Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 23
Filter
1.
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews ; 2021(5), 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1871055

ABSTRACT

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effectiveness and safety of SARS‐CoV‐2‐neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, to prevent infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 causing COVID‐19;and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.

3.
JAMA ; 327(13): 1247-1259, 2022 04 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1801957

ABSTRACT

Importance: The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: In an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021). Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control; n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from -1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions. Results: The aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, -0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support-free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28]; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, compared with no antiplatelet agent, had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days within 21 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Illness , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors , Venous Thromboembolism , Adult , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Aspirin/adverse effects , Aspirin/therapeutic use , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness/mortality , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/adverse effects , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Purinergic P2Y Receptor Antagonists/adverse effects , Purinergic P2Y Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Respiration, Artificial , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology
4.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-331041

ABSTRACT

Neutralising antibodies are an important correlate of protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Multiple studies have investigated the effectiveness of passively administered antibodies (either monoclonal antibodies, convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin) in preventing acquisition of or improving the outcome of infection. Comparing the results between studies is challenging due to different study characteristics including disease stage, trial enrolment and outcome criteria, and different product factors, including administration of polyclonal or monoclonal antibody, and antibody targets and doses. Here we integrate data from 37 randomised controlled trials to investigate how the timing and dose of passive antibodies predicts protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection. We find that both prophylactic and early therapeutic administration (to symptomatic ambulant subjects) have significant efficacy in preventing infection or progression to hospitalisation respectively. However, we find that effectiveness of passive antibody therapy in preventing clinical progression is significantly reduced with administration at later clinical stages (p<0.0001). To compare the dose-response relationship between different treatments, we normalise the administered antibody dose to the predicted neutralisation titre (after dilution) compared to the mean titre observed in early convalescent subjects. We use a logistic model to analyse the dose-response curve of passive antibody administration in preventing progression from symptomatic infection to hospitalisation. We estimate a maximal protection from progression to hospitalisation of 70.2% (95% CI: 62.1 - 78.3%). The dose required to achieve 50% of the maximal effect (EC-50) for prevention of progression to hospitalisation was 0.19-fold (95% CI: 0.087 - 0.395) of the mean early convalescent titre. This suggests that for current monoclonal antibody regimes, doses between 7- and >1000-fold lower than currently used could still achieve around 90% of the current effectiveness (depending on the variant) and allow much more widespread use at lower cost. For convalescent plasma, most current doses are lower than required for high levels of protection. This work provides a framework for the rational design of future passive antibody prophylaxis and treatment strategies for COVID-19.

5.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-329890

ABSTRACT

Background: SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a significant risk of hospitalisation, death, and prolonged impact on quality of life. Evaluation of new treatment options and optimising therapeutic management of people hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 infection remains essential, but rapid changes in pandemic conditions and potential therapies have limited the utility of traditional approaches to randomised controlled trials. Methods ASCOT ADAPT is an international, investigator-initiated, adaptive platform, randomised controlled trial of therapeutics for non-critically ill patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The study design is open label and pragmatic. Potential participants are hospitalised adults with PCR confirmed, symptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 infection, within 14 days of symptom onset. Domains include antiviral, antibody and anticoagulant interventions, with a composite primary outcome of 28-day mortality or progression to intensive-care level respiratory or haemodynamic support. Initial interventions include intravenous nafamostat and variable dose anticoagulation. A range of secondary endpoints, and substudies for specific domains and interventions are outlined. Discussion This paper presents the trial protocol and management structure, including international governance, remote site monitoring and biobanking activities, and provides commentary on ethical and pragmatic considerations in establishing the ASCOT ADAPT trial under pandemic conditions.

6.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-324001

ABSTRACT

Background: The use of extracorporeal life support (ECLS) has increased worldwide over the last decade including for new emerging indications like extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, trauma, and COVID-19. Bleeding complications remain feared and frequent, with high morbidity and increased mortality. Yet, data about trends, and in-hospital outcomes, have been poorly investigated.Methods: The Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) Registry database was explored for patients who received veno-venous (V-V) and veno-arterial (V-A) ECLS between the years 2000 and 2020. Trends in bleeding complications and mortality were analyzed. Bleeding complications were classified according to site (gastro-intestinal, cannulation site, surgical site, pulmonary, tamponade and central nervous system) and analyzed separately. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify risk factors for bleeding complications.Results: ELSO database analysis included 53.644 patients with single ECLS runs, mean age 51.4± 15.9 years, 33.859 (64.5%) male. Study cohort included 19.748 patients cannulated for V-V ECLS and 30.696 patients for V-A ECLS. Bleeding complications were reported in 14.786 patients (27.6%) and occurred more often in V-A-modalities compared to V-V modalities (30.0% versus 21.9%, p<0.001). Patients with a bleeding complication had a lower hospital survival in the V-V ECLS (49.6% versus 66.6%, p<0.001) and V-A ECLS subgroup (33.9 versus 44.9%, p<0.001). Bleeding complications in V-V ECLS and V-A ECLS have been decreasing over the past two decades with coefficient of -1.124;P<0.001 and -1.661;P<0.001, respectively. Cannulation site bleeding and surgical site bleeding rates showed the highest negative trend in both V-V and V-A ECLS patients. No change in mortality rates over time in V-V or V-A ECLS patients (coef.: -0.147;P=0.442 and coef.: -0.195;P=0.139) was observed. For V-V ECLS supported patients, multivariate regression revealed the following independent association with bleeding: advanced age, ECLS duration, surgical cannulation, pre-ECLS support with cardiopulmonary bypass, renal replacement therapy, prone positioning, vasodilatory and anti-hypotensive agents. For V-A ECLS supported patients, predictors for bleeding included: female gender, ECLS duration, pre-ECLS arrest or bridge to transplant, therapeutic hypothermia, surgical cannulation and pre-ECLS support with cardiopulmonary bypass, ventricular assist devices, cardiac pacemakers, vasodilatory and anti-hypotensive agents.Conclusions: The steady decrease in particular cannulation and surgical site related bleeding complications over the past 20 years suggests advances in equipment development (membrane and tubes surfaces) as well as better understanding of anticoagulation management. However, the high incidence of bleeding and association with hospital mortality reinforces the need for studies to understand bleeding complications more thoroughly during ECLS.Funding Information: No funding.Declaration of Interests: Prof. Dr. Lorusso is a consultant for Medtronic, Getinge and LivaNova and medical advisory board member for EUROSETS, all unrelated to this work;all honoraria to the university for research funding. Dr. Tonna is supported by a Career Development Award from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, And Blood Institute (K23 HL141596). Dr. Tonna received speaker fees and travel compensation from LivaNova and Philips Healthcare, unrelated to this work. Prof. Ten Cate received research support from Bayer and Pfizer, is a consultant for Alveron and stockholder with Coagulation Profile;all unrelated to this work. Prof Zoe McQuilten is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Council (NHMRC) Investigator Grant.Other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.Ethics Approval Statement: Each institution participating in ELSO Registry approves data reported to the registry through their local institutional review board. This study involv d only analysis of pre-existing de-identified data from an international registry, and as such no ethics approval was required. Similarly, no patient consent was required.

7.
Lancet ; 399(10319): 5-7, 2022 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1623430
8.
Artif Organs ; 46(5): 932-952, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1612843

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During extracorporeal life support (ECLS), bleeding is one of the most frequent complications, associated with high morbidity and increased mortality, despite continuous improvements in devices and patient care. Risk factors for bleeding complications in veno-venous (V-V) ECLS applied for respiratory support have been poorly investigated. We aim to develop and internally validate a prediction model to calculate the risk for bleeding complications in adult patients receiving V-V ECLS support. METHODS: Data from adult patients reported to the extracorporeal life support organization (ELSO) registry between the years 2010 and 2020 were analyzed. The primary outcome was bleeding complications recorded during V-V ECLS. Multivariable logistic regression with backward stepwise elimination was used to develop the predictive model. The performance of the model was tested by discriminative ability and calibration with receiver operating characteristic curves and visual inspection of the calibration plot. RESULTS: In total, 18 658 adult patients were included, of which 3 933 (21.1%) developed bleeding complications. The prediction model showed a prediction of bleeding complications with an AUC of 0.63. Pre-ECLS arrest, surgical cannulation, lactate, pO2 , HCO3 , ventilation rate, mean airway pressure, pre-ECLS cardiopulmonary bypass or renal replacement therapy, pre-ECLS surgical interventions, and different types of diagnosis were included in the prediction model. CONCLUSIONS: The model is based on the largest cohort of V-V ECLS patients and reveals the most favorable predictive value addressing bleeding events given the predictors that are feasible and when compared to the current literature. This model will help identify patients at risk of bleeding complications, and decision making in terms of anticoagulation and hemostatic management.


Subject(s)
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Adult , Cohort Studies , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/adverse effects , Humans , Logistic Models , Registries , Retrospective Studies
9.
EBioMedicine ; 74: 103729, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1555409

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: As vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are now being rolled out, a better understanding of immunity to the virus, whether from infection, or passive or active immunisation, and the durability of this protection is required. This will benefit from the ability to measure antibody-based protection to SARS-CoV-2, ideally with rapid turnaround and without the need for laboratory-based testing. METHODS: We have developed a lateral flow POC test that can measure levels of RBD-ACE2 neutralising antibody (NAb) from whole blood, with a result that can be determined by eye or quantitatively on a small instrument. We compared our lateral flow test with the gold-standard microneutralisation assay, using samples from convalescent and vaccinated donors, as well as immunised macaques. FINDINGS: We show a high correlation between our lateral flow test with conventional neutralisation and that this test is applicable with animal samples. We also show that this assay is readily adaptable to test for protection to newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, including the beta variant which revealed a marked reduction in NAb activity. Lastly, using a cohort of vaccinated humans, we demonstrate that our whole-blood test correlates closely with microneutralisation assay data (specificity 100% and sensitivity 96% at a microneutralisation cutoff of 1:40) and that fingerprick whole blood samples are sufficient for this test. INTERPRETATION: Taken together, the COVID-19 NAb-testTM device described here provides a rapid readout of NAb based protection to SARS-CoV-2 at the point of care. FUNDING: Support was received from the Victorian Operational Infrastructure Support Program and the Australian Government Department of Health. This work was supported by grants from the Department of Health and Human Services of the Victorian State Government; the ARC (CE140100011, CE140100036), the NHMRC (1113293, 2002317 and 1116530), and Medical Research Future Fund Awards (2005544, 2002073, 2002132). Individual researchers were supported by an NHMRC Emerging Leadership Level 1 Investigator Grants (1194036), NHMRC APPRISE Research Fellowship (1116530), NHMRC Leadership Investigator Grant (1173871), NHMRC Principal Research Fellowship (1137285), NHMRC Investigator Grants (1177174 and 1174555) and NHMRC Senior Principal Research Fellowships (1117766 and 1136322). Grateful support was also received from the A2 Milk Company and the Jack Ma Foundation.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/immunology , Point-of-Care Systems , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Animals , Australia , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Humans , Macaca/immunology , Neutralization Tests , Vaccination
10.
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
11.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD013825, 2021 09 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1490675

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory-produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs for treating patients with COVID-19, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention. To maintain the currency of the evidence, we will use a living systematic review approach. A secondary objective is to track newly developed SARS-CoV-2-targeting mAbs from first tests in humans onwards.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and three other databases on 17 June 2021. We also checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. Between submission and publication, we conducted a shortened randomised controlled trial (RCT)-only search on 30 July 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that evaluated SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, alone or combined, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, to treat people with COVID-19. We excluded studies on prophylactic use of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). Prioritised outcomes were all-cause mortality by days 30 and 60, clinical progression, quality of life, admission to hospital, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified six RCTs that provided results from 17,495 participants with planned completion dates between July 2021 and December 2031. Target sample sizes varied from 1020 to 10,000 participants. Average age was 42 to 53 years across four studies of non-hospitalised participants, and 61 years in two studies of hospitalised participants. Non-hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 Four studies evaluated single agents bamlanivimab (N = 465), sotrovimab (N = 868), regdanvimab (N = 307), and combinations of bamlanivimab/etesevimab (N = 1035), and casirivimab/imdevimab (N = 799). We did not identify data for mortality at 60 days or quality of life. Our certainty of the evidence is low for all outcomes due to too few events (very serious imprecision).  Bamlanivimab compared to placebo No deaths occurred in the study by day 29. There were nine people admitted to hospital by day 29 out of 156 in the placebo group compared with one out of 101 in the group treated with 0.7 g bamlanivimab (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.33), 2 from 107 in the group treated with 2.8 g (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.47) and 2 from 101 in the group treated with 7.0 g (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.56). Treatment with 0.7 g, 2.8 g and 7.0 g bamlanivimab may have similar rates of AEs as placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.50; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.38; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.27). The effect on SAEs is uncertain. Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Bamlanivimab/etesevimab compared to placebo There were 10 deaths in the placebo group and none in bamlanivimab/etesevimab group by day 30 (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.81). Bamlanivimab/etesevimab may decrease hospital admission by day 29 (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.59), may result in a slight increase in any grade AEs (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.59) and may increase SAEs (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.37). Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab compared to placebo Casirivimab/imdevimab may reduce hospital admissions or death (2.4 g: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.19; 8.0 g: RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.79). We are uncertain of the effect on grades 3-4 AEs (2.4 g: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.73) and SAEs (2.4 g: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.65). Mortality by day 30 and clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Sotrovimab compared to placebo We are uncertain whether sotrovimab has an effect on mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.18) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) requirement or death (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.76). Treatment with sotrovimab may reduce the number of participants with oxygen requirement (RR 0.11, 95 % CI 0.02 to 0.45), hospital admission or death by day 30 (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.48), grades 3-4 AEs (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.60), SAEs (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.63) and may have little or no effect on any grade AEs (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.16).  Regdanvimab compared to placebo Treatment with either dose (40 or 80 mg/kg) compared with placebo may decrease hospital admissions or death (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.60, 206 participants), but may increase grades 3-4 AEs (RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.52 to 13.12; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.37 to 10.70). 80 mg/kg may reduce any grade AEs (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.22) but 40 mg/kg may have little to no effect (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.43). There were too few events to allow meaningful judgment for the outcomes mortality by 30 days, IMV requirement, and SAEs.  Hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 Two studies evaluating bamlanivimab as a single agent (N = 314) and casirivimab/imdevimab as a combination therapy (N = 9785) were included.   Bamlanivimab compared to placebo  We are uncertain whether bamlanivimab has an effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83) and SAEs by day 28 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.14). Bamlanivimab may have little to no effect on time to hospital discharge (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.20) and mortality by day 90 (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.43). The effect of bamlanivimab on the development of severe symptoms at day 5 (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85) is uncertain. Bamlanivimab may increase grades 3-4 AEs at day 28 (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.98). We assessed the evidence as low certainty for all outcomes due to serious imprecision, and very low certainty for severe symptoms because of additional concerns about indirectness. Casirivimab/imdevimab with usual care compared to usual care alone Treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab compared to usual care probably has little or no effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.02), IMV requirement or death (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04), nor alive at hospital discharge by day 30 (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04). We assessed the evidence as moderate certainty due to study limitations (lack of blinding). AEs and SAEs were not reported.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for each comparison is based on single studies. None of these measured quality of life. Our certainty in the evidence for all non-hospitalised individuals is low, and for hospitalised individuals is very low to moderate. We consider the current evidence insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding treatment with SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. Further studies and long-term data from the existing studies are needed to confirm or refute these initial findings, and to understand how the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants may impact the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. Publication of the 36 ongoing studies may resolve uncertainties about the effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs for the treatment of COVID-19 and possible subgroup differences.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Cause of Death , Humans , Middle Aged , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
12.
N Engl J Med ; 385(9): 790-802, 2021 Aug 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1343498

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Heparin/administration & dosage , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Adult , Aged , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Heparin/adverse effects , Heparin/therapeutic use , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/therapeutic use , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Survival Analysis
13.
N Engl J Med ; 385(9): 777-789, 2021 Aug 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1343497

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19. METHODS: In an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. (REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT04372589.).


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Heparin/administration & dosage , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Aged , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , Critical Illness , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Heparin/adverse effects , Heparin/therapeutic use , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Respiration, Artificial , Treatment Failure
15.
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
16.
Blood ; 137(12): 1573-1581, 2021 03 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1150378

ABSTRACT

Convalescent plasma (CP) from blood donors with antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 may benefit patients with COVID-19 by providing immediate passive immunity via transfusion or by being used to manufacture hyperimmune immunoglobulin preparations. Optimal product characteristics (including neutralizing antibody titers), transfusion volume, and administration timing remain to be determined. Preliminary COVID-19 CP safety data are encouraging, but establishing the clinical efficacy of CP requires an ongoing international collaborative effort. Preliminary results from large, high-quality randomized trials have recently started to be reported.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Treatment Outcome
17.
Vox Sang ; 116(1): 88-98, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1066772

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Use of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment has gained interest worldwide. However, there is lack of evidence on its dosing, safety and effectiveness. Until data from clinical studies are available to provide solid evidence for worldwide applicable guidelines, there is a need to provide guidance to the transfusion community and researchers on this emergent therapeutic option. This paper aims to identify existing key gaps in current knowledge in the clinical application of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT) initiated a multidisciplinary working group with worldwide representation from all six continents with the aim of reviewing existing practices on CCP use from donor, product and patient perspectives. A subgroup of clinical transfusion professionals was formed to draft a document for CCP clinical application to identify the gaps in knowledge in existing literature. RESULTS: Gaps in knowledge were identified in the following main domains: study design, patient eligibility, CCP dose, frequency and timing of CCP administration, parameters to assess response to CCP treatment and long-term outcome, adverse events and CCP application in less-resourced countries as well as in paediatrics and neonates. CONCLUSION: This paper outlines a framework of gaps in the knowledge of clinical deployment of CPP that were identified as being most relevant. Studies to address the identified gaps are required to provide better evidence on the effectiveness and safety of CCP use.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Child , Clinical Trials as Topic , Humans , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , Infant, Newborn , Research , Research Design , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
19.
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
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL