Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Chest ; 162(5): 982-994, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1914240

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been one of the most common treatments for COVID-19, but most clinical trial data to date have not supported its efficacy. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is rigorously selected COVID-19 convalescent plasma with neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies an efficacious treatment for adults hospitalized with COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial among adults hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection and acute respiratory symptoms for < 14 days. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned to receive one unit of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (n = 487) or placebo (n = 473). The primary outcome was clinical status (disease severity) 14 days following study infusion measured with a seven-category ordinal scale ranging from discharged from the hospital with resumption of normal activities (lowest score) to death (highest score). The primary outcome was analyzed with a multivariable ordinal regression model, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) < 1.0 indicating more favorable outcomes with convalescent plasma than with placebo. In secondary analyses, trial participants were stratified according to the presence of endogenous anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies ("serostatus") at randomization. The trial included 13 secondary efficacy outcomes, including 28-day mortality. RESULTS: Among 974 randomized patients, 960 were included in the primary analysis. Clinical status on the ordinal outcome scale at 14 days did not differ between the convalescent plasma and placebo groups in the overall population (aOR, 1.04; one-seventh support interval [1/7 SI], 0.82-1.33), in patients without endogenous antibodies (aOR, 1.15; 1/7 SI, 0.74-1.80), or in patients with endogenous antibodies (aOR, 0.96; 1/7 SI, 0.72-1.30). None of the 13 secondary efficacy outcomes were different between groups. At 28 days, 89 of 482 (18.5%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and 80 of 465 (17.2%) patients in the placebo group had died (aOR, 1.04; 1/7 SI, 0.69-1.58). INTERPRETATION: Among adults hospitalized with COVID-19, including those seronegative for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, treatment with convalescent plasma did not improve clinical outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04362176; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , COVID-19/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Viral , Hospitalization , Treatment Outcome , COVID-19 Serotherapy
2.
Lab Med ; 53(6): 623-628, 2022 Nov 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1908861

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: Many therapies are used to treat COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus SARS-CoV-2, including convalescent plasma. The clinical utility of using 2 units of convalescent plasma for COVID-19 hospitalized patients is not fully understood. OBJECTIVE: Many therapies are used to treat COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus SARS-CoV-2, including convalescent plasma. The clinical utility of using 2 units of convalescent plasma for COVID-19 hospitalized patients is not fully understood. Our study aims to determine the safety and efficacy of treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients with 2 units of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). METHOD: This was a retrospective study of Arkansas patients treated with CCP using the (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) emergency Investigational New Drug (eIND) mechanism from April 9, 2020, through August 9, 2020. It was a multicenter, statewide study in a low-resource setting, which are areas that lack funding for health care cost coverage on various levels including individual, family, or social. Adult patients (n = 165, volunteer sample) in Arkansas who were hospitalized with severe or life-threatening acute COVID-19 disease as defined by the FDA criteria were transfused with 2 units of CCP (250 mL/unit) using the FDA eIND mechanism. The primary outcome was 7- and 30-day mortality after the second unit of CCP. RESULTS: Unadjusted mortality was 12.1% at 7 days and 23.0% at 30 days. The unadjusted mortality was reduced to 7.7% if the first CCP unit was transfused on the date of diagnosis, 8.7% if transfused within 3 days of diagnosis, and 32.0% if transfused at or after 4 or more days of diagnosis. The risk of death was higher in patients that received low, negative, or missing titer CCP units in comparison to those that received higher titer units. CONCLUSION: The provision of 2 units of CCP was associated with a reduction in mortality in patients treated with high titer units within 3 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. Given the results, CCP is a viable, low-cost therapy in resource-constrained states and countries.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , COVID-19/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 Serotherapy
3.
Transfusion ; 62(2): 336-345, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1621974

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/CASE STUDIES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted the global blood supply. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) already experienced blood supply deficits that preceded the pandemic. We sought to characterize the challenges experienced during the pandemic, and adaptations, such as COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). STUDY DESIGN/METHODS: A cross-sectional survey explored blood availability, challenges, and adaptations. The survey contained 31 questions, e-mailed in English, French, or Spanish, to selected LMIC blood transfusion practitioners. Data acquisition occurred between October 28 and December 28, 2020. A mixed methods analysis followed. RESULTS/FINDINGS: A total of 31 responses from 111 invitations represented 26 LMIC countries. Languages included English (22, 71%), Spanish (7, 22.6%), and French (2, 6.4%). Most respondents (29/31, 93.5%) collected blood; 58% also transfused blood (18/31). The supply of blood came from hospital-based blood donations (61%, 11/18); blood suppliers (17%, 3/18); and both sources (22%, 4/18). Collectively, 77.4% (24/31) of respondents experienced a decline in blood availability, ranging from 10% to 50%. Contributing factors included public fear of COVID-19 (21/24); stay-at-home measures (18/24); logistics (14/24); and canceled blood drives (16/24). Adaptations included increased collaboration within and between institutions (17/27), donor eligibility changes (21/31); social media or phone promotion (22/39); and replacement donation (3/27). Fifteen of 31 responses reported CCP donation (48.4%); CCP transfusion occurred in 6 (19.4%). The primary barrier was engaging recovered patients for donation (7/15). CONCLUSION: Our survey describes challenges experienced by LMIC blood systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. While the decline in blood supplies was severe, adaptive measures included collaboration, outreach, and CCP programs.


Subject(s)
Blood Donors , Blood Transfusion , COVID-19 , Blood Donors/supply & distribution , Cross-Sectional Studies , Developing Countries , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Trials ; 22(1): 221, 2021 Mar 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1143248

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma is being used widely as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the clinical efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma is unclear. METHODS: The Passive Immunity Trial for Our Nation (PassITON) is a multicenter, placebo-controlled, blinded, randomized clinical trial being conducted in the USA to provide high-quality evidence on the efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma as a treatment for adults hospitalized with symptomatic disease. Adults hospitalized with COVID-19 with respiratory symptoms for less than 14 days are eligible. Enrolled patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1 unit (200-399 mL) of COVID-19 convalescent plasma that has demonstrated neutralizing function using a SARS-CoV-2 chimeric virus neutralization assay. Study treatments are administered in a blinded fashion and patients are followed for 28 days. The primary outcome is clinical status 14 days after study treatment as measured on a 7-category ordinal scale assessing mortality, respiratory support, and return to normal activities of daily living. Key secondary outcomes include mortality and oxygen-free days. The trial is projected to enroll 1000 patients and is designed to detect an odds ratio ≤ 0.73 for the primary outcome. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide the most robust data available to date on the efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma for the treatment of adults hospitalized with acute moderate to severe COVID-19. These data will be useful to guide the treatment of COVID-19 patients in the current pandemic and for informing decisions about whether developing a standardized infrastructure for collecting and disseminating convalescent plasma to prepare for future viral pandemics is indicated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04362176 . Registered on 24 April 2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Hospitalization , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Host-Pathogen Interactions , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , United States , COVID-19 Serotherapy
5.
Transfusion ; 61(6): 1690-1693, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1059648

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Several studies have highlighted the disparities in gender equity that exist in different medical specialties. The COVID-19 pandemic has further heightened the inequity faced by female physicians as they are challenged by increasing household and childcare duties in addition to their professional responsibilities. Given these hurdles, fewer women than men have published in various medical disciplines. In this brief report, we wanted to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the academic output of female physicians and researchers in transfusion medicine. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We compared all articles in four transfusion medicine journals published from January 1 to July 31, 2019 with the same time period in 2020. Overall, 1024 articles were reviewed for whether they included women as first or senior authors. RESULTS: Overall, women were first authors in 45.9% (n = 458) of all publications and senior authors in 35% (n = 356) of all publications. There was a statistically significant decrease in the percentage of women as first authors between 2019 (49.1%) and 2020 (42.7%) (p = .04). There was no significant change in the percentage of women as senior authors between 2019 (35.4%) and 2020 (35.5%) (p = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Similar to other medical specialties, the COVID-19 pandemic has further increased the disparities faced by female researchers in transfusion medicine as evidenced by a decrease in publications with women as first authors.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , COVID-19/epidemiology , Physicians, Women , Publications/statistics & numerical data , Transfusion Medicine , Academies and Institutes/organization & administration , Academies and Institutes/statistics & numerical data , Bibliometrics , Biomedical Research/organization & administration , Biomedical Research/statistics & numerical data , Biomedical Research/trends , Efficiency , Female , History, 21st Century , Humans , Male , Medicine , Pandemics , Physicians, Women/organization & administration , Physicians, Women/statistics & numerical data , Physicians, Women/trends , Publications/trends , Research Personnel/organization & administration , Research Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Research Personnel/trends , Sex Factors , Transfusion Medicine/organization & administration , Transfusion Medicine/statistics & numerical data , Transfusion Medicine/trends
6.
Transfusion ; 60(12): 2828-2833, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-808782

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Arkansas is a rural state of 3 million people. It is ranked fifth for poverty nationally. The first case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Arkansas occurred on 11 March 2020. Since then, approximately 8% of all Arkansans have tested positive. Given the resource limitations of Arkansas, COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) was explored as a potentially lifesaving, therapeutic option. Therefore, the Arkansas Initiative for Convalescent Plasma was developed to ensure that every Arkansan has access to this therapy. STUDY DESIGN AND METHOD: This brief report describes the statewide collaborative response from hospitals, blood collectors, and the Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) to ensure that CCP was available in a resource-limited state. RESULTS: Early contact tracing by ADH identified individuals who had come into contact with "patient zero" in early March. Within the first week, 32 patients tested positive for COVID-19. The first set of CCP collections occurred on 9 April 2020. Donors had to be triaged carefully in the initial period, as many had recently resolved their symptoms. From our first collections, with appropriate resource and inventory management, we collected sufficient CCP to provide the requested number of units for every patient treated with CCP in Arkansas. CONCLUSIONS: The Arkansas Initiative, a statewide effort to ensure CCP for every patient in a resource-limited state, required careful coordination among key players. Collaboration and resource management was crucial to meet the demand of CCP products and potentially save lives.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Health Resources/supply & distribution , Health Services Accessibility/organization & administration , Pandemics , Resource Allocation/organization & administration , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Arkansas/epidemiology , Blood Banks/economics , Blood Banks/organization & administration , Blood Donors/supply & distribution , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Community Health Planning/economics , Community Health Planning/organization & administration , Contact Tracing , Convalescence , Health Resources/economics , Health Services Accessibility/economics , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Intersectoral Collaboration , Poverty , Resource Allocation/economics , Rural Population , COVID-19 Serotherapy
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL