivirals, antibiotics and corticosteroid; furthermore, randomized controlled studies involving more patients and in combination with other treatment modalities are urgently needed.

Convalescent plasma may be a possible treatment for COVID-19: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has spread globally. Therapeutic options including antivirals, anti-inflammatory compounds, and vaccines are still under study. Convalescent plasma(CP) immunotherapy was an effective method for fighting against similar viral infections such as SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV. In the epidemic of COVID-19, a large number of literatures reported the application of CP. However, there is controversy over the efficacy of CP therapy for COVID-19. This systematic review was designed to evaluate the existing evidence and experience related to CP immunotherapy for COVID-19.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted on Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Clinical Key, Wanfang Database; China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI) were used to search for the proper keywords such as SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, plasma, serum, immunoglobulins, blood transfusion, convalescent, novel coronavirus, immune and the related words for publications published until 15.10.2020. Other available resources were also used to identify relevant articles. The present systematic review was performed based on PRISMA protocol. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed by two reviewers.

RESULTS

Based on the inclusions and exclusions criteria, 45 articles were included in the final review. First, meta-analysis results of RCTs showed that, there were no statistically significant differences between CP transfusion and the control group in terms of reducing mortality(OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52-1.19, I2 = 28%) and improving clinical symptoms(OR 1.21, 95%CI 0.68-2.16; I2 = 0%). The results of controlled NRSIs showed that CP therapy may reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients(RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.53-0.66, I2 = 0%). Second, limited safety data suggested that CP is a well-tolerated therapy with a low incidence of adverse events. But, due to lack of safety data for the control group, it is really not easy to determine whether CP transfusion has an impact on moderate to serious AEs. Thirdly, for children, pregnant, elderly, tumor and immunocompromised patients, CP may be a well-tolerated therapy, if the disease cannot be controlled and continues to progress. Studies were commonly of low or very low quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the results of limited RCTs showed that CP cannot significantly reduce mortality, some non-RCTs and case report(series) have found that CP may help patients improve clinical symptoms, clear the virus, and reduce mortality, especially for patients with COVID-19 within ten days of illness. We speculate that CP may be a possible treatment option. High-quality studies are needed for establishing stronger quality of evidence and pharmacists should also be actively involved in the CP treatment process and provide close pharmaceutical care.

The History, Efficacy, and Safety of Potential Therapeutics: A Narrative Overview of the Complex Life of COVID-19

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic posed a serious public health concern and started a race against time for researchers to discover an effective and safe therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. This review aims to describe the history, efficacy, and safety of five potential therapeutics for COVID-19, remdesivir, favipiravir, hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab, and convalescent plasma. A literature review was conducted through October 2020 to identify published studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of these five potential therapeutics. Clinical improvement was used to assess the efficacy, while reported withdrawals from study participation and adverse events were used to evaluate the safety. In total, 95 clinical studies (6 interventional and 89 observational studies) were obtained, of which 42 were included in this review. The evaluation of the efficacy and safety profiles is challenging due to the limitations of the clinical studies on one hand, and the limited number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the other. Moreover, there was insufficient evidence to support repurposing remdesivir, favipiravir, and tocilizumab for COVID-19.

Safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in severely and critically ill patients with COVID-19: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The rapidly evolving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in more than 24 million infections and 821 thousand deaths. However, a vaccine or specific drug is absent up to this date and more attention has been focused on the use of convalescent plasma (CP). Several articles have described the CP treatment for patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. But a comprehensive systematic review with meta-analysis about the safety and efficacy of CP transfusion in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients has not been published. We conducted this study for a better understanding of the therapeutic significance of CP for patients with COVID-19.

RESULTS

A fixed-effect model (I2=0.0%) was used on the 9 articles for quantitative analysis showing that the mortality of patients with COVID-19 treated with or without CP was statistically significant (RR=0.57 [0.44-0.74]). Subgroup analysis showed that the severely ill patients benefited more from CP than the critically ill patients. Our study concluded that clinical improvement in severe COVID-19 cases were obvious. Adverse events were few and the effect of convalescent plasma on reducing viral load was apparent.

CONCLUSIONS

Convalescent plasma therapy appears safe for COVID-19, and plasma treated patients have marked reductions in their serum viral loads and most are virus negative after transfusion. Patients with severe COVID-19 benefit more from the convalescent plasma transfusion than critical patients, and patients treated in early stage are more likely to survive.

METHODS

We reviewed the scientific literature from four databases published from December 8, 2019 to August 20, 2020. Statistical analyses were performed with STATA (version 15.1; Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA). The frequency with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was assessed using fixed effect model in analyzing the overall mortality and p <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Convalescent plasma therapy for coronavirus infection: experience from MERS and application in COVID-19

The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a very large number of infections and high number of mortality. There is no specific therapeutic options that are approved for clinical use. Administration of convalescent plasma as a possible therapy was used in the case of viral pneumonia including SARS and influenza. There have been multiple studies of COVID-19 patients utilizing convalescent plasma. These studies employed different dosage levels and different regiments, were observational and lacked control arms, and had variable outcomes. Two of these studies used plasma with anti-SARS-CoV-2 titers of >1:640 to >1:1000. A recent randomized controlled clinical trial showed no benefit of convalescent plasma in patients with severe diseases. However, the study was terminated early and thus further clinical trials are needed to show efficacy in patients with COVID-19 infection.

Treatment of immunocompromised COVID-19 patients with convalescent plasma

Immunosuppressed patients such as solid organ transplant and hematologic malignancy patients appear to be at increased risk for morbidity and mortality due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) caused by SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). Convalescent plasma, a method of passive immunization that has been applied to prior viral pandemics, holds promise as a potential treatment for COVID‐19. Immunocompromised patients may experience more benefit from convalescent plasma given underlying deficits in B and T cell immunity as well as contraindications to antiviral and immunomodulatory therapy. We describe our institutional experience with four immunosuppressed patients (two kidney transplant recipients, one lung transplant recipient, and one chronic myelogenous leukemia patient) treated with COVID‐19 convalescent plasma through the Expanded Access Program (NCT 04338360). All patients clinically improved after administration (two fully recovered and two discharged to skilled nursing facilities) and none experienced a transfusion reaction. We also report the characteristics of convalescent plasma product from a local blood center including positive SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and negative SARS‐CoV‐2 PCR in all samples tested. This preliminary evidence suggest that convalescent plasma may be safe among immunosuppressed patients with COVID‐19 and emphasizes the need for further data on the efficacy of convalescent plasma as either primary or adjunctive therapy for COVID‐19.

Prevalence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Neutralizing Antibodies in Egyptian Convalescent Plasma Donors

Using convalescent plasma as immunotherapy is an old method for treatment of infectious diseases. Several countries have recently allowed the use of such therapy for the treatment of COVID-19 patients especially those who are critically ill. A similar program is currently being tested in Egypt. Here, we tested 227 plasma samples from convalescent donors in Egypt for neutralizing antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using a microneutralization (MN) assay. A third of the tested samples did not have antibody titers and 58% had titers between 1:10 and 1:80. Only 12% had titers >1:160. We also compared MN assays using different virus concentrations, plaque reduction neutralization (PRNT) assays, and a chemiluminescence assay that measures immunoglobulin G (IgG) binding to N and S proteins of SARS-CoV-2. Our results indicated that a MN assay using 100 TCID50/ml provides comparable results to PRNT and allows for high throughput testing.

Convalescent Plasma Therapy for Management of COVID-19: Perspectives and Deployment in the Current Global Pandemic

The world is striving against the severe crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare professionals are struggling to treat their patients based on nonspecific therapies. Amidst this uncertainty, convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) has appeared to be an interim adjuvant therapy for severely ill patients of COVID-19 until long-term clinical trial treatment options are available. Considering the transfusion-related hazards, especially lung injuries and microbial transmission, where sensitivity is not ensured, rigorous trials should be conducted to determine this therapy's efficacy. Moreover, the ratio of recovered cases to plasma donors is not satisfying, which questioning this therapy's availability and accessibility. Although some countries are making the treatment free, the attributable cost mandates a justification for its suitability and sustainability. Our article aimed to review the published facts and findings of CPT's effectiveness in lowering the mortality rate of COVID-19. This pandemic showed that healthcare systems worldwide need core reform. A unified global collaboration must align and coordinate to face the current pandemic and enhance world readiness for future outbreaks based on health equity and equality.

Convalescent Plasma in the Treatment of Severe COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is a public health emergency of international concern. Its incidence rates and mortality are very high; however, so far, an effective drug treatment remains unknown. Based on the role of convalescent plasma therapy in previously identified viral pneumonias, patients with severe COVID-19 have been given this therapy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the clinical evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma therapy in the treatment of severe COVID-19.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Ovid, China Knowledge Network, China Biomedical, VIP Chinese Sci-tech Journal, Wanfang Database, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched up to 21 June 2020, to identify clinical studies and registered trials on the use of convalescent plasma in the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Stata 13.0 was used to perform Meta-analysis. All records were screened as per the protocol eligibility criteria.

RESULTS

Nineteen clinical reports regarding convalescent plasma in the treatment of severe COVID-19 were included. Through systematic analysis, convalescent plasma was found to yield some efficacy on severe COVID-19 and had almost no obvious adverse reactions.

CONCLUSION

Convalescent plasma therapy seems to yield some efficacy among patients with severe COVID-19 and almost no obvious adverse reactions were found. However, at present, the clinical evidence is insufficient, and there is an urgent need for support from high-quality clinical trial data.

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.

Convalescent Plasma Therapy for COVID-19: State of the Art

Convalescent plasma (CP) therapy has been used since the early 1900s to treat emerging infectious diseases; its efficacy was later associated with the evidence that polyclonal neutralizing antibodies can reduce the duration of viremia. Recent large outbreaks of viral diseases for which effective antivirals or vaccines are still lacking has renewed the interest in CP as a life-saving treatment. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has led to the scaling up of CP therapy to unprecedented levels. Compared with historical usage, pathogen reduction technologies have now added an extra layer of safety to the use of CP, and new manufacturing approaches are being explored. This review summarizes historical settings of application, with a focus on betacoronaviruses, and surveys current approaches for donor selection and CP collection, pooling technologies, pathogen inactivation systems, and banking of CP. We additionally list the ongoing registered clinical trials for CP throughout the world and discuss the trial results published thus far.

Hospital Course of a Man With Viral Pneumonia Caused by COVID-19

The authors present a case of a man with pneumonia caused by COVID-19. There is currently no FDA-approved medical treatment or vaccine for COVID-19, so a variety of drugs and medicinal therapies have been repurposed for use in hospital settings and clinical studies while the medical community waits for a medication to be approved and standardized. Pneumonia is a common outcome of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), so cases of it are rapidly spreading around the world as the novel coronavirus continues to spread.

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.