Early but not late convalescent plasma is associated with better survival in moderate-to-severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Limited therapeutic options exist for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is a potential therapeutic, but there is limited data for patients with moderate-to-severe disease. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are outcomes associated with administration of CCP in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 infection? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a propensity score-matched analysis of patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19. The primary endpoints were in-hospital mortality. Secondary endpoints were number of days alive and ventilator-free at 30 days; length of hospital stay; and change in WHO scores from CCP administration (or index date) to discharge. Of 151 patients who received CCP, 132 had complete follow-up data. Patients were transfused after a median of 6 hospital days; thus, we investigated the effect of convalescent plasma before and after this timepoint with 77 early (within 6 days) and 55 late (after 6 days) recipients. Among 3,217 inpatients who did not receive CCP, 2,551 were available for matching. RESULTS: Early CCP recipients, of whom 31 (40%) were on mechanical ventilation, had lower 14-day (15% vs 23%) and 30-day (38% vs 49%) mortality compared to a matched unexposed cohort, with nearly 50% lower likelihood of in-hospital mortality (HR 0.52, [95% CI 0.28-0.96]; P = 0.036). Early plasma recipients had more days alive and ventilator-free at 30 days (+3.3 days, [95% CI 0.2 to 6.3 days]; P = 0.04) and improved WHO scores at 7 days (-0.8, [95% CI: -1.2 to -0.4]; P = 0.0003) and hospital discharge (-0.9, [95% CI: -1.5 to -0.3]; P = 0.004) compared to the matched unexposed cohort. No clinical differences were observed in late plasma recipients. INTERPRETATION: Early administration of CCP improves outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, while improvement was not observed with late CCP administration. The importance of timing of administration should be addressed in specifically designed trials.

Forming the Hematology-Oncology Collaborative Videoconferencing (CO-VID) Learning Initiative: Experiential Lessons Learned From a Novel Trainee-Led Multidisciplinary Virtual Learning Platform.

PURPOSE: COVID-19 challenged medical practice and graduate medical education. Building on previous initiatives, we describe and reflect on the formative process and goals of the Hematology-Oncology Collaborative Videoconferencing Learning Initiative, a trainee-led multi-institutional virtual COVID-19 learning model. METHODS: Clinical fellows and faculty from 13 US training institutions developed consensus needs, goals, and objectives, recruited presenters, and generated a multidisciplinary COVID-19 curriculum. Weekly Zoom conferences consisted of two trainee-led instructional segments and a trainee-moderated faculty Q&A panel. Hematology-oncology training program faculty and trainees were the targeted audience. Leadership evaluations consisted of anonymized baseline and concluding mixed methods surveys. Presenter evaluations consisted of session debriefs and two structured focus groups. Conference evaluations consisted of attendance, demographics, and pre- or postmultiple-choice questions on topic learning objectives. RESULTS: In 6 weeks, the initiative produced five conferences: antivirals, anticoagulation, pulmonology, provider resilience, and resource scarcity ethics. The average attendance was 100 (range 57-185). Among attendees providing both pre- and postconference data, group-level knowledge appeared to increase: antiviral (n = 46) pre-/postcorrect 82.6%/97.8% and incorrect 10.9%/2.2%, anticoagulation (n = 60) pre-/postcorrect 75%/93.3% and incorrect 15%/6.7%, and pulmonary (n = 21) pre-/postcorrect 66.7%/95.2% and incorrect 33.3%/4.8%. Although pulmonary management comfort appeared to increase, comfort managing of antivirals and anticoagulation was unchanged. At the conclusion of the pilot, leadership trainees reported improved self-confidence organizing multi-institutional collaborations, median (interquartile range) 58.5 (50-64) compared with baseline 34 (26-39), but did not report improved confidence in other educational or leadership skills. CONCLUSION: During crisis, trainees built a multi-institutional virtual education platform for the purposes of sharing pandemic experiences and knowledge. Accomplishment of initiative goals was mixed. Lessons learned from the process and goals may improve future disaster educational initiatives.