Clinical efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy on treating COVID-19 patients: Evidence from matched study and a meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jiang W
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7752155 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Clinical efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy on treating COVID-19 patients: Evidence from matched study and a meta-analysis.
Jiang Weijun W Li Weiwei W Xiong Lei L Wu Qiuyue Q Wu Jian J He Bangshun B Shen Jiawei J Pang Rongrong R Luo Tao T Guo Yanju Y Yang Yang Y Han Ying Y Dai Wei W Zhu Peiran P Xia Xinyi X
Clinical and translational medicine 20201201 8
Similar Datasets
Project description:The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine clinical outcomes associated with convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients. We performed a literature search on PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify studies published up to December 10th, 2020 that examined the efficacy of convalescent plasma treatment for COVID-19. The primary endpoints were mortality, clinical improvement, and hospital length of stay. We screened 859 studies that met the search criteria, performed full-text reviews of 56 articles, and identified 15 articles that fulfilled inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 0.59 [95% CI = 0.44; 0.78], P < .001), although results from two key randomized controlled trials did not support the mortality benefit. The odds of clinical improvement were significantly higher in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 2.02 [95% CI = 1.54; 2.65], P < .001). There was no difference in hospital length of stay between the convalescent plasma group and the control group (MD = -0.49 days [95% CI = -3.11; 2.12], P = .713). In all, these data indicate that a mortality benefit with convalescent plasma is unclear, although there remain benefits with convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8014691 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7265850 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Convalescent plasma has been used worldwide to treat patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and prevent disease progression. Despite global usage, uncertainty remains regarding plasma efficacy, as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have provided divergent evidence regarding the survival benefit of convalescent plasma. Here, we argue that during a global health emergency, the mosaic of evidence originating from multiple levels of the epistemic hierarchy should inform contemporary policy and healthcare decisions. Indeed, worldwide matched-control studies have generally found convalescent plasma to improve COVID-19 patient survival, and RCTs have demonstrated a survival benefit when transfused early in the disease course but limited or no benefit later in the disease course when patients required greater supportive therapies. RCTs have also revealed that convalescent plasma transfusion contributes to improved symptomatology and viral clearance. To further investigate the effect of convalescent plasma on patient mortality, we performed a meta-analytical approach to pool daily survival data from all controlled studies that reported Kaplan-Meier survival plots. Qualitative inspection of all available Kaplan-Meier survival data and an aggregate Kaplan-Meier survival plot revealed a directionally consistent pattern among studies arising from multiple levels of the epistemic hierarchy, whereby convalescent plasma transfusion was generally associated with greater patient survival. Given that convalescent plasma has a similar safety profile as standard plasma, convalescent plasma should be implemented within weeks of the onset of future infectious disease outbreaks.
| S-EPMC8215127 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo explore whether convalescent plasma therapy is beneficial to patients with severe acute respiratory infections and gave hints to the management of COVID-19.MethodsA comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane library was conducted for all eligible studies range from inception to February 29, 2020. Studies with control group were included. Treatment group received convalescent plasma therapy, and control group may receive any therapy other than convalescent plasma therapy. Odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled for categorical and continuous outcomes.ResultsA total of 1997 patients from 13 studies were included, and seven studies were prospectively designed. Pooled analysis indicated convalescent plasma treatment significantly reduced the mortality by 51% (OR=0.49, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.67). Subgroup analyses by publication time, study design, and influenza A revealed similar results. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the results were stable. In addition, convalescent plasma therapy reduced mechanical ventilation requirement (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.59), while it was not associated with less use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 0.83 to 4.83) and shorter length of hospital stay (MD: -2.20, 95% CI: -4.98 to 0.57days). Pooled estimates showed there was no difference in serious adverse effects between the convalescent plasma treatment and control groups (OR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.13).ConclusionConvalescent plasma therapy significantly reduced the mortality and mechanical ventilation requirements of patients with virus-induced severe acute respiratory infections, without serious adverse effects. More studies are needed to explore whether this treatment can be extrapolated into COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8028596 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7676310 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe long-term effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute treatments on postacute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (PASC) is unknown. The CONTAIN-Extend study explores the long-term impact of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) therapy on postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) symptoms and general health 18 months following hospitalization.MethodsThe CONTAIN-Extend study examined 281 participants from the original CONTAIN COVID-19 trial (CONTAIN-RCT, NCT04364737) at 18 months post-hospitalization for acute COVID-19. Symptom surveys, global health assessments, and biospecimen collection were performed from November 2021 to October 2022. Multivariable logistic and linear regression estimated associations between the randomization arms and self-reported symptoms and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores and adjusted for covariables, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, disease severity, and CONTAIN enrollment quarter and sites.ResultsThere were no differences in symptoms or PROMIS scores between CCP and placebo (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of general symptoms, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.54-1.67). However, females (aOR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.73-5.34), those 45-64 years (aOR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.14-6.23), and April-June 2020 enrollees (aOR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.10-5.19) were more likely to report general symptoms and have poorer PROMIS physical health scores than their respective reference groups. Hispanic participants (difference, -3.05; 95% CI, -5.82 to -0.27) and Black participants (-4.48; 95% CI, -7.94 to -1.02) had poorer PROMIS physical health than White participants.ConclusionsCCP demonstrated no lasting effect on PASC symptoms or overall health in comparison to the placebo. This study underscores the significance of demographic factors, including sex, age, and timing of acute infection, in influencing symptom reporting 18 months after acute hypoxic COVID-19 hospitalization.
| S-EPMC10807994 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConvalescent plasma (CP) has been used successfully to treat many types of infectious disease, and has shown initial effects in the treatment of the emerging 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, its curative effects and feasibility have yet to be confirmed by formal evaluation and well-designed clinical trials. To explore the effectiveness of treatment and predict the potential effects of CP with COVID-19, studies of different types of infectious disease treated with CP were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsRelated studies were obtained from databases and screened according to the inclusion criteria. The data quality was assessed, and the data were extracted and pooled for analysis.Results40 studies on CP treatment for infectious diseases were included. Our study found that CP treatment could reduce the risk of mortality, with a low incidence of adverse events, promote the production of antibodies, lead to a decline in viral load, and shorten the disease course. A meta-analysis of 15 controlled studies showed that there was a significantly lower mortality rate in the group treated with CP (pooled OR=0.32; 95% CI=0.19-0.52; p<0.001, I2=54%) compared with the control groups. Studies were mostly of low or very low quality, with a moderate or high risk of bias. The sources of clinical and methodological heterogeneity were identified. The exclusion of heterogeneity indicated that the results were stable.ConclusionsCP therapy has some curative effect and is well tolerated in treating infectious diseases. It is a potentially effective treatment for COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7334933 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Convalescent plasma can provide passive immunity during viral outbreaks, but the benefit is uncertain for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our goal is to assess the efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). In all, 526 hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 at an academic health system were analyzed. Among them, 263 patients received CCP and were compared to 263 matched controls with standard treatment. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality with a subanalysis at 7 and 14 days. No statistical difference in 28-day mortality was seen in CCP cases (25·5%) compared to controls (27%, P = 0·06). Seven-day mortality was statistically better for CCP cases (9·1%) than controls (19·8%, P < 0·001) and continued at 14 days (14·8% vs. 23·6%, P = 0·01). After 72 h, CCP transfusion resulted in transitioning from nasal cannula to room air (median 4 days vs. 1 day, P = 0·02). The length of stay was longer in CCP cases than controls (14·3 days vs. 11·4 days, P < 0·001). Patients with COVID-19 who received CCP had a decreased risk of death at 7 and 14 days, but not 28 days after transfusion. To date, this is the largest study demonstrating a mortality benefit for the use of CCP in patients with COVID-19 compared to matched controls.
| S-EPMC8014171 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8251446 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8250757 | biostudies-literature