Convalescent Plasma to Treat COVID-19: A Two-Center, Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial.

Background: The use of convalescent plasma (CP) has been considered for its immunological mechanisms that could benefit patients in moderate and severe stages of COVID-19. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of the use of donor CP for COVID-19. Material and methods: A double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted from May to October 2020. Thirty-nine participants with moderate (II) and severe (III) stages of COVID-19 confirmed by RT-PCR were included. The study randomization rate was set at 3:1. CPs were chosen for application with a neutralizing antibody titer of ≥1:32. Results: We observed a significantly lower 21-day post-transfusion mortality HR: 0.17 (95.0% CI [0.07−0.45, p < 0.001]) in the group receiving CP compared with the control group; protective units (PU) in the group receiving convalescent plasma after seven days were significantly higher (512 (32−16,384) vs. 96 (32−256), p = 0.01); the PAO2/FIO2 index showed a significant improvement in the group receiving CP (251.01 (109.4) vs. 109.2 (62.4), p < 0.001, in the control group). Conclusion: CP is safe and effective, as it decreased mortality in the CP group compared with the control group.

[Guide to clinical practice for the diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation of non-syndromic craniosynostosis on 3 levels of care]. / Guía de práctica clínica para el diagnóstico, tratamiento y rehabilitación de craneosinostosis no sindrómica en los 3 niveles de atención.

INTRODUCTION: Craniosynostosis is a congenital anomaly resulting from the premature fusion of the cranial sutures changing growth patterns of the skull. METHODOLOGY: Focus, scope, target population and clinical questions to be solved were defined. A systematic search for evidence in different databases (Medline, Embase, KoreaMed, Cochrane Library and the website of the World Health Organization) in stages was performed: clinical practice guidelines; systematic reviews, and clinical trials and observational studies; using MeSH, Decs and corresponding free terms, unrestricted language or temporality. Risk of bias was evaluated using appropriate tools (AMSTAR, Risk of Bias or STROBE). The quality of evidence was graduated using the GRADE system. Modified Delphi Panel technique was used to assign the recommendation's strength and direction, as well as the degree of agreement with it, taking into account the quality of evidence, balance between risks and benefits of interventions, values and preferences of patients and availability of resources. RESULTS: There were 3,712 documents obtained by search algorithms; selecting 29 documents for inclusion in the qualitative synthesis. Due to heterogeneity between studies, it was not possible to perform meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We issued 7 recommendations and 8 good practice points, which will serve as support for decision-making in the comprehensive care of patients with craniosynostosis.