Efficacy of therapeutic plasma exchange in severe COVID-19 disease: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) has been used in severe COVID-19 disease to eliminate the cytokine storm. This meta-analysis aims to assess the effectiveness of TPE in reducing mortality in severe COVID-19 disease compared to standard treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, the Cochrane database and the International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP). The random-effect model was used to calculate the risk ratio and standardized mean difference (SMD) as pooled effect size for the difference in mortality and length of the intensive care unit (ICU) stay. The risk of bias and publication bias were assessed in R version 4.1.0. The certainty of the evidence was calculated using the GradePro tool. RESULTS: The database identified 382 participants from six studies, including one randomized control trial. Egger's test did not detect any publication bias (p = 0.178). The random model analysis for mortality evaluated a risk ratio of 0.38 (95% CI: 0.28-0.52) with a significant reduction in the TPE group. The certainty of the evidence was moderate, with a risk ratio of 0.34 (95% CI: 0.24-0.49). Length of ICU stays between TPE versus standard care showed an SMD of 0.08 (95% CI: -0.38, 0.55) and was not significant. CONCLUSION: The length of ICU stay in the TPE group was not different from standard care. However, this meta-analysis revealed a significant benefit of TPE in reducing mortality in severe COVID-19 disease compared to standard treatment.

Impact of COVID-19 on blood donor deferral patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic: A retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Blood donor deferral is an essential tool for blood safety. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected blood transfusion services all over the world. But its impact on donor deferral rate and the pattern is unclear in light of the new donor deferral policy due to the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was divided into pre-COVID and COVID (15 March 2019-14 March 2021). All the deferred donors were divided into six different categories: (1) medical causes, (2) surgical causes, (3) drugs and vaccination, (4) risk of transfusion-transmitted diseases, (5) miscellaneous causes and (6) flu-like symptoms. In addition, COVID-related deferrals were also incorporated. All these above categories along with the donor demography were analysed by SPSS software version 25. RESULTS: The donor deferral rate was 17.03% and 12.74% during the pre-COVID and COVID periods, respectively. During the pre-COVID period, Category 3 deferrals and during COVID period, Category 6 deferrals were significantly higher. A reversal in pattern with increased blood pressure (40.2% vs. 24.04%) over-riding low haemoglobin (34.77% vs. 55.5%) was noted in the Category 1 deferral during the COVID period. Category 1 deferral was more in middle-aged adults as compared to young and old adults (p < 0.05). Among middle-aged adults, deferral due to flu-like symptoms was also significantly more during the COVID period (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 significantly affected the donor pool and changed the pattern of donor deferral. Understanding donor deferral patterns may help in identifying targeted donor populations and planning donor recruitment strategies in future pandemic crises.

Analysis of responses of the health care workers recovered from COVID-19 on convalescent plasma donation by apheresis: A single-center survey study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been tried as a therapy in moderate COVID-19 pneumonia. Donation of CCP requires motivation from recovered patients. This study evaluated the response of such recovered health care workers (HCWs) when they were motivated for CCP donation. METHODS: An interview-based survey was carried out with recovered HCWs as study participants between August 2020 and November 2020. A qualified social worker explained the details of CCP donation over a mobile call; he clarified all their doubts and motivated them for the plasma donation. Their responses were recorded as "interested" or "not interested" followed by analysis. RESULTS: We tried to call 624 recovered HCWs, but could not reach 213, and the final group available for the study was 411 participants. Of these 411, 186 were deferred. Finally, we analyzed a total of 225 responses. Eventually, 105 out of 225 HCWs (47%) were interested; there were no significant differences in responses among males and females and between different age groups (<.001) and the "doctors" designation category (P = .01) had a maximum number of "interested" responses. In multivariate logistic regression, only the "interested" responses of the doctors were significantly higher after adjusting the confounding effect of the "graduate and above" educational qualification category. CONCLUSION: This study found that nearly half of the eligible HCWs were interested in CCP donation. The educational qualification and designation among the recovered HCWs had an impact on CCP donation interest. The doctors were more interested in CCP donation compared to others.

Radiation Fractionation Schedules Published During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review of the Quality of Evidence and Recommendations for Future Development.

PURPOSE: Numerous publications during the COVID-19 pandemic recommended the use of hypofractionated radiation therapy. This project assessed aggregate changes in the quality of the evidence supporting these schedules to establish a comprehensive evidence base for future reference and highlight aspects for future study. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Based on a systematic review of published recommendations related to dose fractionation during the COVID-19 pandemic, 20 expert panelists assigned to 14 disease groups named and graded the highest quality of evidence schedule(s) used routinely for each condition and also graded all COVID-era recommended schedules. The American Society for Radiation Oncology quality of evidence criteria were used to rank the schedules. Process-related statistics and changes in distributions of quality ratings of the highest-rated versus recommended COVID-19 era schedules were described by disease groups and for specific clinical scenarios. RESULTS: From January to May 2020 there were 54 relevant publications, including 233 recommended COVID-19-adapted dose fractionations. For site-specific curative and site-specific palliative schedules, there was a significant shift from established higher-quality evidence to lower-quality evidence and expert opinions for the recommended schedules (P = .022 and P < .001, respectively). For curative-intent schedules, the distribution of quality scores was essentially reversed (highest levels of evidence "pre-COVID" vs "in-COVID": high quality, 51.4% vs 4.8%; expert opinion, 5.6% vs 49.3%), although there was variation in the magnitude of shifts between disease sites and among specific indications. CONCLUSIONS: A large number of publications recommended hypofractionated radiation therapy schedules across numerous major disease sites during the COVID-19 pandemic, which were supported by a lower quality of evidence than the highest-quality routinely used dose fractionation schedules. This work provides an evidence-based assessment of these potentially practice-changing recommendations and informs individualized decision-making and counseling of patients. These data could also be used to support radiation therapy practices in the event of second waves or surges of the pandemic in new regions of the world.

Considerations for the treatment of pancreatic cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: the UK consensus position.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic epicentre has moved to the USA and Europe, where it is placing unprecedented demands on healthcare resources and staff availability. These service constraints, coupled with concerns relating to an increased incidence and severity of COVID-19 among patients with cancer, should lead to re-consideration of the risk-benefit balance for standard treatment pathways. This is of particular importance to pancreatic cancer, given that standard diagnostic modalities such as endoscopy may be restricted, and that disease biology precludes significant delays in treatment. In light of this, we sought consensus from UK clinicians with an interest in pancreatic cancer for management approaches that would minimise patient risk and accommodate for healthcare service restrictions. The outcomes are described here and include recommendations for treatment prioritisation, strategies to bridge to later surgical resection in resectable disease and factors that modify the risk-benefit balance for treatment in the resectable through to the metastatic settings. Priority is given to strategies that limit hospital visits, including through the use of hypofractionated precision radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy treatment approaches.