Effect of convalescent plasma as complementary treatment in patients with moderate COVID-19 infection

Convalescent plasma and predictors of mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Plasma collected from recovered patients with COVID-19 (COVID-19 convalescent plasma [CCP]) was the first antibody-based therapy employed to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. While the therapeutic effect of early administration of CCP in COVID-19 outpatients has been recognized, conflicting data exist regarding the efficacy of CCP administration in hospitalized patients.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effect of CCP compared to placebo or standard treatment, and to evaluate whether time from onset of symptoms to treatment initiation influenced the effect.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases were searched for studies published from January 2020 to January 2024.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of CCP on COVID-19 mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

PARTICIPANTS

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

INTERVENTIONS

CCP versus no CCP.

ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS

Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs.

METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS

The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI for the pooled effect estimates of CCP treatment. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven RCTs were included, representing 18,877 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. When transfused within 7 days from symptom onset, CCP significantly reduced the risk of death compared to standard therapy or placebo (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.95), while later CCP administration was not associated with a mortality benefit (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.06). The certainty of the evidence was graded as moderate. Meta-regression analysis demonstrated increasing mortality effects for longer interval to transfusion or worse initial clinical severity.

CONCLUSIONS

In-hospital transfusion of CCP within 7 days from symptom onset conferred a mortality benefit.

Exploring Study Design Foibles in Randomized Controlled Trials on Convalescent Plasma in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

Background: Sample size estimation is an essential step in the design of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating a treatment effect. Sample size is a critical variable in determining statistical significance and, thus, it significantly influences RCTs' success or failure. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many RCTs tested the efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in hospitalized patients but reported different efficacies, which could be attributed to, in addition to timing and dose, inadequate sample size estimates. Methods: To assess the sample size estimation in RCTs evaluating the effect of treatment with CCP in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, we searched the medical literature between January 2020 and March 2024 through PubMed and other electronic databases, extracting information on expected size effect, statistical power, significance level, and measured efficacy. Results: A total of 32 RCTs were identified. While power and significance level were highly consistent, heterogeneity in the expected size effect was relevant. Approximately one third of the RCTs did not reach the planned sample size for various reasons, with the most important one being slow patient recruitment during the pandemic's peaks. RCTs with a primary outcome in favor of CCP treatment had a significant lower median absolute difference in the expected size effect than unfavorable RCTs (20.0% versus 33.9%, P = 0.04). Conclusions: The analyses of sample sizes in RCTs of CCP treatment in hospitalized COVID-19 patients reveal that many underestimated the number of participants needed because of excessively high expectations on efficacy, and thus, these studies had low statistical power. This, in combination with a lower-than-planned recruitment of cases and controls, could have further negatively influenced the primary outcomes of the RCTs.

Evaluation of Global Post-Outbreak COVID-19 Treatment Interventions: A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Purpose

The outbreak of COVID-19 has led to a global pandemic with millions of cases and deaths. Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to establish effective therapies. However, the methodological quality of these trials is paramount, as it directly impacts the reliability of results. This systematic review and bibliometric analysis aim to assess the methodological approach, execution diversity, global trends, and distribution of COVID-19 treatment RCTs post-outbreak, covering the period from the second wave and onward up to the present.

Methods

We utilize articles from three electronic databases published from September 1, 2020, to April 1, 2023. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to identify relevant RCTs. Data extraction involved the collection of various study details. Risk of Bias (RoB) 2 tool assessed methodological quality, while implementation variability was evaluated against registration information. Bibliometric analysis, including keyword co-occurrence and country distribution, used VOSviewer and Tableau software.

Results

Initially, 501 studies were identified, but only 22 met the inclusion criteria, of which 19 had registration information. The methodological quality assessment revealed deficiencies in five main domains: randomization process (36%), deviations from intended interventions (9%), missing outcome data (4%), measurement of the outcome (18%), and selection of reported results (4%). An analysis of alignment between research protocols and registration data revealed common deviations in eight critical aspects. Bibliometric findings showcased global collaboration in COVID-19 treatment RCTs, with Iran and Brazil prominently contributing, while keyword co-occurrence analysis illuminated prominent research trends and terms in study titles and abstracts.

Conclusion

This study offers valuable insights into the evaluation of COVID-19 treatment RCTs. The scarcity of high-quality RCTs highlights the importance of enhancing trial rigor and transparency in global health emergencies.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have very-low to low certainty evidence for most primary outcomes and moderate certainty for hospital admission or death. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Convalescent Plasma Therapy for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: While passive immunotherapy has been considered beneficial for patients with severe respiratory viral infections, the treatment of COVID-19 cases with convalescent plasma produced mixed results. Thus, there is a lack of certainty and consensus regarding its effectiveness. This meta-analysis aims to assess the role of convalescent plasma treatment on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients enrolled in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed database (end-of-search: 29 December 2022) for RCTs on convalescent plasma therapy compared to supportive care\standard of care. Pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated with random-effects models. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were also performed, in order to address heterogeneity and examine any potential association between the factors that varied, and the outcomes reported. The present meta-analysis was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: A total of 34 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Per overall analysis, convalescent plasma treatment was not associated with lower 28-day mortality [RR = 0.98, 95% CI (0.91, 1.06)] or improved 28-day secondary outcomes, such as hospital discharge [RR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.97, 1.03)], ICU-related or score-related outcomes, with effect estimates of RR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.98, 1.05) and RR = 1.06, 95% CI (0.95, 1.17), respectively. However, COVID-19 outpatients treated with convalescent plasma had a 26% less risk of requiring hospital care, when compared to those treated with the standard of care [RR = 0.74, 95% CI (0.56, 0.99)]. Regarding subgroup analyses, COVID-19 patients treated with convalescent plasma had an 8% lower risk of ICU-related disease progression when compared to those treated with the standard of care (with or without placebo or standard plasma infusions) [RR = 0.92, 95% CI (0.85, 0.99)] based on reported outcomes from RCTs carried out in Europe. Finally, convalescent plasma treatment was not associated with improved survival or clinical outcomes in the 14-day subgroup analyses. Conclusions: Outpatients with COVID-19 treated with convalescent plasma had a statistically significantly lower risk of requiring hospital care when compared to those treated with placebo or the standard of care. However, convalescent plasma treatment was not statistically associated with prolonged survival or improved clinical outcomes when compared to placebo or the standard of care, per overall analysis in hospitalized populations. This hints at potential benefits, when used early, to prevent progression to severe disease. Finally, convalescent plasma was significantly associated with better ICU-related outcomes in trials carried out in Europe. Well-designed prospective studies could clarify its potential benefit for specific subpopulations in the post-pandemic era.

Differential efficacy and safety of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody therapies for the management of COVID-19: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess and compare the relative efficacy and safety of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody regimens for COVID-19.

METHODS

This systematic review and random-effects network meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA-NMA. Literature searches were conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and CNKI up to February 20th, 2022. Interventions were ranked using P scores.

RESULTS

Fifty-five RCTs (N = 45,005) were included in the review. Bamlanivimab + etesevimab (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.77) was associated with a significant reduction in mortality compared to standard of care/placebo. Casirivimab + imdevimab reduced mortality (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50-0.91) in baseline seronegative patients only. Four different regimens led to a significant decrease in the incidence of hospitalization compared to standard of care/placebo with sotrovimab ranking first in terms of efficacy (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.08-0.48). No treatment improved incidence of mechanical ventilation, duration of hospital/ICU stay, and time to viral clearance. Convalescent plasma and anti-COVID IVIg both led to a significant increase in adverse events compared to standard of care/placebo, but no treatment increased the odds of serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs are safe, and could be effective in improving mortality and incidence of hospitalization. Convalescent plasma and anti-COVID IVIg were not efficacious and could increase odds of adverse events. Future trials should further examine the effect of baseline seronegativity, disease severity, patient risk factors, and SARS-CoV-2 strain variation on the efficacy of these regimes.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO-CRD42021289903.

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

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have low certainty evidence for our primary outcomes. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Use of convalescent plasma therapy in hospitalised adult patients with non-critical COVID-19: a focus on the elderly from Hungary

Convalescent plasma therapy might be a feasible option for treatment of novel infections. During the early phases of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, several promising results were published with convalescent plasma therapy, followed by more disappointing findings of randomised controlled trials. In our single-centre, open-label, prospective, cohort study, we assessed the findings of 180 patients treated with convalescent plasma during the first four waves of the pandemic in Hungary. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were clinical improvement and need for intensive care unit admission by day 28. Subgroup analysis comparing elderly and non-elderly (less than 65 years of age) was performed. Twenty (11.4%) patients died by day 28, at significantly higher rates in the elderly subgroup (3 vs. 17, p < 0.01). One hundred twenty-eight (72.7%) patients showed clinical improvement, and 15 (8.5%) were transferred to the intensive care unit until day 28. Non-elderly patients showed clinical improvement by day 28 in significantly higher rates (improvement 74 vs. 54, no improvement 15 vs. 11, worsening or death 4 vs. 18 patients, p < 0.01). In conclusion, we found similar clinical outcome results as randomised controlled trials, and the impact of risk factors for unfavourable clinical outcomes among patients in the elderly population.

Clinical Practice Guidelines From the Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB): COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma

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.

Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Treatment Using Convalescent Plasma Transfusion: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

This study investigated the efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma (CP) transfusion against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) via a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A total of 5467 articles obtained from electronic databases were assessed; however, only 34 RCTs were eligible after manually screening and eliminating unnecessary studies. The beneficial effect was addressed by assessing the risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) of the meta-analysis. It was demonstrated that CP therapy is not effective in improving clinical outcomes, including reducing mortality with an RR of 0.88 [0.76; 1.03] (I2 = 68% and p = 0.10) and length of hospitalization with SMD of -0.47 [-0.95; 0.00] (I2 = 99% and p = 0.05). Subgroup analysis provided strong evidence that CP transfusion does not significantly reduce all-cause mortality compared to standard of care (SOC) with an RR of 1.01 [0.99; 1.03] (I2 = 70% and p = 0.33). In addition, CP was found to be safe for and well-tolerated by COVID-19 patients as was the SOC in healthcare settings. Overall, the results suggest that CP should not be applied outside of randomized trials because of less benefit in improving clinical outcomes for COVID-19 treatment.

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.