Early Convalescent Plasma Therapy and Mortality Among US Veterans Hospitalized With Nonsevere COVID-19: An Observational Analysis Emulating a Target Trial

Benefit and risk of oral anticoagulant initiation strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation and cancer: a target trial emulation using the SEER-Medicare database

Oral anticoagulants (OACs) are recommended for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) having CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2. However, the benefits of OAC initiation in patients with AFib and cancer at different levels of CHA2DS2-VASc is unknown. We included patients with new AFib diagnosis and a record of cancer (breast, prostate, or lung) from the 2012-2019 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database (n = 39,915). Risks of stroke and bleeding were compared between 5 treatment strategies: (1) initiated OAC when CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 1 (n = 6008), (2) CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 2 (n = 8694), (3) CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 4 (n = 20,286), (4) CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 6 (n = 30,944), and (5) never initiated OAC (reference group, n = 33,907). Confounders were adjusted using inverse probability weighting through cloning-censoring-weighting approach. Weighted pooled logistic regressions were used to estimate treatment effect [hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (95% CIs)]. We found that only patients who initiated OACs at CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 6 had lower risk of stroke compared without OAC initiation (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54-0.75). All 4 active treatment strategies had reduced risk of bleeding compared to non-initiators, with OAC initiation at CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 6 being the most beneficial strategy (HR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.44-0.55). In patients with lung cancer or regional/metastatic cancer, OAC initiation at any CHA2DS2-VASc level increased risk of stroke and did not reduce risk of bleeding (except for Regimen 4). In conclusion, among cancer patients with new AFib diagnosis, OAC initiation at higher risk of stroke (CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 6) is more beneficial in preventing ischemic stroke and bleeding. Patients with advanced cancer or low life-expectancy may initiate OACs when CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 6.

Methodological biases in observational hospital studies of COVID-19 treatment effectiveness: pitfalls and potential

Introduction

This study aims to discuss and assess the impact of three prevalent methodological biases: competing risks, immortal-time bias, and confounding bias in real-world observational studies evaluating treatment effectiveness. We use a demonstrative observational data example of COVID-19 patients to assess the impact of these biases and propose potential solutions.

Methods

We describe competing risks, immortal-time bias, and time-fixed confounding bias by evaluating treatment effectiveness in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. For our demonstrative analysis, we use observational data from the registry of patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to the Bellvitge University Hospital in Spain from March 2020 to February 2021 and met our predefined inclusion criteria. We compare estimates of a single-dose, time-dependent treatment with the standard of care. We analyze the treatment effectiveness using common statistical approaches, either by ignoring or only partially accounting for the methodological biases. To address these challenges, we emulate a target trial through the clone-censor-weight approach.

Results

Overlooking competing risk bias and employing the naïve Kaplan-Meier estimator led to increased in-hospital death probabilities in patients with COVID-19. Specifically, in the treatment effectiveness analysis, the Kaplan-Meier estimator resulted in an in-hospital mortality of 45.6% for treated patients and 59.0% for untreated patients. In contrast, employing an emulated trial framework with the weighted Aalen-Johansen estimator, we observed that in-hospital death probabilities were reduced to 27.9% in the "X"-treated arm and 40.1% in the non-"X"-treated arm. Immortal-time bias led to an underestimated hazard ratio of treatment.

Conclusion

Overlooking competing risks, immortal-time bias, and confounding bias leads to shifted estimates of treatment effects. Applying the naïve Kaplan-Meier method resulted in the most biased results and overestimated probabilities for the primary outcome in analyses of hospital data from COVID-19 patients. This overestimation could mislead clinical decision-making. Both immortal-time bias and confounding bias must be addressed in assessments of treatment effectiveness. The trial emulation framework offers a potential solution to address all three methodological biases.

Rates Among Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 Treated With Convalescent Plasma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

To examine the association of COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion with mortality and the differences between subgroups in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Patients and Methods

On October 26, 2022, a systematic search was performed for clinical studies of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in the literature from January 1, 2020, to October 26, 2022. Randomized clinical trials and matched cohort studies investigating COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion compared with standard of care treatment or placebo among hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 were included. The electronic search yielded 3841 unique records, of which 744 were considered for full-text screening. The selection process was performed independently by a panel of 5 reviewers. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data were extracted by 5 independent reviewers in duplicate and pooled using an inverse-variance random effects model. The prespecified end point was all-cause mortality during hospitalization.

Results

Thirty-nine randomized clinical trials enrolling 21,529 participants and 70 matched cohort studies enrolling 50,160 participants were included in the systematic review. Separate meta-analyses reported that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with the control cohort for both randomized clinical trials (odds ratio [OR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.00) and matched cohort studies (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.88). The meta-analysis of subgroups revealed 2 important findings. First, treatment with convalescent plasma containing high antibody levels was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with convalescent plasma containing low antibody levels (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.99). Second, earlier treatment with COVID-19 convalescent plasma was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with the later treatment cohort (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.82).

Conclusion

During COVID-19 convalescent plasma use was associated with a 13% reduced risk of mortality, implying a mortality benefit for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, particularly those treated with convalescent plasma containing high antibody levels treated earlier in the disease course.

The implementation of target trial emulation for causal inference: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

We aim to investigate the implementation of Target Trial Emulation (TTE) for causal inference, involving research topics, frequently used strategies, and issues indicating the need for future improvements.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We performed a scoping review by following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. A health research-focused librarian searched multiple medical databases, and two independent reviewers completed screening and extraction within covidence review management software.

RESULTS

Our search resulted in 1,240 papers, of which 96 papers were eligible for data extraction. Results show a significant increase in the use of TTE in 2018 and 2021. The study topics varied and focused primarily on cancer, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, and infectious diseases. However, not all papers specified well all three critical components for generating robust causal evidence: time-zero, random assignment simulation, and comparison strategy. Some common issues were observed from retrieved papers, and key limitations include residual confounding, limited generalizability, and a lack of reporting guidance that need to be improved.

CONCLUSION

Uneven adherence to the TTE framework exists, and future improvements are needed to progress applications using causal inference with observational data.

Reporting of Observational Studies Explicitly Aiming to Emulate Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review

Importance

Observational (nonexperimental) studies that aim to emulate a randomized trial (ie, the target trial) are increasingly informing medical and policy decision-making, but it is unclear how these studies are reported in the literature. Consistent reporting is essential for quality appraisal, evidence synthesis, and translation of evidence to policy and practice.

Objective

To assess the reporting of observational studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial.

Evidence Review

We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for observational studies published between March 2012 and October 2022 that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial of a health or medical intervention. Two reviewers double-screened and -extracted data on study characteristics, key predefined components of the target trial protocol and its emulation (eligibility criteria, treatment strategies, treatment assignment, outcome[s], follow-up, causal contrast[s], and analysis plan), and other items related to the target trial emulation.

Findings

A total of 200 studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial were included. These studies included 26 subfields of medicine, and 168 (84%) were published from January 2020 to October 2022. The aim to emulate a target trial was explicit in 70 study titles (35%). Forty-three studies (22%) reported use of a published reporting guideline (eg, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology). Eighty-five studies (43%) did not describe all key items of how the target trial was emulated and 113 (57%) did not describe the protocol of the target trial and its emulation.

Conclusion and Relevance

In this systematic review of 200 studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial, reporting of how the target trial was emulated was inconsistent. A reporting guideline for studies explicitly aiming to emulate a target trial may improve the reporting of the target trial protocols and other aspects of these emulation attempts.

Mechanistic insight into the protective and pathogenic immune-responses against SARS-CoV-2

COVID-19 is a severe respiratory illness that has emerged as a devasting health problem worldwide. The disease outcome is heterogeneous, which is most likely dependent on the immunity of an individual. Asymptomatic and mildly/moderate symptomatic (non-severe) patients likely develop an effective early immune response and clear the virus. However, severe symptoms dominate due to a failure in the generation of an effective and specific early immune response against SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, a late surge in pathogenic inflammation involves dysregulated innate and adaptive immune responses leading to local and systemic tissue damage and the emergence of severe disease symptoms. In this review, we describe the potential mechanisms of protective and pathogenic immune responses in "mild/moderate" and "severe" symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infected people, respectively, and discuss the immune components that are currently targeted for therapeutic intervention.

Target Trial Emulation Using Hospital-Based Observational Data: Demonstration and Application in COVID-19

Methodological biases are common in observational studies evaluating treatment effectiveness. The objective of this study is to emulate a target trial in a competing risks setting using hospital-based observational data. We extend established methodology accounting for immortal time bias and time-fixed confounding biases to a setting where no survival information beyond hospital discharge is available: a condition common to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) research data. This exemplary study includes a cohort of 618 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We describe methodological opportunities and challenges that cannot be overcome applying traditional statistical methods. We demonstrate the practical implementation of this trial emulation approach via clone-censor-weight techniques. We undertake a competing risk analysis, reporting the cause-specific cumulative hazards and cumulative incidence probabilities. Our analysis demonstrates that a target trial emulation framework can be extended to account for competing risks in COVID-19 hospital studies. In our analysis, we avoid immortal time bias, time-fixed confounding bias, and competing risks bias simultaneously. Choosing the length of the grace period is justified from a clinical perspective and has an important advantage in ensuring reliable results. This extended trial emulation with the competing risk analysis enables an unbiased estimation of treatment effects, along with the ability to interpret the effectiveness of treatment on all clinically important outcomes.

Multi-center matched cohort study of convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients with COVID-19

Background

Although frequently used in the early pandemic, data on the effectiveness of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) remain mixed. We investigated the effectiveness and safety of CCP in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in real-world practices during the first two waves of the pandemic in a multi-hospital healthcare system in Texas.

Methods and findings

Among 11,322 hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection from July 1, 2020 to April 15, 2021, we included patients who received CCP and matched them with those who did not receive CCP within ±2 days of the transfusion date across sites within strata of sex, age groups, days and use of dexamethasone from hospital admission to the match date, and oxygen requirements 4–12 hours prior to the match date. Cox proportional hazards model estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effectiveness outcomes in a propensity score 1:1 matched cohort. Pre-defined safety outcomes were described. We included 1,245 patients each in the CCP treated and untreated groups. Oxygen support was required by 93% of patients at the baseline. The pre-defined primary effectiveness outcome of 28-day in-hospital all-cause mortality (HR = 0.85; 95%CI: 0.66,1.10) were similar between treatment groups. Sensitivity and stratified analyses found similar null results. CCP-treated patients were less likely to be discharged alive (HR = 0.82; 95%CI: 0.74, 0.91), and more likely to receive mechanical ventilation (HR = 1.48; 95%CI: 1.12, 1.96). Safety outcomes were rare and similar between treatment groups.

Conclusion

The findings in this large, matched cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and mostly requiring oxygen support at the time of treatment, do not support a clinical benefit in 28-day in-hospital all-cause mortality for CCP. Future studies should assess the potential benefits with specifically high-titer units in perhaps certain subgroups of patients (e.g. those with early disease or immunocompromised).

The efficiency of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials

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.

Early administration of COVID-19 convalescent plasma with high titer antibody content by live viral neutralization assay is associated with modest clinical efficacy

The efficacy of COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) as a treatment for hospitalized patients with COVID‐19 remains somewhat controversial; however, many studies have not evaluated CCP documented to have high neutralizing antibody titer by a highly accurate assay. To evaluate the correlation of the administration of CCP with titer determined by a live viral neutralization assay with 7‐ and 28‐day death rates during hospitalization, a total of 23 118 patients receiving a single unit of CCP were stratified into two groups: those receiving high titer CCP (>250 50% inhibitory dilution, ID50; n = 13 636) or low titer CCP (≤250 ID50; n = 9482). Multivariable Cox regression was performed to assess risk factors. Non‐intubated patients who were transfused with high titer CCP showed 1.1% and 1.7% absolute reductions in overall 7‐ and 28‐day death rates, respectively, compared to those non‐intubated patients receiving low titer CCP. No benefit of CCP was observed in intubated patients. The relative benefit of high titer CCP was confirmed in multivariable Cox regression. Administration of CCP with high titer antibody content determined by live viral neutralization assay to non‐intubated patients is associated with modest clinical efficacy. Although shown to be only of modest clinical benefit, CCP may play a role in the future should viral variants develop that are not neutralized by other available therapeutics.

CONVALESCENT plasma for COVID-19: A meta-analysis of clinical trials and real-world evidence

BACKGROUND

There is still a lack of consensus on the efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) treatment in COVID-19 patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of CP vs standard treatment/non-CP on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from December 2019 to 16 July 2021, for data from clinical trials and observational studies. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Risk estimates were pooled using a random-effect model. Risk of bias was assessed by Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for clinical trials and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies.

RESULTS

In total, 18 peer-reviewed clinical trials, 3 preprints and 26 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. In the meta-analysis of 18 peer-reviewed trials, CP use had a 31% reduced risk of all-cause mortality compared with standard treatment use (pooled risk ratio [RR] = 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-0.86, P = .001, I²  = 50.1%). Based on severity and region, CP treatment significantly reduced risk of all-cause mortality in patients with severe and critical disease and studies conducted in Asia, pooled RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.47-0.81, P = .001, I²  = 0.0%; pooled RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.49-0.92, P = .013, I²  = 0.0%; and pooled RR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.48-0.80, P < .001, I²  = 20.3%, respectively. The meta-analysis of observational studies showed the similar results to the clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Convalescent plasma use was associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality in severe or critical COVID-19 patients. However, the findings were limited with a moderate degree of heterogeneity. Further studies with well-designed and larger sample size are needed.