Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
BMC Infect Dis ; 21(1): 1170, 2021 Nov 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526605

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). METHODS: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. RESULTS: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
2.
JAMA ; 326(17): 1690-1702, 2021 Nov 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525402

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: The evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The ongoing Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial, Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) enrolled and randomized 4763 adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 between March 9, 2020, and January 18, 2021, within at least 1 domain; 2011 critically ill adults were randomized to open-label interventions in the immunoglobulin domain at 129 sites in 4 countries. Follow-up ended on April 19, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: The immunoglobulin domain randomized participants to receive 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma (total volume of 550 mL ± 150 mL) within 48 hours of randomization (n = 1084) or no convalescent plasma (n = 916). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary ordinal end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based organ support) up to day 21 (range, -1 to 21 days; patients who died were assigned -1 day). The primary analysis was an adjusted bayesian cumulative logistic model. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Futility was defined as the posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 (threshold for trial conclusion of futility >95%). An OR greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. The prespecified secondary outcomes included in-hospital survival; 28-day survival; 90-day survival; respiratory support-free days; cardiovascular support-free days; progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation, or death; intensive care unit length of stay; hospital length of stay; World Health Organization ordinal scale score at day 14; venous thromboembolic events at 90 days; and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Among the 2011 participants who were randomized (median age, 61 [IQR, 52 to 70] years and 645/1998 [32.3%] women), 1990 (99%) completed the trial. The convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after the prespecified criterion for futility was met. The median number of organ support-free days was 0 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the convalescent plasma group and 3 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the no convalescent plasma group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 37.3% (401/1075) for the convalescent plasma group and 38.4% (347/904) for the no convalescent plasma group and the median number of days alive and free of organ support was 14 (IQR, 3 to 18) and 14 (IQR, 7 to 18), respectively. The median-adjusted OR was 0.97 (95% credible interval, 0.83 to 1.15) and the posterior probability of futility (OR <1.2) was 99.4% for the convalescent plasma group compared with the no convalescent plasma group. The treatment effects were consistent across the primary outcome and the 11 secondary outcomes. Serious adverse events were reported in 3.0% (32/1075) of participants in the convalescent plasma group and in 1.3% (12/905) of participants in the no convalescent plasma group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among critically ill adults with confirmed COVID-19, treatment with 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , ABO Blood-Group System , Adult , Aged , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Length of Stay , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Treatment Failure , Vasoconstrictor Agents/therapeutic use
3.
Vox Sang ; 116(8): 872-879, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1402988

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The lack of definitive treatment or preventative options for COVID-19 led many clinicians early on to consider convalescent plasma (CCP) as potentially therapeutic. Regulators, blood centres and hospitals worldwide worked quickly to get CCP to the bedside. Although response was admirable, several areas have been identified to help improve future pandemic management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multidisciplinary, multinational subgroup from the ISBT Working Group on COVID-19 was tasked with drafting a manuscript that describes the lessons learned pertaining to procurement and administration of CCP, derived from a comprehensive questionnaire within the subgroup. RESULTS: While each country's responses and preparedness for the pandemic varied, there were shared challenges, spanning supply chain disruptions, staffing, impact of social distancing on the collection of regular blood and CCP products, and the availability of screening and confirmatory SARS-CoV-2 testing for donors and patients. The lack of a general framework to organize data gathering across clinical trials and the desire to provide a potentially life-saving therapeutic through compassionate use hampered the collection of much-needed safety and outcome data worldwide. Communication across all stakeholders was identified as being central to reducing confusion. CONCLUSION: The need for flexibility and adaptability remains paramount when dealing with a pandemic. As the world approaches the first anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic with rising rates worldwide and over 115 million cases and 2·55 million deaths, respectively, it is important to reflect on how to better prepare for future pandemics as we continue to combat the current one.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Viruses ; 13(2)2021 02 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1063429

ABSTRACT

Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies provides important research and diagnostic information relating to COVID-19 prevalence, incidence and host immune response. A greater understanding of the relationship between functionally neutralising antibodies detected using microneutralisation assays and binding antibodies detected using scalable enzyme immunoassays (EIA) is needed in order to address protective immunity post-infection or vaccination, and assess EIA suitability as a surrogate test for screening of convalescent plasma donors. We assessed whether neutralising antibody titres correlated with signal cut-off ratios in five commercially available EIAs, and one in-house assay based on expressed spike protein targets. Sera from recovered patients or convalescent plasma donors who reported laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 200), and negative control sera collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 100), were assessed in parallel. Performance was assessed by calculating EIA sensitivity and specificity with reference to microneutralisation. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 166 (83%) samples. Compared with this, the most sensitive EIAs were the Cobas Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (98%) and Vitros Immunodiagnostic Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (100%), which detect total antibody targeting the N and S1 antigens, respectively. The assay with the best quantitative relationship with microneutralisation was the Euroimmun IgG. These results suggest the marker used (total Ab vs. IgG vs. IgA) and the target antigen are important determinants of assay performance. The strong correlation between microneutralisation and some commercially available assays demonstrates their potential for clinical and research use in assessing protection following infection or vaccination, and use as a surrogate test to assess donor suitability for convalescent plasma donation.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19/immunology , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay , Neutralization Tests , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , COVID-19/diagnosis , Humans , Immunoglobulin A/blood , Immunoglobulin G/blood , ROC Curve , Sensitivity and Specificity
5.
Science ; 370(6518): 861-865, 2020 11 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-883300

ABSTRACT

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), uses the viral spike (S) protein for host cell attachment and entry. The host protease furin cleaves the full-length precursor S glycoprotein into two associated polypeptides: S1 and S2. Cleavage of S generates a polybasic Arg-Arg-Ala-Arg carboxyl-terminal sequence on S1, which conforms to a C-end rule (CendR) motif that binds to cell surface neuropilin-1 (NRP1) and NRP2 receptors. We used x-ray crystallography and biochemical approaches to show that the S1 CendR motif directly bound NRP1. Blocking this interaction by RNA interference or selective inhibitors reduced SARS-CoV-2 entry and infectivity in cell culture. NRP1 thus serves as a host factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection and may potentially provide a therapeutic target for COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/physiology , Neuropilin-1/metabolism , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/metabolism , Virus Internalization , Amino Acid Motifs , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 , Antibodies, Monoclonal/immunology , Antibodies, Monoclonal/metabolism , COVID-19 , Caco-2 Cells , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Crystallography, X-Ray , Furin/metabolism , HeLa Cells , Humans , Mutagenesis, Site-Directed , Neuropilin-1/antagonists & inhibitors , Neuropilin-1/chemistry , Neuropilin-1/genetics , Pandemics , Peptide Fragments/chemistry , Peptide Fragments/metabolism , Peptidyl-Dipeptidase A/genetics , Peptidyl-Dipeptidase A/metabolism , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Protein Binding , Protein Interaction Domains and Motifs , RNA Interference , SARS-CoV-2 , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/chemistry , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/genetics
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL