COVID-19 vaccination in systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review for effectiveness, immunogenicity, flares and acceptance.

AIMS: COVID-19 infection is associated with significant morbidity in systemic lupus erythematosus but is potentially preventable by vaccination, although the impact of the myriad vaccines among SLE patients is not established. We aimed to assess the effectiveness, efficacy, acceptance and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in SLE. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, WHO Clinical Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov publications until 8th June 2022 without language, publication year or publication status restrictions. Reports with fewer than 5 patients or incomplete information on study outcomes were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed, and results reported according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. RESULTS: We identified 32 studies (34 reports) comprising 8269 individuals with SLE. Post-vaccine COVID-19 infections ranged 0-17% in 6 studies (5065 patients), while humoral and cellular immunogenicity, was evaluated in 17 studies (976 patients) and 5 studies (112 patients), respectively. Pooled seropositivity rate was 81.1% (95% CI: 72.6-88.5%, I2=85%, p< 0.01) with significant heterogeneity and higher rates in mRNA vaccines compared with non-mRNA vaccines. Adverse events and specifically lupus flares were examined in 20 studies (3853 patients) and 13 studies (2989 patients), respectively. Severe adverse events and moderate to severe lupus flares were infrequent. The pooled vaccine acceptance rate was 67.0% (95%CI: 45.2-85.6%, I2=98%, p< 0.01) from 8 studies (1348 patients), with greater acceptance in older patients. CONCLUSION: Post-vaccine COVID-19 infection, severe flares and adverse events were infrequent and pooled seropositivity and acceptance were high with significant heterogeneity. These results may inform shared-decision making on vaccination during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; CRD42021233366.

Evolving outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used extensively for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Reports early in the pandemic suggested that mortality in patients with COVID-19 receiving ECMO was comparable to non-COVID-19-related ARDS. However, subsequent reports suggested that mortality appeared to be increasing over time. Therefore, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis, to characterise changes in mortality over time and elucidate risk factors for poor outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis (CRD42021271202), searching MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases, from 1 December 2019 to 26 January 2022, for studies reporting on mortality among adults with COVID-19 receiving ECMO. We also captured hospital and intensive care unit lengths of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation and ECMO, as well as complications of ECMO. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses, assessed risk of bias of included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist and evaluated certainty of pooled estimates using GRADE methodology. RESULTS: Of 4522 citations, we included 52 studies comprising 18,211 patients in the meta-analysis. The pooled mortality rate among patients with COVID-19 requiring ECMO was 48.8% (95% confidence interval 44.8-52.9%, high certainty). Mortality was higher among studies which enrolled patients later in the pandemic as opposed to earlier (1st half 2020: 41.2%, 2nd half 2020: 46.4%, 1st half 2021: 62.0%, 2nd half 2021: 46.5%, interaction p value = 0.0014). Predictors of increased mortality included age, the time of final patient enrolment from 1 January 2020, and the proportion of patients receiving corticosteroids, and reduced duration of ECMO run. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rate for patients receiving ECMO for COVID-19-related ARDS has increased as the pandemic has progressed. The reasons for this are likely multifactorial; however, as outcomes for these patients evolve, the decision to initiate ECMO should include the best contextual estimate of mortality at the time of ECMO initiation.

Convalescent Plasma for Patients Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Current evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews on the utility of convalescent plasma (CP) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suggests a lack of benefit. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of RCTs with trial sequential analysis to investigate whether convalescent plasma is futile in reducing mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We searched 6 databases from December 1, 2019 to August 1, 2021 for RCTs comparing the use of CP with standard of care or transfusion of non-CP standard plasma in patients with COVID-19. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 Tool. Random effects (DerSimonian and Laird) meta-analyses were conducted. The primary outcome was the aggregate risk for in-hospital mortality between both arms. We conducted a trial sequential analysis (TSA) based on the pooled relative risks (RRs) for in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included the pooled RR for receipt of mechanical ventilation and mean difference in hospital length of stay. We included 18 RCTs (8702 CP, 7906 control). CP was not associated with a significant mortality benefit (RR: 0.95, 95%-CI: 0.86-1.04, P = .27, high certainty). Subgroup analysis did not find any significant differences (pinteraction = 0.30) between patients who received CP within 8 days of symptom onset (RR: 0.97, 95%-CI: 0.79-1.19, P = .80), or after 8 days (RR: 0.79, 95%-CI: 0.57-1.10, P = .16). TSA based on a RR reduction of 10% from a baseline mortality of 20% found that CP was not effective, with the pooled effect within the boundary for futility. CP did not significantly reduce the requirement for mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.00, 95%-CI: 0.91-1.10, P = .99, moderate certainty) or hospital length of stay (+1.32, 95%-CI: -1.86 to +4.52, P = .42, low certainty). CP does not improve relevant clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, especially in severe disease. The pooled effect of mortality was within the boundary of futility, suggesting the lack of benefit of CP in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.