RESUMEN
During pandemics, out-of-hospital treatments reduce the health system burden. Controversies persist regarding the best treatment options for COVID-19 outpatients at risk for hospitalization. We assembled data from 47 randomized controlled trials investigating 51 distinct interventions in more than 60,000 outpatients until October 2022 with the endpoint of hospitalization. These trials, largely performed in unvaccinated cohorts during pre-Omicron waves, mostly targeted populations with at least one risk factor for COVID-19 hospitalization. Grouping by class, the COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) (OR=0.69 [95% CI=0.53 to 0.9]), anti-Spike monoclonal antibodies (OR=0.32 [95% CI=0.24-0.42]) and small molecule antivirals (OR=0.57 [95% CI=0.3-1.09]) each had comparable efficacy for hospital relative risk reduction dependent on intervention dose and timing. Repurposed drugs had lower efficacy. The recent Omicron sublineages (XBB and BQ.1.1) in vitro resistance to monoclonal antibodies suggests a pressing need to reevaluate CCP recommendations for COVID-19 outpatients at risk for hospitalization, especially in constrained medical resource settings.
RESUMEN
Convalescent plasma (CP) recurs as a frontline treatment in epidemics because it is available as soon as there are survivors. The COVID-19 pandemic represented the first large-scale opportunity to shed light into mechanisms of action, safety and efficacy of CP using modern evidence-based medicine approaches. Studies ranging from observational case series to randomized controlled trials (RCT) have reported highly variable efficacy results for COVID-19 CP (CCP), resulting in uncertainty. Reasons for CCP success and failure may be hidden in study details, which are usually difficult to explain to physicians and the public but provide fertile ground for designing next-generation studies. We analyzed variables associated with efficacy such as clinical settings, disease severity, CCP SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels and function, dose, timing of administration (variously defined as time from onset of symptoms, molecular diagnosis, diagnosis of pneumonia, or hospitalization, or by serostatus), outcomes (defined as hospitalization, requirement for ventilation, clinical improvement or mortality), CCP provenance and time for collection, and criteria for efficacy. Focusing only on the results from the 30 available RCTs we noted that these were more likely to show signals of efficacy, including reductions in mortality, if the plasma neutralizing titer was [≥] 160 and the time to randomization was [≤] 9 days, consistent with passive antibody therapy efficacy requiring dosing with sufficient antibody. The fact that most studies revealed signals of efficacy despite variability in CCP and its use suggest likely therapeutic effects that become apparent despite the data noise. Despite the recent WHO guidelines discouraging CCP usage, the Omicron variant of concern is reminding us the superiority of polyclonal antibody therapies over monoclonal antibodies, and CCP from vaccinated convalescents is likely to be evaluated soon
RESUMEN
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with Convalescent Plasma (CCP) via the Expanded Access Program (EAP) and the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), leading to the use of CCP in some 500,000 patients during the first year of the pandemic. We tracked the number of CCP units dispensed to hospitals by blood banking organizations and correlated that usage with hospital admission and mortality data over the course of the year. CCP usage per admission peaked after issuance of the EUA, with more than 40% of inpatients estimated to have received CCP between late September and early November 2020. However, following reports of randomized controlled trials that failed to show clear benefit from CCP, usage/admissions declined steadily to a nadir of less than 10% in March 2021. We found a strong inverse correlation (Pearsons correlation coefficient of -0.5176 with P = 0.00242) between CCP usage/hospital admission and deaths occurring two weeks after admission, and this finding was robust to examination of deaths taking place one, two or three weeks after admission. Changes in the number of hospital admissions, prevalence of variants, and age of patients could not explain these findings. We estimate that the retreat from CCP usage, a phenomenon we termed plasma hesitancy, might have resulted in 29,000 to 36,000 excess deaths in the period from mid-November 2020 to February 2021. These results highlight the need for additional studies to ascertain the variables associated with efficacy and/or provide other explanations for the robust relationships observed in this study.
RESUMEN
Treatment of patients with COVID-19 using convalescent plasma from recently recovered patients has been shown to be safe, but the time course of change in clinical status following plasma transfusion in relation to baseline disease severity has not yet been described. We analyzed short, descriptive daily reports of patient status in 7,180 hospitalized recipients of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in the Mayo Clinic Expanded Access Program. We assessed, from the day following transfusion, whether the patient was categorized by his or her physician as better, worse or unchanged compared to the day before, and whether, on the reporting day, the patient received mechanical ventilation, was in the ICU, had died or had been discharged. Most patients improved following transfusion, but clinical improvement was most notable in mild to moderately ill patients. Patients classified as severely ill upon enrollment improved, but not as rapidly, while patients classified as critically ill/end-stage and patients on ventilators showed worsening of disease status even after treatment with convalescent plasma. Patients age 80 and over showed little or no clinical improvement following transfusion. Clinical status at enrollment and age appear to be the primary factors in determining the therapeutic effectiveness of COVID-19 convalescent plasma among hospitalized patients.
RESUMEN
BackgroundConvalescent plasma is the only antibody based therapy currently available for COVID-19 patients. It has robust historical precedence and sound biological plausibility. Although promising, convalescent plasma has not yet been shown to be safe as a treatment for COVID-19. MethodsThus, we analyzed key safety metrics after transfusion of ABO-compatible human COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 5,000 hospitalized adults with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, with 66% in the intensive care unit, as part of the US FDA Expanded Access Program for COVID-19 convalescent plasma. ResultsThe incidence of all serious adverse events (SAEs) in the first four hours after transfusion was <1%, including mortality rate (0.3%). Of the 36 reported SAEs, there were 25 reported incidences of related SAEs, including mortality (n=4), transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO; n=7), transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI; n=11), and severe allergic transfusion reactions (n=3). However, only 2 (of 36) SAEs were judged as definitely related to the convalescent plasma transfusion by the treating physician. The seven-day mortality rate was 14.9%. ConclusionGiven the deadly nature of COVID-19 and the large population of critically-ill patients included in these analyses, the mortality rate does not appear excessive. These early indicators suggest that transfusion of convalescent plasma is safe in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Brief SummaryAfter transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 5,000 patients, the incidence of serious adverse events was <1% and the seven-day incidence of mortality was 14.9%.