Vitamin D3 Supplementation at 5000 IU Daily for the Prevention of Influenza-like Illness in Healthcare Workers: A Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trial.

Vitamin D supplementation has been shown to reduce the incidence of acute respiratory infections in populations at risk. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of preventing viral infections in healthcare workers. The aim of this study was to assess the hypothesis that vitamin D3 supplementation at 5000 IU daily reduces influenza-like illness (ILI), including COVID-19, in healthcare workers. We conducted a prospective, controlled trial at a tertiary university hospital. A random group of healthcare workers was invited to receive 5000 IU daily vitamin D3 supplementation for nine months, while other random healthcare system workers served as controls. All healthcare workers were required to self-monitor and report to employee health for COVID-19 testing when experiencing symptoms of ILI. COVID-19 test results were retrieved. Incidence rates were compared between the vitamin D and control groups. Workers in the intervention group were included in the analysis if they completed at least 2 months of supplementation to ensure adequate vitamin D levels. The primary analysis compared the incidence rate of all ILI, while secondary analyses examined incidence rates of COVID-19 ILI and non-COVID-19 ILI. Between October 2020 and November 2021, 255 healthcare workers (age 47 ± 12 years, 199 women) completed at least two months of vitamin D3 supplementation. The control group consisted of 2827 workers. Vitamin D3 5000 IU supplementation was associated with a lower risk of ILI (incidence rate difference: -1.7 × 10-4/person-day, 95%-CI: -3.0 × 10-4 to -3.3 × 10-5/person-day, p = 0.015) and a lower incidence rate for non-COVID-19 ILI (incidence rate difference: -1.3 × 10-4/person-day, 95%-CI -2.5 × 10-4 to -7.1 × 10-6/person-day, p = 0.038). COVID-19 ILI incidence was not statistically different (incidence rate difference: -4.2 × 10-5/person-day, 95%-CI: -10.0 × 10-5 to 1.5 × 10-5/person-day, p = 0.152). Daily supplementation with 5000 IU vitamin D3 reduces influenza-like illness in healthcare workers.

Coagulation profile of human COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

Convalescent plasma is used to treat COVID-19. There are theoretical concerns about the impact of pro-coagulant factors in convalescent plasma on the coagulation cascade particularly among patients with severe COVID-19. The aim of this study was to evaluate the coagulation profile of COVID-19 convalescent plasma. Clotting times and coagulation factor assays were compared between fresh frozen plasma, COVID-19 convalescent plasma, and pathogen-reduced COVID-19 convalescent plasma. Measurements included prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, thrombin time, fibrinogen, D-dimer, von Willebrand factor activity, von Willebrand factor antigen, coagulation factors II, V, VII-XII, protein S activity, protein C antigen, and alpha-2 plasmin inhibitor. Clotting times and coagulation factor assays were not different between COVID-19 convalescent plasma and fresh frozen plasma, except for protein C antigen. When compared to fresh frozen plasma and regular convalescent plasma, pathogen reduction treatment increased activated partial thromboplastin time and thrombin time, while reducing fibrinogen, coagulation factor II, V, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, protein S activity, and alpha-2 plasmin inhibitor. The coagulation profiles of human COVID-19 convalescent plasma and standard fresh frozen plasma are not different. Pathogen reduced COVID-19 convalescent plasma is associated with reduction of coagulation factors and a slight prolongation of coagulation times, as anticipated. A key limitation of the study is that the COVID-19 disease course of the convalesced donors was not characterized.

Access to and safety of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in the United States Expanded Access Program: A national registry study.

BACKGROUND: The United States (US) Expanded Access Program (EAP) to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma was initiated in response to the rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of COVID-19. While randomized clinical trials were in various stages of development and enrollment, there was an urgent need for widespread access to potential therapeutic agents. The objective of this study is to report on the demographic, geographical, and chronological characteristics of patients in the EAP, and key safety metrics following transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Mayo Clinic served as the central institutional review board for all participating facilities, and any US physician could participate as a local physician-principal investigator. Eligible patients were hospitalized, were aged 18 years or older, and had-or were at risk of progression to-severe or life-threatening COVID-19; eligible patients were enrolled through the EAP central website. Blood collection facilities rapidly implemented programs to collect convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Demographic and clinical characteristics of all enrolled patients in the EAP were summarized. Temporal patterns in access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma were investigated by comparing daily and weekly changes in EAP enrollment in response to changes in infection rate at the state level. Geographical analyses on access to convalescent plasma included assessing EAP enrollment in all national hospital referral regions, as well as assessing enrollment in metropolitan areas and less populated areas that did not have access to COVID-19 clinical trials. From April 3 to August 23, 2020, 105,717 hospitalized patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19 were enrolled in the EAP. The majority of patients were 60 years of age or older (57.8%), were male (58.4%), and had overweight or obesity (83.8%). There was substantial inclusion of minorities and underserved populations: 46.4% of patients were of a race other than white, and 37.2% of patients were of Hispanic ethnicity. Chronologically and geographically, increases in the number of both enrollments and transfusions in the EAP closely followed confirmed infections across all 50 states. Nearly all national hospital referral regions enrolled and transfused patients in the EAP, including both in metropolitan and in less populated areas. The incidence of serious adverse events was objectively low (<1%), and the overall crude 30-day mortality rate was 25.2% (95% CI, 25.0% to 25.5%). This registry study was limited by the observational and pragmatic study design that did not include a control or comparator group; thus, the data should not be used to infer definitive treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the EAP provided widespread access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma in all 50 states, including for underserved racial and ethnic minority populations. The study design of the EAP may serve as a model for future efforts when broad access to a treatment is needed in response to an emerging infectious disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT#: NCT04338360.

Correlation of Country Characteristics and Government Response Measures With COVID-19 Mortality During the First Phase of the Global COVID-19 Pandemic: A Worldwide Ecological Study.

Introduction It is valuable to know if country demographic, educational, healthcare and other socioeconomic factors were correlated with the COVID-19 mortality rate during the initial phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide pandemic (January 1st - August 31st, 2020). Similarly, it is worthwhile understanding whether a country's geographic location or the measures instituted by governments, such as lockdowns and mask-wearing, were associated with an increased or decreased mortality rate. Materials and methods To assess these correlations, we conducted an ecologic study of 178 countries using time-matched data from the Social Progress Index (www.socialprogress.org, produced by the Social Progress Imperative), population data from the World Bank (data.worldbank.org), government response indices from Our World In Data (ourworldindata.org/policy-responses-covid), and COVID-19 mortality data from the Johns Hopkins University CSSE COVID-19 Data repository (github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19), accessed on November 22nd, 2020. Pearson correlation coefficients were derived between potential predictors and countries' COVID-19 population-adjusted crude mortality rates. Select variables were entered in a multivariable regression model. Countries with no data in the social progress index database or those with no COVID-19 cases were excluded (20 in total).  Results The highest positive correlations were found between the proportion of the population older than 75 (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.321), country distance from the equator (0.267), gross domestic product per capita (0.218), health and wellness score (0.388), water and sanitation score (0.384), environmental quality (0.237), and the days between the first reported COVID-19 case and the initial government response (0.238). A previously unreported and unexpected negative correlation was found between gender parity in secondary education attainment and COVID-19 mortality (-0.290). Peak mask-wearing ranging from 'recommended' to 'required outside the home at all times was extremely weakly correlated with lower COVID-19 mortality (-0.046). Conclusions Crude COVID-19 mortality rates during the first phase of the pandemic in 2020, during which no vaccine or specific treatment was available, were higher in wealthier countries that were further away from the equator and had a higher health and wellness score according to the Social Progress Imperative. They were also higher the longer governments delayed their initial response. Gender parity in secondary education and stringency of mask-wearing guidelines were correlated with lower mortality, though the latter correlation was extremely weak. Our findings are consistent with previously published correlations. The correlation between crude COVID-19 mortality rates and gender parity in secondary education has not been previously reported.

Mortality in individuals treated with COVID-19 convalescent plasma varies with the geographic provenance of donors.

Successful therapeutics and vaccines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have harnessed the immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Evidence that SARS-CoV-2 exists as locally evolving variants suggests that immunological differences may impact the effectiveness of antibody-based treatments such as convalescent plasma and vaccines. Considering that near-sourced convalescent plasma likely reflects the antigenic composition of local viral strains, we hypothesize that convalescent plasma has a higher efficacy, as defined by death within 30 days of transfusion, when the convalescent plasma donor and treated patient were in close geographic proximity. Results of a series of modeling techniques applied to approximately 28,000 patients from the Expanded Access to Convalescent Plasma program (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04338360) support this hypothesis. This work has implications for the interpretation of clinical studies, the ability to develop effective COVID-19 treatments, and, potentially, for the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines as additional locally-evolving variants continue to emerge.

Convalescent Plasma Therapy for COVID-19: A Graphical Mosaic of the Worldwide Evidence.

Convalescent plasma has been used worldwide to treat patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and prevent disease progression. Despite global usage, uncertainty remains regarding plasma efficacy, as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have provided divergent evidence regarding the survival benefit of convalescent plasma. Here, we argue that during a global health emergency, the mosaic of evidence originating from multiple levels of the epistemic hierarchy should inform contemporary policy and healthcare decisions. Indeed, worldwide matched-control studies have generally found convalescent plasma to improve COVID-19 patient survival, and RCTs have demonstrated a survival benefit when transfused early in the disease course but limited or no benefit later in the disease course when patients required greater supportive therapies. RCTs have also revealed that convalescent plasma transfusion contributes to improved symptomatology and viral clearance. To further investigate the effect of convalescent plasma on patient mortality, we performed a meta-analytical approach to pool daily survival data from all controlled studies that reported Kaplan-Meier survival plots. Qualitative inspection of all available Kaplan-Meier survival data and an aggregate Kaplan-Meier survival plot revealed a directionally consistent pattern among studies arising from multiple levels of the epistemic hierarchy, whereby convalescent plasma transfusion was generally associated with greater patient survival. Given that convalescent plasma has a similar safety profile as standard plasma, convalescent plasma should be implemented within weeks of the onset of future infectious disease outbreaks.

The Effect of Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Mortality Among Patients With COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

To determine the effect of COVID-19 convalescent plasma on mortality, we aggregated patient outcome data from 10 randomized clinical trials, 20 matched control studies, 2 dose-response studies, and 96 case reports or case series. Studies published between January 1, 2020, and January 16, 2021, were identified through a systematic search of online PubMed and MEDLINE databases. Random effects analyses of randomized clinical trials and matched control data demonstrated that patients with COVID-19 transfused with convalescent plasma exhibited a lower mortality rate compared with patients receiving standard treatments. Additional analyses showed that early transfusion (within 3 days of hospital admission) of higher titer plasma is associated with lower patient mortality. These data provide evidence favoring the efficacy of human convalescent plasma as a therapeutic agent in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Convalescent Plasma for Infectious Diseases: Historical Framework and Use in COVID-19.

Convalescent plasma has emerged as a promising therapeutic agent for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has received emergency use authorization, and is being widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic. Passive antibody therapy via plasma or serum has been successfully used to treat infectious diseases for more than a century. Passive antibody administration is based on the presumption that convalescent plasma or serum contains therapeutic antibodies that can be passively transferred to the plasma recipient. There are numerous examples in which convalescent plasma has been used successfully as post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of infectious diseases, including previous coronavirus outbreaks. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, convalescent plasma was demonstrated to be safe and potentially effective among patients infected with COVID-19. This review provides an overview of the historical uses of convalescent plasma therapy, summarizes current evidence for convalescent plasma use for COVID-19, and highlights future antibody therapies.

Convalescent Plasma Antibody Levels and the Risk of Death from Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) under the presumption that such plasma contains potentially therapeutic antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that can be passively transferred to the plasma recipient. Whether convalescent plasma with high antibody levels rather than low antibody levels is associated with a lower risk of death is unknown. METHODS: In a retrospective study based on a U.S. national registry, we determined the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels in convalescent plasma used to treat hospitalized adults with Covid-19. The primary outcome was death within 30 days after plasma transfusion. Patients who were enrolled through July 4, 2020, and for whom data on anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels in plasma transfusions and on 30-day mortality were available were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Of the 3082 patients included in this analysis, death within 30 days after plasma transfusion occurred in 115 of 515 patients (22.3%) in the high-titer group, 549 of 2006 patients (27.4%) in the medium-titer group, and 166 of 561 patients (29.6%) in the low-titer group. The association of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels with the risk of death from Covid-19 was moderated by mechanical ventilation status. A lower risk of death within 30 days in the high-titer group than in the low-titer group was observed among patients who had not received mechanical ventilation before transfusion (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48 to 0.91), and no effect on the risk of death was observed among patients who had received mechanical ventilation (relative risk, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19 who were not receiving mechanical ventilation, transfusion of plasma with higher anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels was associated with a lower risk of death than transfusion of plasma with lower antibody levels. (Funded by the Department of Health and Human Services and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04338360.).

Safety Update: COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in 20,000 Hospitalized Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update on key safety metrics after transfusion of convalescent plasma in hospitalized coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) patients, having previously demonstrated safety in 5000 hospitalized patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From April 3 to June 2, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration Expanded Access Program for COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfused a convenience sample of 20,000 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 convalescent plasma. RESULTS: The incidence of all serious adverse events was low; these included transfusion reactions (n=78; <1%), thromboembolic or thrombotic events (n=113; <1%), and cardiac events (n=677, ~3%). Notably, the vast majority of the thromboembolic or thrombotic events (n=75) and cardiac events (n=597) were judged to be unrelated to the plasma transfusion per se. The 7-day mortality rate was 13.0% (12.5%, 13.4%), and was higher among more critically ill patients relative to less ill counterparts, including patients admitted to the intensive care unit versus those not admitted (15.6 vs 9.3%), mechanically ventilated versus not ventilated (18.3% vs 9.9%), and with septic shock or multiple organ dysfunction/failure versus those without dysfunction/failure (21.7% vs 11.5%). CONCLUSION: These updated data provide robust evidence that transfusion of convalescent plasma is safe in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and support the notion that earlier administration of plasma within the clinical course of COVID-19 is more likely to reduce mortality.