Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
1.
Transfusion ; 2022 Nov 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2108170

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: While the use of convalescent plasma (CP) in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has been inconsistent, CP has the potential to reduce excess morbidity and mortality in future pandemics. Given constraints on CP supply, decisions surrounding the allocation of CP must be made. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Using a discrete-time stochastic compartmental model, we simulated implementation of four potential allocation strategies: administering CP to individuals in early hospitalization with COVID-19; administering CP to individuals in outpatient settings; administering CP to hospitalized individuals and administering any remaining CP to outpatient individuals and administering CP in both settings while prioritizing outpatient individuals. We examined the final size of SARS-CoV-2 infections, peak and cumulative hospitalizations, and cumulative deaths under each of the allocation scenarios over a 180-day period. We compared the cost per weighted health benefit under each strategy. RESULTS: Prioritizing administration to patients in early hospitalization, with remaining plasma administered in outpatient settings, resulted in the highest reduction in mortality, averting on average 15% more COVID-19 deaths than administering to hospitalized individuals alone (95% CI [11%-18%]). Prioritizing administration to outpatients, with remaining plasma administered to hospitalized individuals, had the highest percentage of hospitalizations averted (22% [21%-23%] higher than administering to hospitalized individuals alone). DISCUSSION: Convalescent plasma allocation strategy should be determined by the relative priority of averting deaths, infections, or hospitalizations. Under conditions considered, mixed allocation strategies (allocating CP to both outpatient and hospitalized individuals) resulted in a larger percentage of infections and deaths averted than administering CP in a single setting.

2.
Ann Intern Med ; 175(9): 1310-1321, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1994458

ABSTRACT

DESCRIPTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 convalescent plasma (CCP) has emerged as a potential treatment of COVID-19. However, meta-analysis data and recommendations are limited. The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB) developed clinical practice guidelines for the appropriate use of CCP. METHODS: These guidelines are based on 2 living systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CCP from 1 January 2019 to 26 January 2022. There were 33 RCTs assessing 21 916 participants. The results were summarized using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. An expert panel reviewed the data using the GRADE framework to formulate recommendations. RECOMMENDATION 1 (OUTPATIENT): The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for outpatients with COVID-19 who are at high risk for disease progression (weak recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2 (INPATIENT): The AABB recommends against CCP transfusion for unselected hospitalized persons with moderate or severe disease (strong recommendation, high-certainty evidence). This recommendation does not apply to immunosuppressed patients or those who lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. RECOMMENDATION 3 (INPATIENT): The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detected at admission (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 4 (INPATIENT): The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting immunosuppression (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 5 (PROPHYLAXIS): The AABB suggests against prophylactic CCP transfusion for uninfected persons with close contact exposure to a person with COVID-19 (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE STATEMENT: CCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers to infected patients early after symptom onset.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/therapy , Hospitalization , Humans , Immunization, Passive/methods
3.
PLoS Med ; 18(12): e1003872, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1581903

ABSTRACT

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


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Compassionate Use Trials/methods , Health Services Needs and Demand/statistics & numerical data , Hospital Distribution Systems/organization & administration , Registries , Transfusion Reaction/complications , Transfusion Reaction/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , Ethnic and Racial Minorities , Female , Humans , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , Immunization, Passive/methods , Inpatients , Male , Medically Underserved Area , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Patient Safety , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , United States
4.
Transfus Med Rev ; 35(3): 8-15, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1331266

ABSTRACT

The second largest US blood center began testing for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the etiologic agent of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) to identify potential COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma (CCP) donors and encourage blood donation. We report the non-vaccine seroprevalence of total immunoglobulin directed against the S1 spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 in our donors. Unique non-CCP donor sera from June 01to December 31, 2020 were tested with the Ortho VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 total immunoglobulin assay (reactive: signal-to-cutoff (S/C) ≥ 1). Multivariate regressions including age, sex, race-ethnicity, ABO, RhD, highest education level, donor experience, regional collection center and drive type factors were conducted to identify demographics associated with the presence of antibodies and with S/C values. Unique donors (n = 523,068) showed an overall seroprevalence of 6.12% over 7 months, with the highest prevalence in December 2020 around Lubbock, TX (24.3%). In a subset of donors with demographic information (n = 394,470), lower odds of antibody reactivity were associated with female sex, non-Hispanic White or Asian race/ethnicity, age ≥ 65, graduate education, blood Group O, and history of blood donation. In reactive donors (n = 24,028), antibody signal was associated with male sex, race/ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White, low educational attainment, age 16-17 years and geographic location. Seroprevalence continues to grow in US blood donors but varies significantly by region. Temporal trends in reactivity may be useful to estimate effectiveness of public health measures. Before generalizing these data from healthy donors to the general population, rates must be corrected for false-positive test results and adjusted to match the wider US demography.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , Blood Donors , COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Biomarkers/blood , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Seroepidemiologic Studies , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
7.
Transfusion ; 61(5): 1389-1393, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1069423

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 safety measures and possibly SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing may alter blood donor demography, which has the potential to alter blood safety. We characterized pre-pandemic and pandemic rates of donor infectious disease marker (IDM) reactivity which reflect the residual risk of transfusion-transmitted infections (TTIs) undetectable by current testing. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis of allogeneic blood donor presentations and successful donations in a large national US blood collector identifies changes in self-reported behavioral risk factors and IDM reactivity. Data on allogeneic blood donor presentations and successful donations from March 1 through August 31, 2020 and the same period in 2019 were retrieved from the blood center's computer system. Donor demographics and deferrals for reported behavioral risk factors and confirmed-positive IDMs were compared in pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. RESULTS: With increasing mobile blood drive cancellations, pandemic donors were more likely than 2019 donors to be female, over age 30, non-Hispanic Whites, and have a post-secondary degree. First-time donations (at highest risk for confirmed-positive IDMs) did not substantially increase. Pandemic donors reported fewer behavioral risks and IDMs declined among these donors. Mid-pandemic introduction of screening for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies did not affect IDM rates. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike disasters, which tend to bring out more first-time donors with increased IDM reactivity and TTI residual risk, COVID-19 donors had lower IDM rates which were not affected by SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. Already-low TTI residual risk is likely to have declined as a result.


Subject(s)
Blood Donors , Blood Safety , COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2/metabolism , Transfusion Reaction , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/ethnology , COVID-19/transmission , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Risk Factors , Transfusion Reaction/epidemiology , Transfusion Reaction/ethnology , Transfusion Reaction/prevention & control
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL