Corticosteroids use for COVID-19: an overview of systematic reviews.

Purpose: A reappraisal of the validity of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses related to corticosteroids use for the treatment of COVID-19. Material and Methods: An overview of SRs (umbrella review). The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed using tha AMSTAR-2 checklist; quality of the evidence was appraised following the GRADE approach. Results: 35 SRs were included in this overview. Data were from 307 overlapping reports, based on 121 individual primary studies (25 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 96 non-RCTs. In critically ill patients the use of steroids significantly reduced mortality compared to standard of care in 80% of the SRs, more often with moderate/high level of certainty; however, in patients not requiring oxygen supplementation the use of steroids increased the overall mortality in 2/3 of the comparisons. Clinical progression of diseases (need for mechanical ventilation, or for intensive care admission) was more commonly observed among controls compared to steroids recipients (in 9 out of 14 comparisons; certainty of evidence from very-low to moderate). The occurrence of adverse events was similar among steroids recipients and controls. Other outcomes (i.e., viral clearance, length of hospital stay) or issue related to optimal dose and type of steroids were addressed in a minority of SRs, with a high level of uncertainty, so that no definitive conclusions can be drawn. Conclusions: There is moderate certainty of evidence that corticosteroids reduce mortality and progression of disease in critically ill COVID-19 patients compared to standard of care, without increasing the occurrence of adverse events.

Correction: Cruciani et al. Ivermectin for Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 1645.

The correct affiliation 1 should be "Italian National Blood Centre, National Institute of Health, 00162 Rome, Italy" [...].

Ivermectin for Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ivermectin has received particular attention as a potential treatment for COVID-19. However, the evidence to support its clinical efficacy is controversial. OBJECTIVES: We undertook a new systematic review of ivermectin for the treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19, including new primary studies, outcomes other than mortality, and grading the quality of the available evidence following the Cochrane guidance for methodology. METHODS: We searched electronic databases, repository databases, and clinical trial registries (up to June 2021). The measure of treatment effect was risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: The review includes 11 RCTs (2436 participants). The certainty of the available evidence was quite low or very low due to risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. When the analysis was limited to patients with baseline mild or moderate disease (8 reports, 1283 patients), there were no differences in mortality between ivermectin and control groups (low level of certainty); in patients with baseline severe diseases (3 reports, 304 patients), the use of ivermectin significantly decreased mortality compared to the controls (RD -0.17; 95% CIs, -0.24/-0.10; p = 0.00001; low level of certainty). In terms of disease progression (to severe pneumonia, admission to intensive care unit, and/or mechanical ventilation), the results were much the same. At day 14, the rate of patients with a negative RT-PCR test was 21% higher (from 5 to 36% higher) for ivermectin recipients than it was for the controls (low quality of evidence). Three studies (736 subjects) indicated that prophylaxis with ivermectin increased the likelihood of preventing COVID-19 compared to controls (low quality of evidence). Serious adverse events were rarely reported. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence for the benefit of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment and prophylaxis, and most of this evidence is of low quality. Further evidence is needed to fine-tune potential indications and optimal treatment protocols for ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

ABO blood group and COVID-19: an updated systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Following the first reports in the literature, the association between the ABO blood group and SARS-CoV-2 infection has been investigated by a number of studies, although with varying results. The main object of this systematic review was to assess the relationship between the ABO blood group and the occurrence and severity of COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search using appropriate MeSH terms was performed through Medline and PubMed. The outcomes considered were the prevalence of the blood group O vs non-O types in SARS-CoV-2 infected and non-infected subjects, and the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection according to ABO group. The methodological quality of the studies included in the analysis was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the overall quality of the available evidence using the GRADE system. Benchmarks used to evaluate the effect size were odd ratios (ORs) for case control studies and risk ratios (RRs) for cohort studies. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included in the analysis. Overall, individuals with group O had a lower infection rate compared to individuals of non-O group (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.75, 0.86). However, the difference in the effect size was significantly lower in cohort studies compared to case control studies. No evidence was found indicating an effect of the O type on the disease severity in the infected patients. DISCUSSION: We have found low/very low evidence that group O individuals are less susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to those in the non-O group. No evidence was found indicating an effect of the O type on disease severity in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 both in plasma pools for fractionation and in commercial intravenous immunoglobulins produced from plasma collected in Italy during the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Italian plasma pools and intravenous immunoglobulins sent to our Institute (Italian National Institute of Health - Istituto Superiore di Sanità) in the context of the Official Control Authority Batch Release. The plasma pools were made up from donations collected in several different Italian regions from May 2017 to October 2020, i.e. in the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All plasma pools were initially tested for the qualitative detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies against the nucleocapsid protein using the Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 test kit. Plasma pools positive for these antibodies were further tested using the Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S test kit for the quantitative detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor binding domain. All plasma pools showing reactivity to these antibodies were tested undiluted for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA using the Grifols Procleix SARS-CoV-2 transcription-mediated amplification assay. Intravenous immunoglobulins were tested using both test kits to determine the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. RESULTS: All plasma pools made up from donations collected in the pre-pandemic period were negative for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies against the nucleocapsid protein. Of the plasma pools made up from donations collected from December 2018 to March 2020, only 1 pool out of 68 (1.4%), that was made up from donations from the Lombardy region, was reactive for these antibodies. Interestingly, 105 out of 174 (60.3%) of the plasma pools made up from donations collected from November 2018 to October 2020 showed the presence of these antibodies. All plasma pools positive for these antibodies were tested for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor binding domain and were confirmed positive. DISCUSSION: None of these plasma pools tested were reactive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. In the case of intravenous immunoglobulins, 20 out of 25 (80%) batches showed the presence of both anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, reflecting the concentration in the plasma pools used for their production.

A forecasting model to estimate the drop in blood supplies during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Italy.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the number of actually Severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infected blood donors applying a statistical forecasting model. BACKGROUND: Following the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, a drop in blood donation has been observed. It is crucial to determine the actual number of potential SARS-CoV-2-positive donors to define the measures and ensure adequate blood supply. METHODS: The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 positivity, calculated on the general population, was applied to the donor population by estimating the number of positive subjects. The calculation model was validated by the linear interpolation method. The number of blood units actually discarded based on post-donation information was also taken into account. RESULTS: Three months after the outbreak, 5322 donors were estimated to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 and were therefore potentially excluded from donation. A total of units of blood components were discarded following post donation information. The estimated number of donors deceased (180) and the number of clinically recovered individuals in the same period was also considered. CONCLUSION: This forecasting model can be used to obtain information on blood donors' involvement during future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks, especially in case of changes concerning epidemiology, incidence by age bracket and geographical distribution and also for new outbreaks of emerging viruses.

COVID-19-associated coagulopathy.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a viral respiratory illness caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has been recently recognized as a systemic disorder inducing a prothrombotic state. The molecular mechanisms underlying the hypercoagulable state seen in patients with COVID-19 is still incompletely understood, although it presumably involves the close link between inflammatory and hemostatic systems. The laboratory coagulation monitoring of severely ill COVID-19 patients is mandatory to identify those patients at increased thrombotic risk and to modulate thromboprophylaxis accordingly. In this review, we summarize the current understanding on the pathogenesis, epidemiology, clinical and laboratory features and management of coagulopathy associated with COVID-19.