Effect of High-Titer Convalescent Plasma on Progression to Severe Respiratory Failure or Death in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Convalescent plasma (CP) has been generally unsuccessful in preventing worsening of respiratory failure or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of CP plus standard therapy (ST) vs ST alone in preventing worsening respiratory failure or death in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial enrolled (1:1 ratio) hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia to receive CP plus ST or ST alone between July 15 and December 8, 2020, at 27 clinical sites in Italy. Hospitalized adults with COVID-19 pneumonia and a partial pressure of oxygen-to-fraction of inspired oxygen (Pao2/Fio2) ratio between 350 and 200 mm Hg were eligible. Interventions: Patients in the experimental group received intravenous high-titer CP (≥1:160, by microneutralization test) plus ST. The volume of infused CP was 200 mL given from 1 to a maximum of 3 infusions. Patients in the control group received ST, represented by remdesivir, glucocorticoids, and low-molecular weight heparin, according to the Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco recommendations. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of worsening respiratory failure (Pao2/Fio2 ratio <150 mm Hg) or death within 30 days from randomization. Results: Of the 487 randomized patients (241 to CP plus ST; 246 to ST alone), 312 (64.1%) were men; the median (IQR) age was 64 (54.0-74.0) years. The modified intention-to-treat population included 473 patients. The primary end point occurred in 59 of 231 patients (25.5%) treated with CP and ST and in 67 of 239 patients (28.0%) who received ST (odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.59-1.33; P = .54). Adverse events occurred more frequently in the CP group (12 of 241 [5.0%]) compared with the control group (4 of 246 [1.6%]; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia, high-titer anti-SARS-CoV-2 CP did not reduce the progression to severe respiratory failure or death within 30 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04716556.

AIDS-related Kaposi's Sarcoma: evaluation of potential new prognostic factors and assessment of the AIDS Clinical Trial Group Staging System in the Haart Era--the Italian Cooperative Group on AIDS and Tumors and the Italian Cohort of Patients Naive From Antiretrovirals.

PURPOSE: To assess potential new prognostic factors and to validate the AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) for AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma (AIDS-KS) staging system in the highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) era. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We collected epidemiologic, clinical, staging, and survival data from 211 patients with AIDS-KS enrolled in two prospective Italian human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) cohort studies. We included in the analysis all patients with the diagnosis of KS made from January 1996, the time at which HAART became available in Italy. RESULTS: In the univariate analysis, survival was not influenced by sex, age, level of HIV viremia at KS diagnosis, HAART at KS diagnosis (HAART-naïve v HAART-experienced), or type of HAART combination. Regarding ACTG classification, the 3-year survival rate was 85% for T0 patients and 69% for T1 patients (P =.007), 83% for S0 patients and 63% for S1 patients (P =.003), and 83% for I0 patients and 71% for I1 patients (P =.06). In the multivariate analysis, only the combination of poor tumor stage (T1) and poor systemic disease (S1) risk identified patients with unfavorable prognosis. The 3-year survival rate of patients with T1S1 was 53%, which was significantly lower compared with the 3-year survival rates of patients with T0S0, T1S0, and T0S1, which were 88%, 80%, and 81%, respectively (P =.0001). CONCLUSION: In the era of HAART, a refinement of the original ACTG staging system is needed. CD4 level does not seem to provide prognostic information. Two different risk categories are identified: a good risk (T0S0, T1S0, T0S1) and a poor risk (T1S1).