Dataset Information

Convalescent Plasma Efficacy in Life-Threatening COVID-19 Patients Admitted to the ICU: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT: (1) Background: There are limited data regarding the efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) in critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to determine whether CP is associated with better clinical outcome among these patients. (2) Methods: A retrospective single-center study including adult patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to the ICU for acute respiratory failure. The 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. (3) Results: Overall, 110 COVID-19 patients were admitted. Thirty-two patients (29%) received CP; among them, 62.5% received at least one CP with high neutralizing antibody titers (≥1:160). Clinical improvement occurred within 28 days in 14 patients (43.7%) of the CP group vs. 48 patients (61.5%) in the non-CP group (hazard ratio (HR): 0.75 (95% CI: 0.41-1.37), p = 0.35). After adjusting for potential confounding factors, CP was not independently associated with time to clinical improvement (HR: 0.53 (95% CI: 0.23-1.22), p = 0.14). Additionally, the average treatment effects of CP, calculated using the inverse probability weights (IPW), was not associated with the primary outcome (-0.14 days (95% CI: -3.19-2.91 days), p = 0.93). Hospital mortality did not differ between CP and non-CP groups (31.2% vs. 19.2%, p = 0.17, respectively). Comparing CP with high neutralizing antibody titers to the other group yielded the same findings. (4) Conclusions: In this study of life-threatening COVID-19 patients, CP was not associated with time to clinical improvement within 28 days, or hospital mortality.

SUBMITTER: Abuzakouk M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8153619 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:We aimed to explore the association between FFP transfusion and outcomes of DC patients with significant coagulopathy. A total of 693 DC patients with significant coagulopathy were analyzed with 233 patients per group after propensity score matching (PSM). Patients who received FFP transfusion were matched with those receiving conventional therapy via PSM. Regression analysis showed FFP transfusion had no benefit in 30-day (HR: 1.08, 95% CI 0.83-1.4), 90-day (HR: 1.03, 95% CI 0.80-1.31) and in-hospital(HR: 1.30, 95% CI 0.90-1.89) mortality, associated with increased risk of liver failure (OR: 3.00, 95% CI 1.78-5.07), kidney failure (OR: 1.90, 95% CI 1.13-3.18), coagulation failure (OR: 2.55, 95% CI 1.52-4.27), respiratory failure (OR: 1.76, 95% CI 1.15-2.69), and circulatory failure (OR: 2.15, 95% CI 1.27-3.64), and even associated with prolonged the LOS ICU (β: 2.61, 95% CI 1.59-3.62) and LOS hospital (β: 6.59, 95% CI 2.62-10.57). In sensitivity analysis, multivariate analysis (HR: 1.09, 95%CI 0.86, 1.38), IPTW (HR: 1.11, 95%CI 0.95-1.29) and CAPS (HR: 1.09, 95% CI 0.86-1.38) showed FFP transfusion had no beneficial effect on the 30-day mortality. Smooth curve fitting demonstrated the risk of liver failure, kidney failure and circulatory failure increased by 3%, 2% and 2% respectively, for each 1 ml/kg increase in FFP transfusion. We found there was no significant difference of CLIF-SOFA and MELD score between the two group on day 0, 3, 7, 14. Compared with the conventional group, INR, APTT, and TBIL in the FFP transfusion group significantly increased, while PaO2/FiO2 significantly decreased within 14 days. In conclusion, FFP transfusion had no beneficial effect on the 30-day, 90-day, in-hospital mortality, was associated with prolonged the LOS ICU and LOS hospital, and the increased risk of liver failure, kidney failure, coagulation failure, respiratory failure and circulatory failure events. However, large, multi-center, randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies and external validation are still needed to verify the efficacy of FFP transfusion in the future.

Project description:ImportanceConvalescent plasma is a potential therapeutic option for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but further data from randomized clinical trials are needed.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of convalescent plasma therapy for patients with COVID-19.Design, setting, and participantsOpen-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.InterventionConvalescent plasma in addition to standard treatment (n = 52) vs standard treatment alone (control) (n = 51), stratified by disease severity.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary 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.ResultsOf 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 relevanceAmong 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 registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000029757.

Project description:BackgroundMany patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.MethodsThis randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.FindingsBetween May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93-1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94-1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93-1·05; p=0·79).InterpretationIn patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes.FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

Dataset Information

Convalescent Plasma Efficacy in Life-Threatening COVID-19 Patients Admitted to the ICU: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets