Young persons and healthcare professionals experience of virtual gastroenterology consultations: a multicentre survey conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic

ObjectiveTo explore Young Persons (YP) and healthcare professionals (HCP) experiences of virtual consultations (VC) and establish whether developmentally appropriate healthcare can be delivered virtually.MethodYP and HCP questionnaire surveys were designed and piloted. Electronic questionnaire links were sent by post, email or text message January–April 2021 to YP aged 13–25 years old, with predefined chronic gastrointestinal conditions, attending a gastroenterology/hepatology VC. HCP undertaking VC were invited to complete staff questionnaire. Results were anonymous and collated using Excel version 2302.ResultsFive UK hospital trusts participated, with 35 HCP responses. Of the 100 YP completing the survey 66% were female and 34% male aged between 13 years and 25 years (median: 18 years). 13% were new appointments and 87% follow ups, 29% were by video, 69% by phone and 2% gave no response. 80% of HCP spoke to YP directly but not privately (69%). 87% of YP and 88% HCP found VC useful. 83% of YP want VC again, although 20% preferred face to face. 43% of HCP required improved phone/internet connection. 77% of YP required hospital appointments for tests following VC.ConclusionsOverall respondents were satisfied with VC, finding them useful, convenient and time saving. Successful VC rely on appropriate patient selection and availability of reliable technology. Patient preference is key which may alter with time.

Exploring the influence of telehealth on patient engagement with a multidisciplinary Non-Epileptic Seizure (NES) Clinic during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The ILAE task force has identified a gap in treatment access for patients with nonepileptic seizures (NES) [1]. Access to multidisciplinary treatment clinics for adults with NES is limited with only 18 institutions delivering care across the United States [2]. Patient engagement has been low in the University of Colorado, NES Clinic treatment program despite our clinic's status as the only clinic of its kind in the mountain west. We analyzed patient factors of those who engaged in treatment before and after COVID-19 regulations were imposed and found a 23.6% increase in treatment engagement using telehealth. Those who engaged using telehealth were more likely to be of white race, of non-Hispanic ethnicity, publicly insured, employed, have a Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) of zero, a daily seizure rate of 0-1, did not have suicidal ideation or attempts, and live greater than 25 miles from the NES clinic. Delivering NES treatment via telehealth reduced the logistical and psychological barriers to initiating recovery and with a severe lack of accessible treatments for patients with NES, barrier reduction is necessary. This study describes patient factors that result in higher engagement with NES treatment using telehealth and emphasizes the importance of telehealth utilization to improve access to available treatment.

Burden of allergic disease among ethnic minority groups in high-income countries.

The COVID-19 pandemic raised acute awareness regarding inequities and inequalities and poor clinical outcomes amongst ethnic minority groups. Studies carried out in North America, the UK and Australia have shown a relatively high burden of asthma and allergies amongst ethnic minority groups. The precise reasons underpinning the high disease burden are not well understood, but it is likely that this involves complex gene-environment interaction, behavioural and cultural elements. Poor clinical outcomes have been related to multiple factors including access to health care, engagement with healthcare professionals and concordance with advice which are affected by deprivation, literacy, cultural norms and health beliefs. It is unclear at present if allergic conditions are intrinsically more severe amongst patients from ethnic minority groups. Most evidence shaping our understanding of disease pathogenesis and clinical management is biased towards data generated from white population resident in high-income countries. In conjunction with standards of care, it is prudent that a multi-pronged approach towards provision of composite, culturally tailored, supportive interventions targeting demographic variables at the individual level is needed, but this requires further research and validation. In this narrative review, we provide an overview of epidemiology, sensitization patterns, poor clinical outcomes and possible factors underpinning these observations and highlight priority areas for research.

The Role of Disease Severity and Demographics in the Clinical Course of COVID-19 Patients Treated With Convalescent Plasma.

Treatment of patients with COVID-19 using convalescent plasma from recently recovered patients has been shown to be safe, but the time course of change in clinical status following plasma transfusion in relation to baseline disease severity has not yet been described. We analyzed short, descriptive daily reports of patient status in 7,180 hospitalized recipients of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in the Mayo Clinic Expanded Access Program. We assessed, from the day following transfusion, whether the patient was categorized by his or her physician as better, worse or unchanged compared to the day before, and whether, on the reporting day, the patient received mechanical ventilation, was in the ICU, had died or had been discharged. Most patients improved following transfusion, but clinical improvement was most notable in mild to moderately ill patients. Patients classified as severely ill upon enrollment improved, but not as rapidly, while patients classified as critically ill/end-stage and patients on ventilators showed worsening of disease status even after treatment with convalescent plasma. Patients age 80 and over showed little or no clinical improvement following transfusion. Clinical status at the time of convalescent plasma treatment and age appear to be the primary factors in determining the therapeutic effectiveness of COVID-19 convalescent plasma among hospitalized patients.

Access to and safety of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in the United States Expanded Access Program: A national registry study.

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.

Clinical presentation, complications, and outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in an academic center with a centralized palliative care consult service.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Palliative care is a critical component of the response of a healthcare system to a pandemic. We present risk factors associated with mortality and highlight an operational palliative care consult service in facilitating early identification of risk factors to guide goal-concordant care and rational utilization of finite healthcare resources during a pandemic. METHODS: In this case series of 100 consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19, we analyzed clinical data, treatment including palliative care, and outcomes in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to three hospitals in Seattle, Washington. We compared data between patients who were discharged and non-survivors. RESULTS: Age (OR 4.67 [1.43, 15.32] ages 65-79; OR 3.96 [1.05, 14.89] ages 80-97), dementia (OR 5.62 [1.60, 19.74]), and transfer from a congregate living facility (OR 5.40 [2.07, 14.07]), as well hypoxemia and tachypnea (OR 7.00 [2.91, 22.41]; OR 2.78 [1.11, 6.97]) were associated with mortality. Forty-one (41%) patients required intensive care and 22 (22%) invasive mechanical ventilation. Forty-six (46%) patients were seen by the palliative care service, resulting in a change of resuscitation status in 54% of admitted patients. Fifty-eight (58%) patients recovered and were discharged, 34 (34%) died, and eight (8%) remained hospitalized, of which seven ultimately survived and one died. CONCLUSIONS: Older age, dementia, and congregate living were associated with mortality. Early discussions of goals of care facilitated by an operational palliative care consult service can effectively guide goal-concordant care in patients at high risk for mortality during a pandemic. Development of a functional palliative care consult service is an important component of pandemic planning.

Early safety indicators of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 5000 patients.

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.

Mortality in individuals treated with COVID-19 convalescent plasma varies with the geographic provenance of donors.

Successful therapeutics and vaccines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have harnessed the immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Evidence that SARS-CoV-2 exists as locally evolving variants suggests that immunological differences may impact the effectiveness of antibody-based treatments such as convalescent plasma and vaccines. Considering that near-sourced convalescent plasma likely reflects the antigenic composition of local viral strains, we hypothesize that convalescent plasma has a higher efficacy, as defined by death within 30 days of transfusion, when the convalescent plasma donor and treated patient were in close geographic proximity. Results of a series of modeling techniques applied to approximately 28,000 patients from the Expanded Access to Convalescent Plasma program (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04338360) support this hypothesis. This work has implications for the interpretation of clinical studies, the ability to develop effective COVID-19 treatments, and, potentially, for the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines as additional locally-evolving variants continue to emerge.

Convalescent Plasma Therapy for COVID-19: A Graphical Mosaic of the Worldwide Evidence.

Convalescent plasma has been used worldwide to treat patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and prevent disease progression. Despite global usage, uncertainty remains regarding plasma efficacy, as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have provided divergent evidence regarding the survival benefit of convalescent plasma. Here, we argue that during a global health emergency, the mosaic of evidence originating from multiple levels of the epistemic hierarchy should inform contemporary policy and healthcare decisions. Indeed, worldwide matched-control studies have generally found convalescent plasma to improve COVID-19 patient survival, and RCTs have demonstrated a survival benefit when transfused early in the disease course but limited or no benefit later in the disease course when patients required greater supportive therapies. RCTs have also revealed that convalescent plasma transfusion contributes to improved symptomatology and viral clearance. To further investigate the effect of convalescent plasma on patient mortality, we performed a meta-analytical approach to pool daily survival data from all controlled studies that reported Kaplan-Meier survival plots. Qualitative inspection of all available Kaplan-Meier survival data and an aggregate Kaplan-Meier survival plot revealed a directionally consistent pattern among studies arising from multiple levels of the epistemic hierarchy, whereby convalescent plasma transfusion was generally associated with greater patient survival. Given that convalescent plasma has a similar safety profile as standard plasma, convalescent plasma should be implemented within weeks of the onset of future infectious disease outbreaks.

Use of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients with immunosuppression.

In the absence of effective countermeasures, human convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the causative agent of novel coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), including among patients with innate or acquired immunosuppression. However, the association between COVID-19-associated mortality in patients with immunosuppression and therapeutic use of convalescent plasma is unknown. We review 75 reports, including one large matched-control registry study of 143 COVID-19 patients with hematological malignancies, and 51 case reports and 23 case series representing 238 COVID-19 patients with immunosuppression. We review clinical features and treatment protocols of COVID-19 patients with immunosuppression after treatment with human convalescent plasma. We also discuss the time course and clinical features of recovery. The available data from case reports and case series provide evidence suggesting a mortality benefit and rapid clinical improvement in patients with several forms of immunosuppression following COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion. The utility of convalescent plasma or other forms of antibody therapy in immune-deficient and immune-suppressed patients with COVID-19 warrants further investigation.

The Effect of Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Mortality Among Patients With COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

To determine the effect of COVID-19 convalescent plasma on mortality, we aggregated patient outcome data from 10 randomized clinical trials, 20 matched control studies, 2 dose-response studies, and 96 case reports or case series. Studies published between January 1, 2020, and January 16, 2021, were identified through a systematic search of online PubMed and MEDLINE databases. Random effects analyses of randomized clinical trials and matched control data demonstrated that patients with COVID-19 transfused with convalescent plasma exhibited a lower mortality rate compared with patients receiving standard treatments. Additional analyses showed that early transfusion (within 3 days of hospital admission) of higher titer plasma is associated with lower patient mortality. These data provide evidence favoring the efficacy of human convalescent plasma as a therapeutic agent in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The methodological quality is insufficient in clinical practice guidelines in the context of COVID-19: systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The number of published clinical practice guidelines related to COVID-19 has rapidly increased. This study explored if basic methodological standards of guideline development have been met in the published clinical practice guidelines related to COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Rapid systematic review from February 1 until April 27, 2020 using MEDLINE [PubMed], CINAHL [Ebsco], Trip and manual search, including all types of healthcare workers providing any kind of healthcare to any patient population in any setting. RESULTS: There were 1342 titles screened and 188 guidelines included. The highest average AGREE II domain score was 89% for scope and purpose, the lowest for rigor of development (25%). Only eight guidelines (4%) were based on a systematic literature search and a structured consensus process by representative experts (classified as the highest methodological quality). The majority (156; 83%) was solely built on an informal expert consensus. A process for regular updates was described in 27 guidelines (14%). Patients were included in the development of only one guideline. CONCLUSION: Despite clear scope, most publications fell short of basic methodological standards of guideline development. Clinicians should use guidelines that include up-to-date information, were informed by stakeholder involvement, and employed rigorous methodologies.

Convalescent Plasma for Infectious Diseases: Historical Framework and Use in COVID-19.

Convalescent plasma has emerged as a promising therapeutic agent for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has received emergency use authorization, and is being widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic. Passive antibody therapy via plasma or serum has been successfully used to treat infectious diseases for more than a century. Passive antibody administration is based on the presumption that convalescent plasma or serum contains therapeutic antibodies that can be passively transferred to the plasma recipient. There are numerous examples in which convalescent plasma has been used successfully as post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of infectious diseases, including previous coronavirus outbreaks. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, convalescent plasma was demonstrated to be safe and potentially effective among patients infected with COVID-19. This review provides an overview of the historical uses of convalescent plasma therapy, summarizes current evidence for convalescent plasma use for COVID-19, and highlights future antibody therapies.

Convalescent Plasma Antibody Levels and the Risk of Death from Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) under the presumption that such plasma contains potentially therapeutic antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that can be passively transferred to the plasma recipient. Whether convalescent plasma with high antibody levels rather than low antibody levels is associated with a lower risk of death is unknown. METHODS: In a retrospective study based on a U.S. national registry, we determined the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels in convalescent plasma used to treat hospitalized adults with Covid-19. The primary outcome was death within 30 days after plasma transfusion. Patients who were enrolled through July 4, 2020, and for whom data on anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels in plasma transfusions and on 30-day mortality were available were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Of the 3082 patients included in this analysis, death within 30 days after plasma transfusion occurred in 115 of 515 patients (22.3%) in the high-titer group, 549 of 2006 patients (27.4%) in the medium-titer group, and 166 of 561 patients (29.6%) in the low-titer group. The association of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels with the risk of death from Covid-19 was moderated by mechanical ventilation status. A lower risk of death within 30 days in the high-titer group than in the low-titer group was observed among patients who had not received mechanical ventilation before transfusion (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48 to 0.91), and no effect on the risk of death was observed among patients who had received mechanical ventilation (relative risk, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19 who were not receiving mechanical ventilation, transfusion of plasma with higher anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels was associated with a lower risk of death than transfusion of plasma with lower antibody levels. (Funded by the Department of Health and Human Services and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04338360.).

Safety Update: COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in 20,000 Hospitalized Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update on key safety metrics after transfusion of convalescent plasma in hospitalized coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) patients, having previously demonstrated safety in 5000 hospitalized patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From April 3 to June 2, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration Expanded Access Program for COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfused a convenience sample of 20,000 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 convalescent plasma. RESULTS: The incidence of all serious adverse events was low; these included transfusion reactions (n=78; <1%), thromboembolic or thrombotic events (n=113; <1%), and cardiac events (n=677, ~3%). Notably, the vast majority of the thromboembolic or thrombotic events (n=75) and cardiac events (n=597) were judged to be unrelated to the plasma transfusion per se. The 7-day mortality rate was 13.0% (12.5%, 13.4%), and was higher among more critically ill patients relative to less ill counterparts, including patients admitted to the intensive care unit versus those not admitted (15.6 vs 9.3%), mechanically ventilated versus not ventilated (18.3% vs 9.9%), and with septic shock or multiple organ dysfunction/failure versus those without dysfunction/failure (21.7% vs 11.5%). CONCLUSION: These updated data provide robust evidence that transfusion of convalescent plasma is safe in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and support the notion that earlier administration of plasma within the clinical course of COVID-19 is more likely to reduce mortality.