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.

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.

Weekly COVID-19 Epidemiological Update: Issue 18 (7 June 2022)  

Since the onset of the pandemic in 2020 and up to June 07, 2022, a cumulative total of approximately 530 million COVID-19 cases including about 6.3 million deaths were reported from all six WHO regions. During epidemiological week (EW) 22, cases increased in the regions of Europe (18.7%), the Americas (3.7%), and South-East Asia (1.2%) while they decreased in the remaining three WHO regions. COVID-19 deaths decreased in all WHO regions (range: -26.5 - -12.8%) except for the Western Pacific region (7.2% increase) compared to the previous week. Globally, approximately 3,113,507 new COVID-19 cases were reported in EW 22 (May 29, 2022- June 04, 2022) - a -8.2% decrease compared to EW 21 (May 22, 2022-May 28, 2022) (Figure 1). For the same period, 7,992 new COVID-19 deaths were reported globally – a -18.7% relative decrease compared to the previous week. In the region of the Americas, 1,124,932 cases and 3,304 deaths were reported in EW 22 - a 3.7% increase in cases and -21.8% decrease in deaths compared to the previous week. At the subregional level, COVID-19 cases increased in two subregions - South America (26.5%) and Central America (4.7%) while they decreased in North America (-4.4%) and the Caribbean and Atlantic Ocean Islands (-5.7%). COVID-19 deaths declined in all but one subregion - Caribbean and Atlantic Ocean Islands (11.2%) during EW 22 compared to the previous week. The overall weekly case notification rate for the region of the Americas was 110 cases per 100,000 population during EW 22 (106.1 in the previous week). Between EW 22 and 21, the 14-day COVID-19 death rate was 7.4 deaths per 1 million population (7.7 in the previous two weeks). Among 33 countries/territories in the region with available data, COVID-19 hospitalizations increased in 20 countries and territories (range: 0.3% - 100%) during EW 22 compared to the previous week. Among 28 countries and territories with available data, COVID-19 ICU admissions increased in 15 countries and territories (range: 2.2% - 200%).

Access and feasibility of orthopaedic training in the independent sector - A Deanery's experience.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus (COVID-19) has negatively impacted healthcare around the world. It has had a major impact on orthopaedic training. The independent sector has been proposed as a facility for future training. Our aim was to provide an overview of the current higher surgical trainees' experience in the independent sector. METHOD: Training orthopaedic registrars within the East of England deanery were asked to complete an electronic questionnaire of their training experience in the independent sector between 5th November to 2nd December 2020. RESULTS: 57 of 64 registrars (89%) from across all thirteen regional training hospitals responded. 44% attended the independent sector, but 7 only assisted (28%). No third year trainees went, but there was an even spread of other training years attending a mean of four sessions. Sixty-six indicative procedures were performed, all with supervisors scrubbed. Second year trainees performed the most cases with 4 on average. Completion of work based assessments was low. 20% trainees reported a negative experience. 80% enjoyed themselves. 52% felt they achieved their goals. 29% trainees felt that independent sector operating would compensate for the shortfall in training brought about by COVID-19. The main obstacles to independent sector training were lack of access and opportunity (51%) and poor induction and paperwork issues (22%) CONCLUSION: This is the first deanery-wide assessment of access to and training within the independent sector due to COVID-19. Independent sector operating for orthopaedic trainees is feasible on scale and should be embedded to supplement training in the future. In their current state independent sector facilities are not easily and universally accessible to fulfil training needs.

Multinational Study to Assess Stress Levels Among the Health Care Workers of Radiation Oncology Community at the Outset of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: To evaluate stress levels among the health care workers (HCWs) of the radiation oncology community in Asian countries. METHODS: HCWs of the radiation oncology departments from 29 tertiary cancer care centers of Bangladesh, India, Indonesia and Nepal were studied from May 2020 to July 2020. A total of 758 eligible HCWs were identified. The 7-Item Generalized Anxiety Disorder, 9-Item Patient Health Questionnaire, and 22-Item Impact of Events Scale-Revised were used for assessing anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Univariate and multivariate analysis was done to identify the causative factors affecting mental health. RESULTS: A total of 758 participants from 794 HCWs were analyzed. The median age was 31 years (IQR, 27-28). The incidence of moderate to severe levels of anxiety, depression, and stress was 34.8%, 31.2%, and 18.2%, respectively. Severe personal concerns were noticed by 60.9% of the staff. On multivariate analysis, the presence of commonly reported symptoms of COVID-19 during the previous 2 weeks, contact history (harzard ratio [HR], 2.04; CI, 1.15 to 3.63), and compliance with precautionary measures (HR, 1.69; CI, 1.19 to 2.45) for COVID-19 significantly predicted for increasing anxiety (HR, 2.67; CI, 1.93 to 3.70), depression (HR, 3.38; CI 2.36 to 4.84), and stress (HR, 2.89; CI, 1.88 to 4.43) (P < .001). A significant regional variation was also noticed for anxiety, stress, and personal concerns. CONCLUSION: This survey conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic revealed that a significant proportion of HCWs in the radiation oncology community experiences moderate to severe levels of anxiety, depression, and stress. This trend is alarming and it is important to identify and intervene at the right time to improve the mental health of HCWs to avoid any long-term impacts.

How has COVID-19 affected the treatment of osteoporosis? An IOF-NOF-ESCEO global survey.

The effects of COVID-19 have the potential to impact on the management of chronic diseases including osteoporosis. A global survey has demonstrated that these impacts include an increase in telemedicine consultations, delays in DXA scanning, interruptions in the supply of medications and reductions in parenteral medication delivery. INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound effects on the health of the global population both directly, via the sequelae of the infection, and indirectly, including the relative neglect of chronic disease management. Together the International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation sought to ascertain the impact on osteoporosis management. METHODS: Questionnaires were electronically circulated to a sample of members of both learned bodies and included information regarding the location and specialty of respondents, current extent of face to face consultations, alterations in osteoporosis risk assessment, telemedicine experience, alterations to medication ascertainment and delivery and electronic health record (EHR) utilisation. Responses were collected, quantitative data analysed, and qualitative data assessed for recurring themes. RESULTS: Responses were received from 209 healthcare workers from 53 countries, including 28% from Europe, 24% from North America, 19% from the Asia Pacific region, 17% from the Middle East and 12% from Latin America. Most respondents were physicians (85%) with physician assistants, physical therapists and nurses/nurse practitioners represented in the sample. The main three specialties represented included rheumatology (40%), endocrinology (22%) and orthopaedics (15%). In terms of the type of patient contact, 33% of respondents conducted telephone consultations and 21% video consultations. Bone mineral density assessment by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) usage was affected with only 29% able to obtain a scan as recommended. The majority of clinicians (60%) had systems in place to identify patients receiving parenteral medication, and 43% of clinicians reported difficulty in arranging appropriate osteoporosis medications during the COVID-19 crisis. CONCLUSIONS: To conclude through surveying a global sample of osteoporosis healthcare professionals, we have observed an increase in telemedicine consultations, delays in DXA scanning, interrupted supply of medications and reductions in parenteral medication delivery.

High HIV prevalence in an early cohort of hospital admissions with COVID-19 in Cape Town, South Africa.

BACKGROUND: South Africa (SA) has a high prevalence of HIV and tuberculosis. Cape Town was the SA metropole most affected in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Early observational data from Africa may provide valuable insight into what can be expected as the pandemic expands across the continent. OBJECTIVES: To describe the prevalence, clinical features, comorbidities and outcome of an early cohort of HIV-positive and HIV-negative patients admitted with COVID-19. METHODS: This was a descriptive observational study of an early cohort of adults with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted from 25 March to 11 May 2020. RESULTS: Of 116 patients (mean age 48 years, 61% female) admitted, 24 were HIV-positive (21%). The most common symptoms reported were cough (n=88; 73%), shortness of breath (n=78; 69%), fever (n=67; 59%), myalgia (n=29; 25%) and chest pain (n=22; 20%). The most common comorbidities were hypertension (n=46; 41%), diabetes mellitus (n=43; 38%), obesity (n=32; 28%) and HIV (n=24; 21%). Mortality was associated with older age (mean (standard deviation) 55 (12) years v. 46 (14) years; p<0.01); the presence of hypertension or hypertension along with diabetes and/or obesity; lower partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio; and higher urea level, white cell count, neutrophil count, and C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase and ferritin levels, and high neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio. The overall survival rate for all hospital admissions was 86/116 (73%). In this early cohort, survival was similar in patients with HIV (n=18; 75%) compared with those without HIV (n=67; 75%) (p=1). Of the 74 patients admitted to the wards, 63 (85%) survived, whereas 22 of 42 (52%) admitted to the intensive care unit survived. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HIV infection represented a large proportion of all COVID-19 admissions. The presentation and outcome of patients with HIV did not differ significantly from those of patients without HIV.

Facility-Level Case Report of Nursing Care Processes for Patients With Suspected 2019 Novel Coronavirus Disease in Shanghai, China.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease emerged in Wuhan, China, on December 31, 2019, and spread rapidly worldwide. Few studies have described the nursing care provided to patients in isolation between suspicion of having the disease and a confirmed diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to describe the treatment of, and nursing care processes for, patients suspected, but not yet confirmed, of having coronavirus disease at 1 facility in Shanghai, China. METHODS: For this retrospective facility case review and patient health record study, data were collected on all patients with suspected coronavirus disease who were treated between January 22, 2020, and February 29, 2020, at 1 hospital. The facility's nursing care processes were described in detail. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients were suspected of having coronavirus disease on the basis of the screening criteria. Nine (7.6%) patients had confirmed coronavirus disease and were transferred to a higher level of care. The remaining 110 (92.4%) were treated and discharged. No cross-infection between patients and hospital staff or other patients was detected. The patients' symptoms included fever (n = 98, 82.4%), cough (n = 79, 66.4%), dizziness (n = 28, 23.5%), headache (n = 26, 21.8%), fatigue (n = 26, 21.8%), myalgia (n = 16, 13.4%), rhinorrhea (n = 6, 5.0%), diarrhea (n = 5, 4.2%), severe nasal congestion (n = 4, 3.4%), and dyspnea (n = 1, 0.8%). DISCUSSION: Coronavirus disease is very contagious. Nurses need to understand the symptoms and treatment of the disease as well as nursing procedures, and learn how to cut off transmission routes, control transmission sources, and use protective equipment correctly to prevent transmission of the disease within the hospital.

Association of Red Blood Cell Distribution Width With Mortality Risk in Hospitalized Adults With SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Importance: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an acute respiratory illness with a high rate of hospitalization and mortality. Biomarkers are urgently needed for patient risk stratification. Red blood cell distribution width (RDW), a component of complete blood counts that reflects cellular volume variation, has been shown to be associated with elevated risk for morbidity and mortality in a wide range of diseases. Objective: To investigate whether an association between mortality risk and elevated RDW at hospital admission and during hospitalization exists in patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included adults diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and admitted to 1 of 4 hospitals in the Boston, Massachusetts area (Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, North Shore Medical Center, and Newton-Wellesley Hospital) between March 4, 2020, and April 28, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was patient survival during hospitalization. Measures included RDW at admission and during hospitalization, with an elevated RDW defined as greater than 14.5%. Relative risk (RR) of mortality was estimated by dividing the mortality of those with an elevated RDW by the mortality of those without an elevated RDW. Mortality hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Results: A total of 1641 patients were included in the study (mean [SD] age, 62[18] years; 886 men [54%]; 740 White individuals [45%] and 497 Hispanic individuals [30%]; 276 nonsurvivors [17%]). Elevated RDW (>14.5%) was associated with an increased mortality risk in patients of all ages. The RR for the entire cohort was 2.73, with a mortality rate of 11% in patients with normal RDW (1173) and 31% in those with an elevated RDW (468). The RR in patients younger than 50 years was 5.25 (normal RDW, 1% [n = 341]; elevated RDW, 8% [n = 65]); 2.90 in the 50- to 59-year age group (normal RDW, 8% [n = 256]; elevated RDW, 24% [n = 63]); 3.96 in the 60- to 69-year age group (normal RDW, 8% [n = 226]; elevated RDW, 30% [104]); 1.45 in the 70- to 79-year age group (normal RDW, 23% [n = 182]; elevated RDW, 33% [n = 113]); and 1.59 in those ≥80 years (normal RDW, 29% [n = 168]; elevated RDW, 46% [n = 123]). RDW was associated with mortality risk in Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, D-dimer (dimerized plasmin fragment D) level, absolute lymphocyte count, and common comorbidities such as diabetes and hypertension (hazard ratio of 1.09 per 0.5% RDW increase and 2.01 for an RDW >14.5% vs ≤14.5%; P < .001). Patients whose RDW increased during hospitalization had higher mortality compared with those whose RDW did not change; for those with normal RDW, mortality increased from 6% to 24%, and for those with an elevated RDW at admission, mortality increased from 22% to 40%. Conclusions and Relevance: Elevated RDW at the time of hospital admission and an increase in RDW during hospitalization were associated with increased mortality risk for patients with COVID-19 who received treatment at 4 hospitals in a large academic medical center network.

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices of Healthcare Professionals on COVID-19 and Risk Assessment to Prevent the Epidemic Spread: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study from Punjab, Pakistan.

In the current outbreak of novel coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare professionals (HCPs) have a primary role in combating the epidemic threat. HCPs are at high risk of not only contracting the infection but also spreading it unknowingly. It is of utmost importance to evaluate their knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) and the ability to assess the risks associated with the outbreak. A cross-sectional online survey involving physicians, pharmacists, and nurses was conducted. A 39-itemed questionnaire based on the World Health Organization (WHO)COVID-19 risk assessment tool was shared with healthcare professionals in three purposively selected key divisions of Punjab province. Out of 500 healthcare professionals, 385 responded to the survey. The majority (70%) were aged 22-29 years; 144 (37.4%) physicians, 113 (29.4%) nurses, and 128 (33.2%) pharmacists completed the survey. Overall, 94.8% of healthcare professionals scored adequately (>14) for COVID-19-related knowledge; 97.9% displayed an optimistic attitude (>42) and 94.5% had an adequate practice score (>28). Kruskal-Wallis and Jonckheere-Terpstra tests showed significant differences (p < 0.05) in KAP and risk assessment scores among groups; physicians and nurses scored higher as compared to pharmacists. Further research and follow-up investigations on disaster management and risk assessment can help policy-makers better tackle future epidemics.

Effects of a major deletion in the SARS-CoV-2 genome on the severity of infection and the inflammatory response: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants with a 382-nucleotide deletion (∆382) in the open reading frame 8 (ORF8) region of the genome have been detected in Singapore and other countries. We investigated the effect of this deletion on the clinical features of infection. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients who had been screened for the ∆382 variant and recruited to the PROTECT study-a prospective observational cohort study conducted at seven public hospitals in Singapore. We collected clinical, laboratory, and radiological data from patients' electronic medical records and serial blood and respiratory samples taken during hospitalisation and after discharge. Individuals infected with the ∆382 variant were compared with those infected with wild-type SARS-CoV-2. Exact logistic regression was used to examine the association between the infection groups and the development of hypoxia requiring supplemental oxygen (an indicator of severe COVID-19, the primary endpoint). Follow-up for the study's primary endpoint is completed. FINDINGS: Between Jan 22 and March 21, 2020, 278 patients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were screened for the ∆382 deletion and 131 were enrolled onto the study, of whom 92 (70%) were infected with the wild-type virus, ten (8%) had a mix of wild-type and ∆382-variant viruses, and 29 (22%) had only the ∆382 variant. Development of hypoxia requiring supplemental oxygen was less frequent in the ∆382 variant group (0 [0%] of 29 patients) than in the wild-type only group (26 [28%] of 92; absolute difference 28% [95% CI 14-28]). After adjusting for age and presence of comorbidities, infection with the ∆382 variant only was associated with lower odds of developing hypoxia requiring supplemental oxygen (adjusted odds ratio 0·07 [95% CI 0·00-0·48]) compared with infection with wild-type virus only. INTERPRETATION: The ∆382 variant of SARS-CoV-2 seems to be associated with a milder infection. The observed clinical effects of deletions in ORF8 could have implications for the development of treatments and vaccines. FUNDING: National Medical Research Council Singapore.

Emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Austria.

This is a report on the first identified cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Austria. The first documented case was a person who stayed in Kühtai, Tyrol, from 24 to 26 January 2020, and had been infected by a Chinese instructor in Starnberg (Germany) between 20 and 22 January. This counts as a German case since her diagnosis was eventually made in Munich (Germany) on 28 January. On 25 February, two cases imported from Italy were diagnosed in Innsbruck but again no secondary cases were identified in Austria. The first three infections of Austrian inhabitants were detected on 27 February in Vienna. The two resulting clusters finally included 6 (source of initial infection unknown) and 61 cases. Most likely, Italy was the source of the latter cluster. On 12 March the first fatal case of COVID-19 in Austria was reported, a 69-year-old Viennese who died in a Vienna hospital after returning from a cruise ship tour in Italy. On 6 March three autochthonously acquired cases were reported in the Tyrol, all related to the ski resort Ischgl. Of the first 14 Islandic COVID-19 cases infected in Ischgl, 11 had already returned to Iceland on 29 February. We consider that the incriminated barkeeper, who tested PCR positive on 7 March, was neither the primary case nor a superspreader. In our opinion, undetected transmission of SARS-CoV­2 had been ongoing in Ischgl prior to the first laboratory confirmed cases. Our data also underline that the introduction of SARS-CoV­2 into Austria was not one single event.

COVID-19 and the Global Impact on Colorectal Practice and Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus that emerged in December 2019 causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to the sudden national reorganization of health care systems and changes in the delivery of health care globally. The purpose of our study was to use a survey to assess the global effects of COVID-19 on colorectal practice and surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A panel of International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ISUCRS) selected 22 questions, which were included in the questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to ISUCRS fellows and other surgeons included in the ISUCRS database and was advertised on social media sites. The questionnaire remained open from April 16 to 28, 2020. RESULTS: A total of 287 surgeons completed the survey. Of the 287 respondents, 90% were colorectal specialists or general surgeons with an interest in colorectal disease. COVID-19 had affected the practice of 96% of the surgeons, and 52% were now using telemedicine. Also, 66% reported that elective colorectal cancer surgery could proceed but with perioperative precautions. Of the 287 respondents, 19.5% reported that the use of personal protective equipment was the most important perioperative precaution. However, personal protective equipment was only provided by 9.1% of hospitals. In addition, 64% of surgeons were offering minimally invasive surgery. However, 44% reported that enough information was not available regarding the safety of the loss of intra-abdominal carbon dioxide gas during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, 61% of the surgeons were prepared to defer elective colorectal cancer surgery, with 29% willing to defer for ≤ 8 weeks. CONCLUSION: The results from our survey have demonstrated that, globally, COVID-19 has affected the ability of colorectal surgeons to offer care to their patients. We have also discussed suggestions for various practical adaptation strategies for use during the recovery period.

Azithromycin added to hydroxychloroquine for patients admitted to intensive care due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-protocol of randomised controlled trial AZIQUINE-ICU.

BACKGROUND: Novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is known to be susceptible in vitro to exposure to hydroxychloroquine and its effect has been found to be potentiated by azithromycin. We hypothesise that early administration of hydroxychloroquine alone or in combination with azithromycin can prevent respiratory deterioration in patients admitted to intensive care due to rapidly progressive COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Design: Prospective, multi-centre, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial (RCT). PARTICIPANTS: Adult (> 18 years) within 24 h of admission to the intensive care unit with proven or suspected COVID-19 infection, whether or not mechanically ventilated. Exclusion criteria include duration symptoms of febrile disease for ≥ 1 week, treatment limitations in place or moribund patients, allergy or intolerance of any study treatment, and pregnancy. INTERVENTIONS: Patients will be randomised in 1:1:1 ratio to receive Hydroxychloroquine 800 mg orally in two doses followed by 400 mg daily in two doses and azithromycin 500 mg orally in one dose followed by 250 mg in one dose for a total of 5 days (HC-A group) or hydroxychloroquine + placebo (HC group) or placebo + placebo (C-group) in addition to the best standard of care, which may evolve during the trial period but will not differ between groups. Primary outcome is the composite percentage of patients alive and not on end-of-life pathway who are free of mechanical ventilation at day 14. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: The percentage of patients who were prevented from needing intubation until day 14, ICU length of stay, and mortality (in hospital) at day 28 and 90. DISCUSSION: Although both investigational drugs are often administered off label to patients with severe COVID-19, at present, there is no data from RCTs on their safety and efficacy. In vitro and observational trial suggests their potential to limit viral replication and the damage to lungs as the most common reason for ICU admission. Therefore, patients most likely to benefit from the treatment are those with severe but early disease. This trial is designed and powered to investigate whether the treatment in this cohort of patients leads to improved clinical patient-centred outcomes, such as mechanical ventilation-free survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials.gov: NCT04339816 (Registered on 9 April 2020, amended on 22 June 2020); Eudra CT number: 2020-001456-18 (Registered on 29 March 2020).

Impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on pediatric oncology care in the Middle East, North Africa, and West Asia region: A report from the Pediatric Oncology East and Mediterranean (POEM) group.

BACKGROUND: Childhood cancer is a highly curable disease when timely diagnosis and appropriate therapy are provided. A negative impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on access to care for children with cancer is likely but has not been evaluated. METHODS: A 34-item survey focusing on barriers to pediatric oncology management during the COVID-19 pandemic was distributed to heads of pediatric oncology units within the Pediatric Oncology East and Mediterranean (POEM) collaborative group, from the Middle East, North Africa, and West Asia. Responses were collected on April 11 through 22, 2020. Corresponding rates of proven COVID-19 cases and deaths were retrieved from the World Health Organization database. RESULTS: In total, 34 centers from 19 countries participated. Almost all centers applied guidelines to optimize resource utilization and safety, including delaying off-treatment visits, rotating and reducing staff, and implementing social distancing, hand hygiene measures, and personal protective equipment use. Essential treatments, including chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy, were delayed in 29% to 44% of centers, and 24% of centers restricted acceptance of new patients. Clinical care delivery was reported as negatively affected in 28% of centers. Greater than 70% of centers reported shortages in blood products, and 47% to 62% reported interruptions in surgery and radiation as well as medication shortages. However, bed availability was affected in <30% of centers, reflecting the low rates of COVID-19 hospitalizations in the corresponding countries at the time of the survey. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanisms to approach childhood cancer treatment delivery during crises need to be re-evaluated, because treatment interruptions and delays are expected to affect patient outcomes in this otherwise largely curable disease.

Clinical and Epidemiological Features of SARS-CoV-2 Patients in SARI Ward of a Tertiary Care Centre in New Delhi.

IMPORTANCE: Rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Wuhan, China, prompted heightened surveillance in India. Since the first laboratory confirmed case of SARS-CoV-2 was reported from Kerala on January 30, 2020 novel coronavirus infected pneumonia (NCIP) has been presenting to the hospital emergencies as severe acute respiratory illness (SARI). We aim to find out the rate of SARS-CoV-2 positivity in SARI cases and further clarify the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of NCIP in New Delhi, India. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To find out the rate of SARS-CoV-2 positivity in SARI cases presenting to the hospital emergency and describe the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of NCIP. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective, single-center case series of the 82 consecutive hospitalized patients with SARI and subsequent confirmed NCIP cases at Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi between 10th April 2020 and 30th April 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Epidemiological, demographic, clinical, laboratory, radiological, and treatment data were collected and analyzed. The primary composite end-point was admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), the use of mechanical ventilation or death. Patients were categorized as severe pneumonia and non-severe pneumonia at time of admission and outcome data was compared. RESULTS: Of the 82 SARI cases, 32(39%) patients were confirmed to be SARS-CoV-2 positive. The median age of NCIP cases was 54.5 years (IQR, 46.25 - 60) and 19(59.3%) of them were males. 24(75%) cases were categorized as severe pneumonia on admission. 22(68.8%) patients had 1 or more co-morbidities. Diabetes mellitus 16(50%), hypertension 11(34.4%) and chronic obstructive airway disease 5(15.6%) were the most common co-existing illnesses. Compared with the patients who did not meet the primary outcome, patients who met the primary outcome were more likely to be having at least 1 underlying comorbidity (p-0.03), diabetes (p-0.003) and hypertension (p-0.03). Common symptoms included dyspnea 29(90.6%) followed by cough 27(84.4%), fever 22(68%), bodyache and myalgias 14(43.75%). Median time from symptom onset to hospital admission was 3 days. The most common pattern on chest X-ray was bilateral patchy nodular or interstitial infiltration seen in 30(93.8%) patients. Leucopenia was present in 10(31.2%) of the patients, with majority of patients presenting with lymphocytopenia, 24(75%) [lymphocyte count (1106 cells/ dL), interquartile range {IQR}, (970-1487)]. Thrombocytopenia was seen in 14(43.8%) patients, pancytopenia in 10(31.2%) patients and anemia was seen in 14(43.8%) patients. Hypoalbuminemia was present in 22(68.8%) cases. Raised CK-MB was seen in 7(21.9%) patients. The primary composite end-point occurred in 12(37.5%) patients, including 9(28.13%) patients who required mechanical ventilation and subsequently expired. 3(9.3%) of these patients who recovered, were subsequently shifted to COVID-19 ward from the ICU. The patients who met the primary outcome were older in age (56.5 years vs 50 years), had significantly higher SOFA scores (6 vs 3.5), were in shock (41.7% vs 5%), in higher respiratory distress (66.7% vs 10%), had lower mean arterial oxygen saturation (85% vs 89.5%), had higher CK-MB values (66 vs 26)U/L [6(54.5%) vs 2(9.5%)], had hypoalbuminemia (100% vs 50%) and acute kidney injury 8(72.7%) vs 5(23.8%) on admission. Of the 50 non-COVID-19 SARI patients in our study cohort, 13 (26%) patients met the primary composite outcome. Of them 9 (18%) patients expired and remaining 4 patients have subsequently recovered. As on 17th May 2020, 23 patients were still hospitalized, recovering in COVID-19 ward. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: In this single-center case series from New Delhi, out of 82 patients of SARI, 32 patients were confirmed NCIP, with a COVID-19 positivity of 39%. 75% of NCIP presented in severe pneumonia and 37.5% required ICU care. The case fatality rate was 28%.

The psychological state and changes in the routine of the patients with rheumatic diseases during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in Turkey: a web-based cross-sectional survey.

We hypothesized that patients with rheumatic diseases (RD) would have increased psychological distress during the COVID-19 outbreak; therefore, assessed their psychological symptoms and changes in their routine. A web-based questionnaire survey was conducted in a cross-sectional design in three groups of participants: (1.) patients with RD, (2.) hospital workers, and (3.) high-school teachers/academic staff. Psychiatric status was evaluated using Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Impact of Event Scale-Revised scale. Overall response rate was 34.7%. We studied 771 patients with RD, 535 hospital workers, and 917 teachers/academic staff. Most of the patients with RD were unwilling to go to the hospital (86%), while 22% discontinued their medications. Biological DMARDS were the most frequent drugs whose doses were altered. Only 4% were willing to take hydroxychloroquine for protection. Moreover, the frequency of anxiety (20%), depression (43%), and post-traumatic stress (28%) among patients with RD were found to be comparable to that found among the teachers/academic staff (23%, 43% and 29%, respectively), whereas significantly less than that observed among the hospital workers (40%, 62%, and 46%, respectively) (p < 0.001). Female gender, use of social media, having a comorbid disease, or a psychiatric disorder were found to be independently associated with psychiatric symptoms in total study population. The majority of the patients were unwilling to attend outpatient visits and one-fifth skipped or stopped their immunosuppressive agents. Psychiatric symptoms in patient's and teacher's populations were of considerable clinical concern, despite being significantly lower than that observed among the hospital workers.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify current infection, rule out infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 aim to identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and may help to confirm the presence of current infection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of antibody tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has SARS-CoV-2 infection, or has previously had SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the accuracy of antibody tests for use in seroprevalence surveys. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 27 April 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antibody tests (including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, chemiluminescence immunoassays, and lateral flow assays) in people suspected of current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We also included studies of people either known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR) and clinical diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed possible bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We extracted 2x2 contingency table data and present sensitivity and specificity for each antibody (or combination of antibodies) using paired forest plots. We pooled data using random-effects logistic regression where appropriate, stratifying by time since post-symptom onset. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. We have presented uncertainty in estimates of sensitivity and specificity using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 57 publications reporting on a total of 54 study cohorts with 15,976 samples, of which 8526 were from cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studies were conducted in Asia (n = 38), Europe (n = 15), and the USA and China (n = 1). We identified data from 25 commercial tests and numerous in-house assays, a small fraction of the 279 antibody assays listed by the Foundation for Innovative Diagnostics. More than half (n = 28) of the studies included were only available as preprints. We had concerns about risk of bias and applicability. Common issues were use of multi-group designs (n = 29), inclusion of only COVID-19 cases (n = 19), lack of blinding of the index test (n = 49) and reference standard (n = 29), differential verification (n = 22), and the lack of clarity about participant numbers, characteristics and study exclusions (n = 47). Most studies (n = 44) only included people hospitalised due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. There were no studies exclusively in asymptomatic participants. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 33) defined COVID-19 cases based on RT-PCR results alone, ignoring the potential for false-negative RT-PCR results. We observed evidence of selective publication of study findings through omission of the identity of tests (n = 5). We observed substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgA, IgM and IgG antibodies, or combinations thereof, for results aggregated across different time periods post-symptom onset (range 0% to 100% for all target antibodies). We thus based the main results of the review on the 38 studies that stratified results by time since symptom onset. The numbers of individuals contributing data within each study each week are small and are usually not based on tracking the same groups of patients over time. Pooled results for IgG, IgM, IgA, total antibodies and IgG/IgM all showed low sensitivity during the first week since onset of symptoms (all less than 30.1%), rising in the second week and reaching their highest values in the third week. The combination of IgG/IgM had a sensitivity of 30.1% (95% CI 21.4 to 40.7) for 1 to 7 days, 72.2% (95% CI 63.5 to 79.5) for 8 to 14 days, 91.4% (95% CI 87.0 to 94.4) for 15 to 21 days. Estimates of accuracy beyond three weeks are based on smaller sample sizes and fewer studies. For 21 to 35 days, pooled sensitivities for IgG/IgM were 96.0% (95% CI 90.6 to 98.3). There are insufficient studies to estimate sensitivity of tests beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. Summary specificities (provided in 35 studies) exceeded 98% for all target antibodies with confidence intervals no more than 2 percentage points wide. False-positive results were more common where COVID-19 had been suspected and ruled out, but numbers were small and the difference was within the range expected by chance. Assuming a prevalence of 50%, a value considered possible in healthcare workers who have suffered respiratory symptoms, we would anticipate that 43 (28 to 65) would be missed and 7 (3 to 14) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG/IgM testing at days 15 to 21 post-symptom onset. At a prevalence of 20%, a likely value in surveys in high-risk settings, 17 (11 to 26) would be missed per 1000 people tested and 10 (5 to 22) would be falsely positive. At a lower prevalence of 5%, a likely value in national surveys, 4 (3 to 7) would be missed per 1000 tested, and 12 (6 to 27) would be falsely positive. Analyses showed small differences in sensitivity between assay type, but methodological concerns and sparse data prevent comparisons between test brands. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of antibody tests is too low in the first week since symptom onset to have a primary role for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but they may still have a role complementing other testing in individuals presenting later, when RT-PCR tests are negative, or are not done. Antibody tests are likely to have a useful role for detecting previous SARS-CoV-2 infection if used 15 or more days after the onset of symptoms. However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown, and we found very little data beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies. Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease. The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID-19 tests requires considerable improvement. Studies must report data on sensitivity disaggregated by time since onset of symptoms. COVID-19-positive cases who are RT-PCR-negative should be included as well as those confirmed RT-PCR, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) and China National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (CDC) case definitions. We were only able to obtain data from a small proportion of available tests, and action is needed to ensure that all results of test evaluations are available in the public domain to prevent selective reporting. This is a fast-moving field and we plan ongoing updates of this living systematic review.

Effect of Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Time to Clinical Improvement in Patients With Severe and Life-threatening COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Convalescent plasma is a potential therapeutic option for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but further data from randomized clinical trials are needed. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of convalescent plasma therapy for patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed in 7 medical centers in Wuhan, China, from February 14, 2020, to April 1, 2020, with final follow-up April 28, 2020. The trial included 103 participants with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 that was severe (respiratory distress and/or hypoxemia) or life-threatening (shock, organ failure, or requiring mechanical ventilation). The trial was terminated early after 103 of a planned 200 patients were enrolled. Intervention: Convalescent plasma in addition to standard treatment (n = 52) vs standard treatment alone (control) (n = 51), stratified by disease severity. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was time to clinical improvement within 28 days, defined as patient discharged alive or reduction of 2 points on a 6-point disease severity scale (ranging from 1 [discharge] to 6 [death]). Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, time to discharge, and the rate of viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results turned from positive at baseline to negative at up to 72 hours. Results: Of 103 patients who were randomized (median age, 70 years; 60 [58.3%] male), 101 (98.1%) completed the trial. Clinical improvement occurred within 28 days in 51.9% (27/52) of the convalescent plasma group vs 43.1% (22/51) in the control group (difference, 8.8% [95% CI, -10.4% to 28.0%]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [95% CI, 0.79-2.49]; P = .26). Among those with severe disease, the primary outcome occurred in 91.3% (21/23) of the convalescent plasma group vs 68.2% (15/22) of the control group (HR, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.07-4.32]; P = .03); among those with life-threatening disease the primary outcome occurred in 20.7% (6/29) of the convalescent plasma group vs 24.1% (7/29) of the control group (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.30-2.63]; P = .83) (P for interaction = .17). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (15.7% vs 24.0%; OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.22-1.59]; P = .30) or time from randomization to discharge (51.0% vs 36.0% discharged by day 28; HR, 1.61 [95% CI, 0.88-2.95]; P = .12). Convalescent plasma treatment was associated with a negative conversion rate of viral PCR at 72 hours in 87.2% of the convalescent plasma group vs 37.5% of the control group (OR, 11.39 [95% CI, 3.91-33.18]; P < .001). Two patients in the convalescent plasma group experienced adverse events within hours after transfusion that improved with supportive care. Conclusion and Relevance: Among patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, convalescent plasma therapy added to standard treatment, compared with standard treatment alone, did not result in a statistically significant improvement in time to clinical improvement within 28 days. Interpretation is limited by early termination of the trial, which may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000029757.

Hydroxychloroquine in patients with mainly mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019: open label, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 16 government designated covid-19 treatment centres in China, 11 to 29 February 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 150 patients admitted to hospital with laboratory confirmed covid-19 were included in the intention to treat analysis (75 patients assigned to hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care, 75 to standard of care alone). INTERVENTIONS: Hydroxychloroquine administrated at a loading dose of 1200 mg daily for three days followed by a maintenance dose of 800 mg daily (total treatment duration: two or three weeks for patients with mild to moderate or severe disease, respectively). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Negative conversion of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by 28 days, analysed according to the intention to treat principle. Adverse events were analysed in the safety population in which hydroxychloroquine recipients were participants who received at least one dose of hydroxychloroquine and hydroxychloroquine non-recipients were those managed with standard of care alone. RESULTS: Of 150 patients, 148 had mild to moderate disease and two had severe disease. The mean duration from symptom onset to randomisation was 16.6 (SD 10.5; range 3-41) days. A total of 109 (73%) patients (56 standard of care; 53 standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine) had negative conversion well before 28 days, and the remaining 41 (27%) patients (19 standard of care; 22 standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine) were censored as they did not reach negative conversion of virus. The probability of negative conversion by 28 days in the standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine group was 85.4% (95% confidence interval 73.8% to 93.8%), similar to that in the standard of care group (81.3%, 71.2% to 89.6%). The difference between groups was 4.1% (95% confidence interval -10.3% to 18.5%). In the safety population, adverse events were recorded in 7/80 (9%) hydroxychloroquine non-recipients and in 21/70 (30%) hydroxychloroquine recipients. The most common adverse event in the hydroxychloroquine recipients was diarrhoea, reported in 7/70 (10%) patients. Two hydroxychloroquine recipients reported serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of hydroxychloroquine did not result in a significantly higher probability of negative conversion than standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with mainly persistent mild to moderate covid-19. Adverse events were higher in hydroxychloroquine recipients than in non-recipients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2000029868.