Safety and Antibody Kinetics of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Cases of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Pediatric Patients.

BACKGROUND: Therapies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its life-threatening respiratory infection coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been evaluated, including COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). Multiple large reports of CCP treatment in adults exist. Pediatric data on CCP safety and efficacy are limited. METHODS: Single-center prospective, open-label trial looking at safety, antibody kinetics and outcomes of CCP (10 mL/kg, max 1 unit) treatment for COVID-19 in hospitalized pediatric patients with moderate to severe disease or at high-risk for serious illness. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were enrolled. No infusion-related adverse events occurred. No hematologic or metabolic adverse events were noted during hospitalization or at 3-weeks. Ten patients had clinical improvement by day 7 (WHO eight-category ordinal severity scale for COVID-19). Following CCP, anti-SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid IgG increased significantly at 24 hours and high levels were sustained at 7- and 21-days. Transient IgM response was noted. Twelve patients (92.3%) were discharged home, 9 (75%) by day 7 post-CCP. One remained on invasive ventilatory support 42 days after CCP and was eventually discharged to an intermediate care facility. The single patient death was retrospectively confirmed to have had brain death before CCP. CONCLUSION: CCP was well tolerated in pediatric patients, resulted in rapid antibody increase, and did not appear to interfere with immune responses measured at 21 days. More pediatric data are necessary to establish the efficacy of CCP, but our data suggest benefit in moderate to severe COVID-19 when used early. Other immunologic or antiviral interventions may be added as supported by emerging data.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulins in pregnant women and neonatal cord blood from a highly impacted region.

There is inadequate screening for SARS-COV-2 during pregnancy. We aimed to determine the impact of maternal and neonatal cord blood SARS-COV-2 antibodies and placental transfer ratios in a region with a low screening plan. We performed a blind study in one of the SARS-CoV-2 epicenters in South America. 32% of pregnant women were serological positive. Importantly, there is an efficient passive immunization of the fetus to SARS-CoV-2. We report high incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, which is higher than officially reported. Therefore the need of active immunization to enhance maternal protection and fetal passive immunization.

Mutation Y453F in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 enhances interaction with the mink ACE2 receptor for host adaption.

COVID-19 patients transmitted SARS-CoV-2 to minks in the Netherlands in April 2020. Subsequently, the mink-associated virus (miSARS-CoV-2) spilled back over into humans. Genetic sequences of the miSARS-CoV-2 identified a new genetic variant known as "Cluster 5" that contained mutations in the spike protein. However, the functional properties of these "Cluster 5" mutations have not been well established. In this study, we found that the Y453F mutation located in the RBD domain of miSARS-CoV-2 is an adaptive mutation that enhances binding to mink ACE2 and other orthologs of Mustela species without compromising, and even enhancing, its ability to utilize human ACE2 as a receptor for entry. Structural analysis suggested that despite the similarity in the overall binding mode of SARS-CoV-2 RBD to human and mink ACE2, Y34 of mink ACE2 was better suited to interact with a Phe rather than a Tyr at position 453 of the viral RBD due to less steric clash and tighter hydrophobic-driven interaction. Additionally, the Y453F spike exhibited resistance to convalescent serum, posing a risk for vaccine development. Thus, our study suggests that since the initial transmission from humans, SARS-CoV-2 evolved to adapt to the mink host, leading to widespread circulation among minks while still retaining its ability to efficiently utilize human ACE2 for entry, thus allowing for transmission of the miSARS-CoV-2 back into humans. These findings underscore the importance of active surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 evolution in Mustela species and other susceptible hosts in order to prevent future outbreaks.

Convalescent plasma use in the USA was inversely correlated with COVID-19 mortality.

Background: The US Food and Drug Administration authorized COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) therapy for hospitalized COVID-19 patients via the Expanded Access Program (EAP) and the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), leading to use in about 500,000 patients during the first year of the pandemic for the USA. Methods: We tracked the number of CCP units dispensed to hospitals by blood banking organizations and correlated that usage with hospital admission and mortality data. Results: CCP usage per admission peaked in Fall 2020, with more than 40% of inpatients estimated to have received CCP between late September and early November 2020. However, after randomized controlled trials failed to show a reduction in mortality, CCP usage per admission declined steadily to a nadir of less than 10% in March 2021. We found a strong inverse correlation (r = -0.52, p=0.002) between CCP usage per hospital admission and deaths occurring 2 weeks after admission, and this finding was robust to examination of deaths taking place 1, 2, or 3 weeks after admission. Changes in the number of hospital admissions, SARS-CoV-2 variants, and age of patients could not explain these findings. The retreat from CCP usage might have resulted in as many as 29,000 excess deaths from mid-November 2020 to February 2021. Conclusions: A strong inverse correlation between CCP use and mortality per admission in the USA provides population-level evidence consistent with the notion that CCP reduces mortality in COVID-19 and suggests that the recent decline in usage could have resulted in excess deaths. Funding: There was no specific funding for this study. AC was supported in part by RO1 HL059842 and R01 AI1520789; MJJ was supported in part by 5R35HL139854. This project has been funded in whole or in part with Federal funds from the Department of Health and Human Services; Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response; Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority under Contract No. 75A50120C00096.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review.

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.

Preparedness and activities of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma bank in the Veneto region (Italy): An organizational model for future emergencies.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma (CP) has been used in the past in various pandemics, in particular in H1N1, SARS and MERS infections. In Spring 2020, when ongoing the SARS-CoV-2 pandemics, the Veneto Region (V-R) has proposed setting-up an anti-SARS-CoV-2 CP (CCP) Bank, with the aim of preparing a supply of CCP immediately available in case of subsequest epidemic waves. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Key-points to be developed for a quick set-up of the V-R CCP Bank have been recruitment of donors recovered from COVID-19 infection, laboratory analysis for the biological qualification of the CCP units, including titre of neutralizing antibodies and reduction of pathogens, according to National Blood Centre (CNS) Directives, adaptation of the V-R Information Technology systems and cost analysis. Some activities, including diagnostic and viral inactivation processes, have been centralized in 2 or 3 sites. Laboratory analysis upon preliminary admission of the donor included all tests required by the Italian laws and the CNS directives. RESULTS: From April to August 2020, 3,298 people have contacted the V-R Blood Transfusion Services: of these, 1,632 have been evaluated and examined as first time donors and those found to be suitable have carried out 955 donations, from which 2,626 therapeutic fractions have been obtained, at a cost around 215,00 Euro. Since October 2020, the number of COVID-19 inpatients has had a surge with a heavy hospital overload. Moreover, the high request of CCP therapy by clinicians has been just as unexpected, showing a wide therapeutic use. CONCLUSIONS: The organizational model here presented, which has allowed the rapid collection of a large amount of CCP, could be useful when facing new pandemic outbreaks, especially in low and middle income countries, with generally acceptable costs.

Convalescent Plasma Therapy in the management of COVID-19 patients-The newer dimensions.

BACKGROUND: COVID 19 infection caused by novel coronavirus with no specific established treatment. Convalescent Plasma Therapy has been authorized as an off-label therapeutic procedure. We assessed the outcome of convalescent plasma (CP) units versus standard treatment on the complete recovery, improvement and 28 days' mortality of COVID 19 patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present was multi-centric case controlled observational prospective study. The study was conducted for a period of four and half months from July 15 2020 to 30 November 2020 after taking approval from the Expert Committee, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Odisha. Plasma therapy was applied on two groups of 1189 serious COVID patients (959 number of pre- critical and 230 number of critical patients) not responding to oxygen therapy. It was compared with non- transfused control group of 1243 patients (996 number of pre-critical and 247 number of critical patients). RESULTS: Discharge was better in (55.5%) transfused than (43%)in non-transfused pre-critical patients and the mortality was lower (44.3%) in transfused, (48.9%) than non-transfused critical patients respectively. Complete recovery was highest in those who were transfused with CP with neutralizing titer more than 1:160 (52.5%), 18-30 years' age group (64%), females (53%), 'O' Rh D positive blood group (51.5%). There was no adverse reaction due to CP transfusion. CONCLUSIONS: CP is effective in improving the recovery rate with earlier discharge and decrease in the 28 days' mortality than in the control non-transfused group. CP with neutralizing antibody titer more than 1:160 has the best outcome with complete recovery and decrease in the mortality. It is more effective in treating pre-critical patients when transfused early, in female patients, in younger age group and in blood group 'O' Rh D positive.

Deterrents in recruitment of COVID-19 convalescent plasma donors: Experience from a hospital-based blood centre in India.

INTRODUCTION: Recruitment of Covid-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) donors may present as a challenge due to inexperience and differences in donor profile as compared to whole blood donation. Present study highlights the deterrents to recruiting CCP donors at a hospital based blood centre. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Potential CCP donors were contacted individually by telephone and a group approach through camp organisers from May to July 2020. Recruitment challenges were noted and deferrals of these recruited donors during screening and medical examination was obtained and analysed. RESULTS: Total 1165 potential CCP donors were contacted. Around 47% donors were lost due to challenges related to information storage and retrieval. Fear of health, family pressure, and fear of a new procedure were major reason (27.2%) for unwillingness to donate. The main reasons for deferral among potential donors were multiparity (38%) and being overage/underage (31.6%). Finally, 468 donors were recruited including 408 by individual approach and 60 by a group approach. From these absence of detectable COVID-19 antibodies were found in 15.4%. Few donors (9.0%) were deferred as they had not completed 28 days post recovery. CONCLUSION: The process of CCP donor recruitment differs from that of whole blood donation and requires an individualised approach with involvement of clinicians in the initial phases of the pandemic. A group approach targeting specific organisations could be adopted for a successful CCP collection program. There is a need to relook into some aspects of donor selection such as consideration of multiparous female donors and overage/underage donors after reviewing scientific evidence.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review.

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.

Convalescent plasma treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection: analysis of the first 436 donors in England, 22 April to 12 May 2020.

Serological reactivity was analysed in plasma from 436 individuals with a history of disease compatible with COVID-19, including 256 who had been laboratory-confirmed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Over 99% of laboratory-confirmed cases developed a measurable antibody response (254/256) and 88% harboured neutralising antibodies (226/256). Antibody levels declined over 3 months following diagnosis, emphasising the importance of the timing of convalescent plasma collections. Binding antibody measurements can inform selection of convalescent plasma donors with high neutralising antibody levels.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review.

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 4 June 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' 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.  MAIN RESULTS: This is the first living update of our review. We included 20 studies (1 RCT, 3 controlled NRSIs, 16 non-controlled NRSIs) with 5443 participants, of whom 5211 received convalescent plasma, and identified a further 98 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 50 are randomised. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. Overall risk of bias of included studies was high, due to study design, type of participants, and other previous or concurrent treatments. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19  We included results from four controlled studies (1 RCT (stopped early) with 103 participants, of whom 52 received convalescent plasma; and 3 controlled NRSIs with 236 participants, of whom 55 received convalescent plasma) to assess effectiveness of convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge (1 controlled NRSI, 21 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma has any effect on all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.31; very low-certainty evidence). Time to death (1 RCT, 103 participants; 1 controlled NRSI, 195 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma prolongs time to death (RCT: hazard ratio (HR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.82; controlled NRSI: HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96; very low-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical symptoms, assessed by need for respiratory support (1 RCT, 103 participants; 1 controlled NRSI, 195 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma has any effect on improvement of clinical symptoms at seven days (RCT: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19), 14 days (RCT: RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.77; controlled NRSI: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.29), and 28 days (RCT: RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.81; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life No studies reported this outcome.  Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from 1 RCT, 3 controlled NRSIs and 10 non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of adverse events and serious adverse events was variable. The controlled studies reported on adverse events and serious adverse events only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. The duration of follow-up varied. Some, but not all, studies included death as a serious adverse event.  Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (13 studies, 201 participants) The studies did not report the grade of adverse events. Thirteen studies (201 participants) reported on adverse events of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these adverse events were allergic or respiratory events. 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 (14 studies, 5201 participants)  Fourteen studies (5201 participants) reported on serious adverse events. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (5000 participants), which reported only on serious adverse events limited to the first four hours after convalescent plasma transfusion. This study included death as a serious adverse event; they reported 15 deaths, four of which they classified as potentially, probably or definitely related to transfusion. Other serious adverse events reported in all studies were predominantly allergic or respiratory in nature, including anaphylaxis, transfusion-associated dyspnoea, and transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI). We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma affects the number of serious adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. For safety outcomes we also included non-controlled NRSIs. There was limited information regarding adverse events. Of the controlled studies, none reported on this outcome in the control group. There is only very low-certainty evidence for safety of convalescent plasma for COVID-19.  While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, problems with recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies are conceivable. The early termination of the first RCT investigating convalescent plasma, and the multitude of studies registered in the past months illustrate this. It is therefore necessary to critically assess the design of these registered studies, and well-designed studies should be prioritised. Other considerations for these studies are the need to report outcomes for all study arms in the same way, and the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms.  There are 98 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 50 are RCTs. This is the first living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. These updates may show different results to those reported here.

Early experience with convalescent plasma as immunotherapy for COVID-19 in China: Knowns and unknowns.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In the absence of a vaccine or specific drug treatment options for coronavirus disease (COVID-19), attention has been shifted in China to the possible therapeutic use of convalescent plasma. COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is currently under investigation. We summarized clinical studies and other research data available as of 5 May 2020 on CCP therapy according to the Clinical Treatment Guideline of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in China, as well as clinical experience at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, as part of a comprehensive anti-epidemic strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As of 5 May 2020, when the epidemic was well-controlled in China, healthcare databases and sources of English literature relating to convalescent plasma were searched and reviewed. Sources of clinical and methodological heterogeneity were identified. RESULTS: As of 5 May 2020, up to 2000 samples of CCP had been collected across China and administered to 700 COVID-19 patients. From donors, 200-400 ml of plasma was collected at each donation, with antibody titres > 1:160. We identified three clinical studies for COVID-19 in China. Analyses showed a statistically significant improvement in clinical outcomes compared with untreated cases (P < 0.001). No adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSION: From initial studies, convalescent plasma therapy appears effective and safe for COVID-19. However, there is clearly a need for well-designed RCTs (randomized controlled trials) or other formal studies to further evaluate the efficacy and any potential adverse effects of CCP.