tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Transfus Med Rev
. 2021 Oct 10;S0887-7963(21)00056-0.
doi: 10.1016/j.tmrv.2021.09.001. Online ahead of print.
Convalescent Plasma for Patients Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Ryan Ruiyang Ling[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jackie Jia Lin Sim[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Felicia Liying Tan[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Bee Choo Tai[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Nicholas Syn[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Sharavan Sadasiv Mucheli[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Bingwen Eugene Fan[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Saikat Mitra[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Kollengode Ramanathan[SUP] 6 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Abstract
Current evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews on the utility of convalescent plasma (CP) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suggests a lack of benefit. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of RCTs with trial sequential analysis to investigate whether convalescent plasma is futile in reducing mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We searched 6 databases from December 1, 2019 to August 1, 2021 for RCTs comparing the use of CP with standard of care or transfusion of non-CP standard plasma in patients with COVID-19. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 Tool. Random effects (DerSimonian and Laird) meta-analyses were conducted. The primary outcome was the aggregate risk for in-hospital mortality between both arms. We conducted a trial sequential analysis (TSA) based on the pooled relative risks (RRs) for in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included the pooled RR for receipt of mechanical ventilation and mean difference in hospital length of stay. We included 18 RCTs (8702 CP, 7906 control). CP was not associated with a significant mortality benefit (RR: 0.95, 95%-CI: 0.86-1.04, P = .27, high certainty). Subgroup analysis did not find any significant differences (p[SUB]interaction[/SUB] = 0.30) between patients who received CP within 8 days of symptom onset (RR: 0.97, 95%-CI: 0.79-1.19, P = .80), or after 8 days (RR: 0.79, 95%-CI: 0.57-1.10, P = .16). TSA based on a RR reduction of 10% from a baseline mortality of 20% found that CP was not effective, with the pooled effect within the boundary for futility. CP did not significantly reduce the requirement for mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.00, 95%-CI: 0.91-1.10, P = .99, moderate certainty) or hospital length of stay (+1.32, 95%-CI: -1.86 to +4.52, P = .42, low certainty). CP does not improve relevant clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, especially in severe disease. The pooled effect of mortality was within the boundary of futility, suggesting the lack of benefit of CP in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
Keywords: Convalescent plasma; Coronavirus disease 2019; Meta-analysis; Mortality; Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.
. 2021 Oct 10;S0887-7963(21)00056-0.
doi: 10.1016/j.tmrv.2021.09.001. Online ahead of print.
Convalescent Plasma for Patients Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Ryan Ruiyang Ling[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jackie Jia Lin Sim[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Felicia Liying Tan[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Bee Choo Tai[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Nicholas Syn[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Sharavan Sadasiv Mucheli[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Bingwen Eugene Fan[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Saikat Mitra[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Kollengode Ramanathan[SUP] 6 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 34782209
- DOI: 10.1016/j.tmrv.2021.09.001
Abstract
Current evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews on the utility of convalescent plasma (CP) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suggests a lack of benefit. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of RCTs with trial sequential analysis to investigate whether convalescent plasma is futile in reducing mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We searched 6 databases from December 1, 2019 to August 1, 2021 for RCTs comparing the use of CP with standard of care or transfusion of non-CP standard plasma in patients with COVID-19. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 Tool. Random effects (DerSimonian and Laird) meta-analyses were conducted. The primary outcome was the aggregate risk for in-hospital mortality between both arms. We conducted a trial sequential analysis (TSA) based on the pooled relative risks (RRs) for in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included the pooled RR for receipt of mechanical ventilation and mean difference in hospital length of stay. We included 18 RCTs (8702 CP, 7906 control). CP was not associated with a significant mortality benefit (RR: 0.95, 95%-CI: 0.86-1.04, P = .27, high certainty). Subgroup analysis did not find any significant differences (p[SUB]interaction[/SUB] = 0.30) between patients who received CP within 8 days of symptom onset (RR: 0.97, 95%-CI: 0.79-1.19, P = .80), or after 8 days (RR: 0.79, 95%-CI: 0.57-1.10, P = .16). TSA based on a RR reduction of 10% from a baseline mortality of 20% found that CP was not effective, with the pooled effect within the boundary for futility. CP did not significantly reduce the requirement for mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.00, 95%-CI: 0.91-1.10, P = .99, moderate certainty) or hospital length of stay (+1.32, 95%-CI: -1.86 to +4.52, P = .42, low certainty). CP does not improve relevant clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, especially in severe disease. The pooled effect of mortality was within the boundary of futility, suggesting the lack of benefit of CP in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
Keywords: Convalescent plasma; Coronavirus disease 2019; Meta-analysis; Mortality; Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.