Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 65
Filter
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 74(6): 1022-1029, 2022 03 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1701751

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin (IVM) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Published and preprint randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of IVM on adult patients with COVID-19 were searched until 22 March 2021 in 5 engines. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), and adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included viral clearance and severe AEs (SAEs). The risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed, with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methods. RESULTS: Ten RCTs (n = 1173) were included. The controls were the standard of care in 5 RCTs and placebo in 5. COVID-19 disease severity was mild in 8 RCTs, moderate in 1, and mild and moderate in 1. IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality rates compared with controls (relative risk [RR], 0.37 [95% confidence interval, .12-1.13]; very low QoE) or LOS compared with controls (mean difference, 0.72 days [95% confidence interval, -.86 to 2.29 days]; very low QoE). AEs, SAEs, and viral clearance were similar between IVM and control groups (low QoE for all outcomes). Subgroups by severity of COVID-19 or RoB were mostly consistent with main analyses; all-cause mortality rates in 3 RCTs at high RoB were reduced with IVM. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the standard of care or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, LOS, or viral clearance in RCTs in patients with mostly mild COVID-19. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or SAEs and is not a viable option to treat patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , COVID-19/drug therapy , Humans , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , Immunization, Passive/methods , Ivermectin/adverse effects , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiration, Artificial
2.
Heart Lung ; 53: 51-60, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1693436

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma treatment for severe and critically ill Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical improvement and mortality risk of convalescent plasma treatment in patients with severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in the electronic databases for the randomized controlled studies about convalescent plasma therapy in severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients. Two reviewers independently extracted relevant data. The primary outcomes were clinical improvement and mortality risk of severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients that were therapied by convalescent plasma. RESULTS: A total of 14 randomized controlled trials with 4543 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to control, no significant difference was observed for either clinical improvement (6 studies, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.17, p = 0.16, moderate certainty) or mortality risk (14 studies, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03, p= 0.18, low certainty) in patients of convalescent plasma therapy group. CONCLUSION: Convalescent plasma did not increase the clinical improvement or reduce the mortality risk in the severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness/therapy , Humans , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
4.
J Clin Invest ; 131(20)2021 10 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1626086

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUNDPassive immunotherapy with convalescent plasma (CP) is a potential treatment for COVID-19. Evidence from controlled clinical trials is inconclusive.METHODSWe conducted a randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trial at 27 hospitals in Spain. Patients had to be admitted for COVID-19 pneumonia within 7 days from symptom onset and not on mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen devices. Patients were randomized 1:1 to treatment with CP in addition to standard of care (SOC) or to the control arm receiving only SOC. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients in categories 5 (noninvasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen), 6 (invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), or 7 (death) at 14 days. Primary analysis was performed in the intention-to-treat population.RESULTSBetween April 4, 2020, and February 5, 2021, 350 patients were randomly assigned to either CP (n = 179) or SOC (n = 171). At 14 days, proportion of patients in categories 5, 6, or 7 was 11.7% in the CP group versus 16.4% in the control group (P = 0.205). The difference was greater at 28 days, with 8.4% of patients in categories 5-7 in the CP group versus 17.0% in the control group (P = 0.021). The difference in overall survival did not reach statistical significance (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19-1.14, log-rank P = 0.087).CONCLUSIONCP showed a significant benefit in preventing progression to noninvasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen, invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO, or death at 28 days. The effect on the predefined primary endpoint at 14 days and the effect on overall survival were not statistically significant.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicaltrials.gov, NCT04345523.FUNDINGGovernment of Spain, Instituto de Salud Carlos III.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/physiopathology , Combined Modality Therapy , Disease Progression , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Pandemics , Spain/epidemiology , Treatment Outcome
5.
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 , 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
6.
Ann Intern Med ; 175(1): 119-126, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1497808

ABSTRACT

As the fourth wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic encircles the globe, there remains an urgent challenge to identify safe and effective treatment and prevention strategies that can be implemented in a range of health care and clinical settings. Substantial advances have been made in the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies to mitigate the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19. On 15 June 2021, the National Institutes of Health, in collaboration with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, convened a virtual summit to summarize existing knowledge on anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and to identify key unanswered scientific questions to further catalyze the clinical development and implementation of antibodies.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/therapy , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Antibodies, Monoclonal/adverse effects , Antibodies, Monoclonal/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , Humans , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , United States , United States Food and Drug Administration
7.
Transfusion ; 62(1): 28-36, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1480228

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The reported incidence of adverse reactions following Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) transfusion has generally been lower than expected based on the incidence of transfusion reactions that have been observed in studies of conventional plasma transfusion. This raises the concern for under-reporting of adverse events in studies of CCP that rely on passive surveillance strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our institution implemented a protocol to actively identify possible adverse reactions to CCP transfusion. In addition, we retrospectively reviewed the charts of inpatients who received CCP at Stanford Hospital between May 13, 2020 and January 31, 2021. We determined the incidence of adverse events following CCP transfusion. RESULTS: A total of 49 patients received CCP. Seven patients (14%) had an increased supplemental oxygen requirement within 4 h of transfusion completion, including one patient who was intubated during the transfusion. An additional 11 patients (total of 18, 37%) had increased oxygen requirements within 24 h of transfusion, including 3 patients who were intubated. Six patients (12%) fulfilled criteria for transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO). CONCLUSION: Using an active surveillance strategy, we commonly observed adverse events following the transfusion of CCP to hospitalized patients. It was not possible to definitively determine whether or not these adverse events are related to CCP transfusion. TACO was likely over-diagnosed given overlap with the manifestations of COVID-19. Nevertheless, these results suggest that the potential adverse effects of CCP transfusion may be underestimated by reports from passive surveillance studies.


Subject(s)
Blood Component Transfusion/adverse effects , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , Oxygen , Plasma , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
8.
J Clin Invest ; 131(20)2021 10 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1470551

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUNDCOVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been considered a treatment option for COVID-19. This trial assessed the efficacy of a neutralizing antibody containing high-dose CCP in hospitalized adults with COVID-19 requiring respiratory support or intensive care treatment.METHODSPatients (n = 105) were randomized 1:1 to either receive standard treatment and 3 units of CCP or standard treatment alone. Control group patients with progress on day 14 could cross over to the CCP group. The primary outcome was a dichotomous composite outcome of survival and no longer fulfilling criteria for severe COVID-19 on day 21.ResultsThe primary outcome occurred in 43.4% of patients in the CCP group and 32.7% in the control group (P = 0.32). The median time to clinical improvement was 26 days in the CCP group and 66 days in the control group (P = 0.27). The median time to discharge from the hospital was 31 days in the CCP group and 51 days in the control group (P = 0.24). In the subgroup that received a higher cumulative amount of neutralizing antibodies, the primary outcome occurred in 56.0% of the patients (vs. 32.1%), with significantly shorter intervals to clinical improvement (20 vs. 66 days, P < 0.05) and to hospital discharge (21 vs. 51 days, P = 0.03) and better survival (day-60 probability of survival 91.6% vs. 68.1%, P = 0.02) in comparison with the control group.ConclusionCCP added to standard treatment was not associated with a significant improvement in the primary and secondary outcomes. A predefined subgroup analysis showed a significant benefit of CCP among patients who received a larger amount of neutralizing antibodies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04433910.FundingBundesministerium für Gesundheit (German Federal Ministry of Health): ZMVI1-2520COR802.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Antibodies, Neutralizing/administration & dosage , Antibodies, Neutralizing/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Viral/administration & dosage , Antibodies, Viral/therapeutic use , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/physiopathology , Combined Modality Therapy , Cross-Over Studies , Female , Humans , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , Immunization, Passive/methods , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
9.
Pharmaceut Med ; 35(5): 281-286, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1397080

ABSTRACT

Traditional approaches to blood regulation emphasise the precautionary principle and pursue zero-risk for viral transmission; these traditional approaches have usually followed tragedy, such as the HIV and hepatitis C infections that followed the use of factor VIII concentrates. However, a much more haphazard haemovigilance system operates for general adverse events. Such imprecise assessment of hazards prevents sound benefit-risk assessment, and for blood products this is further confounded by the fact that their efficacy has attracted little systematic study. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has now prompted the proposal of a convalescent plasma (CP) blood product. Clearly, mere freedom from infectious agents will not suffice in assessing CP, and an objective measure of efficacy, so as to permit formal benefit-risk analysis, is essential. This is both a scientific and an ethical demand, as has been the case for other experimental COVID-19 treatments. With special reference to COVID-19 CP, the well-recognized adverse events of transfusion-associated lung injury (TRALI) and transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO) will be important. Furthermore, not only efficacy but also product quality attributes (e.g., antibody titre) will have to be defined. Both of these are outside the traditional regulatory philosophy for blood products and are needed to truly assess the benefit-risk of this putative therapeutic product.


Subject(s)
Blood Safety , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , Patient Safety , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Treatment Outcome
10.
J Clin Invest ; 130(9): 4791-4797, 2020 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1365265

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUNDConvalescent plasma is the only antibody-based therapy currently available for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It has robust historical precedence and sound biological plausibility. Although promising, convalescent plasma has not yet been shown to be safe as a treatment for COVID-19.METHODSThus, we analyzed key safety metrics after transfusion of ABO-compatible human COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 5000 hospitalized adults with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, with 66% in the intensive care unit, as part of the US FDA expanded access program for COVID-19 convalescent plasma.RESULTSThe incidence of all serious adverse events (SAEs), including mortality rate (0.3%), in the first 4 hours after transfusion was <1%. Of the 36 reported SAEs, there were 25 reported incidences of related SAEs, including mortality (n = 4), transfusion-associated circulatory overload (n = 7), transfusion-related acute lung injury (n = 11), and severe allergic transfusion reactions (n = 3). However, only 2 of 36 SAEs were judged as definitely related to the convalescent plasma transfusion by the treating physician. The 7-day mortality rate was 14.9%.CONCLUSIONGiven the deadly nature of COVID-19 and the large population of critically ill patients included in these analyses, the mortality rate does not appear excessive. These early indicators suggest that transfusion of convalescent plasma is safe in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT04338360.FUNDINGMayo Clinic, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (75A50120C00096), National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR002377), National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (5R35HL139854 and R01 HL059842), National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (5T32DK07352), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (PDF-532926-2019), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (R21 AI145356, R21 AI152318, and AI152078), Schwab Charitable Fund, United Health Group, National Basketball Association, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, and Octapharma USA Inc.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Compassionate Use Trials , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Female , Humans , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , Immunization, Passive/mortality , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Safety , Transfusion Reaction/epidemiology , Transfusion Reaction/etiology , Transfusion-Related Acute Lung Injury/epidemiology , Transfusion-Related Acute Lung Injury/etiology , United States/epidemiology , United States Food and Drug Administration , Young Adult
11.
Viruses ; 13(8)2021 08 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1355048

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is currently under investigation for both treatment and post-exposure prophylaxis. The active component of CCP mediating improved outcome is commonly reported as specific antibodies, particularly neutralizing antibodies, with clinical efficacy characterized according to the level or antibody affinity. In this review, we highlight the potential role of additional factors in CCP that can be either beneficial (e.g., AT-III, alpha-1 AT, ACE2+ extracellular vesicles) or detrimental (e.g., anti-ADAMTS13, anti-MDA5 or anti-interferon autoantibodies, pro-coagulant extracellular vesicles). Variations in these factors in CCP may contribute to varied outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and undergoing CCP therapy. We advise careful, retrospective investigation of such co-factors in randomized clinical trials that use fresh frozen plasma in control arms. Nevertheless, it might be difficult to establish a causal link between these components and outcome, given that CCP is generally safe and neutralizing antibody effects may predominate.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/therapy , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/blood , Antibodies, Neutralizing/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Viral/therapeutic use , Autoantibodies/blood , Blood Coagulation Factor Inhibitors/blood , Blood Coagulation Factors/analysis , Cross Reactions , Extracellular Vesicles , Humans , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , Immunologic Factors/blood , Immunosuppressive Agents/blood
12.
Ther Adv Respir Dis ; 15: 17534666211028077, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1288594

ABSTRACT

AIMS: Given the variability of previously reported results, this systematic review aims to determine the clinical effectiveness of convalescent plasma employed in the treatment of hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of controlled clinical trials assessing treatment with convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The outcomes were mortality, clinical improvement, and ventilation requirement. RESULTS: A total of 51 studies were retrieved from the databases. Five articles were finally included in the data extraction and qualitative and quantitative synthesis of results. The overall risk of bias in the reviewed articles was established at low-risk only in two trials. The meta-analysis suggests that there is no benefit of convalescent plasma compared with standard care or placebo in reducing the overall mortality and the ventilation requirement. However, there could be a benefit for the clinical improvement in patients treated with plasma. CONCLUSION: Current results led to assume that the convalescent plasma transfusion cannot reduce the mortality or ventilation requirement in hospitalized patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. More controlled clinical trials conducted with methodologies that ensure a low risk of bias are still needed.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Hospitalization , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , Immunization, Passive/mortality , Recovery of Function , Respiration, Artificial , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
13.
Clin Infect Dis ; 74(6): 1022-1029, 2022 03 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1284860

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin (IVM) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Published and preprint randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of IVM on adult patients with COVID-19 were searched until 22 March 2021 in 5 engines. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), and adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included viral clearance and severe AEs (SAEs). The risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed, with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methods. RESULTS: Ten RCTs (n = 1173) were included. The controls were the standard of care in 5 RCTs and placebo in 5. COVID-19 disease severity was mild in 8 RCTs, moderate in 1, and mild and moderate in 1. IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality rates compared with controls (relative risk [RR], 0.37 [95% confidence interval, .12-1.13]; very low QoE) or LOS compared with controls (mean difference, 0.72 days [95% confidence interval, -.86 to 2.29 days]; very low QoE). AEs, SAEs, and viral clearance were similar between IVM and control groups (low QoE for all outcomes). Subgroups by severity of COVID-19 or RoB were mostly consistent with main analyses; all-cause mortality rates in 3 RCTs at high RoB were reduced with IVM. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the standard of care or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, LOS, or viral clearance in RCTs in patients with mostly mild COVID-19. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or SAEs and is not a viable option to treat patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , COVID-19/drug therapy , Humans , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , Immunization, Passive/methods , Ivermectin/adverse effects , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiration, Artificial
14.
Transfus Apher Sci ; 59(4): 102817, 2020 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1235989

ABSTRACT

Passive immunotherapy with plasma derived from patients convalescent from SARS-CoV-2 infection can be a promising approach in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. It is important that Blood Establishments are prepared to satisfy requests for immune plasma by defining the requirements applicable to plasma donors and the standards for preparation, qualification, storage, distribution and control of use of the product. This position paper is aimed to give recommendations on biological characteristics of a plasma preparation from convalescent donors and to support the evaluation of this therapeutic approach in more rigorous investigations.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/immunology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Immunization, Passive , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Blood Component Removal/methods , Blood Donors , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/blood , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Donor Selection/standards , Humans , Immune Sera/adverse effects , Immune Sera/isolation & purification , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , Immunization, Passive/methods , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/blood , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Product Labeling , Risk , SARS-CoV-2
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
17.
Nat Rev Immunol ; 21(6): 382-393, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1193590

ABSTRACT

Several neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been developed and are now under evaluation in clinical trials. With the US Food and Drug Administration recently granting emergency use authorizations for neutralizing mAbs in non-hospitalized patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, there is an urgent need to discuss the broader potential of these novel therapies and to develop strategies to deploy them effectively in clinical practice, given limited initial availability. Here, we review the precedent for passive immunization and lessons learned from using antibody therapies for viral infections such as respiratory syncytial virus, Ebola virus and SARS-CoV infections. We then focus on the deployment of convalescent plasma and neutralizing mAbs for treatment of SARS-CoV-2. We review specific clinical questions, including the rationale for stratification of patients, potential biomarkers, known risk factors and temporal considerations for optimal clinical use. To answer these questions, there is a need to understand factors such as the kinetics of viral load and its correlation with clinical outcomes, endogenous antibody responses, pharmacokinetic properties of neutralizing mAbs and the potential benefit of combining antibodies to defend against emerging viral variants.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Neutralizing/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Viral/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Antibody-Dependent Enhancement , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Drug Development , Drug Resistance, Viral/genetics , Drug Resistance, Viral/immunology , Humans , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , Immunization, Passive/methods , Models, Immunological , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology
19.
JAMA ; 325(12): 1185-1195, 2021 03 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1178926

ABSTRACT

Importance: Convalescent plasma is a proposed treatment for COVID-19. Objective: To assess clinical outcomes with convalescent plasma treatment vs placebo or standard of care in peer-reviewed and preprint publications or press releases of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Data Sources: PubMed, the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, and the Living Overview of Evidence platform were searched until January 29, 2021. Study Selection: The RCTs selected compared any type of convalescent plasma vs placebo or standard of care for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in any treatment setting. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data on relevant clinical outcomes, trial characteristics, and patient characteristics and used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. The primary analysis included peer-reviewed publications of RCTs only, whereas the secondary analysis included all publicly available RCT data (peer-reviewed publications, preprints, and press releases). Inverse variance-weighted meta-analyses were conducted to summarize the treatment effects. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, mechanical ventilation use, and serious adverse events. Results: A total of 1060 patients from 4 peer-reviewed RCTs and 10 722 patients from 6 other publicly available RCTs were included. The summary risk ratio (RR) for all-cause mortality with convalescent plasma in the 4 peer-reviewed RCTs was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.38), the absolute risk difference was -1.21% (95% CI, -5.29% to 2.88%), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision. Across all 10 RCTs, the summary RR was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.12) and there was moderate certainty of the evidence due to inclusion of unpublished data. Among the peer-reviewed RCTs, the summary hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.07 to 20.34) for length of hospital stay, the summary RR was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.20 to 2.87) for mechanical ventilation use (the absolute risk difference for mechanical ventilation use was -2.56% [95% CI, -13.16% to 8.05%]), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision for both outcomes. Limited data on clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, and serious adverse events showed no significant differences. Conclusions and Relevance: Treatment with convalescent plasma compared with placebo or standard of care was not significantly associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality or with any benefit for other clinical outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate for all-cause mortality and low for other outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Adult , Bias , COVID-19/mortality , Cause of Death , Female , Humans , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , Length of Stay , Male , Placebos/therapeutic use , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiration, Artificial , Standard of Care , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL