Outpatient convalescent plasma therapy for high-risk patients with early COVID-19: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The potential benefit of convalescent plasma (CP) therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is highest when administered early after symptom onset. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness of CP therapy in improving the disease course of COVID-19 among high-risk outpatients. METHODS: A multicentre, double-blind randomized trial was conducted comparing 300 mL of CP with non-CP. Patients were ≥50 years, were symptomatic for <8 days, had confirmed RT-PCR or antigen test result for COVID-19 and had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19. The primary endpoint was the highest score on a 5-point ordinal scale ranging from fully recovered (score = 1) or not (score = 2) on day 7, over hospital admission (score = 3), intensive care unit admission (score = 4) and death (score = 5) in the 28 days following randomization. Secondary endpoints were hospital admission, symptom duration and viral RNA excretion. RESULTS: After the enrolment of 421 patients and the transfusion in 416 patients, recruitment was discontinued when the countrywide vaccination uptake in those aged >50 years was 80%. Patients had a median age of 60 years, symptoms for 5 days, and 207 of 416 patients received CP therapy. During the 28 day follow-up, 28 patients were hospitalized and two died. The OR for an improved disease severity score with CP was 0.86 (95% credible interval, 0.59-1.22). The OR was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.33-1.02) for patients with ≤5 days of symptoms. The hazard ratio for hospital admission was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.28-1.34). No difference was found in viral RNA excretion or in the duration of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with early COVID-19, CP therapy did not improve the 5-point disease severity score.

[Revised prevention strategies for persons with (functional) hypo- or asplenie]. / Aangepast preventiebeleid bij patiënten met hyposplenie of asplenie.

The Dutch guideline for the preventions of infections in persons with (functional) hypo- or asplenie has been revised, recommending adjustments for the use of vaccinations and antibiotics. The spleen has an important function in the defence against infections. Around 1,000 splenectomies are performed in the Netherlands every year. Three different groups of patients are distinguished: (a) persons with a partially or completely removed spleen after surgery or embolization; (b) persons with congenital asplenia; and (c) a heterogeneous group of patients, who may have functional hyposplenie or asplenia due to an underlying condition or specific treatments. Patients with asplenia have an increased risk of severe infections by encapsulated bacteria, including in particular Streptococcus pneumoniae, but also Haemophilus influenzae type b and Neisseria meningitides may lead to an increased risk S.pneumoniae causes up to 90% of the infections, which makes it the most important infectious agent in patients with asplenia. A number of preventive measures are recommended to prevent infections in patients with hypo- or asplenie, including the use of vaccinations and antibiotics and patient counselling.

Performance of Dutch hospitals in the management of splenectomized patients.

BACKGROUND: After splenectomy, patients are at increased risk of sepsis with considerable mortality. This risk can be reduced by taking preventive measures, such as prescribing immunizations and antibiotic prophylaxis. Studies from various countries show that a substantial percentage of patients are not managed adequately. The aim of the present study was to investigate the quality of care in the prevention of infections after splenectomy in Dutch hospitals. The research questions were two-fold: (1) Is there an association between hospital teaching status and guideline adherent preventive measures? (2) Which factors contribute to hospital performance? METHODS: A total of 28 Dutch hospitals (30%) participated in the study. A retrospective review of medical records of 536 splenectomy patients was performed. Adherence to prevention guidelines was assessed for all patients, and analyzed according to teaching status and the presence or absence of a post-splenectomy protocol. RESULTS: (1) University hospitals in the Netherlands offered higher quality of care than other teaching and nonteaching hospitals. There were only small differences between nonuniversity teaching and nonteaching hospitals. (2) The presence of a hospital post-splenectomy protocol did not improve vaccination rates. Other aspects of practice organization, such as surgical staff size and keeping a complication registry were only weakly related to performance. CONCLUSIONS: In the Netherlands, university hospitals deliver state-of-the-art care in the prevention of infections in asplenic patients more often than nonuniversity teaching and nonteaching hospitals. The availability of a hospital protocol does not seem to contribute to guideline adherence.