1
|
Franchini M, Cruciani M, Casadevall A, Joyner MJ, Senefeld JW, Sullivan DJ, Zani M, Focosi D. Safety of COVID-19 convalescent plasma: A definitive systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Transfusion 2024; 64:388-399. [PMID: 38156374 DOI: 10.1111/trf.17701] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2023] [Revised: 12/17/2023] [Accepted: 12/18/2023] [Indexed: 12/30/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Massimo Franchini
- Department of Transfusion Medicine and Hematology, Carlo Poma Hospital, Mantova, Italy
| | - Mario Cruciani
- Department of Transfusion Medicine and Hematology, Carlo Poma Hospital, Mantova, Italy
| | - Arturo Casadevall
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Michael J Joyner
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Jonathon W Senefeld
- Department of Kinesiology and Community Healthy, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, USA
| | - David J Sullivan
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Matteo Zani
- Department of Transfusion Medicine and Hematology, Carlo Poma Hospital, Mantova, Italy
| | - Daniele Focosi
- North-Western Tuscany Blood Bank, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Van Denakker TA, Al-Riyami AZ, Feghali R, Gammon R, So-Osman C, Crowe EP, Goel R, Rai H, Tobian AAR, Bloch EM. Managing blood supplies during natural disasters, humanitarian emergencies, and pandemics: lessons learned from COVID-19. Expert Rev Hematol 2023; 16:501-514. [PMID: 37129864 PMCID: PMC10330287 DOI: 10.1080/17474086.2023.2209716] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2023] [Accepted: 04/28/2023] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a historic public health crisis with widespread social and economic ramifications. The pandemic has also affected the blood supply, resulting in unprecedented and sustained blood shortages. AREAS COVERED This review describes the challenges of maintaining a safe and sufficient blood supply in the wake of natural disasters, humanitarian emergencies, and pandemics. The challenges, which are accentuated in low- and high-income countries, span the impact on human capacity (affecting blood donors and blood collections personnel alike), disruption to supply chains, and economic sustainability. COVID-19 imparted lessons on how to offset these challenges, which may be applied to future pandemics and public health crises. EXPERT OPINION Pandemic emergency preparedness plans should be implemented or revised by blood centers and hospitals to lessen the impact to the blood supply. Comprehensive planning should address the timely assessment of risk to the blood supply, rapid donor recruitment, and communication of need, measures to preserve safety for donors and operational staff, careful blood management, and resource sharing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tayler A Van Denakker
- Department of Pathology, Transfusion Medicine Division, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Arwa Z Al-Riyami
- Department of Hematology, Sultan Qaboos University Hospital Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman
| | | | - Richard Gammon
- OneBlood, Scientific, Medical, Technical Direction, Orlando, FL, USA
| | - Cynthia So-Osman
- Sanquin Blood Supply Foundation, Department of Transfusion medicine, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Elizabeth P Crowe
- Department of Pathology, Transfusion Medicine Division, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Ruchika Goel
- Department of Pathology, Transfusion Medicine Division, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Simmons Cancer Institute, Department of Internal Medicine, Springfield, IL, USA
| | - Herleen Rai
- Department of Pathology, Transfusion Medicine Division, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Aaron A R Tobian
- Department of Pathology, Transfusion Medicine Division, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Evan M Bloch
- Department of Pathology, Transfusion Medicine Division, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Iannizzi C, Chai KL, Piechotta V, Valk SJ, Kimber C, Monsef I, Wood EM, Lamikanra AA, Roberts DJ, McQuilten Z, So-Osman C, Jindal A, Cryns N, Estcourt LJ, Kreuzberger N, Skoetz N. Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 5:CD013600. [PMID: 37162745 PMCID: PMC10171886 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013600.pub6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/11/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have very-low to low certainty evidence for most primary outcomes and moderate certainty for hospital admission or death. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire Iannizzi
- Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Khai Li Chai
- Transfusion Research Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Vanessa Piechotta
- Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Sarah J Valk
- Jon J van Rood Center for Clinical Transfusion Research, Sanquin/Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Catherine Kimber
- Systematic Review Initiative, NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK
| | - Ina Monsef
- Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Erica M Wood
- Transfusion Research Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | | | - David J Roberts
- Systematic Review Initiative, NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK
| | - Zoe McQuilten
- Transfusion Research Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Cynthia So-Osman
- Sanquin Blood Bank, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Aikaj Jindal
- Department of Transfusion Medicine, SPS Hospitals, Ludhiana (Punjab), India
| | - Nora Cryns
- Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Lise J Estcourt
- Haematology/Transfusion Medicine, NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK
| | - Nina Kreuzberger
- Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Nicole Skoetz
- Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Iannizzi C, Chai KL, Piechotta V, Valk SJ, Kimber C, Monsef I, Wood EM, Lamikanra AA, Roberts DJ, McQuilten Z, So-Osman C, Jindal A, Cryns N, Estcourt LJ, Kreuzberger N, Skoetz N. Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 2:CD013600. [PMID: 36734509 PMCID: PMC9891348 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013600.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have low certainty evidence for our primary outcomes. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire Iannizzi
- Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Khai Li Chai
- Transfusion Research Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Vanessa Piechotta
- Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Sarah J Valk
- Jon J van Rood Center for Clinical Transfusion Research, Sanquin/Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Catherine Kimber
- Systematic Review Initiative, NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK
| | - Ina Monsef
- Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Erica M Wood
- Transfusion Research Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | | | - David J Roberts
- Systematic Review Initiative, NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK
| | - Zoe McQuilten
- Transfusion Research Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Cynthia So-Osman
- Sanquin Blood Bank, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Aikaj Jindal
- Department of Transfusion Medicine, SPS Hospitals, Ludhiana (Punjab), India
| | - Nora Cryns
- Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Lise J Estcourt
- Haematology/Transfusion Medicine, NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK
| | - Nina Kreuzberger
- Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Nicole Skoetz
- Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Kimber C, Lamikanra AA, Geneen LJ, Sandercock J, Dorée C, Valk SJ, Estcourt LJ. A systematic review of the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma or immunoglobulin treatment for people with severe respiratory viral infections due to coronaviruses or influenza. Transfus Med 2023; 33:26-38. [PMID: 36412541 DOI: 10.1111/tme.12942] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/21/2022] [Revised: 10/18/2022] [Accepted: 10/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Evaluate the safety and effectiveness of convalescent plasma (CP) or hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIVIG) in severe respiratory disease caused by coronaviruses or influenza, in patients of all ages requiring hospital admission. METHODS We searched multiple electronic databases for all publications to 12th October 2020, and RCTs only to 28th June 2021. Two reviewers screened, extracted, and analysed data. We used Cochrane ROB (Risk of Bias)1 for RCTs, ROBINS-I for non-RCTs, and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS Data from 30 RCTs and 2 non-RCTs showed no overall difference between groups for all-cause mortality and adverse events in four comparisons. Certainty of the evidence was downgraded for high ROB and imprecision. (1) CP versus standard care (SoC) (20 RCTS, 2 non-RCTs, very-low to moderate-high certainty); (2) CP versus biologically active control (6 RCTs, very-low certainty); (3) hIVIG versus SoC (3 RCTs, very-low certainty); (4) early CP versus deferred CP (1 RCT, very-low certainty). Subgrouping by titre improved precision in one outcome (30-day mortality) for the 'COVID high-titre' category in Comparison 1 (no difference, high certainty) and Comparison 2 (favours CP, very-low certainty). Post hoc analysis suggests a possible benefit of CP in patients testing negative for antibodies at baseline, compared with those testing positive. CONCLUSION A minimum titre should be established and ensured for a positive biological response to the therapy. Further research on the impact of CP/hIVIG in patients who have not yet produced antibodies to the virus would be useful to target therapies at groups who will potentially benefit the most.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Catherine Kimber
- Systematic Review Initiative, NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK.,Nuffield Division of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Abigail A Lamikanra
- Nuffield Division of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.,Pathology Directorate, National Health Service (NHS) Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK
| | - Louise J Geneen
- Systematic Review Initiative, NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK.,Nuffield Division of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Josie Sandercock
- Systematic Review Initiative, NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK.,Nuffield Division of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Carolyn Dorée
- Systematic Review Initiative, NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK.,Nuffield Division of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Sarah J Valk
- Nuffield Division of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.,Jon J van Rood Center for Clinical Transfusion Research, Sanquin/Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Lise J Estcourt
- Systematic Review Initiative, NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK.,Nuffield Division of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.,Haematology/Transfusion Medicine, NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Estcourt LJ, Cohn CS, Pagano MB, Iannizzi C, Kreuzberger N, Skoetz N, Allen ES, Bloch EM, Beaudoin G, Casadevall A, Devine DV, Foroutan F, Gniadek TJ, Goel R, Gorlin J, Grossman BJ, Joyner MJ, Metcalf RA, Raval JS, Rice TW, Shaz BH, Vassallo RR, Winters JL, Tobian AAR. Clinical Practice Guidelines From the Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB): COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma. Ann Intern Med 2022; 175:1310-1321. [PMID: 35969859 PMCID: PMC9450870 DOI: 10.7326/m22-1079] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 21.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/28/2023] Open
Abstract
DESCRIPTION Coronavirus disease 2019 convalescent plasma (CCP) has emerged as a potential treatment of COVID-19. However, meta-analysis data and recommendations are limited. The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB) developed clinical practice guidelines for the appropriate use of CCP. METHODS These guidelines are based on 2 living systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CCP from 1 January 2019 to 26 January 2022. There were 33 RCTs assessing 21 916 participants. The results were summarized using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. An expert panel reviewed the data using the GRADE framework to formulate recommendations. RECOMMENDATION 1 (OUTPATIENT) The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for outpatients with COVID-19 who are at high risk for disease progression (weak recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2 (INPATIENT) The AABB recommends against CCP transfusion for unselected hospitalized persons with moderate or severe disease (strong recommendation, high-certainty evidence). This recommendation does not apply to immunosuppressed patients or those who lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. RECOMMENDATION 3 (INPATIENT) The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detected at admission (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 4 (INPATIENT) The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting immunosuppression (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 5 (PROPHYLAXIS) The AABB suggests against prophylactic CCP transfusion for uninfected persons with close contact exposure to a person with COVID-19 (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE STATEMENT CCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers to infected patients early after symptom onset.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lise J Estcourt
- NHS Blood and Transplant and Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, United Kingdom (L.J.E.)
| | - Claudia S Cohn
- University of Minnesota, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Minneapolis, Minnesota (C.S.C.)
| | - Monica B Pagano
- University of Washington, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Seattle, Washington (M.B.P.)
| | - Claire Iannizzi
- Evidence-based Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (C.I., N.K., N.S.)
| | - Nina Kreuzberger
- Evidence-based Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (C.I., N.K., N.S.)
| | - Nicole Skoetz
- Evidence-based Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (C.I., N.K., N.S.)
| | - Elizabeth S Allen
- University of California San Diego, Department of Pathology, La Jolla, California (E.S.A.)
| | - Evan M Bloch
- The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Baltimore, Maryland (E.M.B., R.G., A.A.R.T.)
| | | | - Arturo Casadevall
- The Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Baltimore, Maryland (A.C.)
| | - Dana V Devine
- Canadian Blood Services, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (D.V.D.)
| | - Farid Foroutan
- University Health Network, Ted Rogers Centre for Heart Research, Toronto, and Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (F.F.)
| | - Thomas J Gniadek
- NorthShore University Health System, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Evanston, Illinois (T.J.G.)
| | - Ruchika Goel
- The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Baltimore, Maryland (E.M.B., R.G., A.A.R.T.)
| | - Jed Gorlin
- Innovative Blood Resources, Division of New York Blood Center Enterprises, St. Paul, Minnesota (J.G.)
| | - Brenda J Grossman
- Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Department of Pathology and Immunology, St. Louis, Missouri (B.J.G.)
| | - Michael J Joyner
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota (M.J.J.)
| | - Ryan A Metcalf
- University of Utah, Department of Pathology, Salt Lake City, Utah (R.A.M.)
| | - Jay S Raval
- University of New Mexico, Department of Pathology, Albuquerque, New Mexico (J.S.R.)
| | - Todd W Rice
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee (T.W.R.)
| | - Beth H Shaz
- Duke University, Department of Pathology, Durham, North Carolina (B.H.S.)
| | | | - Jeffrey L Winters
- Mayo Clinic, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Rochester, Minnesota (J.L.W.)
| | - Aaron A R Tobian
- The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Baltimore, Maryland (E.M.B., R.G., A.A.R.T.)
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Qian Z, Zhang Z, Ma H, Shao S, Kang H, Tong Z. The efficiency of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Front Immunol 2022; 13:964398. [PMID: 35967398 PMCID: PMC9366612 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.964398] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2022] [Accepted: 06/29/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess whether convalescent plasma therapy could offer survival advantages for patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). An electronic search of Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane library and MedRxiv was performed from January 1st, 2020 to April 1st, 2022. We included studies containing patients with COVID-19 and treated with CCP. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers and synthesized with a random-effect analysis model. The primary outcome was 28-d mortality. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, ventilation-free days, 14-d mortality, improvements of symptoms, progression of diseases and requirements of mechanical ventilation. Safety outcomes included the incidence of all adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). The Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool 2.0 was used to assess the potential risk of bias in eligible studies. The heterogeneity of results was assessed by I^2 test and Q statistic test. The possibility of publication bias was assessed by conducting Begg and Egger test. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method were used for quality of evidence. This study had been registered on PROSPERO, CRD42021273608. 32 RCTs comprising 21478 patients with Covid-19 were included. Compared to the control group, COVID-19 patients receiving CCP were not associated with significantly reduced 28-d mortality (CCP 20.0% vs control 20.8%; risk ratio 0.94; 95% CI 0.87-1.02; p = 0.16; I² = 8%). For all secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between CCP group and control group. The incidence of AEs (26.9% vs 19.4%,; risk ratio 1.14; 95% CI 0.99-01.31; p = 0.06; I² = 38%) and SAEs (16.3% vs 13.5%; risk ratio 1.03; 95% CI 0.87-1.20; p = 0.76; I² = 42%) tended to be higher in the CCP group compared to the control group, while the differences did not reach statistical significance. In all, CCP therapy was not related to significantly improved 28-d mortality or symptoms recovery, and should not be viewed as a routine treatment for COVID-19 patients. Trial registration number CRD42021273608. Registration on February 28, 2022. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, Identifier CRD42022313265.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhenbei Qian
- Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Zhijin Zhang
- Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Haomiao Ma
- Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Shuai Shao
- Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Hanyujie Kang
- Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| | - Zhaohui Tong
- Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine, Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Estcourt LJ. Passive immune therapies: another tool against COVID-19. HEMATOLOGY. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEMATOLOGY. EDUCATION PROGRAM 2021; 2021:628-641. [PMID: 34889410 PMCID: PMC8791113 DOI: 10.1182/hematology.2021000299] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/04/2023]
Abstract
Passive immune therapy consists of several different therapies, convalescent plasma, hyperimmune globulin, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) neutralizing monoclonal antibodies. Although these treatments were not part of any pandemic planning prior to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), due to the absence of high-quality evidence demonstrating benefit in other severe respiratory infections, a large amount of research has now been performed to demonstrate their benefit or lack of benefit in different patient groups. This review summarizes the evidence up to July 2021 on their use and also when they should not be used or when additional data are required. Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is the most important method of preventing severe and fatal COVID-19 in people who have an intact immune system. Passive immune therapy should only be considered for patients at high risk of severe or fatal COVID-19. The only therapy that has received full regulatory approval is the casirivimab/imdevimab monoclonal cocktail; all other treatments are being used under emergency use authorizations. In Japan, it has been licensed to treat patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, and in the United Kingdom, it has also been licensed to prevent infection.
Collapse
|
9
|
Abstract
As the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic led to a global health crisis, there were limited treatment options and no prophylactic therapies for those exposed to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Convalescent plasma is quick to implement, potentially provides benefits, and has a good safety profile. The therapeutic potential of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is likely mediated by antibodies through direct viral neutralization and Fc-dependent functions such as a phagocytosis, complement activation, and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. In the United States, CCP became one of the most common treatments with over half million units transfused despite limited efficacy data. More than a dozen randomized trials now demonstrate that CCP does not provide benefit for those with moderate to severe disease. However, similar to other passive antibody therapies, CCP is beneficial for early disease, when provided to elderly outpatients within 72 hours after symptom onset. Only high-titer CCP should be transfused. CCP should also be considered for immunosuppressed COVID-19 patients. CCP collected in proximity, by time and location, to the patient may be more beneficial due to SARS-CoV-2 variants. Additional randomized trial data are still accruing and should be incorporated with other trial data to optimize CCP indications.
Collapse
|
10
|
Convalescent Plasma for Patients Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Transfus Med Rev 2021; 36:16-26. [PMID: 34782209 PMCID: PMC8502250 DOI: 10.1016/j.tmrv.2021.09.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2021] [Revised: 09/24/2021] [Accepted: 09/29/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Current evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews on the utility of convalescent plasma (CP) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suggests a lack of benefit. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of RCTs with trial sequential analysis to investigate whether convalescent plasma is futile in reducing mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We searched 6 databases from December 1, 2019 to August 1, 2021 for RCTs comparing the use of CP with standard of care or transfusion of non-CP standard plasma in patients with COVID-19. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 Tool. Random effects (DerSimonian and Laird) meta-analyses were conducted. The primary outcome was the aggregate risk for in-hospital mortality between both arms. We conducted a trial sequential analysis (TSA) based on the pooled relative risks (RRs) for in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included the pooled RR for receipt of mechanical ventilation and mean difference in hospital length of stay. We included 18 RCTs (8702 CP, 7906 control). CP was not associated with a significant mortality benefit (RR: 0.95, 95%-CI: 0.86-1.04, P = .27, high certainty). Subgroup analysis did not find any significant differences (pinteraction = 0.30) between patients who received CP within 8 days of symptom onset (RR: 0.97, 95%-CI: 0.79-1.19, P = .80), or after 8 days (RR: 0.79, 95%-CI: 0.57-1.10, P = .16). TSA based on a RR reduction of 10% from a baseline mortality of 20% found that CP was not effective, with the pooled effect within the boundary for futility. CP did not significantly reduce the requirement for mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.00, 95%-CI: 0.91-1.10, P = .99, moderate certainty) or hospital length of stay (+1.32, 95%-CI: -1.86 to +4.52, P = .42, low certainty). CP does not improve relevant clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, especially in severe disease. The pooled effect of mortality was within the boundary of futility, suggesting the lack of benefit of CP in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
Collapse
|
11
|
Siemieniuk RA, Bartoszko JJ, Díaz Martinez JP, Kum E, Qasim A, Zeraatkar D, Izcovich A, Mangala S, Ge L, Han MA, Agoritsas T, Arnold D, Ávila C, Chu DK, Couban R, Cusano E, Darzi AJ, Devji T, Foroutan F, Ghadimi M, Khamis A, Lamontagne F, Loeb M, Miroshnychenko A, Motaghi S, Murthy S, Mustafa RA, Rada G, Rochwerg B, Switzer C, Vandvik PO, Vernooij RW, Wang Y, Yao L, Guyatt GH, Brignardello-Petersen R. Antibody and cellular therapies for treatment of covid-19: a living systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ 2021; 374:n2231. [PMID: 34556486 PMCID: PMC8459162 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n2231] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/10/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN Living systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data. DATA SOURCES WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021). STUDY SELECTION Trials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate. METHODS After duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm. RESULTS As of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative. CONCLUSION In patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement. FUNDING This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321). READERS' NOTE This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Reed Ac Siemieniuk
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- Joint first authors
| | - Jessica J Bartoszko
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
- Joint first authors
| | - Juan Pablo Díaz Martinez
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
- Joint first authors
| | - Elena Kum
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
- Joint first authors
| | - Anila Qasim
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
- Joint first authors
| | - Dena Zeraatkar
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
- Joint first authors
| | - Ariel Izcovich
- Servicio de Clinica Médica del Hospital Alemán, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Sophia Mangala
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
| | - Long Ge
- Evidence Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
| | - Mi Ah Han
- Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Chosun University, Gwangju, Republic of Korea
| | - Thomas Agoritsas
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
- Division of General Internal Medicine & Division of Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Donald Arnold
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | | | - Derek K Chu
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Rachel Couban
- Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Ellen Cusano
- Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | - Andrea J Darzi
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
| | - Tahira Devji
- Medical school, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Farid Foroutan
- Ted Rogers Center for Heart Research, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Maryam Ghadimi
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
| | - Assem Khamis
- Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, Hull, UK
| | - Francois Lamontagne
- Department of Medicine and Centre de recherche du CHU de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
| | - Mark Loeb
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Anna Miroshnychenko
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
| | - Sharhzad Motaghi
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
| | - Srinivas Murthy
- Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver
| | - Reem A Mustafa
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
- Department of Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, MO, USA
| | | | - Bram Rochwerg
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Charlotte Switzer
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
| | - Per O Vandvik
- Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Robin Wm Vernooij
- Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Ying Wang
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
| | - Liang Yao
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
| | - Gordon H Guyatt
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada
- Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Bégin P, Callum J, Jamula E, Cook R, Heddle NM, Tinmouth A, Zeller MP, Beaudoin-Bussières G, Amorim L, Bazin R, Loftsgard KC, Carl R, Chassé M, Cushing MM, Daneman N, Devine DV, Dumaresq J, Fergusson DA, Gabe C, Glesby MJ, Li N, Liu Y, McGeer A, Robitaille N, Sachais BS, Scales DC, Schwartz L, Shehata N, Turgeon AF, Wood H, Zarychanski R, Finzi A, Arnold DM. Convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: an open-label, randomized controlled trial. Nat Med 2021; 27:2012-2024. [PMID: 34504336 PMCID: PMC8604729 DOI: 10.1038/s41591-021-01488-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 173] [Impact Index Per Article: 57.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/18/2021] [Accepted: 08/02/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
The efficacy of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Although most randomized controlled trials have shown negative results, uncontrolled studies have suggested that the antibody content could influence patient outcomes. We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma for adults with COVID-19 receiving oxygen within 12 d of respiratory symptom onset (NCT04348656). Patients were allocated 2:1 to 500 ml of convalescent plasma or standard of care. The composite primary outcome was intubation or death by 30 d. Exploratory analyses of the effect of convalescent plasma antibodies on the primary outcome was assessed by logistic regression. The trial was terminated at 78% of planned enrollment after meeting stopping criteria for futility. In total, 940 patients were randomized, and 921 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Intubation or death occurred in 199/614 (32.4%) patients in the convalescent plasma arm and 86/307 (28.0%) patients in the standard of care arm—relative risk (RR) = 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94–1.43, P = 0.18). Patients in the convalescent plasma arm had more serious adverse events (33.4% versus 26.4%; RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.02–1.57, P = 0.034). The antibody content significantly modulated the therapeutic effect of convalescent plasma. In multivariate analysis, each standardized log increase in neutralization or antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity independently reduced the potential harmful effect of plasma (odds ratio (OR) = 0.74, 95% CI 0.57–0.95 and OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.50–0.87, respectively), whereas IgG against the full transmembrane spike protein increased it (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.14–2.05). Convalescent plasma did not reduce the risk of intubation or death at 30 d in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Transfusion of convalescent plasma with unfavorable antibody profiles could be associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to standard care. A randomized trial in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 showed no benefit and potentially increased harm associated with the use of convalescent plasma, with subgroup analyses suggesting that the antibody profile in donor plasma is critical in determining clinical outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Philippe Bégin
- Department of Pediatrics, CHU Sainte-Justine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. .,Department of Medicine, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
| | - Jeannie Callum
- Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Kingston Health Sciences Centre and Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. .,Department of Laboratory Medicine and Molecular Diagnostics, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. .,Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. .,Canadian Blood Services, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
| | - Erin Jamula
- McMaster Centre for Transfusion Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Richard Cook
- Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
| | - Nancy M Heddle
- Canadian Blood Services, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.,McMaster Centre for Transfusion Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.,Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Alan Tinmouth
- Canadian Blood Services, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.,Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.,Ottawa Hospital Centre for Transfusion Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Michelle P Zeller
- Canadian Blood Services, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.,McMaster Centre for Transfusion Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.,Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Guillaume Beaudoin-Bussières
- Département de Microbiologie, Infectiologie et Immunologie, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.,CHUM Research Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Luiz Amorim
- Hemorio, Hospital and Regional Blood Center, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Renée Bazin
- Héma-Québec, Medical Affairs and Innovation, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
| | | | - Richard Carl
- Patient representative, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Michaël Chassé
- Department of Medicine, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.,Innovation Hub, Centre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Melissa M Cushing
- Transfusion Medicine and Cellular Therapy, New York-Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA.,Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Nick Daneman
- Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Dana V Devine
- Canadian Blood Services, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.,Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Jeannot Dumaresq
- Département de médecine, CISSS de Chaudière-Appalaches, Lévis, Quebec, Canada.,Département de microbiologie-infectiologie et d'immunologie, Faculté de Médecine, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
| | - Dean A Fergusson
- Canadian Blood Services, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.,Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.,Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Caroline Gabe
- McMaster Centre for Transfusion Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Marshall J Glesby
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
| | - Na Li
- McMaster Centre for Transfusion Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.,Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.,Department of Computing and Software, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Yang Liu
- McMaster Centre for Transfusion Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Allison McGeer
- Department of Microbiology, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology and Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Nancy Robitaille
- Héma-Québec, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.,Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, CHU Sainte-Justine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.,Department of Pediatrics, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Bruce S Sachais
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.,New York Blood Center Enterprises, New York, NY, USA
| | - Damon C Scales
- Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,Department of Medicine, Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lisa Schwartz
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence & Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Nadine Shehata
- Canadian Blood Services, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.,Departments of Medicine, Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.,Division of Hematology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Alexis F Turgeon
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.,CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Centre, Population Health and Optimal Health Practices Research Unit, Trauma-Emergency-Critical Care Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
| | - Heidi Wood
- Zoonotic Diseases and Special Pathogens, National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Ryan Zarychanski
- Department of Internal Medicine, Sections of Hematology/Medical Oncology and Critical Care, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
| | - Andrés Finzi
- Département de Microbiologie, Infectiologie et Immunologie, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.,CHUM Research Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | | | - Donald M Arnold
- McMaster Centre for Transfusion Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. .,Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Malin JJ, Spinner CD, Janssens U, Welte T, Weber-Carstens S, Schälte G, Gastmeier P, Langer F, Wepler M, Westhoff M, Pfeifer M, Rabe KF, Hoffmann F, Böttiger BW, Weinmann-Menke J, Kersten A, Berlit P, Krawczyk M, Nehls W, Fichtner F, Laudi S, Stegemann M, Skoetz N, Nothacker M, Marx G, Karagiannidis C, Kluge S. Key summary of German national treatment guidance for hospitalized COVID-19 patients Key pharmacologic recommendations from a national German living guideline using an Evidence to Decision Framework (last updated 17.05.2021). Infection 2021; 50:93-106. [PMID: 34228347 PMCID: PMC8259552 DOI: 10.1007/s15010-021-01645-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/24/2021] [Accepted: 06/19/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE This executive summary of a national living guideline aims to provide rapid evidence based recommendations on the role of drug interventions in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS The guideline makes use of a systematic assessment and decision process using an evidence to decision framework (GRADE) as recommended standard WHO (2021). Recommendations are consented by an interdisciplinary panel. Evidence analysis and interpretation is supported by the CEOsys project providing extensive literature searches and living (meta-) analyses. For this executive summary, selected key recommendations on drug therapy are presented including the quality of the evidence and rationale for the level of recommendation. RESULTS The guideline contains 11 key recommendations for COVID-19 drug therapy, eight of which are based on systematic review and/or meta-analysis, while three recommendations represent consensus expert opinion. Based on current evidence, the panel makes strong recommendations for corticosteroids (WHO scale 5-9) and prophylactic anticoagulation (all hospitalized patients with COVID-19) as standard of care. Intensified anticoagulation may be considered for patients with additional risk factors for venous thromboembolisms (VTE) and a low bleeding risk. The IL-6 antagonist tocilizumab may be added in case of high supplemental oxygen requirement and progressive disease (WHO scale 5-6). Treatment with nMABs may be considered for selected inpatients with an early SARS-CoV-2 infection that are not hospitalized for COVID-19. Convalescent plasma, azithromycin, ivermectin or vitamin D3 should not be used in COVID-19 routine care. CONCLUSION For COVID-19 drug therapy, there are several options that are sufficiently supported by evidence. The living guidance will be updated as new evidence emerges.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jakob J Malin
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Department I of Internal Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
| | - Christoph D Spinner
- Department of Internal Medicine II, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, University Hospital Rechts Der Isar, Munich, Germany
| | - Uwe Janssens
- Medical Clinic and Medical Intensive Care Medicine, St Antonius Hospital, Eschweiler, Germany
| | - Tobias Welte
- Department of Respiratory Medicine and German Centre of Lung Research (DZL), Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
| | - Steffen Weber-Carstens
- Department of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CCM/CVK), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Gereon Schälte
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Medical Faculty Aachen, Rhenish Westphalian Technical University (RWTH), Aachen, Germany
| | - Petra Gastmeier
- Institute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Charité-University Medicine, Berlin, Germany
| | - Florian Langer
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Martin Wepler
- Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - Michael Westhoff
- Department of Pneumology, Intensive Care and Sleep Medicine, Hemer Lung Clinic Centre of Pneumology and Thoracic Surgery, 58675, Hemer, Germany
| | - Michael Pfeifer
- Department of Internal Medicine II, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.,Department of Pneumology, Donaustauf Hospital, Donaustauf, Germany
| | - Klaus F Rabe
- LungenClinic Grosshansdorf, Airway Research Centre North, German Centre for Lung Research, Grosshansdorf, Germany
| | - Florian Hoffmann
- Department of Pediatrics, Dr. von Hauner Children's Hospital, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Bernd W Böttiger
- Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Julia Weinmann-Menke
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine I, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany
| | - Alexander Kersten
- Department of Cardiology, Angiology and Intensive Care, Medical Faculty RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany
| | - Peter Berlit
- Germany German Society of Neurology, Berlin, Germany
| | - Marcin Krawczyk
- Department of Medicine II, Saarland University Medical Center, Saarland University, Homburg, Germany
| | - Wiebke Nehls
- Department of Palliative Care and Geriatric Medicine, Helios Clinic Emil Von Behring, Berlin, Germany
| | - Falk Fichtner
- Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University Hospital of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
| | - Sven Laudi
- Department of Infectious Diseases and Respiratory Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Miriam Stegemann
- Department of Infectious Diseases and Respiratory Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Nicole Skoetz
- Evidence-Based Oncology, Department I of Internal Medicine and Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Dusseldorf, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Monika Nothacker
- Institute for Medical Knowledge Management, Association of the Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF), Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany
| | - Gernot Marx
- Department of Intensive Care Medicine and Intermediate Care, Medical Faculty, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany
| | - Christian Karagiannidis
- Department of Pneumology and Critical Care Medicine, Cologne-Merheim Hospital, ARDS and ECMO Centre, Kliniken Der Stadt Köln, Witten/Herdecke University Hospital, Cologne, Germany
| | - Stefan Kluge
- Department of Intensive Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Piechotta V, Iannizzi C, Chai KL, Valk SJ, Kimber C, Dorando E, Monsef I, Wood EM, Lamikanra AA, Roberts DJ, McQuilten Z, So-Osman C, Estcourt LJ, Skoetz N. Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 5:CD013600. [PMID: 34013969 PMCID: PMC8135693 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013600.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 68] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vanessa Piechotta
- Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Claire Iannizzi
- Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Khai Li Chai
- Transfusion Research Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Sarah J Valk
- Jon J van Rood Center for Clinical Transfusion Research, Sanquin/Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Catherine Kimber
- Systematic Review Initiative, NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK
| | - Elena Dorando
- Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Ina Monsef
- Cochrane Haematology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Erica M Wood
- Transfusion Research Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | | | - David J Roberts
- Systematic Review Initiative, NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK
| | - Zoe McQuilten
- Transfusion Research Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Cynthia So-Osman
- Sanquin Blood Bank, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Lise J Estcourt
- Haematology/Transfusion Medicine, NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK
| | - Nicole Skoetz
- Cochrane Cancer, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
The Three Pillars of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Therapy. Life (Basel) 2021; 11:life11040354. [PMID: 33919577 PMCID: PMC8073137 DOI: 10.3390/life11040354] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2021] [Revised: 03/30/2021] [Accepted: 04/14/2021] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
The new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has spread rapidly around the world in the last year causing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which still is a severe threat for public health. The therapeutic management of COVID-19 is challenging as, up until now, no specific and efficient pharmacological therapy has been validated. Translating the experience from previous viral epidemics, passive immunotherapy by means of plasma from individuals recovered from COVID-19 has been intensively investigated since the beginning of the pandemic. In this narrative review, we critically analyze the three factors, named “pillars”, that play a key role in determining the clinical effectiveness of this biologic therapy: the convalescent plasma, the disease (COVID-19), and the patients.
Collapse
|
16
|
Cohn CS, Estcourt L, Grossman BJ, Pagano MB, Allen ES, Bloch EM, Casadevall A, Devine DV, Dunbar NM, Foroutan F, Gniadek TJ, Goel R, Gorlin J, Joyner MJ, Metcalf RA, Raval JS, Rice TW, Shaz BH, Vassallo RR, Winters JL, Beaudoin G, Tobian AAR. COVID-19 convalescent plasma: Interim recommendations from the AABB. Transfusion 2021; 61:1313-1323. [PMID: 33586160 PMCID: PMC8014606 DOI: 10.1111/trf.16328] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2021] [Accepted: 02/10/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Claudia S Cohn
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Lise Estcourt
- NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK.,Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Brenda J Grossman
- Department of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, USA
| | - Monica B Pagano
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Elizabeth S Allen
- Department of Pathology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA
| | - Evan M Bloch
- Department of Pathology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Arturo Casadevall
- Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Dana V Devine
- Canadian Blood Services, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Nancy M Dunbar
- Department of Pathology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA
| | - Farid Foroutan
- University Health Network, Ted Rogers Centre for Heart Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Thomas J Gniadek
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, Illinois, USA
| | - Ruchika Goel
- Mississippi Valley Regional Blood Center, Springfield, Illinois, USA
| | - Jed Gorlin
- Division of New York Blood Center Enterprises, Innovative Blood Resources, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA
| | - Michael J Joyner
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Ryan A Metcalf
- Department of Pathology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Jay S Raval
- Department of Pathology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
| | - Todd W Rice
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | - Beth H Shaz
- Department of Pathology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | | | - Jeffrey L Winters
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | | | - Aaron A R Tobian
- Department of Pathology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|