Association of Convalescent Plasma Treatment With Clinical Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance Convalescent plasma is a proposed treatment for COVID-19. Objective To assess clinical outcomes with convalescent plasma treatment vs placebo or standard of care in peer-reviewed and preprint publications or press releases of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Data Sources PubMed, the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, and the Living Overview of Evidence platform were searched until January 29, 2021. Study Selection The RCTs selected compared any type of convalescent plasma vs placebo or standard of care for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in any treatment setting. Data Extraction and Synthesis Two reviewers independently extracted data on relevant clinical outcomes, trial characteristics, and patient characteristics and used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. The primary analysis included peer-reviewed publications of RCTs only, whereas the secondary analysis included all publicly available RCT data (peer-reviewed publications, preprints, and press releases). Inverse variance-weighted meta-analyses were conducted to summarize the treatment effects. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Main Outcomes and Measures All-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, mechanical ventilation use, and serious adverse events. Results A total of 1060 patients from 4 peer-reviewed RCTs and 10 722 patients from 6 other publicly available RCTs were included. The summary risk ratio (RR) for all-cause mortality with convalescent plasma in the 4 peer-reviewed RCTs was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.38), the absolute risk difference was -1.21% (95% CI, -5.29% to 2.88%), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision. Across all 10 RCTs, the summary RR was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.12) and there was moderate certainty of the evidence due to inclusion of unpublished data. Among the peer-reviewed RCTs, the summary hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.07 to 20.34) for length of hospital stay, the summary RR was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.20 to 2.87) for mechanical ventilation use (the absolute risk difference for mechanical ventilation use was -2.56% [95% CI, -13.16% to 8.05%]), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision for both outcomes. Limited data on clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, and serious adverse events showed no significant differences. Conclusions and Relevance Treatment with convalescent plasma compared with placebo or standard of care was not significantly associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality or with any benefit for other clinical outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate for all-cause mortality and low for other outcomes.

[1]  E. Mayo-Wilson,et al.  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews , 2021, BMJ.

[2]  F. Polack,et al.  Prevention of severe COVID-19 in the elderly by early high-titer plasma therapy , 2021, The New England Journal of Medicine.

[3]  E. Mayo-Wilson,et al.  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews , 2020, BMJ.

[4]  D. Zarin,et al.  Lack of harmonization of coronavirus disease ordinal scales , 2020, Clinical trials.

[5]  M. Landray,et al.  Azithromycin in Hospitalised Patients with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial , 2020, medRxiv.

[6]  A. Tewari,et al.  Clinical and immunological benefits of convalescent plasma therapy in severe COVID-19: insights from a single center open label randomised control trial , 2020, medRxiv.

[7]  D. Follmann,et al.  A Randomized Trial of Convalescent Plasma in Covid-19 Severe Pneumonia , 2020, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  S. Atkin,et al.  Randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma therapy against standard therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 disease , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[9]  R. Maiwall,et al.  Efficacy of Convalescent Plasma Therapy compared to Fresh Frozen Plasma in Severely ill COVID-19 Patients: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial , 2020, medRxiv.

[10]  T. Bhatnagar,et al.  Convalescent plasma in the management of moderate covid-19 in adults in India: open label phase II multicentre randomised controlled trial (PLACID Trial) , 2020, BMJ.

[11]  Jennifer L. Bell,et al.  Lopinavir–ritonavir in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial , 2020, The Lancet.

[12]  J. Alcamí,et al.  Convalescent Plasma for COVID-19: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial , 2020, medRxiv.

[13]  Eva Petkova,et al.  Pooling Data From Individual Clinical Trials in the COVID-19 Era. , 2020, JAMA.

[14]  Patrick W. Johnson,et al.  Safety Update , 2020, Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

[15]  Jennifer L. Bell,et al.  Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Preliminary results from a multi-centre, randomized, controlled trial. , 2020, medRxiv.

[16]  M. M. van der Eerden,et al.  Convalescent Plasma for COVID-19. A randomized clinical trial , 2020, medRxiv.

[17]  G. Koh Faculty Opinions recommendation of Effect of Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Preliminary Report. , 2020, Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature.

[18]  Jennifer L. Bell,et al.  Effect of Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Preliminary Report , 2020, medRxiv.

[19]  Mike Clarke,et al.  A minimal common outcome measure set for COVID-19 clinical research , 2020, The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

[20]  L. Ren,et al.  Effect of Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Time to Clinical Improvement in Patients With Severe and Life-threatening COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial. , 2020, JAMA.

[21]  L. Hemkens,et al.  COVID-evidence: a living database of trials on interventions for COVID-19 , 2020 .

[22]  Natalie S Blencowe,et al.  RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials , 2019, BMJ.

[23]  Dean Langan,et al.  Comparative performance of heterogeneity variance estimators in meta‐analysis: a review of simulation studies , 2016, Research synthesis methods.

[24]  J. McGowan,et al.  PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[25]  W. Lim,et al.  The Effectiveness of Convalescent Plasma and Hyperimmune Immunoglobulin for the Treatment of Severe Acute Respiratory Infections of Viral Etiology: A Systematic Review and Exploratory Meta-analysis , 2014, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[26]  George F Borm,et al.  The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method , 2014, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[27]  G. Guyatt,et al.  GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[28]  S. Thompson,et al.  Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis , 2002, Statistics in medicine.