The use of therapeutic plasma exchange as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019: A critical appraisal of the current evidence.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lu W
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8014837 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundExcessive inflammation contributes to the morbidity and mortality of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. Recombinant human plasma gelsolin (rhu-pGSN) improves disease outcomes in diverse experimental models of infectious and noninfectious inflammation.MethodsIn a blinded, randomized study, 61 subjects with documented COVID-19 pneumonia having a World Health Organization (WHO) Severity Score of 4 to 6 and evidence of a hyperinflammatory state were treated with standard care and either adjunctive rhu-pGSN 12 mg/kg or an equal volume of saline placebo given intravenously at entry, 12 hours, and 36 hours. The prespecified coprimary outcomes were survival without major respiratory, hemodynamic, or renal support on Day 14 and the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) during the 90-day study period.ResultsAll subjects receiving ≥1 dose of study drug were analyzed. Fifty-four of 61 subjects (88.5%) were WHO severity level 4 at entry. The proportions of subjects alive without support on Day 14 were 25 of 30 rhu-pGSN recipients (83.3%) and 27 of 31 placebo recipients (87.1%). Over the duration of the study, WHO Severity Scores improved similarly in both treatment groups. No statistically significant differences were observed between treatment groups at any time point examined. Two subjects died in each group. Numerically fewer subjects in the rhu-pGSN group had SAEs (5 subjects; 16.7%) or ≥ Grade 3 adverse events (5 subjects; 16.7%) than in the placebo group (8 subjects [25.8%] and 9 subjects [29.0%], respectively), mostly involving the lungs. Three rhu-pGSN recipients (10.0%) were intubated compared to 6 placebo recipients (19.4%).ConclusionsOverall, subjects in this study did well irrespective of treatment arm. When added to dexamethasone and remdesivir, no definitive benefit was demonstrated for rhu-pGSN relative to placebo. Safety signals were not identified after the administration of 3 doses of 12 mg/kg rhu-pGSN over 36 hours. The frequencies of SAEs and intubation were numerically fewer in the rhu-pGSN group compared with placebo.
| S-EPMC9345409 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Current knowledge related to employment of plasma exchange for treatment in COVID-19 is predominantly based on casuistic evidence in the form of single-center case-series. Published data encompass reports from a total of approximately 225 patients. Based on published reports, therapeutic plasma exchange has generally been employed as rescue or adjunctive therapy in patients with critical illness, with proposed benefit attributed possible effects on mitigation and amelioration of cytokine storm syndrome. Treatment effects remain uncertain, with the impact of plasma exchange on critical illness in COVID inconclusive with regard to both efficacy and safety.
| S-EPMC9877855 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCytokine release syndrome (CRS) plays a pivotal role in the pathophysiology and progression of Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) by removing the pathogenic cytokines is hypothesized to dampen CRS.ObjectiveTo evaluate the outcomes of the patients with COVID-19 having CRS being treated with TPE compared to controls on the standard of care.MethodologyRetrospective propensity score-matched analysis in a single centre from 1st April to 31st July 2020. We retrospectively analyzed data of 280 hospitalized patients developing CRS initially. PSM was used to minimize bias from non-randomized treatment assignment. Using PSM 1:1, 90 patients were selected and assigned to 2 equal groups. Forced matching was done for disease severity, routine standard care and advanced supportive care. Many other Co-variates were matched. Primary outcome was 28 days overall survival. Secondary outcomes were duration of hospitalization, CRS resolution time and timing of viral clearance on Polymerase chain reaction testing.ResultsAfter PS-matching, the selected cohort had a median age of 60 years (range 32-73 in TPE, 37-75 in controls), p = 0.325 and all were males. Median symptoms duration was 7 days (range 3-22 days' TPE and 3-20 days controls), p = 0.266. Disease severity in both groups was 6 (6.6%) moderate, 40 (44.4%) severe and 44 (49%) critical. Overall, 28-day survival was significantly superior in the TPE group (91.1%), 95% CI 78.33-97.76; as compared to PS-matched controls (61.5%), 95% CI 51.29-78.76 (log rank 0.002), p<0.001. Median duration of hospitalization was significantly reduced in the TPE treated group (10 days vs 15 days) (p< 0.01). CRS resolution time was also significantly reduced in the TPE group (6 days vs. 12 days) (p< 0.001). In 71 patients who underwent TPE, the mortality was 0 (n = 43) if TPE was done within the first 12 days of illness while it was 17.9% (deaths 5, n = 28 who received it after 12th day (p = 0.0045).ConclusionAn earlier use of TPE was associated with improved overall survival, early CRS resolution and time to discharge compared to SOC for COVID-19 triggered CRS in this selected cohort of PS-matched male patients from one major hospital in Pakistan.
| S-EPMC7790281 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) employs angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) as its receptor for cell entrance, and studies have suggested that upon viral binding, ACE2 catalytic activity could be inhibited; therefore, impacting the regulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS). To date, only few studies have evaluated the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the blood levels of the components of the RAAS. The objective of this study was to determine the blood levels of ACE, ACE2, angiotensin-II, angiotensin (1-7), and angiotensin (1-9) at hospital admission and discharge in a group of patients presenting with severe or critical evolution of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We showed that ACE, ACE2, angiotensin (1-7), and angiotensin (1-9) were similar in patients with critical and severe COVID-19. However, at admission, angiotensin-II levels were significantly higher in patients presenting as critical, compared to patients presenting with severe COVID-19. We conclude that blood levels of angiotensin-II are increased in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 presenting the critical outcome of the disease. We propose that early measurement of Ang-II could be a useful biomarker for identifying patients at higher risk for extremely severe progression of the disease.
| S-EPMC9263116 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by a Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first reported in Wuhan, China at the end of December 2019. SARS-CoV-2 is a highly pathogenic zoonotic virus and closely related to the Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV). The COVID-19 was declared as a global pandemic due to its high infectiousness, and worldwide morbidities and mortalities. The Chinese scientists at the start of the outbreak reported genome sequences, which made the characterization of glycoproteins and other structural proteins possible. Moreover, researchers across the world have widely focused on understanding basic biology, developing vaccines, and therapeutic drugs against the COVID-19. However, until now, no promising treatment options, as well as vaccines, are available. In this review, we have described SARS-CoV-2's genome, transmission, and pathogenicity. We also discussed novel potential therapeutic agents that can help to treat the COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC7403098 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite recent efforts and successes in reducing the malaria burden globally, this infection still accounts for an estimated 212 million clinical cases, 2 million severe malaria cases, and approximately 429,000 deaths annually. Even with the routine use of effective anti-malarial drugs, the case fatality rate for severe malaria remains unacceptably high, with cerebral malaria being one of the most life-threatening complications. Up to one-third of cerebral malaria survivors are left with long-term cognitive and neurological deficits. From a population point of view, the decrease of malaria transmission may jeopardize the development of naturally acquired immunity against the infection, leading to fewer total cases, but potentially an increase in severe cases. The pathophysiology of severe and cerebral malaria is not completely understood, but both parasite and host determinants contribute to its onset and outcomes. Adjunctive therapy, based on modulating the host response to infection, could help to improve the outcomes achieved with specific anti-malarial therapy. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS:In the last decades, several interventions targeting different pathways have been tested. However, none of these strategies have demonstrated clear beneficial effects, and some have shown deleterious outcomes. This review aims to summarize evidence from clinical trials testing different adjunctive therapy for severe and cerebral malaria in humans. It also highlights some preclinical studies which have evaluated novel strategies and other candidate therapeutics that may be evaluated in future clinical trials.
| S-EPMC5781278 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceRecent evidence suggests a multilevel inflammatory syndrome as a driving factor in some of the most severely ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients with overlapping features to other hyperinflammatory or autoimmune diseases. Therefore, plasma exchange is considered as potential therapy in these patients.ObjectivesWe characterize the longitudinal therapeutic efficacy and safety profile of plasma exchange in critically ill patients with clinical and laboratory evidences of coronavirus disease 2019-related immunopathology.Design setting and participantsA retropsective case-control study of critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients treated with plasma exchange at Heidelberg University Hospital between March and December 2020. Plasma exchange-treated patients were compared with coronavirus disease 2019 patients on standard therapy matched for age, gender, disease severity, and features of hyperinflammatory syndrome.Main outcome and measuresMortality rate and course of clinical and laboratory parameters in response to plasma exchange were assessed in coronavirus disease 2019 patients and in patients on standard care. A plasma volume of 50 mL per kg body weight or a maximum of 4 L was exchanged.ResultsIn total, 28 critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients were treated with a median of three plasma exchange procedures per patient. No relevant complications occurred during plasma exchange therapy. Inflammatory and biochemical markers of end-organ damage and endothelial activation were significantly reduced following plasma exchange together with normalization of body temperature, improved pulmonary function, and reduced vasopressor demand. Most importantly, these improvements were maintained after the last plasma exchange. In contrast, no such effects were observed in the control group, although baseline clinical and laboratory parameters were comparable. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed improved 30-day survival in the plasma exchange group compared with the control group (67.9% vs 42.9%; p = 0.044). In a multivariable analysis, the hazard ratio for death was 0.27 (95% CI, 0.11-0.68; p = 0.005) with plasma exchange versus standard care.Conclusions and relevanceOur data provide further evidence for plasma exchange as a novel therapeutic strategy in a subset of critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients by potentially reversing the complex coronavirus disease 2019 immunopathology. Randomized controlled trials are underway to confirm these positive results.
| S-EPMC8382335 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The end of 2019 saw the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic that soared in 2020, affecting 215 countries worldwide, with no signs of abating. In an effort to contain the spread of the disease and treat the infected, researchers are racing against several odds to find an effective solution. The unavailability of timely and affordable or definitive treatment has caused significant morbidity and mortality. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by an unregulated host inflammatory response toward the viral infection, followed by multi-organ dysfunction or failure, is one of the primary causes of death in severe cases of COVID-19 infection. Currently, empirical management of respiratory and hematological manifestations along with anti-viral agents is being used to treat the infection. The quest is on for both a vaccine and a more definitive management protocol to curtail the spread. Researchers and clinicians are also exploring the possibility of using cell therapy for severe cases of COVID-19 with ARDS. Mesenchymal stromal cells are known to have immunomodulatory properties and have previously been used to treat viral infections. This review explores the potential of mesenchymal stromal cells as cell therapy for ARDS.
| S-EPMC7649634 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this study was to identify miRNAs that were dysregulated after the onset of COVID-19 and thus potentially be used for risk stratification (i.e., mortality). Therefore, we conducted a multi-center, retrospective longitudinal cohort study enrolling 142 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who presented to two Canadian hospitals from May 2020 – December 2020 along with a cohort of 27 SARS-CoV-2 patients with mild upper respiratory tract symptoms and 69 SARS-CoV-2-negative patients from the ICU. Blood was biobanked from SARS-CoV-2 positive patients in the emergency department (mild), ward (moderate) or intensive care unit (severe). Assessment of miRNA expression and co-regulatory network generation revealed significant transcriptome dyregulation in pateints with severe COVID-19 that was largely different from SARS-CoV-2 negative patients in the ICU.
2022-04-08 | GSE178246 | GEO
Project description:ObjectivesContinuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is commonly employed in critically ill children and is known to affect antimicrobial pharmacokinetics. There is a lack of readily available, evidence-based antimicrobial dosing recommendations in pediatric CRRT. This study aims to quantify commonly used antimicrobial drugs in pediatric CRRT and identify gaps between contemporary literature-based dosing recommendations and those presented in a frequently used dosing reference.MethodsThe Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database was queried from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2021 to identify admissions in which antimicrobials were billed on the same day as CRRT. Drugs of interest were selected if at least 10% of admission involved administration on at least one CRRT day, with additional clinically important antimicrobials selected by the authors. A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify antimicrobial pharmacokinetic (PK) studies in children for each selected drug. For identified articles, dosing recommendations were extracted and compared to those in a popular tertiary dosing reference (Lexi-Comp Online database). The level of agreement of the dosing recommendations was assessed.Results77 unique antimicrobial agents were identified amongst 812 admissions from 20 different PHIS hospitals. Fifteen antimicrobials were billed on the same day as CRRT in ≥10% of admissions, with 4 additional drugs deemed clinically relevant by the authors. Twenty PK studies were identified for these 19 drugs, and dosing recommendations were included in 8 (42.1%) of them. Seventeen agents (89.5%) had some type of CRRT-specific dosing guidance in Lexi-Comp, with only 1 directly based on a pediatric CRRT study. For the 8 agents with PK data available, Lexi-Comp recommendations matched primary literature dosing guidance in 3 (37.5%). Two (25%) lacked agreement between the Lexi-Comp and primary literature, and the remaining 3 (37.5%) had partial agreement with multiple dosing regimens suggested in the primary literature and at least one of these regimens recommended by Lexi-Comp.ConclusionSignificant gaps exist in the data supporting antimicrobial dosing recommendations for children receiving CRRT. Future studies should focus on antimicrobial dosing in pediatric CRRT, emphasizing provision of robust data from which dosing recommendations can be promptly incorporated into tertiary dosing references.
| S-EPMC9134108 | biostudies-literature