Dataset Information

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials testing the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Evidence-base for practise and implications for research.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite scientific advances, there is no effective medical therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19.

Methods

This review was carried out in accordance with Cochrane methodology including risk of bias assessment and grading of the quality of evidence. Only prospective clinical trials randomly assigning COVID-19 patients to convalescent plasma plus standard of care therapy (test arm) versus placebo/standard of care (control arm) were included. Two reviewers independently read each preprint/publication and extracted relevant data from individual studies. Data were pooled using the random-effects model and expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

A total of 13 206 patients from 12 randomised controlled trials were included. There was no significant difference in clinical improvement rate (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98-1.02, p = 0.96) or time to clinical improvement (median difference of 1.08 days with 95% CI ranging from -0.15 to +2.30 days) between convalescent plasma versus placebo/standard of care therapy. The use of convalescent plasma was not associated with significantly reduced risk of death (RR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.65-1.02, p = 0.08). Reassuringly, overall incidence of infusion-related serious adverse events was low (3.25%) and not significantly different (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 0.93-1.40, p = 0.22) for convalescent plasma transfusion compared to placebo/standard of care therapy.

Conclusions

There is low to moderate certainty evidence that the addition of convalescent plasma to current standard of care therapy is generally safe but, does not result in any significant clinical benefit or reduction of mortality in COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Gupta T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8447151 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) is primarily ascribed as a source of neutralizing anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies. However, the composition of other immune components in CCP and their potential roles remain largely unexplored. This study aimed to describe the composition and concentrations of plasma cytokines and chemokines in eligible CCP donors.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among 20 prepandemic healthy blood donors without SARS-CoV-2 infection and 140 eligible CCP donors with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Electrochemiluminescence detection-based multiplexed sandwich immunoassays were used to quantify plasma cytokine and chemokine concentrations (n = 35 analytes). A SARS-CoV-2 microneutralization assay was also performed. Differences in the percentage of detection and distribution of cytokine and chemokine concentrations were examined by categorical groups using Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, respectively.ResultsAmong CCP donors (n = 140), the median time since molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 was 44 days (interquartile range = 38-50) and 9% (n = 12) were hospitalized due to COVID-19. Compared with healthy blood donor controls, CCP donors had significantly higher plasma levels of interferon (IFN)-γ, interleukin (IL)-10, IL-15, IL-21, and macrophage-inflammatory protein-1, but lower levels of IL-1RA, IL-8, IL-16, and vascular endothelial growth factor-A (P < .0014). The distributions of plasma levels of IL-8, IL-15, and IFN-inducible protein-10 were significantly higher among CCP donors with high (≥160) versus low (<40) anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers (P < .0014). The median levels of IL-6 were significantly higher among CCP donors who were hospitalized versus nonhospitalized (P < .0014).ConclusionsHeterogeneity in cytokine and chemokine composition of CCP suggests there is a different inflammatory state among the CCP donors compared with SARS-CoV-2 naive, healthy blood donors.

Project description:Current evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews on the utility of convalescent plasma (CP) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suggests a lack of benefit. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of RCTs with trial sequential analysis to investigate whether convalescent plasma is futile in reducing mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We searched 6 databases from December 1, 2019 to August 1, 2021 for RCTs comparing the use of CP with standard of care or transfusion of non-CP standard plasma in patients with COVID-19. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 Tool. Random effects (DerSimonian and Laird) meta-analyses were conducted. The primary outcome was the aggregate risk for in-hospital mortality between both arms. We conducted a trial sequential analysis (TSA) based on the pooled relative risks (RRs) for in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included the pooled RR for receipt of mechanical ventilation and mean difference in hospital length of stay. We included 18 RCTs (8702 CP, 7906 control). CP was not associated with a significant mortality benefit (RR: 0.95, 95%-CI: 0.86-1.04, P = .27, high certainty). Subgroup analysis did not find any significant differences (pinteraction = 0.30) between patients who received CP within 8 days of symptom onset (RR: 0.97, 95%-CI: 0.79-1.19, P = .80), or after 8 days (RR: 0.79, 95%-CI: 0.57-1.10, P = .16). TSA based on a RR reduction of 10% from a baseline mortality of 20% found that CP was not effective, with the pooled effect within the boundary for futility. CP did not significantly reduce the requirement for mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.00, 95%-CI: 0.91-1.10, P = .99, moderate certainty) or hospital length of stay (+1.32, 95%-CI: -1.86 to +4.52, P = .42, low certainty). CP does not improve relevant clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, especially in severe disease. The pooled effect of mortality was within the boundary of futility, suggesting the lack of benefit of CP in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.