Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
2.
Preprint in English | Other preprints | ID: ppcovidwho-295804

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT Background Treatment of COVID-19 patients with convalescent plasma containing neutralising antibody to SARS-CoV-2 is under investigation as a means of reducing viral loads, ameliorating disease outcomes, and reducing mortality. However, its efficacy might be reduced in those infected with the emerging B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2 variant. Here, we report the diverse virological characteristics of UK patients enrolled in the Immunoglobulin Domain of the REMAP-CAP randomised controlled trial. Methods SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA was detected and quantified by real-time PCR in nasopharyngeal swabs obtained from study subjects within 48 hours of admission to intensive care unit. Antibody status was determined by spike-protein ELISA. B.1.1.7 strain was differentiated from other SARS-CoV-2 strains by two novel typing methods detecting the B.1.1.7-associated D1118H mutation with allele-specific probes and by restriction site polymorphism (SfcI). Findings Of 1260 subjects, 90% were PCR-positive with viral loads in nasopharyngeal swabs ranging from 72 international units [IUs]/ml to 1.7×10 11 IU/ml. Median viral loads were 45-fold higher in those who were seronegative for IgG antibodies (n=314;28%) compared to seropositives (n=804;72%), reflecting in part the latter group’s possible later disease stage on enrolment. Frequencies of B.1.1.7 infection increased from early November (<1%) to December 2020 (>60%). Anti-SARS-CoV-2 seronegative individuals infected with wild-type SARS-CoV-2 had significantly higher viral loads than seropositives (medians of 1.2×10 6 and 3.4 ×10 4 IU/ml respectively;p=2×10 −9 ). However, viral load distributions were elevated in both seropositive and seronegative subjects infected with B.1.1.7 (13.4×10 6 and 7.6×10 6 IU/ml;p=0.18). Interpretation High viral loads in seropositive B.1.1.7-infected subjects are consistent with increased replication capacity and/or less effective clearance by innate or adaptive immune response of B.1.1.7 strain than wild-type. As viral genotype was associated with diverse virological and immunological phenotypes, metrics of viral load, antibody status and infecting strain should be used to define subgroups for analysis of treatment efficacy.

3.
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
4.
J Infect Dis ; 2021 Nov 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1506513

ABSTRACT

We compared neutralising antibody titres of convalescent samples collected before and after the emergence of novel strains of SARS-CoV-2, against the wild-type virus (WT), Alpha (B.1.1.7) and Beta (B.1.351) variants. Plasma collected in 2020 before emergence of variants showed reduced titres against the Alpha variants, and both sets of samples demonstrated significantly reduced titres against Beta. Comparison of microneutralisation titres to those obtained with pseudotype and HAT assays showed a good correlation of titres and effects of strain variation, supporting the use of these simpler assays for assessment of convalescent plasma potency against currently circulating and emerging strains of SARS-CoV-2.

5.
J Infect Dis ; 224(4): 595-605, 2021 08 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1367024

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma containing neutralizing antibody to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is under investigation for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment. We report diverse virological characteristics of UK intensive care patients enrolled in the Immunoglobulin Domain of the REMAP-CAP randomized controlled trial that potentially influence treatment outcomes. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharyngeal swabs collected pretreatment was quantified by PCR. Antibody status was determined by spike-protein ELISA. B.1.1.7 was differentiated from other SARS-CoV-2 strains using allele-specific probes or restriction site polymorphism (SfcI) targeting D1118H. RESULTS: Of 1274 subjects, 90% were PCR positive with viral loads 118-1.7 × 1011IU/mL. Median viral loads were 40-fold higher in those IgG seronegative (n = 354; 28%) compared to seropositives (n = 939; 72%). Frequencies of B.1.1.7 increased from <1% in November 2020 to 82% of subjects in January 2021. Seronegative individuals with wild-type SARS-CoV-2 had significantly higher viral loads than seropositives (medians 5.8 × 106 and 2.0 × 105 IU/mL, respectively; P = 2 × 10-15). CONCLUSIONS: High viral loads in seropositive B.1.1.7-infected subjects and resistance to seroconversion indicate less effective clearance by innate and adaptive immune responses. SARS-CoV-2 strain, viral loads, and antibody status define subgroups for analysis of treatment efficacy.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/therapy , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Viral Load/immunology , Aged , Antibodies, Neutralizing/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Critical Illness , Female , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Male , Middle Aged , RNA, Viral/immunology , Serologic Tests/methods , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , United Kingdom
6.
Transfusion ; 61(10): 2837-2843, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1360538

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma (CP) therapy for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) provides virus-neutralizing antibodies that may ameliorate the outcome of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. The effectiveness of CP likely depends on its antiviral neutralizing potency and is determined using in vitro neutralizing antibody assays. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We evaluated abilities of three immunoassays for anti-spike antibodies (EUROimmun, Ortho, Roche), a pseudotype-based neutralization assay, and two assays that quantify ACE2 binding of spike protein (GenScript and hemagglutination test [HAT]-based assay) to predict neutralizing antibody titers in 113 CP donations. Assay outputs were analyzed through linear regression and calculation of sensitivities and specificities by receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: Median values of plasma samples containing neutralizing antibodies produced conversion factors for assay unitage of ×6.5 (pseudotype), ×19 (GenScript), ×3.4 (HAT assay), ×0.08 (EUROimmun), ×1.64 (Roche), and ×0.10 (Ortho). All selected assays were sufficient in identifying the high titer donations based on ROC analysis; area over curve ranged from 91.7% for HAT and GenScript assay to 95.6% for pseudotype assay. However, their ability to predict the actual neutralizing antibody levels varied substantially as shown by linear regression correlation values (from 0.27 for Ortho to 0.61 for pseudotype assay). DISCUSSION: Overall, the study data demonstrate that all selected assays were effective in identifying donations with high neutralizing antibody levels and are potentially suitable as surrogate assays for donation selection for CP therapy.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , Immunoassay/methods , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Neutralization Tests
7.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 5: CD013600, 2021 05 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1235649

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are being investigated as potential therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of these interventions is required.  OBJECTIVES: Using a living systematic review approach, to assess whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence. SEARCH METHODS: To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform, and trial registries. Searches were done on 17 March 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. For safety assessments, we also included non-controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) if 500 or more participants were included. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of Bias 2' tool for RCTs, and for NRSIs, the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer. We rated the certainty of evidence, using the GRADE approach, for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, improvement and worsening of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), development of severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms (for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease), quality of life (including fatigue and functional independence), grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies (12 RCTs, 1 NRSI) with 48,509 participants, of whom 41,880 received convalescent plasma. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We identified a further 100 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, and 33 studies reporting as being completed or terminated. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease Eleven RCTs and one NRSI investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 48,349 participants with moderate to severe disease. Nine RCTs compared convalescent plasma to placebo treatment or standard care alone, and two compared convalescent plasma to standard plasma (results not included in abstract). Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We included data on nine RCTs (12,875 participants) to assess the effectiveness of convalescent plasma compared to placebo or standard care alone.  Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 12,646 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on clinical improvement for all participants when assessed by liberation from respiratory support (RR not estimable; 8 RCTs, 12,682 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on the chance of being weaned or liberated from invasive mechanical ventilation for the subgroup of participants requiring invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.93; 2 RCTs, 630 participants; low-certainty evidence). It does not reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.08; 4 RCTs, 11,765 participants; high-certainty evidence). We did not identify any subgroup differences.  We did not identify any studies reporting quality of life, and therefore, do not know whether convalescent plasma has any impact on quality of life. One RCT assessed resolution of fatigue on day 7, but we are very uncertain about the effect (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.42; 309 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Safety of convalescent plasma We included results from eight RCTs, and one NRSI, to assess the safety of convalescent plasma. Some of the RCTs reported on safety data only for the convalescent plasma group.  We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma increases or reduces the risk of grade 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.41; 4 RCTs, 905 participants; low-certainty evidence), and serious adverse events (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.90; 2 RCTs, 414 participants; low-certainty evidence).  A summary of reported events of the NRSI (reporting safety data for 20,000 of 35,322 transfused participants), and four RCTs reporting safety data only for transfused participants (6125 participants) are included in the full text. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and asymptomatic or mild disease We identified one RCT reporting on 160 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo treatment (saline).  Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We are very uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on all-cause mortality (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.65; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on developing severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR not estimable; low-certainty evidence).  We identified no study reporting quality of life.  Safety of convalescent plasma We do not know whether convalescent plasma is associated with a higher risk of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (very low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). This is a living systematic review. We search weekly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have high certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for the treatment of individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on measures of clinical improvement. We are uncertain about the adverse effects of convalescent plasma. While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, heterogeneous reporting of outcomes is still problematic. There are 100 ongoing studies and 33 studies reporting in a study registry as being completed or terminated. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around hyperimmune immunoglobulin therapy for people with any disease severity, and convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Bias , COVID-19/mortality , Cause of Death , Humans , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , Immunization, Passive/methods , Immunization, Passive/mortality , Immunization, Passive/statistics & numerical data , Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Treatment Outcome , Ventilator Weaning/statistics & numerical data
8.
Nat Commun ; 12(1): 1951, 2021 03 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1157905

ABSTRACT

Serological detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 is essential for establishing rates of seroconversion in populations, and for seeking evidence for a level of antibody that may be protective against COVID-19 disease. Several high-performance commercial tests have been described, but these require centralised laboratory facilities that are comparatively expensive, and therefore not available universally. Red cell agglutination tests do not require special equipment, are read by eye, have short development times, low cost and can be applied at the Point of Care. Here we describe a quantitative Haemagglutination test (HAT) for the detection of antibodies to the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The HAT has a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 99% for detection of antibodies after a PCR diagnosed infection. We will supply aliquots of the test reagent sufficient for ten thousand test wells free of charge to qualified research groups anywhere in the world.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/analysis , COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Hemagglutination Tests/methods , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , Agglutination Tests/methods , Antibodies, Monoclonal/immunology , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay/methods , Humans , Point-of-Care Systems , Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Seroconversion
9.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 10: CD013600, 2020 10 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-847759

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required.  OBJECTIVES: To continually assess, as more evidence becomes available, whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in treatment of people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trial registries to identify completed and ongoing studies on 19 August 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of study design, disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2.0 tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), and the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-controlled NRSIs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at hospital discharge, mortality (time to event), improvement of clinical symptoms (7, 15, and 30 days after transfusion), grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). MAIN RESULTS: This is the second living update of our review. We included 19 studies (2 RCTs, 8 controlled NRSIs, 9 non-controlled NRSIs) with 38,160 participants, of whom 36,081 received convalescent plasma. Two completed RCTs are awaiting assessment (published after 19 August 2020). We identified a further 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are randomised (3 reported in a study registry as already being completed, but without results). We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We did not include data from controlled NRSIs in data synthesis because of critical risk of bias. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low, due to study limitations and results including both potential benefits and harms.  Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19  We included results from two RCTs (both stopped early) with 189 participants, of whom 95 received convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.34; 1 RCT, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence).  We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases mortality (time to event) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.25; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may result in little to no difference in improvement of clinical symptoms (i.e. need for respiratory support) at seven days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19; 1 RCT, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may increase improvement of clinical symptoms at up to 15 days (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.11; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence), and at up to 30 days (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43; 2 studies, 188 participants; low-certainty evidence).  No studies reported on quality of life.  Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from two RCTs, eight controlled NRSIs and nine non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of safety data and duration of follow-up was variable. The controlled studies reported on AEs and SAEs only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. Some, but not all, studies included death as a SAE.  The studies did not report the grade of AEs. Fourteen studies (566 participants) reported on AEs of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these AEs were allergic or respiratory events. We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe AEs (very low-certainty evidence).  17 studies (35,944 participants) assessed SAEs for 20,622 of its participants. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (20,000 participants), which reported on SAEs within the first four hours and within an additional seven days after transfusion. There were 63 deaths, 12 were possibly and one was probably related to transfusion. There were 146 SAEs within four hours and 1136 SAEs within seven days post-transfusion. These were predominantly allergic or respiratory, thrombotic or thromboembolic and cardiac events. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy results in a clinically relevant increased risk of SAEs (low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. There was limited information regarding grade 3 and 4 AEs to determine the effect of convalescent plasma therapy on clinically relevant SAEs. In the absence of a control group, we are unable to assess the relative safety of convalescent plasma therapy.  While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies is problematic. The early termination of the first two RCTs investigating convalescent plasma, and the lack of data from 20 studies that have completed or were due to complete at the time of this update illustrate these challenges. Well-designed studies should be prioritised. Moreover, studies should report outcomes in the same way, and should consider the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms.  There are 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are RCTs (three already completed). This is the second living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. Future updates may show different results to those reported here.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Bias , COVID-19 , Cause of Death , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Humans , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , Immunization, Passive/methods , Immunization, Passive/statistics & numerical data , Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Treatment Outcome
10.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 5: CD013600, 2020 05 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-260509

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with respiratory virus diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required.  OBJECTIVES: To assess whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: The protocol was pre-published with the Center for Open Science and can be accessed here: osf.io/dwf53  We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trials registries to identify ongoing studies and results of completed studies on 23 April 2020 for case-series, cohort, prospectively planned, and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology and performed all steps regarding study selection in duplicate by two independent review authors (in contrast to the recommendations of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group). We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and studies evaluating standard immunoglobulins. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed recommendations of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group regarding data extraction and assessment. To assess bias in included studies, we used the assessment criteria tool for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at hospital discharge, improvement of clinical symptoms (7, 15, and 30 days after transfusion), grade 3 and 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.  MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies (seven case-series, one prospectively planned, single-arm intervention study) with 32 participants, and identified a further 48 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma (47 studies) or hyperimmune immunoglobulin (one study), of which 22 are randomised. Overall risk of bias of the eight included studies was high, due to: study design; small number of participants; poor reporting within studies; and varied type of participants with different severities of disease, comorbidities, and types of previous or concurrent treatments, including antivirals, antifungals or antibiotics, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine and respiratory support. We rated all outcomes as very low certainty, and we were unable to summarise numerical data in any meaningful way. As we identified case-series studies only, we reported results narratively. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 The following reported outcomes could all be related to the underlying natural history of the disease or other concomitant treatment, rather than convalescent plasma. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge All studies reported mortality. All participants were alive at the end of the reporting period, but not all participants had been discharged from hospital by the end of the study (15 participants discharged, 6 still hospitalised, 11 unclear). Follow-up ranged from 3 days to 37 days post-transfusion. We do not know whether convalescent plasma therapy affects mortality (very low-certainty evidence).  Improvement of clinical symptoms (assessed by respiratory support) Six studies, including 28 participants, reported the level of respiratory support required; most participants required respiratory support at baseline. All studies reported improvement in clinical symptoms in at least some participants. We do not know whether convalescent plasma improves clinical symptoms (very low-certainty evidence). Time to discharge from hospital Six studies reported time to discharge from hospital for at least some participants, which ranged from four to 35 days after convalescent plasma therapy.  Admission on the intensive care unit (ICU) Six studies included patients who were critically ill. At final follow-up the majority of these patients were no longer on the ICU or no longer required mechanical ventilation. Length of stay on the ICU Only one study (1 participant) reported length of stay on the ICU. The individual was discharged from the ICU 11 days after plasma transfusion. Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 Grade 3 or 4 adverse events  The studies did not report the grade of adverse events after convalescent plasma transfusion. Two studies reported data relating to participants who had experienced adverse events, that were presumably grade 3 or 4. One case study reported a participant who had moderate fever (38.9 °C). Another study (3 participants) reported a case of severe anaphylactic shock. Four studies reported the absence of moderate or severe adverse events (19 participants). We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events One study (3 participants) reported one serious adverse event. As described above, this individual had severe anaphylactic shock after receiving convalescent plasma. Six studies reported that no serious adverse events occurred. We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified eight studies (seven case-series and one prospectively planned single-arm intervention study) with a total of 32 participants (range 1 to 10). Most studies assessed the risks of the intervention; reporting two adverse events (potentially grade 3 or 4), one of which was a serious adverse event. We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma is effective for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19 as studies reported results inconsistently, making it difficult to compare results and to draw conclusions. We identified very low-certainty evidence on the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma therapy for people with COVID-19; all studies were at high risk of bias and reporting quality was low. No RCTs or controlled non-randomised studies evaluating benefits and harms of convalescent plasma have been completed. There are 47 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, of which 22 are RCTs, and one trial evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We will update this review as a living systematic review, based on monthly searches in the above mentioned databases and registries. These updates are likely to show different results to those reported here.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , Immunoglobulins , Inpatients , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Critical Care , Critical Illness , Humans , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , Immunization, Passive/methods , Immunoglobulins/therapeutic use , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...