Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 17 de 17
Filter
1.
Ann Rheum Dis ; 80(3): 402-403, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1909670
2.
Virol J ; 18(1): 101, 2021 05 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1238724

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a major challenge facing the world. Certain guidelines issued by National Health Commission of the People's Repubilic of China recommend intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) for adjuvant treatment of COVID-19. However, there is a lack of clinical evidence to support the use of IVIG. METHODS: This single-center retrospective cohort study included all adult patients with laboratory-confirmed severe COVID-19 in the Respiratory and Critical Care Unit of Dabie Mountain Regional Medical Center, China. Patient information, including demographic data, laboratory indicators, the use of glucocorticoids and IVIG, hospital mortality, the application of mechanical ventilation, and the length of hospital stay was collected. The primary outcome was the composite end point, including death and the use of mechanical ventilation. The secondary outcome was the length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Of the 285 patients with confirmed COVID-19, 113 severely ill patients were included in this study. Compared to the non-IVIG group, more patients in the IVIG group reached the composite end point [12 (25.5%) vs 5 (7.6%), P = 0.008] and had longer hospital stay periods [23.0 (19.0-31.0) vs 16.0 (13.8-22.0), P < 0.001]. After adjusting for confounding factors, differences in primary outcomes between the two groups were not statistically significant (P = 0.167), however, patients in the IVIG group had longer hospital stay periods (P = 0.041). CONCLUSION: Adjuvant therapy with IVIG did not improve in-hospital mortality rates or the need for mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 patients. Our study does not support the use of immunoglobulin in patients with severe COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Immunoglobulins, Intravenous/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Severity of Illness Index
3.
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
4.
J Clin Microbiol ; 59(5)2021 04 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1195818

ABSTRACT

In this study, we comprehensively analyzed multispecific antibody kinetics of different immunoglobulins in hospitalized patients with acute severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Three hundred fifty-four blood samples longitudinally obtained from 81 IgG-seroconverting progressed coronavirus disease 2019 (CoVID-19) patients were quantified for spike 1 (S1), S2, and nucleocapsid protein (NCP)-specific IgM, IgA, IgG, and total Ig antibodies using a microarray, 11 different enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs)/chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIAs), and 1 rapid test by seven manufacturers. The assays' specificity was assessed in 130 non-CoVID-19 pneumonia patients. Using the microarray, NCP-specific IgA and IgG antibodies continuously displayed higher detection rates during acute CoVID-19 than S1- and S2-specific ones. S1-specific IgG antibodies, however, reached higher peak values. Until the 26th day post-symptom onset, all patients developed IgG responses against S1, S2, and NCP. Although detection rates by ELISAs/CLIAs generally resembled those of the microarray, corresponding to the target antigen, sensitivities and specificities varied among all tests. Notably, patients with more severe CoVID-19 displayed higher IgG and IgA levels, but this difference was mainly observed with S1-specific immunoassays. In patients with high SARS-CoV-2 levels in the lower respiratory tract, we observed high detection rates of IgG and total Ig immunoassays with a particular rise of S1-specific IgG antibodies when viral concentrations in the tracheal aspirate subsequently declined over time. In summary, our study demonstrates that differences in sensitivity among commercial immunoassays during acute SARS-CoV-2 infection are only partly related to the target antigen. Importantly, our data indicate that NCP-specific IgA and IgG antibodies are detected earlier, while higher S1-specific IgA antibody levels occur in severely ill patients.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , Immunoassay/methods , Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins/immunology , Humans , Immunoglobulin A/immunology , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Immunoglobulin M/immunology , Kinetics , Phosphoproteins/immunology , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology
5.
N Engl J Med ; 384(22): 2092-2101, 2021 06 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1174739

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Several cases of unusual thrombotic events and thrombocytopenia have developed after vaccination with the recombinant adenoviral vector encoding the spike protein antigen of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (ChAdOx1 nCov-19, AstraZeneca). More data were needed on the pathogenesis of this unusual clotting disorder. METHODS: We assessed the clinical and laboratory features of 11 patients in Germany and Austria in whom thrombosis or thrombocytopenia had developed after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCov-19. We used a standard enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect platelet factor 4 (PF4)-heparin antibodies and a modified (PF4-enhanced) platelet-activation test to detect platelet-activating antibodies under various reaction conditions. Included in this testing were samples from patients who had blood samples referred for investigation of vaccine-associated thrombotic events, with 28 testing positive on a screening PF4-heparin immunoassay. RESULTS: Of the 11 original patients, 9 were women, with a median age of 36 years (range, 22 to 49). Beginning 5 to 16 days after vaccination, the patients presented with one or more thrombotic events, with the exception of 1 patient, who presented with fatal intracranial hemorrhage. Of the patients with one or more thrombotic events, 9 had cerebral venous thrombosis, 3 had splanchnic-vein thrombosis, 3 had pulmonary embolism, and 4 had other thromboses; of these patients, 6 died. Five patients had disseminated intravascular coagulation. None of the patients had received heparin before symptom onset. All 28 patients who tested positive for antibodies against PF4-heparin tested positive on the platelet-activation assay in the presence of PF4 independent of heparin. Platelet activation was inhibited by high levels of heparin, Fc receptor-blocking monoclonal antibody, and immune globulin (10 mg per milliliter). Additional studies with PF4 or PF4-heparin affinity purified antibodies in 2 patients confirmed PF4-dependent platelet activation. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCov-19 can result in the rare development of immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia mediated by platelet-activating antibodies against PF4, which clinically mimics autoimmune heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. (Funded by the German Research Foundation.).


Subject(s)
Autoantibodies/blood , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Platelet Factor 4/immunology , Thrombocytopenia/etiology , Thrombosis/etiology , Adult , Autoimmune Diseases/etiology , Blood Chemical Analysis , Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation/etiology , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay , Fatal Outcome , Female , Humans , Intracranial Hemorrhages/etiology , Male , Middle Aged , Platelet Activation , Thrombocytopenia/immunology , Thrombosis/immunology , Young Adult
6.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 7(2): e22483, 2021 02 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1105949

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic presents a great public health challenge worldwide, especially given the urgent need to identify effective drugs and develop a vaccine in a short period of time. Globally, several drugs and vaccine candidates are in clinical trials. However, because these drugs and vaccines are still being tested, there is still no definition of which ones will succeed. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the opinions of over 1000 virus researchers with knowledge on the prevention and treatment of coronavirus-related human diseases to determine the most promising drug and vaccine candidates to address COVID-19. METHODS: We mapped the clinical trials related to COVID-19 registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. These data were used to prepare a survey questionnaire about treatments and vaccine candidates for COVID-19. In May 2020, a global survey was conducted with authors of recent scientific publications indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection related to viruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, coronaviruses, and COVID-19. RESULTS: Remdesivir, immunoglobulin from cured patients, and plasma were considered to be the most promising treatments in May 2020, while ChAdOx1 and mRNA-1273 were considered to be the most promising vaccine candidates. Almost two-thirds of the respondents (766/1219, 62.8%) believed that vaccines for COVID-19 were likely to be available in the next 18 months. Slightly fewer than 25% (289/1219, 23.7%) believed that a vaccine was feasible, but probably not within 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: The issues addressed in this study are constantly evolving; therefore, the current state of knowledge has changed since the survey was conducted. However, for several months after the survey, the respondents' expectations were in line with recent results related to treatments and vaccine candidates for COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/drug therapy , Expert Testimony , Pandemics , Research Personnel , COVID-19/epidemiology , Clinical Trials as Topic , Cross-Sectional Studies , Global Health , Humans
7.
Med Sci Monit ; 26: e928755, 2020 Dec 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-954198

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND This retrospective study aimed to describe the effects of convalescent plasma therapy in 24 patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during February and March 2020 in Wuhan, China. MATERIAL AND METHODS The confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection was made by the reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data and laboratory test reports of patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia who received a convalescent plasma transfusion. RESULTS A total of 24 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who were transfused with ABO-compatible convalescent plasma were enrolled in the study. Convalescent plasma transfusion showed an effective clinical outcome in 14 of 24 patients (an effective rate of 58.3%). No patients had an adverse reaction to the transfusion. Compared with before convalescent plasma transfusion, the lymphocyte count after convalescent plasma transfusion increased to a normal level (median: 0.80×109/L vs. 1.12×109/L, P=0.004). Other laboratory indicators such as white blood cells, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, alanine aminotransferase, and aspartate transaminase showed a decreasing trend after transfusion. CONCLUSIONS This retrospective observational clinical study showed that convalescent plasma therapy could have beneficial effects on patient outcomes. Recently, regulatory authorization has been given for the use of convalescent plasma therapy, and clinical guidelines have been developed for the collection and use of convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin in patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Blood Component Transfusion/methods , COVID-19/therapy , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , China , Female , Humans , Immunization, Passive/methods , Male , Middle Aged , RNA, Viral/isolation & purification , Retrospective Studies , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
8.
Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther ; 58(12): 678-686, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-902836

ABSTRACT

Although medication treatment in COVID-19 patients would have no direct effect on the spread of the disease, a shortening of the period of hospitalization by only a few days would release 25 - 30% of critical-care resources. However, there appears to be no well-established medication treatment available that can do this reliably at the present time. Anti-malarials currently being evaluated, i.e., chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, are not yet established as effective medications, and antiviral agents, including remdesivir, are only weakly active. This position paper report is focused on the modulation of the cytokine storm since it appears to be a major cause of the multi-organ failure in COVID-19. Whereas corticosteroids are not recommended in patients not on mechanical ventilation, immunotherapy with convalescent plasma and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) have been used with some success in COVID-19. There is emerging new evidence that polyvalent immunoglobulins (PVIG) from bovine colostrum given orally can also modulate the immune response. Research using lipopolysaccharide-stimulated peripheral blood mononuclear cells from colorectal cancer patients (a so called micro-cytokine storm) has shown that PVIG block the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines and stimulate the expression of anti-inflammatory cytokines. We have been able to confirm these results in a similar model using mononuclear cells from healthy subjects and could demonstrate that the modulations produced by PVIG are quantitatively and qualitatively similar to those obtained using human immunoglobulin (IVIG). Both immunoglobulins reduce the lipopolysaccharide-induced increase in inflammatory cytokines, interleukin (IL-) 12/23p40 (-90%), IL-6 (-75%) and TNF-α (-60%) and increased the levels of the anti-inflammatory cytokine, IL-10 (+75%). Evidence is presented that PVIG can produce anti-inflammatory effects similar to these after oral application in patients. Its use is contraindicated in patients with lactose intolerance but is otherwise safe and free of complications in clinical studies including the treatment of infants with gastrointestinal disorders. Conclusion: PVIG appears to be a potential and safe anti-inflammatory agent and can be recommended as a candidate medication for studies in COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Cytokine Release Syndrome/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Animals , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Cattle , Cells, Cultured , Cytokine Release Syndrome/virology , Cytokines , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Immunoglobulins, Intravenous/therapeutic use , Leukocytes, Mononuclear , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
9.
Infect Dis Ther ; 9(4): 981-1002, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-893351

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes is one of the most common comorbidities of COVID-19. We aimed to conduct a multidimensional analysis of risk factors associated with the severity and mortality of patients with COVID-19 and diabetes. METHODS: In this retrospective study involving 1443 patients with COVID-19, we analyzed the clinical and laboratory characteristics and risk factors associated with disease severity in patients with COVID-19 with and without diabetes. Binary logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the risk factors associated with mortality in patients with COVID-19 and diabetes. The 84-day survival duration for critical patients with COVID-19 and diabetes who had different levels of leukocytes and neutrophils, or treated with immunoglobulin or not, was conducted using Kaplan-Meier survival curves. RESULTS: Of the 1443 patients with COVID-19, 256 (17.7%) had diabetes, had a median age of 66.0 [IQR 58.0-73.8] years, and were more likely to develop severe (41.8% vs. 35.6%) and critical disease (34.0% vs. 14.9%), followed by higher mortality (21.1% vs. 7.0%), than those without diabetes. Higher levels of leukocytes (> 5.37 × 109/L), older age, and comorbid cerebrovascular disease and chronic renal disease independently contributed to in-hospital death of patients with COVID-19 and diabetes. Leukocytes > 5.37 × 109/L and the application of immunoglobulin were associated with shorter survival duration and lower mortality, respectively, in critical patients with COVID-19 and diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: More attention should be paid to patients with COVID-19 and diabetes, especially when they have high leukocyte counts (> 5.37 × 109/L). Timely and adequate intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) use may reduce the mortality of critical patients with COVID-19 and diabetes.

10.
Drugs Aging ; 37(11): 779-785, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-882423

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a brief overview of the complex interaction between age, hypertension, the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), inflammation, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) infection. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is more frequent and more severe in comorbid elderly patients, especially those with hypertension, diabetes, obesity, or cardiovascular diseases. There are concerns regarding the use of RAAS inhibitors in patients with COVID-19. Some physicians have considered the need for interrupting RAAS inhibition in order to reduce the possibility of SARS-CoV2 entering lung cells after binding to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors. We offer a different point of view in relation to the need for continuing to use RAAS inhibitors in patients with COVID-19. We focused our article on elderly patients because of the distinctive imbalance between the immune response, which is depressed, and the exacerbated inflammatory response, 'inflammaging', which makes the geriatric patient an appropriate candidate for therapeutic strategies aimed at modulating the inflammatory response. Indeed, COVID-19 is an inflammatory storm that starts and worsens during the course of the disease. During the COVID-19 pandemic, various therapeutic approaches have been tested, including antiviral drugs, interferon, anti-interleukins, hydroxychloroquine, anti-inflammatories, immunoglobulins from recovered patients, and heparins. Some of these therapeutic approaches did not prove to be beneficial, or even induced serious complications. Based on current evidence, in the early stages of the disease modulation of the inflammatory response through the inhibition of neprilysin and modulation of the RAAS could affect the course and outcome of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/pharmacology , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/pharmacology , Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections , Hypertension/drug therapy , Inflammation , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Aged , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 , Betacoronavirus/drug effects , Betacoronavirus/physiology , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Coronavirus Infections/metabolism , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Cytokine Release Syndrome/drug therapy , Cytokine Release Syndrome/immunology , Humans , Immunologic Factors/pharmacology , Inflammation/drug therapy , Inflammation/immunology , Neprilysin/antagonists & inhibitors , Peptidyl-Dipeptidase A/metabolism , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Pneumonia, Viral/metabolism , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Renin-Angiotensin System/drug effects , SARS-CoV-2
11.
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
12.
J Clin Virol ; 131: 104589, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-714435

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Serological assays for the determination of the immune status of patients that have tested positive for infection with SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR are required for, e.g., contact tracing and epidemiological studies. However, data concerning the performance parameters of commercially available high-throughput ELISA tests are still not available on a large scale. STUDY DESIGN: In our study, we have evaluated an in-house developed ELISA for the detection of the immunoglobulin classes A, G and M directed against the full-length spike glycoprotein from SARS-CoV-2. For this analysis, we have included 110 sera from patients presenting with COVID-19 symptoms or blood donors without symptoms collected at the Austrian Red Cross, Blood Transfusion Service for Upper Austria, Linz. In addition, we have selected four commercially available IgG-based ELISAs as well as one IgA/IgG-based ELISA for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigens as well as a multiplexed IgG-based micro-ELISA assay developed for rapid Point of Care testing applications. CONCLUSIONS: All assays evaluated in the course of this study demonstrated suitable sensitivity and specificity values for the identification of patients that have experienced a past infection with SARS-CoV-2. However, testing for the presence of additional immunoglobulins (IgA and IgM) as well as using combinations of different viral antigens is highly advised to improve the predictive values of serological assays.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Serologic Tests , Adult , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
13.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 7: 388, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-698287

ABSTRACT

Polyclonal preparation of IgM as an adjuvant therapy has been reported as a relevant immunomodulant therapy in several infectious diseases, exhibiting, in most cases, improvement of the clinical course. No drug has demonstrated therapeutic efficacy for COVID-19. Immunomodulatory treatment with hydroxychloroquine and biologics as tocilizumab, in fact, has not proven to show satisfactory results in several reports. We therefore treated a selected patient with interstitial multifocal pneumonia, positive to COVID-19, with polyclonal preparation of immunoglobulins as an adjuvant therapy, obtaining in few days clinical remission and improvements in radiological findings. Based on this case report, we suggest that clinical trials are conducted to test the efficacy and safety of polyclonal immunoglobulins for adjunctive therapy of COVID-19.

15.
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue ; 32(4): 435-438, 2020 Apr.
Article in Chinese | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-596083

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review evidence for the effect of convalescent plasma and immunoglobulin on treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and further provide advice on the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Clinical studies of convalescent plasma and immunoglobulin in the treatment of SARS were collected from a variety of databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, and CBM from November 2002 to March 2020. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias based on the national institute for health and clinical excellence case series quality scale, and systematically evaluated the results. RESULTS: A total of 10 clinical studies, including 212 patients, were eventually included. There were 4 case series studies, 5 case reports and 1 case-control study. Most studies were with low or very low quality. The systematic analysis showed that 107 patients administered convalescent plasma and 16 patients used immunoglobulin during the treatment of SARS. Forty-nine patients were definitely not treated with the above two methods, and the remaining 40 patients were not reported clearly. The treatment of convalescent plasma and immunoglobulin could both improve the symptoms and reduce the mortality (12 died), and most SARS patients got better, while 11 SARS patients who did not receive the above therapies died. CONCLUSIONS: Convalescent plasma and immunoglobulin were effective on relieving symptoms of SARS patients. However, due to low quality and lacking of control group, convalescent plasma and immunoglobulin should be used with caution to treat COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , COVID-19 , Case-Control Studies , Humans , Immunoglobulins , SARS-CoV-2
16.
Ann Transl Med ; 8(10): 625, 2020 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-594638

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is usually used as supportive therapy, but the treatment of COVID-19 by IVIG is controversial. This rapid review aims to explore the clinical effectiveness and safety of IVIG in the treatment of children with severe COVID-19. METHODS: We systematically searched the literature on the use of IVIG in patients with COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), including both adults and children. We assessed the risk of bias and quality of evidence and reported the main findings descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 1,519 articles were identified by initial literature search, and finally six studies met our inclusion criteria, included one randomized controlled trial (RCT), four case series and one case report involving 198 patients. One case series showed the survival of COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was not improved by IVIG. One case report showed high-dose IVIG could improve the outcome of COVID-19 adults. Three observational studies showed inconsistent results of the effect of IVIG on SARS patients. One RCT showed that IVIG did not reduce mortality or the incidence of nosocomial infection in adults with severe SARS. The quality of evidence was between low and very low. CONCLUSIONS: The existing evidence is insufficient to support the efficacy or safety of IVIG in the treatment of COVID-19.

17.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 5: CD013600, 2020 05 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-260509

ABSTRACT

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


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