Search

IntroductionCOVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is a possible treatment option for COVID-19. A comprehensive number of clinical trials on CCP efficacy have already been conducted. However, many aspects of CCP treatment still require investigations: in particular (1) Optimisation of the CCP product, (2) Identification of the patient population in need and most likely to benefit from this treatment approach, (3) Timing of administration and (4) CCP efficacy across viral variants in vivo. We aimed to test whether high-titre CCP, administered early, is efficacious in preventing hospitalisation or death in high-risk patients.Methods and analysisCOVIC-19 is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, adaptive superiority phase III trial comparing CCP with very high neutralising antibody titre administered within 7 days of symptom onset plus standard of care versus standard of care alone. We will enrol patients in two cohorts of vulnerable patients [(1) elderly 70+ years, or younger with comorbidities; (2) immunocompromised patients]. Up to 1020 participants will be enrolled in each cohort (at least 340 with a sample size re-estimation after reaching 102 patients). The primary endpoint is the proportion of participants with (1) Hospitalisation due to progressive COVID-19, or (2) Who died by day 28 after randomisation. Principal analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by the University of Ulm ethics committee (#41/22) (lead ethics committee for Germany), Comité de protection des personnes Sud-Est I (CPP Sud-Est I) (#2022-A01307-36) (ethics committee for France), and ErasmusMC ethics committee (#MEC-2022-0365) (ethics committee for the Netherlands). Signed informed consent will be obtained from all included patients. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant stakeholder conferences and meetings.Trial registrationClinical Trials.gov (NCT05271929), EudraCT (2021-006621-22)

BACKGROUND: Vascular surgery may be followed by internal bleeding due to inadequate surgical haemostasis, abnormal clotting, or surgical complications. Bleeding ranges from minor, with no transfusion requirement, to massive, requiring multiple blood product transfusions. There are a number of drugs, given systemically or applied locally, which may reduce the need for blood transfusion.OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of anti-fibrinolytic and haemostatic drugs and agents in reducing bleeding and the need for blood transfusion in people undergoing major vascular surgery or vascular procedures with a risk of moderate or severe (> 500 mL) blood loss.SEARCH METHODS: We searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL, and Transfusion Evidence Library. We also searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov trial registries for ongoing and unpublished trials. Searches used a combination of MeSH and free text terms from database inception to 31 March 2022, without restriction on language or publication status.SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults of drug treatments to reduce bleeding due to major vascular surgery or vascular procedures with a risk of moderate or severe blood loss, which used placebo, usual care or another drug regimen as control.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were units of red cells transfused and all-cause mortality. Our secondary outcomes included risk of receiving an allogeneic blood product, risk of reoperation or repeat procedure due to bleeding, risk of a thromboembolic event, risk of a serious adverse event and length of hospital stay. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 RCTs with 3393 participants analysed, of which one RCT with 69 participants was reported only in abstract form, with no usable data. Seven RCTs evaluated systemic drug treatments (three aprotinin, two desmopressin, two tranexamic acid) and 15 RCTs evaluated topical drug treatments (drug-containing bioabsorbable dressings or glues), including fibrin, thrombin, collagen, gelatin, synthetic sealants and one investigational new agent. Most trials were conducted in high-income countries and the majority of the trials only included participants undergoing elective surgery. We also identified two ongoing RCTs. We were unable to perform the planned network meta-analysis due to the sparse reporting of outcomes relevant to this review. Systemic drug treatments We identified seven trials of three systemic drugs: aprotinin, desmopressin and tranexamic acid, all with placebo controls. The trials of aprotinin and desmopressin were small with very low-certainty evidence for all of our outcomes. Tranexamic acid versus placebo was the systemic drug comparison with the largest number of participants (2 trials; 1460 participants), both at low risk of bias. The largest of these included a total of 9535 individuals undergoing a number of different higher risk surgeries and reported limited information on the vascular subgroup (1399 participants). Neither trial reported the number of units of red cells transfused per participant up to 30 days. Three outcomes were associated with very low-certainty evidence due to the very wide confidence intervals (CIs) resulting from small study sizes and low number of events. These were: all-cause mortality up to 30 days; number of participants requiring an allogeneic blood transfusion up to 30 days; and risk of requiring a repeat procedure or operation due to bleeding. Tranexamic acid may have no effect on the risk of thromboembolic events up to 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.36; 1 trial, 1360 participants; low-certainty evidence due to imprecision). There is one large ongoing trial (8320 participants) comparing tranexamic acid versus placebo in people undergoing non-cardiac surgery who are at high risk of requiring a red cell transfusion. This aims to complete recruitment in April 2023. This trial has primary outcomes of proportion of participants transfused with red blood cells and incidence of venous thromboembolism (DVT or PE). Topical drug treatments Most trials of topical drug treatments were at high risk of bias due to their open-label design (compared with usual care, or liquids were compared with sponges). All of the trials were small, most were very small, and few reported clinically relevant outcomes in the postoperative period. Fibrin sealant versus usual care was the topical drug comparison with the largest number of participants (5 trials, 784 participants). The five trials that compared fibrin sealant with usual care were all at high risk of bias, due to the open-label trial design with no measures put in place to minimise reporting bias. All of the trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies. None of the five trials reported the number of red cells transfused per participant up to 30 days or the number of participants requiring an allogeneic blood transfusion up to 30 days. The other three outcomes were associated with very low-certainty evidence with wide confidence intervals due to small sample sizes and the low number of events, these were: all-cause mortality up to 30 days; risk of requiring a repeat procedure due to bleeding; and risk of thromboembolic disease up to 30 days. We identified one large trial (500 participants) comparing fibrin sealant versus usual care in participants undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, which has not yet started recruitment. This trial lists death due to arterial disease and reintervention rates as primary outcomes.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Because of a lack of data, we are uncertain whether any systemic or topical treatments used to reduce bleeding due to major vascular surgery have an effect on: all-cause mortality up to 30 days; risk of requiring a repeat procedure or operation due to bleeding; number of red cells transfused per participant up to 30 days or the number of participants requiring an allogeneic blood transfusion up to 30 days. There may be no effect of tranexamic acid on the risk of thromboembolic events up to 30 days, this is important as there has been concern that this risk may be increased. Trials with sample size targets of thousands of participants and clinically relevant outcomes are needed, and we look forward to seeing the results of the ongoing trials in the future.

Evaluate the safety and effectiveness of convalescent plasma (CP) or hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIVIG) in severe respiratory disease caused by coronaviruses or influenza, in patients of all ages requiring hospital admission.We searched multiple electronic databases for all publications to 12th October 2020, and RCTs only to 28th June 2021. Two reviewers screened, extracted, and analysed data. We used Cochrane ROB (Risk of Bias)1 for RCTs, ROBINS-I for non-RCTs, and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.Data from 30 RCTs and 2 non-RCTs showed no overall difference between groups for all-cause mortality and adverse events in four comparisons. Certainty of the evidence was downgraded for high ROB and imprecision. (1) CP versus standard care (SoC) (20 RCTS, 2 non-RCTs, very-low to moderate-high certainty); (2) CP versus biologically active control (6 RCTs, very-low certainty); (3) hIVIG versus SoC (3 RCTs, very-low certainty); (4) early CP versus deferred CP (1 RCT, very-low certainty). Subgrouping by titre improved precision in one outcome (30-day mortality) for the 'COVID high-titre' category in Comparison 1 (no difference, high certainty) and Comparison 2 (favours CP, very-low certainty). Post hoc analysis suggests a possible benefit of CP in patients testing negative for antibodies at baseline, compared with those testing positive.A minimum titre should be established and ensured for a positive biological response to the therapy. Further research on the impact of CP/hIVIG in patients who have not yet produced antibodies to the virus would be useful to target therapies at groups who will potentially benefit the most.

DescriptionCoronavirus disease 2019 convalescent plasma (CCP) has emerged as a potential treatment of COVID-19. However, meta-analysis data and recommendations are limited. The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB) developed clinical practice guidelines for the appropriate use of CCP.MethodsThese guidelines are based on 2 living systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CCP from 1 January 2019 to 26 January 2022. There were 33 RCTs assessing 21916 participants. The results were summarized using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. An expert panel reviewed the data using the GRADE framework to formulate recommendations.Recommendation 1 (outpatient)The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for outpatients with COVID-19 who are at high risk for disease progression (weak recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence).Recommendation 2 (inpatient)The AABB recommends against CCP transfusion for unselected hospitalized persons with moderate or severe disease (strong recommendation, high-certainty evidence). This recommendation does not apply to immunosuppressed patients or those who lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.Recommendation 3 (inpatient)The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detected at admission (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).Recommendation 4 (inpatient)The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting immunosuppression (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).Recommendation 5 (prophylaxis)The AABB suggests against prophylactic CCP transfusion for uninfected persons with close contact exposure to a person with COVID-19 (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).Good clinical practice statementCCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers to infected patients early after symptom onset.

Background In a context of a rapid emerging disease, like the COVID-19 pandemic, we are confronted with clinical uncertainty, evolving epidemiological setting and lacking evidence. Within the context of such a high-priority topic, living systematic reviews (LSRs) are an important systematic review type characterized through regular updating and permanent surveillance of continuously evolving evidence. However, with the new pandemic-related challenges, the standard LSR methodology had to be adapted. Objectives The objective is to discuss certain challenges that occurred when conducting LSRs in a rapidly emerging disease context. In particular, we give insights in the lessons we have learned from the conduct of two COVID-19 LSRs and highlight emerging methodological aspects. Results With the evolving knowledge around the virus and its caused disease, we learned that the initial plan for inclusion of study designs, publication types, interventions and comparators, outcomes and the search strategy had to be adapted. The author teams for example had to revise outcome measures or included observational data in addition to evidence from randomized controlled trials, as they provided substantial information on the safety of investigated interventions. For deciding when to update a LSR, additional aspects, such as policy relevance or waiting for important evidence dependent on the individual research question were considered. To avoid biases in the review process, we learned that transparent reporting of any methodological adaptations is highly relevant; between protocol and review, as well as between each review update. Conclusions Our experience showed that LSRs are highly suitable in a pandemic context, in particular when facing unexpected methodological and clinical challenges. The research question, study designs and the methodology, should be revisited and critically discussed before each update, to be flexible enough for addressing the pandemic context. Key messages Living systematic reviews are highly relevant in a pandemic context, but the methodology and decision when to update the review have to be adapted to respond purposeful to the emerging topic. To avoid biases in the review process, we learned that transparent reporting of any methodological adaptations is highly relevant; between protocol and review, as well as between each review update.

Convalescent plasma (CP) from blood donors with antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 may benefit patients with COVID-19 by providing immediate passive immunity via transfusion or by being used to manufacture hyperimmune immunoglobulin preparations. Optimal product characteristics (including neutralizing antibody titers), transfusion volume, and administration timing remain to be determined. Preliminary COVID-19 CP safety data are encouraging, but establishing the clinical efficacy of CP requires an ongoing international collaborative effort. Preliminary results from large, high-quality randomized trials have recently started to be reported.

Background Patient blood management (PBM) interventions aim to improve clinical outcomes by reducing bleeding and transfusion. We assessed whether existing evidence supports the routine use of combinations of these interventions during and after major surgery. Methods Five systematic reviews and a National Institute of Health and Care Excellence health economic review of trials of common PBM interventions enrolling participants of any age undergoing surgery were updated. The last search was on June 1, 2019. Studies in trauma, burns, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, gynaecology, dentistry, or critical care were excluded. The co-primary outcomes were: risk of receiving red cell transfusion and 30-day or hospital all-cause mortality. Treatment effects were estimated using random-effects models and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity assessments used I2. Network meta-analyses used a frequentist approach. The protocol was registered prospectively (PROSPERO CRD42018085730). Results Searches identified 393 eligible randomised controlled trials enrolling 54 917 participants. PBM interventions resulted in a reduction in exposure to red cell transfusion (RR=0.60; 95% CI 0.57, 0.63; I2=77%), but had no statistically significant treatment effect on 30-day or hospital mortality (RR=0.93; 95% CI 0.81, 1.07; I2=0%). Treatment effects were consistent across multiple secondary outcomes, sub-groups and sensitivity analyses that considered clinical setting, type of intervention, and trial quality. Network meta-analysis did not demonstrate additive benefits from the use of multiple interventions. No trial demonstrated that PBM was cost-effective. Conclusions In randomised trials, PBM interventions do not have important clinical benefits beyond reducing bleeding and transfusion in people undergoing major surgery.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To systematically review the optimal administration and relative efficacy of pharmacological interventions for preventing blood loss in people treated in an emergency department for bleeding caused by a blunt force or penetrating injury.

BackgroundConvalescent plasma containing neutralizing antibody to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is under investigation for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment. We report diverse virological characteristics of UK intensive care patients enrolled in the Immunoglobulin Domain of the REMAP-CAP randomized controlled trial that potentially influence treatment outcomes.MethodsSARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharyngeal swabs collected pretreatment was quantified by PCR. Antibody status was determined by spike-protein ELISA. B.1.1.7 was differentiated from other SARS-CoV-2 strains using allele-specific probes or restriction site polymorphism (SfcI) targeting D1118H.ResultsOf 1274 subjects, 90% were PCR positive with viral loads 118–1.7 × 1011IU/mL. Median viral loads were 40-fold higher in those IgG seronegative (n = 354; 28%) compared to seropositives (n = 939; 72%). Frequencies of B.1.1.7 increased from ConclusionsHigh viral loads in seropositive B.1.1.7-infected subjects and resistance to seroconversion indicate less effective clearance by innate and adaptive immune responses. SARS-CoV-2 strain, viral loads, and antibody status define subgroups for analysis of treatment efficacy.

Massive transfusions guided by massive transfusion protocols are commonly used to manage critical bleeding, when the patient is at significant risk of morbidity and mortality, and multiple timely decisions must be made by clinicians. Clinical decision support systems are increasingly used to provide patient-specific recommendations by comparing patient information to a knowledge base, and have been shown to improve patient outcomes. To investigate current massive transfusion practice and the experiences and attitudes of anaesthetists towards massive transfusion and clinical decision support systems, we anonymously surveyed 1000 anaesthetists and anaesthesia trainees across Australia and New Zealand. A total of 228 surveys (23.6%) were successfully completed and 227 were analysed for a 23.3% response rate. Most respondents were involved in massive transfusions infrequently (88.1% managed five or fewer massive transfusion protocols per year) and worked at hospitals which have massive transfusion protocols (89.4%). Massive transfusion management was predominantly limited by timely access to point-of-care coagulation assessment and by competition with other tasks, with trainees reporting more significant limitations compared to specialists. The majority of respondents reported that they were likely, or very likely, both to use (73.1%) and to trust (85%) a clinical decision support system for massive transfusions, with no significant difference between anaesthesia trainees and specialists ( P = 0.375 and P = 0.73, respectively). While the response rate to our survey was poor, there was still a wide range of massive transfusion experience among respondents, with multiple subjective factors identified limiting massive transfusion practice. We identified several potential design features and barriers to implementation to assist with the future development of a clinical decision support system for massive transfusion, and overall wide support for a clinical decision support system for massive transfusion among respondents.

Purpose To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable. Results We randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n = 255), hydroxychloroquine (n = 50), combination therapy (n = 27) or control (n = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (– 1 to 15), 0 (– 1 to 9) and—1 (– 1 to 7), respectively, compared to 6 (– 1 to 16) in the control group with in-hospital mortality of 88/249 (35%), 17/49 (35%), 13/26 (50%), respectively, compared to 106/353 (30%) in the control group. The three interventions decreased organ support-free days compared to control (OR [95% credible interval]: 0.73 [0.55, 0.99], 0.57 [0.35, 0.83] 0.41 [0.24, 0.72]), yielding posterior probabilities that reached the threshold futility (≥ 99.0%), and high probabilities of harm (98.0%, 99.9% and > 99.9%, respectively). The three interventions reduced hospital survival compared with control (OR [95% CrI]: 0.65 [0.45, 0.95], 0.56 [0.30, 0.89], and 0.36 [0.17, 0.73]), yielding high probabilities of harm (98.5% and 99.4% and 99.8%, respectively). Conclusion Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, or combination therapy worsened outcomes compared to no antiviral therapy. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-021-06448-5.

Background and objectives Use of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment has gained interest worldwide. However, there is lack of evidence on its dosing, safety and effectiveness. Until data from clinical studies are available to provide solid evidence for worldwide applicable guidelines, there is a need to provide guidance to the transfusion community and researchers on this emergent therapeutic option. This paper aims to identify existing key gaps in current knowledge in the clinical application of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). Materials and methods The International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT) initiated a multidisciplinary working group with worldwide representation from all six continents with the aim of reviewing existing practices on CCP use from donor, product and patient perspectives. A subgroup of clinical transfusion professionals was formed to draft a document for CCP clinical application to identify the gaps in knowledge in existing literature. Results Gaps in knowledge were identified in the following main domains: study design, patient eligibility, CCP dose, frequency and timing of CCP administration, parameters to assess response to CCP treatment and long-term outcome, adverse events and CCP application in less-resourced countries as well as in paediatrics and neonates. Conclusion This paper outlines a framework of gaps in the knowledge of clinical deployment of CPP that were identified as being most relevant. Studies to address the identified gaps are required to provide better evidence on the effectiveness and safety of CCP use.

Objectives To establish, in an unselected population of London haemoglobinopathy patients, transfusion requirements, blood antigens/alloantibodies, transfusion modalities, burden of transfusion reactions and donor exposure. Background Haemoglobinopathy patients are among the most highly transfused patient populations, and the overall population and number of patients on long-term transfusion programmes are increasing. To provide a safe and efficacious transfusion service for patients, it is important to understand current practice, morbidity associated with transfusion, efficacy of different transfusion modalities and geno-/phenotype requirements. Methods Data on 4451 transfusion episodes in 760 patients from 12 London hospitals were collected retrospectively over a 6-month period in 2011. Results Alloimmunisation prevalence was 17% for sickle cell disease (SCD) and 22% for thalassaemia, most commonly anti-Rh/Kell/Kpa /Cw . Rh phenotypes differed between SCD (Ro r 59.8%/R1 r 15.9%/R2 r 15.6%) and thalassaemia (R1 R1 29.6%/R1 r 28.4%/R1 R2 15.4%). Recording of pheno-/genotypes fell below recommendations. A 2-weekly manual exchange and 3-weekly automated exchange came closest to achieving presumptive targets. In adults with thalassaemia, the mean blood requirement was 36 units per year; for SCD, erythrocytapheresis was carried out every 7 weeks with 66 units; for manual exchange, it was 38 units every 4 weeks; and for simple transfusion, it was 30 units p.a. every 4 weeks. Conclusion Transfusion modality choice was influenced by the resources available-children mostly received simple transfusions, and adults received erythrocytapheresis; the relationships between frequency of exchanges/transfusion modality/target HbA% were not simple, possibly reflecting the difference in recipient erythropoiesis and consequent transfusion modality selection bias; adherence to existing and current guidelines regarding geno-/phenotyping was limited; and alloimmunisation had a low incidence and high prevalence in both disorders.

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. 64 studies in 22. countries were identified from clinical trial registries and personal contacts of the authors. 20 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 liter, but is 400-800 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., Highlights • 20 of the 64 centers (31%) from 12 of 22 countries (55%) responded to a survey about studies of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP); 11 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 9 were case series. • The majority of studies are studying the effect of CCP on sick patients requiring hospitalization and those requiring critical care. • 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. • 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.

Fibrinogen levels drop early in postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), and low fibrinogen levels predict outcomes. There is increasing interest in replacing fibrinogen early in severe PPH and this systematic review's aim was to assess if early fibrinogen replacement therapy improves outcomes in severe PPH. We searched the following databases from inception to June 2019: CDSR and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PubMed, Transfusion Evidence Library, LILACS, Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Portal. We included randomized (RCT) and well-designed controlled observational studies where fibrinogen replacement therapy was given early (within 90 minutes of bleeding) compared with standard protocol in pregnant women > 24 weeks' gestation who developed PPH, defined as estimated blood loss ≥500 mL up to 24 hours post-delivery. Two independent reviewers extracted and reviewed the data on the primary outcome of allogeneic blood transfusion at 24 hours after intervention and secondary outcomes including all-cause mortality, rate of thrombosis, and the need for surgical and non-surgical interventions. We identified 5 eligible studies: 2 completed (total of 299 women) RCTs comparing fibrinogen concentrate with placebo, and 3 ongoing RCTs. There was no completed study assessing cryoprecipitate transfusion. There was variation of: timings of intervention administration; severity of PPH; fibrinogen doses and use of tranexamic acid. There was insufficient evidence that early administration of fibrinogen in PPH reduces the need for allogeneic blood transfusion at 24 hours (risk ratio 0.83 (95% CI 0.54-1.26), P = 0.38) (2 trials, 299 participants) or improves other outcomes. Both studies were underpowered to answer our outcomes. There is a lack of evidence that early fibrinogen replacement therapy improves outcomes in PPH. Future studies are needed to address this, underpinned by data on the optimal fibrinogen dose, protocol-driven approaches versus targeted therapy, and cost-effectiveness of cryoprecipitate versus fibrinogen concentrate therapy in PPH.

Medical care bundles improve standards of care and patient outcomes. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a common medical emergency which has been consistently associated with suboptimal care. We aimed to develop a multisociety care bundle centred on the early management of AUGIB.Commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), a UK multisociety task force was assembled to produce an evidence-based and consensus-based care bundle detailing key interventions to be performed within 24 hours of presentation with AUGIB. A modified Delphi process was conducted with stakeholder representation from BSG, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, Society for Acute Medicine and the National Blood Transfusion Service of the UK. A formal literature search was conducted and international AUGIB guidelines reviewed. Evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool and statements were formulated and subjected to anonymous electronic voting to achieve consensus. Accepted statements were eligible for incorporation into the final bundle after a separate round of voting. The final version of the care bundle was reviewed by the BSG Clinical Services and Standards Committee and approved by all stakeholder groups.Consensus was reached on 19 statements; these culminated in 14 corresponding care bundle items, contained within 6 management domains: Recognition, Resuscitation, Risk assessment, Rx (Treatment), Refer and Review.A multisociety care bundle for AUGIB has been developed to facilitate timely delivery of evidence-based interventions and drive quality improvement and patient outcomes in AUGIB.

Objectives To determine the organisational resources in place; what blood was being transfused, why, how, where, when and by whom; whether laboratory support and policies met standards for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD). Background SCD affects 14 000 people in the United Kingdom (UK). Standards and guidelines do not cover all aspects of transfusion in SCD and there are no data on their use; people may become very sick without warning presenting to non-specialist hospitals; blood services are increasingly supplying units for transfusion in SCD with little data on their use. Methods A retrospective audit of transfusion services/practice for people with SCD who had received a transfusion in January-July 2014 in participating hospitals in the UK and Republic of Ireland (ROI). Results Eighty-four hospitals submitted 1290 cases, 75% of cases came from 18 hospitals submitting 25 or more cases. Transfusions (91.2% [1164/1276]) were administered to patients with HbSS, 60% (732/1227) of patients needed Rh CE negative blood. Transfusion episodes (4528) were recorded, of which 84% were elective. Stroke prevention accounted for 42% of all transfusions; adults received 56% of transfusions of which 50% were automated red cell exchange (RCE), children received 44% of transfusions of which 87% were simple transfusions. Conclusions There was a paucity of appropriate clinical management protocols, adequately trained staff and network arrangements. The high numbers of children being transfused, disparity in transfusion modality between children and adults and the high frequency of the CE negative Rh phenotype were noted.

Our aim was to assess whether there is a difference in outcomes of potential “all-cause” harm in the transfusion of whole blood (WB) compared to blood components (BC) for any bleeding patient regardless of age or clinical condition. We searched multiple electronic databases using a pre-defined search strategy from inception to 2ndMarch 2021. 1 reviewer screened, extracted, and analysed data, with verification by a second reviewer of all decisions. We used Cochrane ROB1 and GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. We used predefined subgroups of trauma and non-trauma studies in the analysis. We included six RCTs (618 participants) which compared WB and BCtransfusion therapyin major bleeding, one trauma trial (n=107), and 5 surgical trials (non-trauma) (n=511). We GRADED evidence as very-low for all outcomes (downgraded for high and unclear risk of bias, small sample size, and wide confidence intervals around the estimate). Our primary outcome (all-cause mortality at 24-hours and 30-days) was reported in 3 out of 6 included trials. There was no evidence of a difference in mortality of WB compared to BC therapy (very-low certainty evidence). There may be a benefit of WB therapy compared to BC therapy in the non-trauma subgroup, with a reduction in the duration of oxygen dependence (1 study;n=60; mean difference 5.9 fewer hours [95% Confidence Interval [CI] -10.83, –0.99] in WB group), and a reduction in hospital stay (1 study,n=64, median difference 6 fewer days in WB group) (very-low certainty evidence). For the remaining outcomes (organ injury,mechanical ventilationand intensive care unit requirement, infection, arterial/venous thrombotic events, and haemolytic transfusion reaction) there was no difference between WB and BC therapy (wide CI, crossing line of no effect), though many of these outcomes were based on small single studies (very-low certainty evidence). In conclusion, there appears to be little to no difference in harms between WB and BC therapy, based on small studies with very low certainty of the evidence. Further large trials are required to establish the overall safety of WB compared to BC, and to assess differences between trauma and non-trauma patients.

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:. Using a living systematic review approach, to assess whether hyperimmune immunoglobulin therapy is effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence.

This collaborative meta-analysis was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (grant supporting the post-doctoral fellowship at the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University). The funders had no role in the design of this collaborative meta-analysis; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; or in the report writing., We would like to express our warm gratitude to all participating patients and convalescent plasma donors. We thank Katja Suter and Sina Ullrich, University of Basel, for their administrative assistance. For their helpful contribution to individual trials, we thank Erica Wood, Iain Gosbell, Richard Charlewood, Thomas Hills, Veronica Hoad, Kristina Kairaitis, Aikaj Jindal, John Gerrard, Hong Foo, Adam Stewart, and Nanette Trask (ASCOT trial); Amalia Bravo-Lindoro, Ral Carrillo-Esper, Karla Maldonado-Silva, Catalina Casillas-Suárez, Orlando Carrillo-Torres, Sandra Murrieta, Elizabeth Diaz-Padilla, Eli Omar Zavaleta, Yadira Bejar-Ramirez, and Evelyn Cortina-de la Rosa (CPC-SARS trial); Sheri Renaud, Roel Rolando-Almario, and Jacqueline Day (NCT04385199 trial); Sandra Tingsgrd, MD, Karen Brorup Heje Pedersen, MD, Michaela Tinggaard, MD, Louise Thorlacius-Ussing, MD, Clara Lundetoft Clausen, MD, Nichlas Hovmand, MD, Simone Bastrup Israelsen, MD, Cecilie Leding, MD, Katrine Iversen, MD, Maria Engel Miller, MD, Hkon Sandholdt, MSc biostatistician (CCAP-2 trial). On behalf of the IRCT20200310046736N1 trial, we thank the Khuzestan Blood Transfusion Organization for specialized assistance in the preparation and maintenance of plasma samples. On behalf of the NCT04332835 trial, we thank all the members of the "PC-COVID-19 Group" at the Clinica del Occidente and Hospital Universitario Mayor Mederi in Bogota, and Clinica CES in Medellin. On behalf of the NCT04403477 trial, we thank Miles Carroll for his support regarding the antibody testing in Bangladesh. The Co-CLARITY team would like to extend their gratitude to the Department of Science and Technology Philippine Council for Health Research and Development and the UP-Philippine General Hospital for all their support in the setting up and conduct of the trial. For helpfully communicating details of their trial, we thank members of the PlasmAr trial, NCT04359810 trial (Max O´Donnell), NCT04468009 trial, and CTRI/2020/05/025299 trial. Support for title page creation and format was provided by AuthorArranger, a tool developed at the National Cancer Institute (https://www.cancer.gov/)., During the conduct of the study, the following is reported: Dr. Berry reports being employee with ownership role at Berry Consultants (receives payments for statistical modeling and design of REMAP-CAP). Dr. Castillo reports grants from DOST PCHRD. Dr. Daly reports grants from Medical Research Future Fund (Australian Govt) and RBWH. Dr. Denkinger reports grants from German Ministry for Education and Research. Dr. Dumagay reports grants from Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. Dr. Dunachie reports grants from UK Department of Health and Social Care, grants from UK National Institute of Health Research. Dr. Gauiran reports grants from Department of Science and Technology—Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. Dr. Gordon reports grants from NIHR, grants from NIHR Research Professorship (RP-2015-06-18), and non-financial support from NIHR Clinical Research Network. Dr. Higgins reports grants from NHMRC and from the Minderoo Foundation. Dr. Hills reports grants from Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Holm reports grants from Swedish Government Funds for Clinical Research (ALF). Dr. Janssen and Dr. Müller-Tidow report grants from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research in Germany (BMBF) to the RECOVER clinical trial. Dr. Krapp reports grants from Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development of Canada, grants from Fundación Telefónica del Perú. Dr. J. Lim reports grants from the Department of Science and Technology, Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. Dr. Lucero reports grants from Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. Dr Manrique reports economic support from Grupo ISA Intercolombia for the project development of trial NCT04332835. Drs. McQuilten and Wood report grants from Medical Research Future Fund. Dr. McVerry reports grants from The Pittsburgh Foundation, Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium, and from UPMC Learning While Doing Program. Mr. Mouncey reports grants from National Institute for Health Research and from the European Union FP7: PREPARE. Dr. Najdovski reports payment from KUL Leuven to Belgian Red Cross for supply of convalescent plasma. Dr. Nichol reports grants from Health Research Board of Ireland. Dr. D. Roberts reports grants from the National Institute for Health (UKRIDHSC COVID-19 Rapid Response Rolling Call—Grant Reference Number COV19-RECPLAS) and the European Commission (SUPPORT-E #101015756). Dr. Rowan reports grants from the European Commission and from the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Shankar-Hari reports grants from National Institute for Health Research UK, grants from UKRI-National Institute for Health Research UK. Dr. Turgeon reports grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Venkatesh reports grants from Baxter. Dr. Webb reports grants from National Health and Medical Research Council, grants from Minderoo Foundation. Dr. Zacharowski reports grants from EU Horizon 2020. The ASCOT trial team (Drs Bowen, Daly, Davis, Denholm, Hammond, Jha, L. Lim, McQuilten, Molton, Morpeth, O’Sullivan, Paterson, Perry, Price, Rees, Roberts, Rogers, Sasadeusz, Snelling, Tong, Venkatesh, Wood) is funded by grants from from Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital Foundation, Pratt Foundation, Minderoo Foundation, BHP Foundation, Hospital Research Foundation, Macquarie Group Foundation, Health Research Council of New Zealand, Australian Partnership for Preparedness Research on Infectious Disease Emergencies (APPRISE), and the collection and supply of convalescent plasma was conducted within Lifeblood’s funding arrangements. The CONFIDENT trial is funded by the Belgian KCE (blood establishments received payment for the convalescent plasma supplied in the clinical trial). REMAP-CAP was supported in part by funding from UKRIDHSC COVID-19 Rapid Response Rolling Call (Grant Reference Number COV19-RECPLAS). Collection of convalescent plasma for REMAP-CAP was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, UK. The IRCT20200310046736N1 trial was supported by the Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences (Grant No. R.AJUMS.REC.1399.003, Dr. Pouladzadeh). The PC-COVID-19 Group is supported by the Universidad del Rosario, IDCBIS, ISA Group and Suramericana (Colombia). Outside the submitted work, the following is reported: Dr. Axfors reports postdoctoral grants from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, Uppsala University, the Swedish Society of Medicine, the Blanceflor Foundation, and the Sweden-America Foundation. Dr. Aomar reports personal fees from SOBI, GEDEON RICHTER, and GSK. Dr. Benfield reports grants from Novo Nordisk Foundation, Simonsen Foundation, Lundbeck Foundation, Kai Hansen Foundation, Erik and Susanna Olesen’s Charitable Fund; grants and personal fees from GSK, Pfizer, Gilead; and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, and Pentabase ApS. Dr. Estcourt reports being an investigator on the RECOVERY trial. Dr. Gordon reports personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb, and 30 Respiratory. Dr. Jha reports grants and personal fees from Baxter Healthcare, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, grants from NephroPlus. Dr. Laterre reports personal fees from Adrenomed. Dr. McVerry reports grants from NIH/NHLBI and Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr. Mondragon reports financial activities outside the submitted work (employment at Johnson & Johnson). Dr. Perry reports partner being employed at CSL and owning shares in CSL. Dr. Paterson reports involvement with ALLIANCE trial of COVID-19 treatments. Dr. J. Roberts reports other COVID-19 related trials (in different patient groups): tocilizumab in ICU patients; hydroxychloroquine dosing in ICU patients; planned study of remdesivir pharmacokinetics in patients during expanded access program; and in silico evaluation of ivermectin dosing. Dr Sasadeusz reports grants from various Pharma companies including Gilead Sciences, Abvvie, Merck, and Takeda. Dr. Zacharowski reports personal fees from Biotest AG, CSL Behring, GE Heathcare, and is President of the ESAIC., Background: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX). Methods: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care., Amalia Bravo-Lindoro, BHP Foundation, Blanceflor Foundation, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development of Canada, Eli Omar Zavaleta, Erik and Susanna Olesen’s Charitable Fund, Federal Ministry of Education and Research in Germany, Fundación Telefónica del Perú, IDCBIS, ISA Group and Suramericana, Kai Hansen Foundation, Katja Suter and Sina Ullrich, Khuzestan Blood Transfusion Organization, Macquarie Group Foundation, Medical Research Future Fund, NephroPlus, RBWH, Roel Rolando-Almario NCT04385199, Royal Brisbane, Sheri Renaud, Simonsen Foundation, UKRI-National Institute for Health Research UK, UKRIDHSC COV19-RECPLAS, UP-Philippine General Hospital CTRI/2020/05/025299, NCT04359810, NCT04468009, Women’s Hospital Foundation, National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Pittsburgh Foundation, Pfizer, Baxter International, Stanford University, Gilead Sciences, National Institute on Handicapped Research RP-2015-06-18, Meso Scale Diagnostics, Universität Basel, Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Health Research Board, Pratt Foundation, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Institute for Health Research, Department of Health and Social Care, European Commission 101015756, National Health and Medical Research Council, Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India, Health Research Council of New Zealand, Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung, Sweden-America Foundation, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Lundbeckfonden, Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse, Seventh Framework Programme, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Uppsala Universitet, Horizon 2020, Svenska Läkaresällskapet, Universidad del Rosario, Pharmaceuticals Bayer, Novo Nordisk Fonden, Department of Science and Technology, Philippines, Philippine Council for Health Research and Development, Minderoo Foundation

IntroductionTools to detect SARS-Coronavirus-2 variants of concern and track the ongoing evolution of the virus are necessary to support public health efforts and the design and evaluation of novel COVID-19 therapeutics and vaccines. Although next-generation sequencing (NGS) has been adopted as the gold standard method for discriminating SARS-CoV-2 lineages, alternative methods may be required when processing samples with low viral loads or low RNA quality.MethodsAn allele-specific probe polymerase chain reaction (ASP-PCR) targeting lineage-specific single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) was developed and used to screen 1,082 samples from two clinical trials in the United Kingdom and Brazil. Probit regression models were developed to compare ASP-PCR performance against 1,771 NGS results for the same cohorts.ResultsIndividual SNPs were shown to readily identify specific variants of concern. ASP-PCR was shown to discriminate SARS-CoV-2 lineages with a higher likelihood than NGS over a wide range of viral loads. Comparative advantage for ASP-PCR over NGS was most pronounced in samples with Ct values between 26-30 and in samples that showed evidence of degradation. Results for samples screened by ASP-PCR and NGS showed 99% concordant results.DiscussionASP-PCR is well-suited to augment but not replace NGS. The method can differentiate SARS-COV-2 lineages with high accuracy and would be best deployed to screen samples with lower viral loads or that may suffer from degradation. Future work should investigate further destabilization from primer:target base mismatch through altered oligonucleotide chemistry or chemical additives.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are being investigated as potential therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of these interventions is required. OBJECTIVES: Using a living systematic review approach, to assess whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID‐19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence. SEARCH METHODS: To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID‐19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register, the Epistemonikos COVID‐19 L*OVE Platform, and trial registries. Searches were done on 17 March 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for COVID‐19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. For safety assessments, we also included non‐controlled non‐randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) if 500 or more participants were included. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of Bias 2' tool for RCTs, and for NRSIs, the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer. We rated the certainty of evidence, using the GRADE approach, for the following outcomes: all‐cause mortality, improvement and worsening of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), development of severe clinical COVID‐19 symptoms (for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease), quality of life (including fatigue and functional independence), grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies (12 RCTs, 1 NRSI) with 48,509 participants, of whom 41,880 received convalescent plasma. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We identified a further 100 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, and 33 studies reporting as being completed or terminated. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID‐19 and moderate to severe disease Eleven RCTs and one NRSI investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 48,349 participants with moderate to severe disease. Nine RCTs compared convalescent plasma to placebo treatment or standard care alone, and two compared convalescent plasma to standard plasma (results not included in abstract). Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We included data on nine RCTs (12,875 participants) to assess the effectiveness of convalescent plasma compared to placebo or standard care alone. Convalescent plasma does not reduce all‐cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 12,646 participants; high‐certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on clinical improvement for all participants when assessed by liberation from respiratory support (RR not estimable; 8 RCTs, 12,682 participants; high‐certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on the chance of being weaned or liberated from invasive mechanical ventilation for the subgroup of participants requiring invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.93; 2 RCTs, 630 participants; low‐certainty evidence). It does not reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.08; 4 RCTs, 11,765 participants; high‐certainty evidence). We did not identify any subgroup differences. We did not identify any studies reporting quality of life, and therefore, do not know whether convalescent plasma has any impact on quality of life. One RCT assessed resolution of fatigue on day 7, but we are very uncertain about the effect (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.42; 309 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). Safety of convalescent plasma We included results from eight RCTs, and one NRSI, to assess the safety of convalescent plasma. Some of the RCTs reported on safety data only for the convalescent plasma group. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma increases or reduces the risk of grade 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.41; 4 RCTs, 905 participants; low‐certainty evidence), and serious adverse events (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.90; 2 RCTs, 414 participants; low‐certainty evidence). A summary of reported events of the NRSI (reporting safety data for 20,000 of 35,322 transfused participants), and four RCTs reporting safety data only for transfused participants (6125 participants) are included in the full text. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and asymptomatic or mild disease We identified one RCT reporting on 160 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo treatment (saline). Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We are very uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on all‐cause mortality (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.65; very low‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on developing severe clinical COVID‐19 symptoms (RR not estimable; low‐certainty evidence). We identified no study reporting quality of life. Safety of convalescent plasma We do not know whether convalescent plasma is associated with a higher risk of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (very low‐certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (very low‐certainty evidence). This is a living systematic review. We search weekly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have high certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for the treatment of individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on measures of clinical improvement. We are uncertain about the adverse effects of convalescent plasma. While major efforts to conduct research on COVID‐19 are being made, heterogeneous reporting of outcomes is still problematic. There are 100 ongoing studies and 33 studies reporting in a study registry as being completed or terminated. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around hyperimmune immunoglobulin therapy for people with any disease severity, and convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Background Diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is an aggressive cancer of the lymphatic system. About 30% to 40% of people with DLBCL experience relapse and 10% are refractory to first‐line treatment usually consisting of R‐CHOP chemotherapy. Of those eligible for second‐line treatment, commonly consisting of salvage chemotherapy followed by autologous stem‐cell transplantation (ASCT), around 50% experience relapse. With a median overall survival of less than six to 12 months, the prognosis of individuals who relapse or are refractory (r/r) to advanced lines of treatment or of those who are ineligible for ASCT, is very poor. With the introduction of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T‐cell therapy, a novel treatment option for these people is available. Objectives To assess the benefits and harms of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T‐cell therapy for people with relapsed or refractory (r/r) DLBCL. Search methods An experienced information specialist performed a systematic database search for relevant articles on CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase until September 11th, 2020. We also searched trial registries and reference lists of identified studies up to this date. All search results were screened by two authors independently and a third author was involved in case of discrepancies. Selection criteria We included prospectively planned trials evaluating CAR T‐cell therapy for people with r/r DLBCL. We had planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and we flexibly adapted eligibility criteria to the most reliable study designs available. We excluded studies involving fewer than 10 participants with r/r DLBCL and studies with a proportion of participants with r/r DLBCL below 70%, unless data were reported separately for this subgroup. Data collection and analysis Two review authors extracted data and performed risk of bias ratings independently. A third author was involved in case of disagreements. As our search did not yield any completed RCTs, prospective controlled non‐randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) or prospective observational studies with a control group, we did not meta‐analyse data and reported all results narratively. We adopted the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for prioritised outcomes. Main results We identified 13 eligible uncontrolled studies evaluating a single or multiple arms of CAR T‐cell therapies. We also identified 38 ongoing studies, including three RCTs. Ten studies are awaiting classification due to completion with no retrievable results data or insufficient data to justify inclusion. The mean number of participants enrolled, treated with CAR T‐cell therapy and evaluated in the included studies were 79 (range 12 to 344; data unavailable for two studies), 61 (range 12 to 294; data unavailable for one study) and 52 (range 11 to 256), respectively. Most studies included people with r/r DLBCL among people with other haematological B‐cell malignancies. Participants had received at least a median of three prior treatment lines (data unavailable for four studies), 5% to 50% had undergone ASCT (data unavailable for five studies) and, except for two studies, 3% to 18% had undergone allogenic stem‐cell transplantation (data unavailable for eight studies). The overall risk of bias was high for all studies, in particular, due to incomplete follow‐up and the absence of blinding. None of the included studies had a control group so that no adequate comparative effect measures could be calculated. The duration of follow‐up varied substantially between studies, in particular, for harms. Our certainty in the evidence is very low for all outcomes. Overall survival was reported by eight studies (567 participants). Four studies reported survival rates at 12 months which ranged between 48% and 59%, and one study reported an overall survival rate of 50.5% at 24 months. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CAR T‐cell therapy on overall survival. Two studies including 294 participants at baseline and 59 participants at the longest follow‐up (12 months or 18 months) described improvements of quality of life measured with the EuroQol 5‐Dimension 5‐Level visual analogue scale (EQ‐5D‐5L VAS) or Function Assessment of Cancer Therapy‐Lymphoma (FACT‐Lym). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CAR T‐cell therapy on quality of life. None of the studies reported treatment‐related mortality. Five studies (550 participants) reported the occurrence of adverse events among participants, ranging between 99% and 100% for any grade adverse events and 68% to 98% for adverse events grade ≥ 3. In three studies (253 participants), 56% to 68% of participants experienced serious adverse events, while in one study (28 participants), no serious adverse events occurred. CAR T‐cell therapy may increase the risk of adverse events and serious adverse events but the evidence is very uncertain about the exact risk. The occurrence of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was reported in 11 studies (675 participants) under use of various grading criteria. Five studies reported between 42% and 100% of participants experiencing CRS according to criteria described in Lee 2014. CAR T‐cell therapy may increase the risk of CRS but the evidence is very uncertain about the exact risk. Nine studies (575 participants) reported results on progression‐free survival, disease‐free survival or relapse‐free survival. Twelve‐month progression‐free survival rates were reported by four studies and ranged between 44% and 75%. In one study, relapse‐free survival remained at a rate of 64% at both 12 and 18 months. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CAR T‐cell therapy on progression‐free survival. Thirteen studies (620 participants) provided data on complete response rates. At six months, three studies reported complete response rates between 40% and 45%. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CAR T‐cell therapy on complete response rates. Authors' conclusions The available evidence on the benefits and harms of CAR T‐cell therapy for people with r/r DLBCL is limited, mainly because of the absence of comparative clinical trials. The results we present should be regarded in light of this limitation and conclusions should be drawn very carefully. Due to the uncertainty in the current evidence, a large number of ongoing investigations and a risk of substantial and potentially life‐threatening complications requiring supplementary treatment, it is critical to continue evaluating the evidence on this new therapy.

Background Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory‐produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Objectives To assess the effectiveness and safety of SARS‐CoV‐2‐neutralising mAbs for treating patients with COVID‐19, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention. To maintain the currency of the evidence, we will use a living systematic review approach. A secondary objective is to track newly developed SARS‐CoV‐2‐targeting mAbs from first tests in humans onwards. Search methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register, and three other databases on 17 June 2021. We also checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. Between submission and publication, we conducted a shortened randomised controlled trial (RCT)‐only search on 30 July 2021. Selection criteria We included studies that evaluated SARS‐CoV‐2‐neutralising mAbs, alone or combined, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, to treat people with COVID‐19. We excluded studies on prophylactic use of SARS‐CoV‐2‐neutralising mAbs. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). Prioritised outcomes were all‐cause mortality by days 30 and 60, clinical progression, quality of life, admission to hospital, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Main results We identified six RCTs that provided results from 17,495 participants with planned completion dates between July 2021 and December 2031. Target sample sizes varied from 1020 to 10,000 participants. Average age was 42 to 53 years across four studies of non‐hospitalised participants, and 61 years in two studies of hospitalised participants. Non‐hospitalised individuals with COVID‐19 Four studies evaluated single agents bamlanivimab (N = 465), sotrovimab (N = 868), regdanvimab (N = 307), and combinations of bamlanivimab/etesevimab (N = 1035), and casirivimab/imdevimab (N = 799). We did not identify data for mortality at 60 days or quality of life. Our certainty of the evidence is low for all outcomes due to too few events (very serious imprecision). Bamlanivimab compared to placebo No deaths occurred in the study by day 29. There were nine people admitted to hospital by day 29 out of 156 in the placebo group compared with one out of 101 in the group treated with 0.7 g bamlanivimab (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.33), 2 from 107 in the group treated with 2.8 g (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.47) and 2 from 101 in the group treated with 7.0 g (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.56). Treatment with 0.7 g, 2.8 g and 7.0 g bamlanivimab may have similar rates of AEs as placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.50; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.38; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.27). The effect on SAEs is uncertain. Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Bamlanivimab/etesevimab compared to placebo There were 10 deaths in the placebo group and none in bamlanivimab/etesevimab group by day 30 (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.81). Bamlanivimab/etesevimab may decrease hospital admission by day 29 (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.59), may result in a slight increase in any grade AEs (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.59) and may increase SAEs (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.37). Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab compared to placebo Casirivimab/imdevimab may reduce hospital admissions or death (2.4 g: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.19; 8.0 g: RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.79). We are uncertain of the effect on grades 3‐4 AEs (2.4 g: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.73) and SAEs (2.4 g: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.65). Mortality by day 30 and clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Sotrovimab compared to placebo We are uncertain whether sotrovimab has an effect on mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.18) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) requirement or death (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.76). Treatment with sotrovimab may reduce the number of participants with oxygen requirement (RR 0.11, 95 % CI 0.02 to 0.45), hospital admission or death by day 30 (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.48), grades 3‐4 AEs (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.60), SAEs (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.63) and may have little or no effect on any grade AEs (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.16). Regdanvimab compared to placebo Treatment with either dose (40 or 80 mg/kg) compared with placebo may decrease hospital admissions or death (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.60, 206 participants), but may increase grades 3‐4 AEs (RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.52 to 13.12; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.37 to 10.70). 80 mg/kg may reduce any grade AEs (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.22) but 40 mg/kg may have little to no effect (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.43). There were too few events to allow meaningful judgment for the outcomes mortality by 30 days, IMV requirement, and SAEs. Hospitalised individuals with COVID‐19 Two studies evaluating bamlanivimab as a single agent (N = 314) and casirivimab/imdevimab as a combination therapy (N = 9785) were included. Bamlanivimab compared to placebo We are uncertain whether bamlanivimab has an effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83) and SAEs by day 28 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.14). Bamlanivimab may have little to no effect on time to hospital discharge (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.20) and mortality by day 90 (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.43). The effect of bamlanivimab on the development of severe symptoms at day 5 (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85) is uncertain. Bamlanivimab may increase grades 3‐4 AEs at day 28 (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.98). We assessed the evidence as low certainty for all outcomes due to serious imprecision, and very low certainty for severe symptoms because of additional concerns about indirectness. Casirivimab/imdevimab with usual care compared to usual care alone Treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab compared to usual care probably has little or no effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.02), IMV requirement or death (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04), nor alive at hospital discharge by day 30 (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04). We assessed the evidence as moderate certainty due to study limitations (lack of blinding). AEs and SAEs were not reported. Authors' conclusions The evidence for each comparison is based on single studies. None of these measured quality of life. Our certainty in the evidence for all non‐hospitalised individuals is low, and for hospitalised individuals is very low to moderate. We consider the current evidence insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding treatment with SARS‐CoV‐2‐neutralising mAbs. Further studies and long‐term data from the existing studies are needed to confirm or refute these initial findings, and to understand how the emergence of SARS‐CoV‐2 variants may impact the effectiveness of SARS‐CoV‐2‐neutralising mAbs. Publication of the 36 ongoing studies may resolve uncertainties about the effectiveness and safety of SARS‐CoV‐2‐neutralising mAbs for the treatment of COVID‐19 and possible subgroup differences.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma is the only antibody-based therapy currently available for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It has robust historical precedence and sound biological plausibility. Although promising, convalescent plasma has not yet been shown to be safe as a treatment for COVID-19. METHODS: Thus, we analyzed key safety metrics after transfusion of ABO-compatible human COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 5000 hospitalized adults with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, with 66% in the intensive care unit, as part of the US FDA expanded access program for COVID-19 convalescent plasma. RESULTS: The incidence of all serious adverse events (SAEs), including mortality rate (0.3%), in the first 4 hours after transfusion was

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory‐produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as potential prophylaxis to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of SARS‐CoV‐2‐neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, to prevent infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 causing COVID‐19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases on 27 April 2022. We checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated SARS‐CoV‐2‐neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, alone or combined, versus an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, for pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) of COVID‐19. We excluded studies of SARS‐CoV‐2‐neutralising mAbs to treat COVID‐19, as these are part of another review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane RoB 2. Prioritised outcomes were infection with SARS‐CoV‐2, development of clinical COVID‐19 symptoms, all‐cause mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs of 9749 participants who were previously uninfected and unvaccinated at baseline. Median age was 42 to 76 years. Around 20% to 77.5% of participants in the PrEP studies and 35% to 100% in the PEP studies had at least one risk factor for severe COVID‐19. At baseline, 72.8% to 82.2% were SARS‐CoV‐2 antibody seronegative. We identified four ongoing studies, and two studies awaiting classification. Pre‐exposure prophylaxis Tixagevimab/cilgavimab versus placebo One study evaluated tixagevimab/cilgavimab versus placebo in participants exposed to SARS‐CoV‐2 wild‐type, Alpha, Beta, and Delta variant. About 39.3% of participants were censored for efficacy due to unblinding and 13.8% due to vaccination. Within six months, tixagevimab/cilgavimab probably decreases infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.70; 4685 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence), decreases development of clinical COVID‐19 symptoms (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.35; 5172 participants; high‐certainty evidence), and may decrease admission to hospital (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0 to 0.59; 5197 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Tixagevimab/cilgavimab may result in little to no difference on mortality within six months, all‐grade AEs, and SAEs (low‐certainty evidence). Quality of life was not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo One study evaluated casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS‐CoV‐2 wild‐type, Alpha, and Delta variant. About 36.5% of participants opted for SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination and had a mean of 66.1 days between last dose of intervention and vaccination. Within six months, casirivimab/imdevimab may decrease infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0 to 0.14; 825 seronegative participants; low‐certainty evidence) and may decrease development of clinical COVID‐19 symptoms (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0 to 0.27; 969 participants; low‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether casirivimab/imdevimab affects mortality regardless of the SARS‐CoV‐2 antibody serostatus. Casirivimab/imdevimab may increase all‐grade AEs slightly (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.31; 969 participants; low‐certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on grade 3 to 4 AEs and SAEs within six months. Admission to hospital and quality of life were not reported. Postexposure prophylaxis Bamlanivimab versus placebo One study evaluated bamlanivimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS‐CoV‐2 wild‐type. Bamlanivimab probably decreases infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 versus placebo by day 29 (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98; 966 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference on all‐cause mortality by day 60 (R 0.83, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.70; 966 participants; low‐certainty evidence), may increase all‐grade AEs by week eight (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.46; 966 participants; low‐certainty evidence), and may increase slightly SAEs (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.91; 966 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Development of clinical COVID‐19 symptoms, admission to hospital within 30 days, and quality of life were not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo One study evaluated casirivimab/imdevimab versus placebo in participants who may have been exposed to SARS‐CoV‐2 wild‐type, Alpha, and potentially, but less likely to Delta variant. Within 30 days, casirivimab/imdevimab decreases infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.48; 1505 participants; high‐certainty evidence), development of clinical COVID‐19 symptoms (broad‐term definition) (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.35; 1505 participants; high‐certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference on mortality (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.43; 1505 participants; low‐certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference in admission to hospital. Casirivimab/imdevimab may slightly decrease grade 3 to 4 AEs (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.02; 2617 participants; low‐certainty evidence), decreases all‐grade AEs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.80; 2617 participants; high‐certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference on SAEs in participants regardless of SARS‐CoV‐2 antibody serostatus. Quality of life was not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For PrEP, there is a decrease in development of clinical COVID‐19 symptoms (high certainty), infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 (moderate certainty), and admission to hospital (low certainty) with tixagevimab/cilgavimab. There is low certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS‐CoV‐2, and development of clinical COVID‐19 symptoms; and a higher rate for all‐grade AEs with casirivimab/imdevimab. For PEP, there is moderate certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 and low certainty for a higher rate for all‐grade AEs with bamlanivimab. There is high certainty of a decrease in infection with SARS‐CoV‐2, development of clinical COVID‐19 symptoms, and a higher rate for all‐grade AEs with casirivimab/imdevimab. Although there is high‐to‐moderate certainty evidence for some outcomes, it is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions. These findings only apply to people unvaccinated against COVID‐19. They are only applicable to the variants prevailing during the study and not other variants (e.g. Omicron). In vitro, tixagevimab/cilgavimab is effective against Omicron, but there are no clinical data. Bamlanivimab and casirivimab/imdevimab are ineffective against Omicron in vitro. Further studies are needed and publication of four ongoing studies may resolve the uncertainties.

International audience

Background A living systematic review (LSR) is an emerging review type that makes use of continual updating. In the COVID-19 pandemic, we were confronted with a shifting epidemiological landscape, clinical uncertainties and evolving evidence. These unexpected challenges compelled us to amend standard LSR methodology. Objective and outline Our primary objective is to discuss some challenges faced when conducting LSRs in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to provide methodological guidance for others doing similar work. Based on our experience and lessons learned from two Cochrane LSRs and challenges identified in several non-Cochrane LSRs, we highlight methodological considerations, particularly with regards to the study design, interventions and comparators, changes in outcome measure, and the search strategy. We discuss when to update, or rather when not to update the review, and the importance of transparency when reporting changes. Lessons learned and conclusion We learned that a LSR is a very suitable review type for the pandemic context, even in the face of new methodological and clinical challenges. Our experience showed that the decision for updating a LSR depends not only on the evolving disease or emerging evidence, but also on the individual review question and the review teams’ resources.

BackgroundTreatment of COVID-19 patients with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may have a beneficial effect on clinical outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.MethodsIn this randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) several possible treatments are being compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to receive either usual care plus high titre convalescent plasma or usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality.FindingsBetween 28 May 2020 and 15 January 2021, 5795 patients were randomly allocated to receive convalescent plasma and 5763 to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1398 (24%) of 5795 patients allocated convalescent plasma and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients allocated usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio [RR] 1·00; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0·93 to 1·07; p=0·93). 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 (66%vs. 67%; rate ratio 0·98; 95% CI 0·94-1·03, p=0·50). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (28%vs. 29%; rate ratio 0·99; 95% CI 0·93-1·05, p=0·79).InterpretationAmong 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 (Grant refs: MC_PC_19056; COV19-RECPLA).

BackgroundTreatment of COVID-19 patients with convalescent plasma containing neutralising antibody to SARS-CoV-2 is under investigation as a means of reducing viral loads, ameliorating disease outcomes, and reducing mortality. However, its efficacy might be reduced in those infected with the emerging B.1.1.7 SARS-CoV-2 variant. Here, we report the diverse virological characteristics of UK patients enrolled in the Immunoglobulin Domain of the REMAP-CAP randomised controlled trial.MethodsSARS-CoV-2 viral RNA was detected and quantified by real-time PCR in nasopharyngeal swabs obtained from study subjects within 48 hours of admission to intensive care unit. Antibody status was determined by spike-protein ELISA. B.1.1.7 strain was differentiated from other SARS-CoV-2 strains by two novel typing methods detecting the B.1.1.7-associated D1118H mutation with allele-specific probes and by restriction site polymorphism (SfcI).FindingsOf 1260 subjects, 90% were PCR-positive with viral loads in nasopharyngeal swabs ranging from 72 international units [IUs]/ml to 1.7×1011IU/ml. Median viral loads were 45-fold higher in those who were seronegative for IgG antibodies (n=314; 28%) compared to seropositives (n=804; 72%), reflecting in part the latter group’s possible later disease stage on enrolment. Frequencies of B.1.1.7 infection increased from early November (60%). Anti-SARS-CoV-2 seronegative individuals infected with wild-type SARS-CoV-2 had significantly higher viral loads than seropositives (medians of 1.2×106and 3.4 ×104IU/ml respectively; p=2×10−9). However, viral load distributions were elevated in both seropositive and seronegative subjects infected with B.1.1.7 (13.4×106and 7.6×106IU/ml; p=0.18).InterpretationHigh viral loads in seropositive B.1.1.7-infected subjects are consistent with increased replication capacity and/or less effective clearance by innate or adaptive immune response of B.1.1.7 strain than wild-type. As viral genotype was associated with diverse virological and immunological phenotypes, metrics of viral load, antibody status and infecting strain should be used to define subgroups for analysis of treatment efficacy.

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe to prevent infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 and development of COVID‐19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.

The response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been hampered by lack of an effective severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antiviral therapy. Here we report the use of remdesivir in a patient with COVID-19 and the prototypic genetic antibody deficiency X-linked agammaglobulinaemia (XLA). Despite evidence of complement activation and a robust T cell response, the patient developed persistent SARS-CoV-2 pneumonitis, without progressing to multi-organ involvement. This unusual clinical course is consistent with a contribution of antibodies to both viral clearance and progression to severe disease. In the absence of these confounders, we take an experimental medicine approach to examine the in vivo utility of remdesivir. Over two independent courses of treatment, we observe a temporally correlated clinical and virological response, leading to clinical resolution and viral clearance, with no evidence of acquired drug resistance. We therefore provide evidence for the antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in vivo, and its potential benefit in selected patients., Remdesivir is under evaluation for treatment of COVID-19 in clinical trials. Here, the authors report results of remdesivir treatment in a patient with COVID-19 and the genetic antibody deficiency XLA. They show a temporally correlated clinical and virological response, suggesting that remdesivir can reduce SARS-CoV-2 replication in patients.

The response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been hampered by lack of an effective severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antiviral therapy. Here we report the successful use of remdesivir in a patient with COVID-19 and the prototypic genetic antibody deficiency X-linked agammaglobulinaemia (XLA). Despite evidence of complement activation and a robust T cell response, the patient developed persistent SARS-CoV-2 pneumonitis, without progressing to multi-organ involvement. His unusual clinical course identifies a key role for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in both viral clearance and progression to severe disease. In the absence of these confounders, we took an experimental medicine approach to examine the in vivoutility of remdesivir. Over two independent courses of treatment, we observed a dramatic, temporally correlated clinical and virological response, leading to clinical resolution and viral clearance, with no evidence of acquired drug resistance. We therefore provide unambiguous evidence for the antiviral efficacy of remdesivir in vivo, and its potential benefit in selected patients.

BACKGROUND: Management of patients with major haemorrhage often requires urgent administration of multiple blood products, commonly termed a massive transfusion (MT). Clinical practice in these scenarios is supported in part by evidence-based MT guidelines, which typically recommend use of an MT protocol (MTP). MTPs aim to provide practical and specific interpretation of MT guidelines for local institutional use, outlining tasks and pre-configuration of blood product packs to be transfused to provide efficient and evidence-based transfusion management. Institutions can support this aim by the measurement of MTP performance and patient outcomes through collection of quality indicators (QI). Many international guidelines now recommend the routine collection of a range of QIs relating to MT/MTP; however, there is significant variation in procedures and no benchmarks or minimal evidence to guide practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to document and evaluate reported QIs for MTP. We conducted a search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE for published studies from inception until May 14, 2020, that reported at least one MTP QI and use of an MTP or equivalent protocol. Included studies were evaluated using a QI classification system based on current MT QI guidelines and the Donabedian QI framework. RESULTS: We identified 107 eligible studies. Trauma patients were the most commonly evaluated group, and total blood products transfused and in-hospital mortality were the most commonly reported QIs. Reflecting the lack of international consensus and benchmarks, we found significant variability in the reporting of QIs, which often did not reflect guideline recommendations. DISCUSSION: Our review highlights the importance of establishing international consensus on prioritised QIs with quantifiable targets that are important to the process of MT.

Authorisation in the US was premature, and a missed opportunity Plasma from people recovering from infection, particularly after severe illness, may contain high levels of polyclonal, pathogen specific antibodies. These antibodies may confer passive immunity to recipients, and in viral diseases are thought to act mainly by neutralising viral particles.1 Convalescent plasma, or purified antibodies from the plasma (hyperimmune globulin), was often used in clinical practice before the advent of vaccines, including during the influenza pandemic of 1918.2 Hyperimmune globulin is still used for post-exposure prophylaxis against various viral infections, including hepatitis B, varicella zoster, and rabies. The use of convalescent plasma to treat patients with covid-19 has understandably attracted a lot of attention, but definitive evidence of efficacy has been elusive. Nevertheless, on 23 August the US Food and Drugs Administration authorised its emergency use for hospital patients with covid-19. At the time, only two small underpowered trials had been published.34 Until this authorisation the large scale clinical administration of convalescent plasma in the US was regulated under the FDA’s expanded access treatment protocol, which required individual patient authorisation and collection of data on clinical outcomes and side effects. Over five months, from 1 …

Background: Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is the most common cancer of the lymphatic system in Western countries. Several clinical and biological factors for CLL have been identified. However, it remains unclear which of the available prognostic models combining those factors can be used in clinical practice to predict long‐term outcome in people newly‐diagnosed with CLL. Objectives: To identify, describe and appraise all prognostic models developed to predict overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS) or treatment‐free survival (TFS) in newly‐diagnosed (previously untreated) adults with CLL, and meta‐analyse their predictive performances. Search methods: We searched MEDLINE (from January 1950 to June 2019 via Ovid), Embase (from 1974 to June 2019) and registries of ongoing trials (to 5 March 2020) for development and validation studies of prognostic models for untreated adults with CLL. In addition, we screened the reference lists and citation indices of included studies. Selection criteria: We included all prognostic models developed for CLL which predict OS, PFS, or TFS, provided they combined prognostic factors known before treatment initiation, and any studies that tested the performance of these models in individuals other than the ones included in model development (i.e. 'external model validation studies'). We included studies of adults with confirmed B‐cell CLL who had not received treatment prior to the start of the study. We did not restrict the search based on study design. Data collection and analysis: We developed a data extraction form to collect information based on the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS). Independent pairs of review authors screened references, extracted data and assessed risk of bias according to the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). For models that were externally validated at least three times, we aimed to perform a quantitative meta‐analysis of their predictive performance, notably their calibration (proportion of people predicted to experience the outcome who do so) and discrimination (ability to differentiate between people with and without the event) using a random‐effects model. When a model categorised individuals into risk categories, we pooled outcome frequencies per risk group (low, intermediate, high and very high). We did not apply GRADE as guidance is not yet available for reviews of prognostic models. Main results: From 52 eligible studies, we identified 12 externally validated models: six were developed for OS, one for PFS and five for TFS. In general, reporting of the studies was poor, especially predictive performance measures for calibration and discrimination; but also basic information, such as eligibility criteria and the recruitment period of participants was often missing. We rated almost all studies at high or unclear risk of bias according to PROBAST. Overall, the applicability of the models and their validation studies was low or unclear; the most common reasons were inappropriate handling of missing data and serious reporting deficiencies concerning eligibility criteria, recruitment period, observation time and prediction performance measures. We report the results for three models predicting OS, which had available data from more than three external validation studies: CLL International Prognostic Index (CLL‐IPI) This score includes five prognostic factors: age, clinical stage, IgHV mutational status, B2‐microglobulin and TP53 status. Calibration: for the low‐, intermediate‐ and high‐risk groups, the pooled five‐year survival per risk group from validation studies corresponded to the frequencies observed in the model development study. In the very high‐risk group, predicted survival from CLL‐IPI was lower than observed from external validation studies. Discrimination: the pooled c‐statistic of seven external validation studies (3307 participants, 917 events) was 0.72 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.77). The 95% prediction interval (PI) of this model for the c‐statistic, which describes the expected interval for the model's discriminative ability in a new external validation study, ranged from 0.59 to 0.83. Barcelona‐Brno score Aimed at simplifying the CLL‐IPI, this score includes three prognostic factors: IgHV mutational status, del(17p) and del(11q). Calibration: for the low‐ and intermediate‐risk group, the pooled survival per risk group corresponded to the frequencies observed in the model development study, although the score seems to overestimate survival for the high‐risk group. Discrimination: the pooled c‐statistic of four external validation studies (1755 participants, 416 events) was 0.64 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.67); 95% PI 0.59 to 0.68. MDACC 2007 index score The authors presented two versions of this model including six prognostic factors to predict OS: age, B2‐microglobulin, absolute lymphocyte count, gender, clinical stage and number of nodal groups. Only one validation study was available for the more comprehensive version of the model, a formula with a nomogram, while seven studies (5127 participants, 994 events) validated the simplified version of the model, the index score. Calibration: for the low‐ and intermediate‐risk groups, the pooled survival per risk group corresponded to the frequencies observed in the model development study, although the score seems to overestimate survival for the high‐risk group. Discrimination: the pooled c‐statistic of the seven external validation studies for the index score was 0.65 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.70); 95% PI 0.51 to 0.77. Authors' conclusions: Despite the large number of published studies of prognostic models for OS, PFS or TFS for newly‐diagnosed, untreated adults with CLL, only a minority of these (N = 12) have been externally validated for their respective primary outcome. Three models have undergone sufficient external validation to enable meta‐analysis of the model's ability to predict survival outcomes. Lack of reporting prevented us from summarising calibration as recommended. Of the three models, the CLL‐IPI shows the best discrimination, despite overestimation. However, performance of the models may change for individuals with CLL who receive improved treatment options, as the models included in this review were tested mostly on retrospective cohorts receiving a traditional treatment regimen. In conclusion, this review shows a clear need to improve the conducting and reporting of both prognostic model development and external validation studies. For prognostic models to be used as tools in clinical practice, the development of the models (and their subsequent validation studies) should adapt to include the latest therapy options to accurately predict performance. Adaptations should be timely.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the efficacy and safety of anti‐fibrinolytic and haemostatic drugs and agents in reducing bleeding and transfusion in people undergoing major vascular surgery or vascular procedures with a risk of moderate or severe (> 500 mL) blood loss.