Convalescent or standard plasma versus standard of care in the treatment of COVID-19 patients with respiratory impairment: short and long-term effects. A three-arm randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of early treatment with convalescent plasma in patients with COVID-19 is debated. Nothing is known about the potential effect of other plasma components other than anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. METHODS: To determine whether convalescent or standard plasma would improve outcomes for adults in early phase of Covid19 respiratory impairment we designed this randomized, three-arms, clinical trial (PLACO COVID) blinded on interventional arms that was conducted from June 2020 to August 2021. It was a multicentric trial at 19 Italian hospitals. We enrolled 180 hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia within 5 days from the onset of respiratory distress. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to standard of care (n = 60) or standard of care + three units of standard plasma (n = 60) or standard of care + three units of high-titre convalescent plasma (n = 60) administered on days 1, 3, 5 after randomization. Primary outcome was 30-days mortality. Secondary outcomes were: incidence of mechanical ventilation or death at day 30, 6-month mortality, proportion of days with mechanical ventilation on total length of hospital stay, IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion, viral clearance from plasma and respiratory tract samples, and variations in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. The trial was analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: 180 patients (133/180 [73.9%] males, mean age 66.6 years [IQR 57-73]) were enrolled a median of 8 days from onset of symptoms. At enrollment, 88.9% of patients showed moderate/severe respiratory failure. 30-days mortality was 20% in Control arm, 23% in Convalescent (risk ratio [RR] 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-2.13, P = 0.694) and 25% in Standard plasma (RR 1.23; 95%CI, 0.63-2.37, P = 0.544). Time to viral clearance from respiratory tract was 21 days for Convalescent, 28 for Standard plasma and 23 in Control arm but differences were not statistically significant. No differences for other secondary endpoints were seen in the three arms. Serious adverse events were reported in 1.7%, 3.3% and 5% of patients in Control, Standard and Convalescent plasma arms respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Neither high-titer Convalescent nor Standard plasma improve outcomes of COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04428021. First posted: 11/06/2020.

Adverse events of iron and/or erythropoiesis-stimulating agent therapy in preoperatively anemic elective surgery patients: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Iron supplementation and erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) administration represent the hallmark therapies in preoperative anemia treatment, as reflected in a set of evidence-based treatment recommendations made during the 2018 International Consensus Conference on Patient Blood Management. However, little is known about the safety of these therapies. This systematic review investigated the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) during or after treatment with iron and/or ESAs. METHODS: Five databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Transfusion Evidence Library, Web of Science) and two trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP) were searched until 23 May 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort, and case-control studies investigating any AE during or after iron and/or ESA administration in adult elective surgery patients with preoperative anemia were eligible for inclusion and judged using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools. The GRADE approach was used to assess the overall certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Data from 26 RCTs and 16 cohort studies involving a total of 6062 patients were extracted, on 6 treatment comparisons: (1) intravenous (IV) versus oral iron, (2) IV iron versus usual care/no iron, (3) IV ferric carboxymaltose versus IV iron sucrose, (4) ESA+iron versus control (placebo and/or iron, no treatment), (5) ESA+IV iron versus ESA+oral iron, and (6) ESA+IV iron versus ESA+IV iron (different ESA dosing regimens). Most AE data concerned mortality/survival (n=24 studies), thromboembolic (n=22), infectious (n=20), cardiovascular (n=19) and gastrointestinal (n=14) AEs. Very low certainty evidence was assigned to all but one outcome category. This uncertainty results from both the low quantity and quality of AE data due to the high risk of bias caused by limitations in the study design, data collection, and reporting. CONCLUSIONS: It remains unclear if ESA and/or iron therapy is associated with AEs in preoperatively anemic elective surgery patients. Future trial investigators should pay more attention to the systematic collection, measurement, documentation, and reporting of AE data.

Lack of Cost-Effectiveness of Preoperative Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents and/or Iron Therapy in Anaemic, Elective Surgery Patients: A Systematic Review and Updated Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: For anaemic elective surgery patients, current clinical practice guidelines weakly recommend the routine use of iron, but not erythrocyte-stimulating agents (ESAs), except for short-acting ESAs in major orthopaedic surgery. This recommendation is, however, not based on any cost-effectiveness studies. The aim of this research was to (1) systematically review the literature regarding cost effectiveness of preoperative iron and/or ESAs in anaemic, elective surgery patients and (2) update existing economic evaluations (EEs) with recent data. METHODS: Eight databases and registries were searched for EEs and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting cost-effectiveness data on November 11, 2020. Data were extracted, narratively synthesized and critically appraised using the Philips reporting checklist. Pre-existing full EEs were updated with effectiveness data from a recent systematic review and current cost data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were expressed as cost per (quality-adjusted) life-year [(QA)LY] gained. RESULTS: Only five studies (4 EEs and 1 RCT) were included, one on intravenous iron and four on ESAs + oral iron. The EE on intravenous iron only had an in-hospital time horizon. Therefore, cost effectiveness of preoperative iron remains uncertain. The three EEs on ESAs had a lifetime time horizon, but reported cost per (QA)LY gained of 20-65 million (GBP or CAD). Updating these analyses with current data confirmed ESAs to have a cost per (QA)LY gained of 3.5-120 million (GBP or CAD). CONCLUSIONS: Cost effectiveness of preoperative iron is unproven, whereas routine preoperative ESA therapy cannot be considered cost effective in elective surgery, based on the limited available data. Future guidelines should reflect these findings.

Effectiveness of Iron Supplementation With or Without Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents on Red Blood Cell Utilization in Patients With Preoperative Anaemia Undergoing Elective Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Patient Blood Management (PBM) is an evidence-based, multidisciplinary, patient-centred approach to optimizing the care of patients who might need a blood transfusion. This systematic review aimed to collect the best available evidence on the effectiveness of preoperative iron supplementation with or without erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) on red blood cell (RBC) utilization in all-cause anaemic patients scheduled for elective surgery. Five databases and two trial registries were screened. Primary outcomes were the number of patients and the number of RBC units transfused. Effect estimates were synthesized by conducting meta-analyses. GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used to assess the certainty of evidence. We identified 29 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 non-RCTs comparing the effectiveness of preoperative iron monotherapy, or iron + ESAs, to control (no treatment, usual care, placebo). We found that: (1) IV and/or oral iron monotherapy may not result in a reduced number of units transfused and IV iron may not reduce the number of patients transfused (low-certainty evidence); (2) uncertainty exists whether the administration route of iron therapy (IV vs oral) differentially affects RBC utilization (very low-certainty evidence); (3) IV ferric carboxymaltose monotherapy may not result in a different number of patients transfused compared to IV iron sucrose monotherapy (low-certainty evidence); (4) oral iron + ESAs probably results in a reduced number of patients transfused and number of units transfused (moderate-certainty evidence); (5) IV iron + ESAs may result in a reduced number of patients transfused (low-certainty evidence); (6) oral and/or IV iron + ESAs probably results in a reduced number of RBC units transfused in transfused patients (moderate-certainty evidence); (7) uncertainty exists about the effect of oral and/or IV iron + ESAs on the number of patients requiring transfusion of multiple units (very low-certainty evidence). Effect estimates of different haematological parameters and length of stay were synthesized as secondary outcomes. In conclusion, in patients with anaemia of any cause scheduled for elective surgery, the preoperative administration of iron monotherapy may not result in a reduced number of patients or units transfused (low-certainty evidence). Iron supplementation in addition to ESAs probably results in a reduced RBC utilization (moderate-certainty evidence).

How to implement of patient blood management pillar 1: An Italian expert opinion based on a "bundles" approach.

Worldwide iron anemia is a common disorder with a significant economic burden on health-care systems. Red blood cell transfusion is the mainstay to correct anemia in surgical settings, but it is also an overused procedure and recent data support its possible role in worsening patient outcomes. Patient Blood Management (PBM) is a multidisciplinary approach to optimize hemostasis, manage anemia, minimize iatrogenic blood loss, and improve tolerance to anemia. The present paper aims to provide a "bundles" approach, based on several preoperative anemia management measures, to implement PBM Pillar 1 in clinical practice.

Can pegylated interferon improve the outcome of polycythemia vera patients?

Pegylated interferon (peg-IFN) was proven by phase II trials to be effective in polycythemia vera (PV); however, it is not clear whether it could improve patient outcome compared to hydroxyurea (HU). Here, we present an observational study on 65 PV patients aged 65 years or younger, who received either peg-IFN (30) or HU (35) according to the physician choice. Median follow-up was 75 months. The two cohorts were comparable for patient and disease characteristics. Eighty-seven percent of the patients treated with peg-INF responded, with a CR rate of 70% as compared to 100 and 49% with HU, respectively. Discontinuation rate was similar in the two groups (20% in peg-IFN vs 17% in HU). JAK2 allele burden was monitored in peg-INF arm only, and a reduction was observed in 88% of the patients. No thrombotic events were observed during peg-IFN treatment compared to three on HU. Disease progression to myelofibrosis or acute myeloid leukemia occurred to a patient only in peg-INF, compared to three in HU. Overall, three second malignancies were observed during the study, two in patients who received HU only, and one in a patient largely treated HU who received also peg-IFN for 3 months. Overall survival was significantly better for peg-IFN patients compared to HU, p = 0.027. Our study, albeit limited by small patient and event number and lack of randomization, confirms the efficacy of peg-INF in PV and shows a significant survival advantage for peg-INF-treated patients. Waiting for confirming data from the ongoing phase III trials, our study can support peg-INF as a first-line treatment option for PV, at least for younger patients.

Charge-based precipitation of extracellular vesicles.

Vesicular-mediated communication between cells appears critical in many biological processes. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) released from healthy and diseased cells are involved in a network of exchange of biologically active molecules. Since EVs present in biological fluids carry the signature of the cell of origin, they are potential biomarkers for ongoing physiological or pathological processes. Despite the knowledge on EV biology accrued in recent years, techniques of EV purification remain a challenge and all the described methods have some advantages and disadvantages. In the present study, we described a method based on charge precipitation of EVs from biological fluids and from cell supernatants in comparison with the differential ultracentrifugation, which is considered the gold standard for EV purification. The analysis of ζ­potential revealed that EVs have a negative charge that allows the interaction with a positively charged molecule, such as protamine. Protamine was shown to induce EV precipitation from serum and saliva and from cell culture media without the need for ultracentrifugation. EV resuspension was facilitated when protamine (P) precipitation was performed in the presence of PEG 35,000 Da (P/PEG precipitation). The recovery of precipitated EVs evaluated by NanoSight analysis was more efficient than that obtained by ultracentrifugation. By electron microscopy the size of EVs was similar after both methods were used, and the expression of CD63, CD9 and CD81 exosomal markers in the P/PEG­precipitated EVs indicated an enrichment in exosomes. The RNA recovery of P/PEG­precipitated EVs was similar to that of EVs isolated by ultracentrifugation. In addition, P/PEG­precipitated EVs retained the biological activity in vitro as observed by the induction of wound closure by keratinocytes and of proliferation of tubular epithelial cells. In conclusion, charge-based precipitation of EVs has the merit of simplicity and avoids the requirement of expensive equipments and may be used for the efficient isolation of EVs from small biological samples.