Convalescent plasma to treat COVID-19: clinical experience and efficacy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Pei S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8034927 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The collection and clinical use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) as a therapy for COVID-19 infection is under development and early use in many centers worldwide. We conducted an international survey of centers undertaking studies of CCP to provide understanding of the common themes and differences between them. Sixty-four studies in 22 countries were identified from clinical trial registries and personal contacts of the authors. Twenty of the 64 centers (31%) from 12 of 22 countries (55%) responded to the survey. Of the 20 studies, 11 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 9 were case series. Only 4 of the RCTs plan to recruit 400 patients or more, and only 3 RCTs were blinded. The majority of studies will study the effect of CCP on sick patients requiring hospitalization and those requiring critical care, and none is examining the role of CCP in non-infected at-risk individuals. A wide variety of primary and secondary outcomes are being used. The donor eligibility criteria among the studies are very similar, and the use of plasmapheresis for the collection of CCP is almost universal. The planned dose of CCP ranges from as little as 200 mL to well over 1 L, but is 400 to 800 mL or 4 mL/kg or greater in all the RCTs. There is considerable variability in donor antibody testing with no consistency regarding the cut-off for antibody titer for acceptance as CCP or the use of pathogen-inactivation. Our survey provides an understanding of the similarities and differences among the studies of CCP, and that by virtue of their design some studies may be more informative than others.
| S-EPMC7320682 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8426852 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7370253 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThere is clinical equipoise for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) use in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.ObjectiveTo determine the safety and efficacy of CCP compared with placebo in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving noninvasive supplemental oxygen.Design, setting, and participantsCONTAIN COVID-19, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of CCP in hospitalized adults with COVID-19, was conducted at 21 US hospitals from April 17, 2020, to March 15, 2021. The trial enrolled 941 participants who were hospitalized for 3 or less days or presented 7 or less days after symptom onset and required noninvasive oxygen supplementation.InterventionsA unit of approximately 250 mL of CCP or equivalent volume of placebo (normal saline).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was participant scores on the 11-point World Health Organization (WHO) Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement on day 14 after randomization; the secondary outcome was WHO scores determined on day 28. Subgroups were analyzed with respect to age, baseline WHO score, concomitant medications, symptom duration, CCP SARS-CoV-2 titer, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serostatus, and enrollment quarter. Outcomes were analyzed using a bayesian proportional cumulative odds model. Efficacy of CCP was defined as a cumulative adjusted odds ratio (cOR) less than 1 and a clinically meaningful effect as cOR less than 0.8.ResultsOf 941 participants randomized (473 to placebo and 468 to CCP), 556 were men (59.1%); median age was 63 years (IQR, 52-73); 373 (39.6%) were Hispanic and 132 (14.0%) were non-Hispanic Black. The cOR for the primary outcome adjusted for site, baseline risk, WHO score, age, sex, and symptom duration was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.75-1.18) with posterior probability (P[cOR<1] = 72%); the cOR for the secondary adjusted outcome was 0.92 (95% CrI, 0.74-1.16; P[cOR<1] = 76%). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested heterogeneity of treatment effect: at day 28, cORs were 0.72 (95% CrI, 0.46-1.13; P[cOR<1] = 93%) for participants enrolled in April-June 2020 and 0.65 (95% CrI, 0.41 to 1.02; P[cOR<1] = 97%) for those not receiving remdesivir and not receiving corticosteroids at randomization. Median CCP SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titer used in April to June 2020 was 1:175 (IQR, 76-379). Any adverse events (excluding transfusion reactions) were reported for 39 (8.2%) placebo recipients and 44 (9.4%) CCP recipients (P = .57). Transfusion reactions occurred in 2 (0.4) placebo recipients and 8 (1.7) CCP recipients (P = .06).Conclusions and relevanceIn this trial, CCP did not meet the prespecified primary and secondary outcomes for CCP efficacy. However, high-titer CCP may have benefited participants early in the pandemic when remdesivir and corticosteroids were not in use.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364737.
| S-EPMC8669605 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RationaleConvalescent plasma (CCP) has been studied as a potential therapy for COVID-19, but data on its efficacy in Africa are limited.ObjectiveIn this trial we set out to determine the efficacy of CCP for treatment of COVID-19 in Uganda.MeasurementsPatients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR test irrespective of disease severity were hospitalised and randomised to receive either COVID-19 CCP plus standard of care (SOC) or SOC alone. The primary outcome was time to viral clearance, defined as having two consecutive RT-PCR-negative tests by day 28. Secondary outcomes included time to symptom resolution, clinical status on the modified WHO Ordinal Clinical Scale (≥1-point increase), progression to severe/critical condition (defined as oxygen saturation <93% or needing oxygen), mortality and safety.Main resultsA total of 136 patients were randomised, 69 to CCP+SOC and 67 to SOC only. The median age was 50 years (IQR: 38.5-62.0), 71.3% were male and the median duration of symptom was 7 days (IQR=4-8). Time to viral clearance was not different between the CCP+SOC and SOC arms (median of 6 days (IQR=4-11) vs 4 (IQR=4-6), p=0.196). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes in CCP+SOC versus SOC: time to symptom resolution (median=7 (IQR=5-7) vs 7 (IQR=5-10) days, p=0.450), disease progression (9 (22.0%) vs 7 (24.0%) patients, p=0.830) and mortality (10 (14.5%) vs 8 (11.9%) deaths, p=0.476).ConclusionIn this African trial, CCP therapy did not result in beneficial virological or clinical improvements. Further trials are needed to determine subgroups of patients who may benefit from CCP in Africa.Trial registration number NCT04542941.
| S-EPMC8354811 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8667676 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic is expected to cause significant morbidity and mortality. The development of an effective vaccine will take several months to become available, and its affordability is unpredictable. Transfusion of convalescent plasma (CP) may provide passive immunity. Based on initial data from China, a group of hematologists, infectious disease specialists, and intensivists drafted this protocol in March 2020.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to test the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of CP in treating patients with COVID-19 across Saudi Arabia.MethodsEligible patients with COVID-19 will be recruited for CP infusion according to the inclusion criteria. As COVID-19 has proven to be a moving target as far as its management is concerned, we will use current definitions according to the Ministry of Health (MOH) guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and recovery. All CP recipients will receive supportive management including all available recommended therapies according to the available MOH guidelines. Eligible CP donors will be patients with COVID-19 who have fully recovered from their disease according to MOH recovery criteria as detailed in the inclusion criteria. CP donors have to qualify as blood donors according to MOH regulations except for the history of COVID-19 in the recent past. We will also test the CP donors for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies by a rapid test, and aliquots will be archived for future antibody titration. Due to the perceived benefit of CP, randomization was not considered. However, we will compare the outcome of the cohort treated with CP with those who did not receive CP due to a lack of consent or lack of availability. In this national collaborative study, there is a likelihood of not finding exactly matched control group patients. Hence, we plan to perform a propensity score matching of the CP recipients with the comparator group patients for the major characteristics. We plan to collect demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics of both groups and compare the outcomes. A total sample size of 575 patients, 115 CP recipients and 460 matched controls (1:4 ratio), will be sufficient to detect a clinically important hospital stay and 30-day mortality difference between the two groups with 80% power and a 5% level of significance.ResultsAt present, patient recruitment is still ongoing, and the interim analysis of the first 40 patients will be shared soon.ConclusionsIn this paper, we present a protocol for a national collaborative multicenter phase II study in Saudi Arabia for assessing the feasibility, safety, and potential efficacy of CP in treating patients with severe COVID-19. We plan to publish an interim report of the first 40 CP recipients and their matched comparators soon.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04347681; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04347681.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/23543.
| S-EPMC7546730 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Convalescent plasma (CP) recurs as a frontline treatment in epidemics because it is available as soon as there are survivors. The COVID-19 pandemic represented the first large-scale opportunity to shed light on the mechanisms of action, safety, and efficacy of CP using modern evidence-based medicine approaches. Studies ranging from observational case series to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported highly variable efficacy results for COVID-19 CP (CCP), resulting in uncertainty. We analyzed variables associated with efficacy, such as clinical settings, disease severity, CCP SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) antibody levels and function, dose, timing of administration (variously defined as time from onset of symptoms, molecular diagnosis, diagnosis of pneumonia, or hospitalization, or by serostatus), outcomes (defined as hospitalization, requirement for ventilation, clinical improvement, or mortality), CCP provenance and time for collection, and criteria for efficacy. The conflicting trial results, along with both recent WHO guidelines discouraging CCP usage and the recent expansion of the FDA emergency use authorization (EUA) to include outpatient use of CCP, create confusion for both clinicians and patients about the appropriate use of CCP. A review of 30 available RCTs demonstrated that signals of efficacy (including reductions in mortality) were more likely if the CCP neutralizing titer was >160 and the time to randomization was less than 9 days. The emergence of the Omicron variant also reminds us of the benefits of polyclonal antibody therapies, especially as a bridge to the development and availability of more specific therapies.
| S-EPMC9491201 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Clinical Trial of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Outpatients (C3PO)
| PRJNA791978 | ENA
Project description:Clinical Trial of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Outpatients (C3PO)
| PRJNA791979 | ENA