Transfusing convalescent plasma as post-exposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection: a double-blinded, phase 2 randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma (CCP) for preventing infection in exposed, uninfected individuals is unknown. CCP might prevent infection when administered before symptoms or laboratory evidence of infection. METHODS: This double-blinded, phase 2 randomized, controlled trial (RCT) compared the efficacy and safety of prophylactic high titer (≥1:320 by Euroimmun ELISA) CCP with standard plasma. Asymptomatic participants aged ≥18 years with close contact exposure to a person with confirmed COVID-19 in the previous 120 hours and negative SARS-CoV-2 test within 24 hours before transfusion were eligible. The primary outcome was new SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: 180 participants were enrolled; 87 were assigned to CCP and 93 to control plasma, and 170 transfused at 19 sites across the United States from June 2020 to March 2021. Two were excluded for screening SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positivity. Of the remaining 168 participants, 12/81 (14·8%) CCP and 13/87 (14·9%) control recipients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection; 6 (7·4%) CCP and 7 (8%) control recipients developed COVID-19 (infection with symptoms). There were no COVID-19-related hospitalizations in CCP and 2 in control recipients. Efficacy by restricted mean infection free time (RMIFT) by 28 days for all SARS-CoV-2 infections (25·3 vs. 25·2 days; p = 0·49) and COVID-19 (26·3 vs. 25·9 days; p = 0·35) was similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of high-titer CCP as post-exposure prophylaxis, while appearing safe, did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Monocyte Distribution Width as a Diagnostic Marker for Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Monocyte distribution width (MDW) is an emerging biomarker for infection. It is available easily and quickly as part of the CBC count, which is performed routinely on hospital admission. The increasing availability and promising results of MDW as a biomarker in sepsis has prompted an expansion of its use to other infectious diseases. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the diagnostic performance of MDW across multiple infectious disease outcomes and care settings? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic review of the diagnostic performance of MDW across multiple infectious disease outcomes was conducted by searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science through February 4, 2022. Meta-analysis was performed for outcomes with three or more reports identified (sepsis and COVID-19). Diagnostic performance measures were calculated for individual studies with pooled estimates created by linear mixed-effects models. RESULTS: We identified 29 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Most examined sepsis (19 studies) and COVID-19 (six studies). Pooled estimates of diagnostic performance for sepsis differed by reference standard (Second vs Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock criteria) and tube anticoagulant used and ranged from an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.74 to 0.94, with mean sensitivity of 0.69 to 0.79 and mean specificity of 0.57 to 0.86. For COVID-19, the pooled AUC of MDW was 0.76, mean sensitivity was 0.79, and mean specificity was 0.59. INTERPRETATION: MDW exhibited good diagnostic performance for sepsis and COVID-19. Diagnostic thresholds for sepsis should be chosen with consideration of reference standard and tube type used. TRIAL REGISTRY: Prospero; No.: CRD42020210074; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Thromboembolic events in deceased patients with proven SARS-CoV-2 infection: Frequency, characteristics and risk factors.

BACKGROUND: Infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) results in respiratory syndromes but also in vascular complications such as thromboembolism (TE). In this regard, immunothrombosis, resulting from inflammation in SARS-CoV-2 infected tissues, has been described. Data on TE in COVID-19 are mainly based on clinical observational and/or incomplete autopsy studies. The true burden of TE and the relevance of genetic predisposition, however, have not been resolved. OBJECTIVES: Here, we report on a consecutive cohort of 100 fully autopsied patients deceased by SARS-CoV-2 infections during the first wave of the pandemic (March to April 2020). We investigated the localization of TE, potential clinical risk factors, and the prothrombotic gene mutations, factor V Leiden and prothrombin G20210A, in postmortem blood or tissue samples. RESULTS: TE was found in 43/100 autopsies. 93 % of TE events were venous occlusions, with 23 patients having pulmonary thromboembolism (PT) with or without lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis. Of these, 70 % showed PT restricted to (sub)segmental arteries, consistent with in situ immunothrombosis. Patients with TE had a significantly higher BMI and died more frequently at an intensive care unit. Hereditary thrombophilia factors were not associated with TE. CONCLUSIONS: Our autopsy results show that a significant proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients suffer from TE, affecting predominantly the venous system. Orthotopic peripheral PT was the most frequent finding. Hereditary thrombophilia appears not to be a determinant for TE in COVID-19. However, obesity and the need for intensive care increase the risk of TE in these patients.

Characteristics of registered clinical trials assessing treatments for COVID-19: a cross-sectional analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has prompted many initiatives to identify safe and efficacious treatments, yet little is known regarding where early efforts have focused. We aimed to characterise registered clinical trials assessing drugs or plasma treatments for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional analysis of clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19 that were registered in the USA or in countries contributing to the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Relevant trial entries of drugs or plasma were downloaded on 26 March 2020, deduplicated, verified with reviews of major medical journals and WHO websites and independently analysed by two reviewers. MAIN OUTCOMES: Trial intervention, sponsorship, critical design elements and specified outcomes RESULTS: Overall, 201 clinical trials were registered for testing the therapeutic benefits of 92 drugs or plasma, including 64 in monotherapy and 28 different combinations. Only eight (8.7%) products or combinations involved new molecular entities. The other test therapies had a wide range of prior medical uses, including as antivirals, antimalarials, immunosuppressants and oncology treatments. In 152 trials (75.7%), patients were randomised to treatment or comparator, including 55 trials with some form of blinding and 97 open-label studies. The 49 (24.4%) of trials without a randomised design included 29 single armed studies and 20 trials with some comparison group. Most trial designs featured multiple endpoints. Clinical endpoints were identified in 134 (66.7%) of trials and included COVID-19 symptoms, death, recovery, required intensive care and hospital discharge. Clinical scales were being used in 33 (16.4%) trials, most often measures of oxygenation and critical illness. Surrogate endpoints or biomarkers were studied in 88 (42.3%) of trials, primarily assays of viral load. Although the trials were initiated in more than 17 countries or regions, 100 (49.8%) were registered in China and 78 (37.8%) in the USA. Registered trials increased rapidly, with the number of registered trials doubling from 1 March to 26 March 2020. CONCLUSIONS: While accelerating morbidity and mortality from the COVID-19 pandemic has been paralleled by early and rapid clinical investigation, many trials lack features to optimise their scientific value. Global coordination and increased funding of high-quality research may help to maximise scientific progress in rapidly discovering safe and effective treatments.