Simvastatin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of simvastatin in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: In an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated simvastatin (80 mg daily) as compared with no statin (control) in critically ill patients with Covid-19 who were not receiving statins at baseline. The primary outcome was respiratory and cardiovascular organ support-free days, assessed on an ordinal scale combining in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and days free of organ support through day 21 in survivors; the analyis used a Bayesian hierarchical ordinal model. The adaptive design included prespecified statistical stopping criteria for superiority (>99% posterior probability that the odds ratio was >1) and futility (>95% posterior probability that the odds ratio was <1.2). RESULTS: Enrollment began on October 28, 2020. On January 8, 2023, enrollment was closed on the basis of a low anticipated likelihood that prespecified stopping criteria would be met as Covid-19 cases decreased. The final analysis included 2684 critically ill patients. The median number of organ support-free days was 11 (interquartile range, -1 to 17) in the simvastatin group and 7 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) in the control group; the posterior median adjusted odds ratio was 1.15 (95% credible interval, 0.98 to 1.34) for simvastatin as compared with control, yielding a 95.9% posterior probability of superiority. At 90 days, the hazard ratio for survival was 1.12 (95% credible interval, 0.95 to 1.32), yielding a 91.9% posterior probability of superiority of simvastatin. The results of secondary analyses were consistent with those of the primary analysis. Serious adverse events, such as elevated levels of liver enzymes and creatine kinase, were reported more frequently with simvastatin than with control. CONCLUSIONS: Although recruitment was stopped because cases had decreased, among critically ill patients with Covid-19, simvastatin did not meet the prespecified criteria for superiority to control. (REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02735707.).

The impact of biomarkers of malignancy (IMWG SLiM criteria) in myeloma in a real-world population: Clinical characteristics, therapy and outcomes from the Australian and New Zealand Myeloma and Related Diseases Registry (ANZ MRDR).

A decade after International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) biomarkers (SLiM criteria) were introduced, this real-world study examined their impact on diagnosis, therapy and outcomes in myeloma. Using the ANZ MRDR, 3489 newly diagnosed patients from 2013 to 2023, comprising 3232 diagnosed by CRAB ('CRAB patients', including 1758 who also satisfied ≥1 SLiM criteria) and 257 by SLiM ('SLiM patients') criteria were analysed. CRAB patients had higher R-ISS and lower performance status, with no difference in cytogenetic risk. SLiM patients had improved progression-free survival (PFS, 37.5 vs. 32.2 months, hazard ratio [HR] 1.31 [1.08-1.59], p = 0.003), overall survival (80.9 vs. 73.2 months, HR 1.64 [1.26-2.13], p < 0.001) and PFS2 (54.6 vs. 40.3 months, HR 1.51 [1.22-1.86], p < 0.001) compared with CRAB patients, partially explained by earlier diagnosis, with no differential impact between the plasma cell and light-chain criteria on PFS. However, 34% of CRAB patients did not manifest SLiM characteristics, raising the possibility that SLiM features are associated with different biological behaviours contributing to a better prognosis, for example, improved PFS2 in SLiM patients suggested less disease resistance at first relapse. These data support earlier initiation of therapy by SLiM. The superior survival outcomes of SLiM versus CRAB patients highlight the importance of defining these subgroups when interpreting therapeutic outcomes at induction and first relapse.

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19. METHODS: In an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. (REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT04372589.).

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Noncritically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).

Impact and utility of follicular lymphoma GELF criteria in routine care: an Australasian Lymphoma Alliance study.

Follicular Lymphoma (FL) treatment initiation is largely determined by tumor burden and symptoms. In the pre-rituximab era, the Group d'Etude des Lymphomes Folliculaires (GELF) developed widely adopted criteria to identify high tumor burden FL patients to harmonize clinical trial populations. The utilization of GELF criteria (GELFc) in routine therapeutic decision-making is poorly described. This multicenter retrospective study evaluated patterns of GELFc at presentation and GELFc utilization in therapeutic decision-making in newly diagnosed, advanced stage rituximab-era FL. Associations between GELFc, treatment given, and patient survival were analyzed in 300 eligible cases identified between 2002-2019. 163 (54%) had ≥1 GELFc at diagnosis. The presence or cumulative number of GELFc did not predict PFS in patients undergoing watch-and-wait (WW) or those receiving systemic treatment. Of interest, in patients with ≥1 GELFc, 16/163 (10%) underwent initial watch-and-wait (comprising 22% of the watchand- wait cohort). In those receiving systemic therapy +/- radiotherapy, 74/215 (34%) met no GELFc. Our data suggest clinicians are using adjunctive measures to make decisions regarding treatment initiation in a significant proportion of patients. By restricting FL clinical trial eligibility only to those meeting GELFc, reported outcomes may not be applicable to a significant proportion of patients treated in routine care settings.

Rethinking the transfusion pathway in myelodysplastic syndromes: Study protocol for a novel randomized feasibility n-of-1 trial of weekly-interval red cell transfusion in myelodysplastic syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Anemia in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) is associated with poorer health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and physical function, and is frequently treated with transfusions. The current common practice of transfusing multiple red blood cells (RBC) units every 2-4 weeks may result in peaks/troughs in hemoglobin (Hb) level, yet maintaining a stable Hb may better improve HRQoL. We describe a study protocol aiming to investigate the feasibility of weekly low-dose RBC transfusion in MDS patients, including assessing HRQoL and physical function outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this n-of-1 pilot study, patients receive two treatment arms, with randomly allocated treatment sequence: arm A (patient's usual transfusion schedule) and arm B (weekly transfusion, individualized per patient). To facilitate timely delivery of weekly transfusion, extended-matched RBCs are provided, with transfusion based upon the previous week's Hb/pre-transfusion testing results to eliminate delays of awaiting contemporaneous cross-matching. Primary outcome is the feasibility of delivering weekly transfusion. Secondary outcomes include HRQoL, functional activity measurements, RBC usage, and alloimmunization rates. A qualitative substudy explores patient and staff experiences. RESULTS: The trial is open in Australia, Netherlands, and UK. The first patient was recruited in 2020. Inter-country differences in providing RBCs are observed, including patient genotyping versus serological phenotyping to select compatible units. DISCUSSION: This pilot trial evaluates a novel personalized transfusion approach of weekly matched RBC transfusion and challenges the dogma of current routine pre-transfusion matching practice. Findings on study feasibility, HRQoL, and physical functional outcomes and the qualitative substudy will inform the design of a larger definitive trial powered for clinical outcomes.

Use of platelet transfusions and tranexamic acid in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes: A clinical practice survey.

AIM: Thrombocytopenia and bleeding are common in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), but optimal management is unknown. We conducted a survey to identify current clinical practice regarding platelet transfusion (PLT-T) and tranexamic acid (TXA) to inform future trial design. METHOD: A 25-question survey was distributed to members of the ALLG from December 2020 to July 2021. RESULTS: Sixty-four clinicians across Australia, New Zealand and Singapore responded. Clinicians treated a median of 15 MDS patients annually. Twenty-nine (45%) reported having institutional guidelines regarding prophylactic PLT-T. Although 60 (94%) said they would consider using TXA, most (58/64; 91%) did not have institutional guidelines. Clinical scenarios showed prophylactic PLT-T was more likely administered for patients on disease-modifying therapy (49/64; 76%, commonest threshold <10 × 109 /L) or with minor bleeding (32/64 [50%] transfusing at threshold <20 × 109 /L, 23/64 [35%] at <10 × 109 /L). For stable untreated patients, 29/64 (45%) would not give PLT-T and 32/64 (50%) would. Most respondents (46/64; 72%) were interested in participating in trials in this area. Potential barriers included resource limitations, funding and patient/clinician acceptance. CONCLUSION: Real-world management of MDS-related thrombocytopenia varies and there is a need for clinical trials to inform practice.

The establishment of a multiple myeloma clinical registry in the Asia-Pacific region: The Asia-Pacific Myeloma and Related Diseases Registry (APAC MRDR).

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most common haematological cancer worldwide. Along with related diseases including monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), plasma cell leukaemia (PCL) and plasmacytoma, MM incidence is rising, yet it remains incurable and represents a significant disease burden. Clinical registries can provide important information on management and outcomes, and are vital platforms for clinical trials and other research. The Asia-Pacific Myeloma and Related Diseases Registry (APAC MRDR) was developed to monitor and explore variation in epidemiology, treatment regimens and their impact on clinical outcomes across this region. Here we describe the registry's design and development, initial data, progress and future plans. METHODS: The APAC MRDR was established in 2018 as a multicentre collaboration across the Asia-Pacific, collecting prospective data on patients newly diagnosed with MM, MGUS, PCL and plasmacytoma in Korea, Singapore, Malaysia and Taiwan, with China recently joining. Development of the registry required a multidisciplinary team of clinicians, researchers, legal and information technology support, and financial resources, as well as local clinical context from key opinion leaders in the APAC region. Written informed consent is obtained and data are routinely collected throughout treatment by hospital staff. Data are stored securely, meeting all local privacy and ethics requirements. Data were collected from October 2018 to March 2024. RESULTS: Over 1700 patients from 24 hospitals have been enrolled onto the APAC MRDR to date, with the majority (86%) being newly diagnosed with MM. Bortezomib with an immunomodulatory drug was most frequently used in first-line MM therapy, and lenalidomide-based therapy was most common in second-line. Establishment and implementation challenges include regulatory and a range of operational issues. CONCLUSION: The APAC MRDR is providing 'real-world' data to participating sites, clinicians and policy-makers to explore factors influencing outcomes and survival, and to support high quality studies. It is already a valuable resource that will continue to grow and support research and clinical collaboration in MM and related diseases across the APAC region.

Sepsis mortality among patients with haematological malignancy admitted to intensive care 2000-2022: a binational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis occurs in 12-27% of patients with haematological malignancy within a year of diagnosis. Sepsis mortality has improved in non-cancer patients in the last two decades, but longitudinal trends in patients with haematological malignancy are not well characterised. We aimed to compare outcomes, including temporal changes, in patients with and without a haematological malignancy admitted to ICU with a primary diagnosis of sepsis in Australia and New Zealand over the past two decades. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 282,627 patients with a primary intensive care unit (ICU) admission diagnosis of sepsis including 17,313 patients with haematological malignancy, admitted to 216 intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia or New Zealand between January 2000 and December 2022. Annual crude and adjusted in-hospital mortality were reported. Risk factors for in-hospital mortality were determined using a mixed methods logistic regression model and were used to calculate annual changes in mortality. RESULTS: In-hospital sepsis mortality decreased in patients with haematological malignancy, from 55.6% (95% CI 46.5-64.6%) in 2000 to 23.1% (95% CI 20.8-25.5%) in 2021. In patients without haematological malignancy mortality decreased from 33.1% (95% CI 31.3-35.1%) to 14.4% (95% CI 13.8-14.8%). This decrease remained significant after adjusting for mortality predictors including age, SOFA score and comorbidities, as estimated by adjusted annual odds of in-hospital death. The reduction in odds of death was of greater magnitude in patients with haematological malignancy than those without (OR 0.954, 95% CI 0.947-0.961 vs. OR 0.968, 95% CI 0.966-0.971, p < 0.001). However, absolute risk of in-hospital mortality remained higher in patients with haematological malignancy. Older age, higher SOFA score, presence of comorbidities, and mechanical ventilation were associated with increased mortality. Leukopenia (white cell count < 1.0 × 109 cells/L) was not associated with increased mortality in patients with haematological malignancy (p = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis mortality has improved in patients with haematological malignancy admitted to ICU. However, mortality remains higher in patients with haematological malignancy than those without.

A systematic review of the cost and cost-effectiveness of immunoglobulin treatment in patients with hematological malignancies.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with hematological malignancies are likely to develop hypogammaglobulinemia. Immunoglobulin (Ig) is commonly given to prevent infections, but its overall costs and cost-effectiveness are unknown. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines to assess the evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness of Ig, administered intravenously (IVIg) or subcutaneously (SCIg), in adults with hematological malignancies. RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria, and only two economic evaluations were identified; one cost-utility analysis (CUA) of IVIg versus no Ig, and another comparing IVIg with SCIg. The quality of the evidence was low. Compared to no treatment, Ig reduced hospitalization rates. One study reported no significant change in hospitalizations following a program to reduce IVIg use, and an observational study comparing IVIg with SCIg suggested that there were more hospitalizations with SCIg but lower overall costs per patient. The CUA comparing IVIg versus no Ig suggested that IVIg treatment was not cost-effective, and the other CUA comparing IVIg to SCIg found that home-based SCIg was more cost-effective than IVIg, but both studies had serious limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Our review highlighted key gaps in the literature: the cost-effectiveness of Ig in patients with hematological malignancies is very uncertain. Despite increasing Ig use worldwide, there are limited data regarding the total direct and indirect costs of treatment, and the optimal use of Ig and downstream implications for healthcare resource use and costs remain unclear. Given the paucity of evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness of Ig treatment in this population, further health economic research is warranted.

Effect of Low-Dose Aspirin Versus Placebo on Incidence of Anemia in the Elderly : A Secondary Analysis of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly Trial.

BACKGROUND: Daily low-dose aspirin increases major bleeding; however, few studies have investigated its effect on iron deficiency and anemia. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of low-dose aspirin on incident anemia, hemoglobin, and serum ferritin concentrations. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of the ASPREE (ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly) randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01038583). SETTING: Primary/community care in Australia and the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling persons aged 70 years or older (≥65 years for Black persons and Hispanic persons). INTERVENTION: 100 mg of aspirin daily or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Hemoglobin concentration was measured annually in all participants. Ferritin was measured at baseline and 3 years after random assignment in a large subset. RESULTS: 19 114 persons were randomly assigned. Anemia incidence in the aspirin and placebo groups was 51.2 events and 42.9 events per 1000 person-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.12 to 1.29]). Hemoglobin concentrations declined by 3.6 g/L per 5 years in the placebo group and the aspirin group experienced a steeper decline by 0.6 g/L per 5 years (CI, 0.3 to 1.0 g/L). In 7139 participants with ferritin measures at baseline and year 3, the aspirin group had greater prevalence than placebo of ferritin levels less than 45 µg/L at year 3 (465 [13%] vs. 350 [9.8%]) and greater overall decline in ferritin by 11.5% (CI, 9.3% to 13.7%) compared with placebo. A sensitivity analysis quantifying the effect of aspirin in the absence of major bleeding produced similar results. LIMITATIONS: Hemoglobin was measured annually. No data were available on causes of anemia. CONCLUSION: Low-dose aspirin increased incident anemia and decline in ferritin in otherwise healthy older adults, independent of major bleeding. Periodic monitoring of hemoglobin should be considered in older persons on aspirin. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health and Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

How should we use convalescent plasma therapies for the management of COVID-19?

Convalescent plasma (CP) from blood donors with antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 may benefit patients with COVID-19 by providing immediate passive immunity via transfusion or by being used to manufacture hyperimmune immunoglobulin preparations. Optimal product characteristics (including neutralizing antibody titers), transfusion volume, and administration timing remain to be determined. Preliminary COVID-19 CP safety data are encouraging, but establishing the clinical efficacy of CP requires an ongoing international collaborative effort. Preliminary results from large, high-quality randomized trials have recently started to be reported.

Platelet transfusions and predictors of bleeding in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe the burden of thrombocytopenia, supportive care practices, bleeding complications and predictors of bleeding in MDS patients within a large Australian hospital network, to better understand the use and effectiveness of platelet transfusions in MDS. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients aged ≥18 years with MDS, chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia or MDS/myeloproliferative overlap neoplasm admitted from 2016 to 2018 was conducted. Data were obtained from hospital medical records. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-nine patients (median age 78 years, 61.5% male) were identified. The median platelet count at first admission was 90 × 109 /L. Twenty-eight (15.6%) patients had severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count <20 × 109 /L), of whom nine (32.1%) received prophylactic platelet transfusions, five (17.9%) received tranexamic acid (TXA), seven (25%) received both platelet transfusions and TXA, and seven (25%) received no treatment. Bleeding events requiring hospitalisation occurred in 20 (11.2%) patients. Bleeding was not predicted by presenting platelet count, TXA use, platelet transfusion or anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapies. Three patients died of bleeding, at varying platelet counts (18, 38 and 153 × 109 /L). CONCLUSION: Thrombocytopenia is common in MDS. Although guidelines recommend otherwise, prophylactic platelet transfusions were commonly used for severe thrombocytopenia. Despite the majority of patients receiving platelet transfusions and/or TXA, 11% developed major bleeding occurring at a wide range of platelet counts.

Clinical characteristics of Australian treatment-naïve patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma from the lymphoma and related diseases registry.

Comprehensive clinical characteristics of Australian patients with classical Hodgkin Lymphoma (cHL) have not previously been systematically collected and described. We report real-world data of 498 eligible patients from the first 5 years of the Lymphoma and Related Diseases Registry (LaRDR), including baseline characteristics, histologic subtype, and treatment patterns in first-line therapy. Patient demographics and distribution of histopathological subtypes of cHL are similar to reported international cohorts. Doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) was the most common therapy for both early and advanced-stage disease, and 48% of patients with the early-stage disease received radiotherapy. Treatment patterns are consistent with international guidelines. In comorbid patients ≥60 years of age with advanced-stage disease, there is greater variation in treatment. In patients with a recorded response, the objective response rate (ORR) was 96% in early-stage disease, and 88% in advanced-stage disease. Early progression-free survival data suggest Australian patients with cHL have good outcomes, similar to other international studies.

Current and future strategies to monitor and manage coagulation in ECMO patients.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can provide life-saving support for critically ill patients suffering severe respiratory and/or cardiac failure. However, thrombosis and bleeding remain common and complex problems to manage. Key causes of thrombosis in ECMO patients include blood contact to pro-thrombotic and non-physiological surfaces, as well as high shearing forces in the pump and membrane oxygenator. On the other hand, adverse effects of anticoagulant, thrombocytopenia, platelet dysfunction, acquired von Willebrand syndrome, and hyperfibrinolysis are all established as causes of bleeding. Finding safe and effective anticoagulants that balance thrombosis and bleeding risk remains challenging. This review highlights commonly used anticoagulants in ECMO, including their mechanism of action, monitoring methods, strengths and limitations. It further elaborates on existing anticoagulant monitoring strategies, indicating their target range, benefits and drawbacks. Finally, it introduces several highly novel approaches to real-time anticoagulation monitoring methods including sound, optical, fluorescent, and electrical measurement as well as their working principles and future directions for research.

Definitions of massive transfusion in adults with critical bleeding: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Definitions for massive transfusion (MT) vary widely between studies, contributing to challenges in interpretation of research findings and practice evaluation. In this first systematic review, we aimed to identify all MT definitions used in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to date to inform the development of consensus definitions for MT. METHODS: We systematically searched the following databases for RCTs from inception until 11 August 2022: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Transfusion Evidence Library. Ongoing trials were sought from CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to fulfil all the following three criteria: (1) be an RCT; (2) include an adult patient population with major bleeding who had received, or were anticipated to receive, an MT in any clinical setting; and (3) specify a definition for MT as an inclusion criterion or outcome measure. RESULTS: Of the 8,458 distinct references identified, 30 trials were included for analysis (19 published, 11 ongoing). Trauma was the most common clinical setting in published trials, while for ongoing trials, it was obstetrics. A total of 15 different definitions of MT were identified across published and ongoing trials, varying greatly in cut-offs for volume transfused and time period. Almost all definitions specified the number of red blood cells (RBCs) within a set time period, with none including plasma, platelets or other haemostatic agents that are part of contemporary transfusion resuscitation. For completed trials, the most commonly used definition was transfusion of ≥ 10 RBC units in 24 h (9/19, all in trauma), while for ongoing trials it was 3-5 RBC units (n = 7), with the timing for transfusion being poorly defined, or in some trials not provided at all (n = 5). CONCLUSIONS: Transfusion of ≥ 10 RBC units within 24 h was the most commonly used definition in published RCTs, while lower RBC volumes are being used in ongoing RCTs. Any consensus definitions should reflect the need to incorporate different blood components/products for MT and agree on whether a 'one-size-fits-all' approach should be used across different clinical settings.

Prophylactic platelet transfusion response in critically ill patients: a prospective multicentre observational study.

BACKGROUND: Response to prophylactic platelet transfusion is suspected to be inconsistent in critically ill patients questioning how to optimize transfusion practices. This study aimed to describe prophylactic platelet transfusion response, to identify factors associated with a suboptimal response, to analyse the correlation between corrected count increment and platelet count increment and to determine the association between poor platelet transfusion response and clinical outcomes. METHODS: This prospective multicentre observational study recruited patients who received at least one prophylactic platelet transfusion in one of the nine participating intensive care units for a period up to 16 months. Poor platelet transfusion response was defined as a corrected count increment (CCI) that adjusts for platelet dose and body surface area, less than 7 at 18-24 h after platelet transfusion. Factors associated with poor platelet transfusion response were assessed in a mixed-effect model. Sensitivity analyses were conducted in patients with and without haematology malignancy and chemotherapy. RESULTS: Poor platelet transfusion response occurred in 349 of the 472 (73.9%) prophylactic platelet transfusions and in 141/181 (77.9%) patients. The mixed-effect model identified haemoglobin at ICU admission (odds ratio (OR): 0.79 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7-0.89]) and body mass index (BMI) (OR: 0.93 [0.89-0.98]) being positively and independently associated with platelet transfusion response, while a haematological malignancy (OR 1.93 [1.09-3.43]), sepsis as primary ICU admission diagnosis (OR: 2.81 [1.57-5.03]), SOFA score (OR 1.10 [1.03; 1.17]) and maximum storage duration of platelet (OR: 1.24 [1.02-1.52]) were independently associated with a suboptimal platelet increment. Clinical outcomes did not differ between groups, nor the requirement for red blood cells. Poor platelet transfusion response was found in 93.5% of patients with haematology malignancy and chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of critically ill patients, of whom more than half had bone marrow failure, almost three quarters of prophylactic platelet transfusions led to suboptimal platelet increment measured 18 to 24 h following platelet transfusion. Platelet storage duration was the only factor associated with poor platelet response that may be accessible to intervention. Trial registration in October 2017: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03325140.

Hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIVIG) contains polyclonal antibodies, which can be prepared from large amounts of pooled convalescent plasma or prepared from animal sources through immunisation. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This review was previously part of a parent review addressing convalescent plasma and hIVIG for people with COVID-19 and was split to address hIVIG and convalescent plasma separately. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of hIVIG therapy for the treatment of people with COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Research Database, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform and Medline and Embase from 1 January 2019 onwards. We carried out searches on 31 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated hIVIG for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. 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 that evaluated standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used RoB 2. 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), quality of life, adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs with 947 participants, of whom 688 received hIVIG prepared from humans, 18 received heterologous swine glyco-humanised polyclonal antibody, and 241 received equine-derived processed and purified F(ab')2 fragments. All participants were hospitalised with moderate-to-severe disease, most participants were not vaccinated (only 12 participants were vaccinated). The studies were conducted before or during the emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. There are no data for people with COVID-19 with no symptoms (asymptomatic) or people with mild COVID-19. We identified a further 10 ongoing studies evaluating hIVIG. Benefits of hIVIG prepared from humans We included data on one RCT (579 participants) that assessed the benefits and harms of hIVIG 0.4 g/kg compared to saline placebo. hIVIG may have little to no impact on all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.44; absolute effect 77 per 1000 with placebo versus 61 per 1000 (33 to 111) with hIVIG; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on worsening of clinical status at day 7 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.23; very low-certainty evidence). It probably has little to no impact on improvement of clinical status on day 28 (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.08; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify any studies that reported quality-of-life outcomes, so we do not know if hIVIG has any impact on quality of life. Harms of hIVIG prepared from humans hIVIG may have little to no impact on adverse events at any grade on day 1 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.18; 431 per 1000; 1 study 579 participants; low-certainty evidence). Patients receiving hIVIG probably experience more adverse events at grade 3-4 severity than patients who receive placebo (RR 4.09, 95% CI 1.39 to 12.01; moderate-certainty evidence). hIVIG may have little to no impact on the composite outcome of serious adverse events or death up to day 28 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence). We also identified additional results on the benefits and harms of other dose ranges of hIVIG, not included in the summary of findings table, but summarised in additional tables. Benefits of animal-derived polyclonal antibodies We included data on one RCT (241 participants) to assess the benefits and harms of receptor-binding domain-specific polyclonal F(ab´)2 fragments of equine antibodies (EpAbs) compared to saline placebo. EpAbs may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.37; absolute effect 114 per 1000 with placebo versus 68 per 1000 (30 to 156) ; low-certainty evidence). EpAbs may reduce worsening of clinical status up to day 28 (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.18; absolute effect 203 per 1000 with placebo versus 136 per 1000 (77 to 240); low-certainty evidence). It may have some effect on improvement of clinical status on day 28 (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.17; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any studies that reported quality-of-life outcomes, so we do not know if EpAbs have any impact on quality of life. Harms of animal-derived polyclonal antibodies EpAbs may have little to no impact on the number of adverse events at any grade up to 28 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events at grade 3-4 severity were not reported. Individuals receiving EpAbs may experience fewer serious adverse events than patients receiving placebo (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.19; low-certainty evidence). We also identified additional results on the benefits and harms of other animal-derived polyclonal antibody doses, not included in the summary of findings table, but summarised in additional tables. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We included data from five RCTs that evaluated hIVIG compared to standard therapy, with participants with moderate-to-severe disease. As the studies evaluated different preparations (from humans or from various animals) and doses, we could not pool them. hIVIG prepared from humans may have little to no impact on mortality, and clinical improvement and worsening. hIVIG may increase grade 3-4 adverse events. Studies did not evaluate quality of life. RBD-specific polyclonal F(ab´)2 fragments of equine antibodies may reduce mortality and serious adverse events, and may reduce clinical worsening. However, the studies were conducted before or during the emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and prior to widespread vaccine rollout. As no studies evaluated hIVIG for participants with asymptomatic infection or mild disease, benefits for these individuals remains uncertain. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. 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, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. 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 RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus 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 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have low certainty evidence for our primary outcomes. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

ANTECEDENTES: El plasma de convaleciente podría reducir la mortalidad en pacientes con enfermedades respiratorias víricas, y se está investigando como posible tratamiento para la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 (covid­19). Se requiere un profundo conocimiento del conjunto de evidencia actual sobre los beneficios y riesgos de esta intervención. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar la efectividad y seguridad de la transfusión de plasma de convaleciente en el tratamiento de las personas con covid­19; y mantener la vigencia de la evidencia con un enfoque de revisión sistemática continua. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Para identificar estudios en curso y completados, se realizaron búsquedas en la base de datos COVID­19 de la OMS: literatura global sobre la enfermedad por coronavirus, MEDLINE, Embase, el Registro Cochrane de Estudios de covid­19 y la Plataforma COVID­19 L*OVE de Epistemonikos. Se realizaron búsquedas mensuales hasta el 3 de marzo de 2022. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) que evaluaron el plasma de convaleciente para la covid­19, independientemente de la gravedad de la enfermedad, la edad, el sexo o el origen étnico. Se excluyeron los estudios que incluyeron poblaciones con otras enfermedades por coronavirus, como el síndrome respiratorio agudo grave (SARS) o el síndrome respiratorio de Oriente Medio (MERS), así como los estudios que evaluaron la inmunoglobulina estándar. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Se siguió la metodología estándar de Cochrane. Para evaluar el sesgo en los estudios incluidos se utilizó la herramienta RoB 2. Se utilizó el método GRADE para evaluar la certeza de la evidencia para los siguientes desenlaces: mortalidad por todas las causas hasta el día 28, empeoramiento y mejoría del estado clínico (para personas con enfermedad moderada a grave), ingreso hospitalario o muerte, resolución de los síntomas de covid­19 (para personas con enfermedad leve), calidad de vida, eventos adversos de grado 3 o 4 y eventos adversos graves. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: En esta cuarta versión actualizada de la revisión se incluyeron 33 ECA con 24 861 participantes, de los cuales 11 432 recibieron plasma de convaleciente. De ellos, 9 estudios son unicéntricos y 24 multicéntricos. Se realizaron 14 estudios en América, 8 en Europa, 3 en el Sudeste Asiático, 2 en África, 2 en el Pacífico occidental, 3 en el Mediterráneo oriental y 1 en varias regiones. Se identificaron otros 49 estudios en curso que evaluaron el plasma de convaleciente, y 33 estudios que informaban de que se habían completado. Personas con un diagnóstico confirmado de covid­19 y enfermedad de moderada a grave El uso de plasma de convaleciente se investigó en 29 ECA con 22 728 participantes con enfermedad moderada a grave. En 23 ECA con 22 020 participantes se comparó el plasma de convaleciente con el placebo o la atención habitual sola, en 5 se comparó con plasma estándar y en 1, con inmunoglobulina humana. Se evalúan subgrupos sobre detección de anticuerpos, aparición de síntomas, grupos de ingresos de países y varias comorbilidades en el texto completo. Plasma de convaleciente versus placebo o atención habitual sola El plasma de convaleciente no reduce la mortalidad por todas las causas hasta el día 28 (razón de riesgos [RR] 0,98; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,92 a 1,03; 220 por cada 1000; 21 ECA, 19 021 participantes; evidencia de certeza alta). Tiene poca o ninguna repercusión en la necesidad de ventilación mecánica invasiva o la muerte (RR 1,03; IC del 95%: 0,97 a 1,11; 296 por cada 1000; seis ECA, 14 477 participantes; evidencia de certeza alta) y no tiene ningún efecto en si los participantes reciben el alta hospitalaria (RR 1,00; IC de 95%: 0,97 a 1,02; 665 por cada 1000; seis ECA, 12 721 participantes; evidencia de certeza alta). El plasma de convaleciente podría tener poca o ninguna repercusión en la calidad de vida (DM 1,00; IC del 95%: ­2,14 a 4,14; un ECA, 483 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). El plasma de convaleciente podría tener poco o ningún efecto en el riesgo de eventos adversos de grado 3 y 4 (RR 1,17; IC del 95%: 0,96 a 1,42; 212 por cada 1000; seis ECA, 2392 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). Es probable que tenga poco o ningún efecto sobre el riesgo de eventos adversos graves (RR 1,14; IC del 95%: 0,91 a 1,44; 135 por cada 1000; seis ECA, 3901 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada). Plasma de convaleciente versus plasma estándar No se sabe si el plasma de convaleciente reduce o aumenta la mortalidad por cualquier causa hasta el día 28 (RR 0,73; IC del 95%: 0,45 a 1,19; 129 por cada 1000; cuatro ECA, 484 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). No se sabe si el plasma de convaleciente reduce o aumenta la necesidad de ventilación mecánica invasiva o la muerte (RR 5,59; IC del 95%: 0,29 a 108,38; 311 por cada 1000; un estudio, 34 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja) ni si reduce o aumenta el riesgo de eventos adversos graves (RR 0,80; IC 95%: 0,55 a 1,15; 236 por cada 1000; tres ECA, 327 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). No se identificó ningún estudio que informara sobre otros desenlaces clave. Plasma de convaleciente versus inmunoglobulina humana El plasma de convaleciente podría tener poco o ningún efecto sobre la mortalidad por cualquier causa hasta el día 28 (RR 1,07; IC del 95%: 0,76 a 1,50; 464 por cada 1000; un estudio, 190 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). No se identificó ningún estudio que informara sobre otros desenlaces clave. Personas con un diagnóstico confirmado de infección por SARS­CoV­2 y enfermedad leve Se identificaron dos ECA, con 536 participantes, que compararon el plasma de convaleciente con placebo o atención habitual sola y dos ECA, con 1597 participantes con enfermedad leve, que compararon el plasma de convaleciente con plasma estándar. Plasma de convaleciente versus placebo o atención habitual sola No se sabe si el plasma de convaleciente reduce la mortalidad por cualquier causa hasta el día 28 (odds ratio [OR] 0,36; IC del 95%: 0,09 a 1,46; 8 por cada 1000; dos ECA, 536 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). Podría tener poco o ningún efecto en el ingreso hospitalario o la muerte a los 28 días (RR 1,05; IC del 95%: 0,60 a 1,84; 117 por cada 1000; un ECA, 376 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja), en el tiempo hasta la resolución de los síntomas de covid­19 (cociente de riesgos instantáneos [CRI] 1,05; IC del 95%: 0,85 a 1,30; 483 por cada 1000; un ECA, 376 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja), en el riesgo de eventos adversos de grados 3 y 4 (RR 1,29; IC del 95%: 0,75 a 2,19; 144 por cada 1000; un ECA, 376 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja) y en el riesgo de eventos adversos graves (RR 1,14; IC del 95%: 0,66 a 1,94; 133 por cada 1000; un ECA, 376 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). No se identificó ningún estudio que informara sobre otros desenlaces clave. Plasma de convaleciente versus plasma estándar No se sabe si el plasma de convaleciente reduce la mortalidad por cualquier causa hasta el día 28 (OR 0,30; IC del 95%: 0,05 a 1,75; 2 por cada 1000; dos ECA, 1597 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). Es probable que reduzca el ingreso hospitalario o la muerte a los 28 días (RR 0,49; IC del 95%: 0,31 a 0,75; 36 por cada 1000; dos ECA, 1595 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada). El plasma de convaleciente podría tener poco o ningún efecto sobre la resolución inicial de los síntomas hasta el día 28 (RR 1,12; IC del 95%: 0,98 a 1,27; un ECA, 416 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). No se identificó ningún estudio que informara sobre otros desenlaces clave. Esta es una revisión sistemática continua. Cada mes se busca nueva evidencia y se actualiza la revisión cuando se identifica evidencia nueva relevante. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Para la comparación del plasma de convaleciente versus placebo o la atención habitual sola, existe evidencia de certeza alta de que el plasma de convaleciente para personas con enfermedad moderada a grave no reduce la mortalidad y tiene poco o ningún efecto en la mejoría o el empeoramiento clínico. Es probable que tenga poco o ningún efecto en los eventos adversos graves. Para las personas con enfermedad leve, existe evidencia de certeza baja para los desenlaces principales. Hay 49 estudios en curso y 33 estudios que declaran estar completados en un registro de ensayos. La publicación de los estudios en curso podría resolver algunas de las incertidumbres en torno al tratamiento con plasma de convaleciente para personas con enfermedad asintomática o leve.

Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. 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, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. 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 RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus 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 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have very-low to low certainty evidence for most primary outcomes and moderate certainty for hospital admission or death. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.