Convalescent Plasma as Adjunctive Therapy for Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: The Co-CLARITY Trial.

Background and Objective: Convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) may reduce the risk of disease progression among patients with COVID-19. This study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CPT in preventing ICU admission among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods: In this open-label randomized controlled trial, we randomly assigned hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 in a 1:1 ratio to receive convalescent plasma as an adjunct to standard of care or standard of care alone. The primary endpoint was ICU admission within first 28 days of enrolment. Primary safety endpoints include rapid deterioration of respiratory or clinical status within four hours of convalescent plasma transfusion and cumulative incidence of serious adverse events during the study period including transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI), transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO), severe allergic reactions, and transfusion-related infections. Results: A total of 22 patients were assigned to receive convalescent plasma as an adjunct to standard of care and 22 to receive standard of care alone. The median time from onset of COVID-19 symptoms to study enrolment was eight days (IQR, 4 to 10). Two patients (9.1%) in the CPT group and one patient (4.5%) in the control group were admitted to the ICU. The primary outcome measure, ICU admission, was not different between the two groups (q-value >0.9). No patient who received convalescent plasma had rapid deterioration of respiratory/clinical status within four hours of transfusion and none developed TRALI, TACO, anaphylaxis, severe allergic reactions, or transfusion-related infections. There was also no significant difference in the secondary outcomes of 28-day mortality (two patients in the CPT group and none in the control group, q-value >0.90), dialysis-free days, vasopressor-free days, and ICU-free days. Conclusions: Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, no significant differences were observed in the need for ICU admission between patients given CPT as adjunct to standard of care and those who received standard of care alone. Interpretation is limited by early termination of the trial which may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference.

Saliva as alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR: a multicenter cross-sectional diagnostic validation study.

Saliva has been demonstrated as feasible alternative to naso-oropharyngeal swab (NOS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection through reverse transcription quantitative/real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). This study compared the diagnostic agreement of conventional NOS, saliva with RNA extraction (SE) and saliva without RNA extraction (SalivaDirect) processing for RT-qPCR in identifying SARS-CoV-2. All techniques were also compared, as separate index tests, to a composite reference standard (CRS) where positive and negative results were defined as SARS-CoV-2 detection in either one or no sample, respectively. Of 517 paired samples, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 150 (29.01%) NOS and 151 (29.21%) saliva specimens. The saliva-based tests were noted to have a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy (95% confidence interval) of 92.67% (87.26%, 96.28%), 97.55% (95.40%, 98.87%) and 96.13% (94.09%, 97.62%), respectively, for SE RT-qPCR and 91.33% (85.64%, 95.30%), 98.91% (97.23%, 99.70%) and 96.71% (94.79%, 98.07%), respectively, for SalivaDirect RT-qPCR compared to NOS RT-qPCR. Compared to CRS, all platforms demonstrated statistically similar diagnostic performance. These findings suggest that both conventional and streamlined saliva RT-qPCR are at least non-inferior to conventional NOS RT-qPCR in detecting SARS-CoV-2.

Comparison of three Dade-Behring Dimension AR machines in a clinical chemistry laboratory.

Three Dade-Behring Dimension AR Analyzers are presently in use in the Philippine General Hospital Department of Laboratories. One machine was acquired 2 years ago and two new ones were added recently. In order to determine whether the three machines would produce equivalent results 16 samples were selected for patients with hepatic and/or renal disorder. All 16 samples were tested for 16 different analytes. The results were subjected to tests for coefficient correlation, simple linear regression using slope and intercept and t-test for comparison. We concluded that for two assays (globulin and phosphorus), the values were sufficiently similar. For seven other assays (for total protein, albumin, sodium, potassium, chloride, calcium, and magnesium), the results were statistically significantly different, and for the remaining eight assays (total hiliruhin, direct bilirubin, AST, ALT, ALP, glucose, BUN, and creatinine), the values obtained were not ideal for drawing up conclusions about comparability. For the latter group of assays we plan to pool patient specimens of appropriate numbers and levels and repeat testing at some specified later date.