Niveditha Devasenapathy1, Zhikang Ye2, Mark Loeb2, Fang Fang2, Borna Tadayon Najafabadi2, Yingqi Xiao2, Rachel Couban2, Philippe Bégin2, Gordon Guyatt2. 1. Indian Institute of Public Health-Delhi (Devasenapathy), Public Health Foundation of India, Gurgaon, Haryana, India; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact (Ye, Loeb, Fang, Tadayon Najafabadi, Xiao, Couban, Guyatt), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine (Fang), Guangzhou, Guangdong, China; West China School of Nursing and West China Hospital (Xiao), Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China; Department of Medicine (Bégin), Université de Montréal, Que. niveditha@iiphd.org. 2. Indian Institute of Public Health-Delhi (Devasenapathy), Public Health Foundation of India, Gurgaon, Haryana, India; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact (Ye, Loeb, Fang, Tadayon Najafabadi, Xiao, Couban, Guyatt), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine (Fang), Guangzhou, Guangdong, China; West China School of Nursing and West China Hospital (Xiao), Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China; Department of Medicine (Bégin), Université de Montréal, Que.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain uncertain. To support a guideline on COVID-19 management, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 and other severe respiratory viral infections. METHODS: In March 2020, we searched international and Chinese biomedical literature databases, clinical trial registries and prepublication sources for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies comparing patients receiving and not receiving convalescent plasma. We included patients with acute coronavirus, influenza and Ebola virus infections. We conducted a meta-analysis using random-effects models and assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Of 1099 unique records, 6 studies were eligible, and none of these included patients with COVID-19. One nonrandomized study (n = 40) on convalescent plasma in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) provided uninformative results regarding mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] CI 0.01 to 1.70). Pooled estimates from 4 RCTs on influenza (n = 572) showed no convincing effects on deaths (4 RCTs, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.81), complete recovery (2 RCTs, odds ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.64) or length of stay (3 RCTs, mean difference -1.62, 95% CI -3.82 to 0.58, d). The quality of evidence was very low for all efficacy outcomes. Convalescent plasma caused few or no serious adverse events in influenza RCTs (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.29, low-quality evidence). INTERPRETATION: Studies of non-COVID-19 severe respiratory viral infections provide indirect, very low-quality evidence that raises the possibility that convalescent plasma has minimal or no benefit in the treatment of COVID-19 and low-quality evidence that it does not cause serious adverse events.
BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain uncertain. To support a guideline on COVID-19 management, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 and other severe respiratory viral infections. METHODS: In March 2020, we searched international and Chinese biomedical literature databases, clinical trial registries and prepublication sources for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies comparing patients receiving and not receiving convalescent plasma. We included patients with acute coronavirus, influenza and Ebola virus infections. We conducted a meta-analysis using random-effects models and assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Of 1099 unique records, 6 studies were eligible, and none of these included patients with COVID-19. One nonrandomized study (n = 40) on convalescent plasma in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) provided uninformative results regarding mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] CI 0.01 to 1.70). Pooled estimates from 4 RCTs on influenza (n = 572) showed no convincing effects on deaths (4 RCTs, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.81), complete recovery (2 RCTs, odds ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.64) or length of stay (3 RCTs, mean difference -1.62, 95% CI -3.82 to 0.58, d). The quality of evidence was very low for all efficacy outcomes. Convalescent plasma caused few or no serious adverse events in influenza RCTs (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.29, low-quality evidence). INTERPRETATION: Studies of non-COVID-19 severe respiratory viral infections provide indirect, very low-quality evidence that raises the possibility that convalescent plasma has minimal or no benefit in the treatment of COVID-19 and low-quality evidence that it does not cause serious adverse events.
Authors: Sabue Mulangu; Lori E Dodd; Richard T Davey; Olivier Tshiani Mbaya; Michael Proschan; Daniel Mukadi; Mariano Lusakibanza Manzo; Didier Nzolo; Antoine Tshomba Oloma; Augustin Ibanda; Rosine Ali; Sinaré Coulibaly; Adam C Levine; Rebecca Grais; Janet Diaz; H Clifford Lane; Jean-Jacques Muyembe-Tamfum; Billy Sivahera; Modet Camara; Richard Kojan; Robert Walker; Bonnie Dighero-Kemp; Huyen Cao; Philippe Mukumbayi; Placide Mbala-Kingebeni; Steve Ahuka; Sarah Albert; Tyler Bonnett; Ian Crozier; Michael Duvenhage; Calvin Proffitt; Marc Teitelbaum; Thomas Moench; Jamila Aboulhab; Kevin Barrett; Kelly Cahill; Katherine Cone; Risa Eckes; Lisa Hensley; Betsey Herpin; Elizabeth Higgs; Julie Ledgerwood; Jerome Pierson; Mary Smolskis; Ydrissa Sow; John Tierney; Sumathi Sivapalasingam; Wendy Holman; Nikki Gettinger; David Vallée; Jacqueline Nordwall Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Zhikang Ye; Bram Rochwerg; Ying Wang; Neill K Adhikari; Srinivas Murthy; François Lamontagne; Robert A Fowler; Haibo Qiu; Li Wei; Ling Sang; Mark Loeb; Ning Shen; Minhua Huang; Zhaonan Jiang; Yaseen M Arabi; Luis Enrique Colunga-Lozano; Li Jiang; Younsuck Koh; Dong Liu; Fang Liu; Jason Phua; Aizong Shen; Tianyi Huo; Bin Du; Suodi Zhai; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: CMAJ Date: 2020-04-29 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: John H Beigel; Pablo Tebas; Marie-Carmelle Elie-Turenne; Ednan Bajwa; Todd E Bell; Charles B Cairns; Shmuel Shoham; Jaime G Deville; Eric Feucht; Judith Feinberg; Thomas Luke; Kanakatte Raviprakash; Janine Danko; Dorothy O'Neil; Julia A Metcalf; Karen King; Timothy H Burgess; Evgenia Aga; H Clifford Lane; Michael D Hughes; Richard T Davey Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Y Cheng; R Wong; Y O Y Soo; W S Wong; C K Lee; M H L Ng; P Chan; K C Wong; C B Leung; G Cheng Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: John Mair-Jenkins; Maria Saavedra-Campos; J Kenneth Baillie; Paul Cleary; Fu-Meng Khaw; Wei Shen Lim; Sophia Makki; Kevin D Rooney; Jonathan S Nguyen-Van-Tam; Charles R Beck Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2014-07-16 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Y O Y Soo; Y Cheng; R Wong; D S Hui; C K Lee; K K S Tsang; M H L Ng; P Chan; G Cheng; J J Y Sung Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: Artur Belov; Yin Huang; Carlos H Villa; Barbee I Whitaker; Richard Forshee; Steven A Anderson; Anne Eder; Nicole Verdun; Michael J Joyner; Scott R Wright; Rickey E Carter; Deborah T Hung; Mary Homer; Corey Hoffman; Michael Lauer; Peter Marks Journal: Am J Hematol Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 13.265