Jon J van Rood Centre for Clinical Transfusion Research

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.

This systematic review was designed to provide more precise effect estimates of inhibitor development for the various types of F8 gene mutations in patients with severe hemophilia A. The primary outcome was inhibitor development and the secondary outcome was high-titer-inhibitor development. A systematic literature search was performed to include cohort studies published in peer-reviewed journals with data on inhibitor incidences in the various F8 gene mutation types and a mutation detection rate of at least 80%. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) of inhibitor development for different types of F8 gene mutations were calculated with intron 22 inversion as the reference. Data were included from 30 studies on 5383 patients, including 1029 inhibitor patients. The inhibitor risk in large deletions and nonsense mutations was higher than in intron 22 inversions (pooled OR = 3.6, 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.3-5.7 and OR = 1.4, 95% CI, 1.1-1.8, respectively), the risk in intron 1 inversions and splice-site mutations was equal (pooled OR = 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.5 and OR = 1.0; 95% CI, 0.6-1.5), and the risk in small deletions/insertions and missense mutations was lower (pooled OR = 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.6 and OR = 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.4, respectively). The relative risks for developing high titer inhibitors were similar.

BACKGROUND: Blood vessel formation is fundamental to development, while its dysregulation can contribute to serious disease. Expectations are that hundreds of millions of individuals will benefit from therapeutic developments in vascular biology. MSCs are central to the three main vascular repair mechanisms. SOURCES OF DATA: Key recent published literature and ClinicalTrials.gov. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: MSCs are heterogeneous, containing multi-lineage stem and partly differentiated progenitor cells, and are easily expandable ex vivo. There is no single marker defining native MSCs in vivo. Their phenotype is strongly determined by their specific microenvironment. Bone marrow MSCs have skeletal stem cell properties. Having a perivascular/vascular location, they contribute to vascular formation and function and might be harnessed to regenerate a blood supply to injured tissues. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: These include MSC origin, phenotype and location in vivo and their ability to differentiate into functional cardiomyocytes and endothelial cells or act as vascular stem cells. In addition their efficacy, safety and potency in clinical trials in relation to cell source, dose, delivery route, passage and timing of administration, but probably even more on the local preconditioning and the mechanisms by which they exert their effects. GROWING POINTS: Understanding the origin and the regenerative environment of MSCs, and manipulating their homing properties, proliferative ability and functionality through drug discovery and reprogramming strategies are important for their efficacy in vascular repair for regenerative medicine therapies and tissue engineering approaches. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Characterization of MSCs' in vivo origins and biological properties in relation to their localization within tissue niches, reprogramming strategies and newer imaging/bioengineering approaches.

Mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) infusions have been reported to be effective in patients with steroid-refractory, acute graft-versus-host disease (aGvHD) but comprehensive data on paediatric patients are limited. We retrospectively analysed a cohort of 37 children (aged 3 months-17 years) treated with MSCs for steroid-refractory grade III-IV aGvHD. All patients but three received multiple MSC infusions. Complete response (CR) was observed in 24 children (65%), while 13 children had either partial (n = 8) or no response (n = 5). Cumulative incidence of transplantation-related mortality (TRM) in patients who did or did not achieve CR was 17% and 69%, respectively (P = 0.001). After a median follow-up of 2.9 years, overall survival (OS) was 37%; it was 65% vs. 0% in patients who did or did not achieve CR, respectively (P = 0.001). The median time from starting steroids for GvHD treatment to first MSC infusion was 13 d (range 5-85). Children treated between 5 and 12 d after steroid initiation showed a trend for better OS (56%) and lower TRM (17%) as compared with patients receiving MSCs 13-85 d after steroids (25% and 53%, respectively; P = 0.22 and 0.06, respectively). Multiple MSC infusions are safe and effective for children with steroid-refractory aGvHD, especially when employed early in the disease course.

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: Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with respiratory virus diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: The protocol was pre-published with the Center for Open Science and can be accessed here: osf.io/dwf53 We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trials registries to identify ongoing studies and results of completed studies on 23 April 2020 for case-series, cohort, prospectively planned, and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology and performed all steps regarding study selection in duplicate by two independent review authors (in contrast to the recommendations of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group). We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and studies evaluating standard immunoglobulins. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed recommendations of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group regarding data extraction and assessment. To assess bias in included studies, we used the assessment criteria tool 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 at hospital discharge, improvement of clinical symptoms (7, 15, and 30 days after transfusion), grade 3 and 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies (seven case-series, one prospectively planned, single-arm intervention study) with 32 participants, and identified a further 48 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma (47 studies) or hyperimmune immunoglobulin (one study), of which 22 are randomised. Overall risk of bias of the eight included studies was high, due to: study design; small number of participants; poor reporting within studies; and varied type of participants with different severities of disease, comorbidities, and types of previous or concurrent treatments, including antivirals, antifungals or antibiotics, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine and respiratory support. We rated all outcomes as very low certainty, and we were unable to summarise numerical data in any meaningful way. As we identified case-series studies only, we reported results narratively. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 The following reported outcomes could all be related to the underlying natural history of the disease or other concomitant treatment, rather than convalescent plasma. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge All studies reported mortality. All participants were alive at the end of the reporting period, but not all participants had been discharged from hospital by the end of the study (15 participants discharged, 6 still hospitalised, 11 unclear). Follow-up ranged from 3 days to 37 days post-transfusion. We do not know whether convalescent plasma therapy affects mortality (very low-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical symptoms (assessed by respiratory support) Six studies, including 28 participants, reported the level of respiratory support required; most participants required respiratory support at baseline. All studies reported improvement in clinical symptoms in at least some participants. We do not know whether convalescent plasma improves clinical symptoms (very low-certainty evidence). Time to discharge from hospital Six studies reported time to discharge from hospital for at least some participants, which ranged from four to 35 days after convalescent plasma therapy. Admission on the intensive care unit (ICU) Six studies included patients who were critically ill. At final follow-up the majority of these patients were no longer on the ICU or no longer required mechanical ventilation. Length of stay on the ICU Only one study (1 participant) reported length of stay on the ICU. The individual was discharged from the ICU 11 days after plasma transfusion. Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 Grade 3 or 4 adverse events The studies did not report the grade of adverse events after convalescent plasma transfusion. Two studies reported data relating to participants who had experienced adverse events, that were presumably grade 3 or 4. One case study reported a participant who had moderate fever (38.9 °C). Another study (3 participants) reported a case of severe anaphylactic shock. Four studies reported the absence of moderate or severe adverse events (19 participants). We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events One study (3 participants) reported one serious adverse event. As described above, this individual had severe anaphylactic shock after receiving convalescent plasma. Six studies reported that no serious adverse events occurred. We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified eight studies (seven case-series and one prospectively planned single-arm intervention study) with a total of 32 participants (range 1 to 10). Most studies assessed the risks of the intervention; reporting two adverse events (potentially grade 3 or 4), one of which was a serious adverse event. We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma is effective for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19 as studies reported results inconsistently, making it difficult to compare results and to draw conclusions. We identified very low-certainty evidence on the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma therapy for people with COVID-19; all studies were at high risk of bias and reporting quality was low. No RCTs or controlled non-randomised studies evaluating benefits and harms of convalescent plasma have been completed. There are 47 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, of which 22 are RCTs, and one trial evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We will update this review as a living systematic review, based on monthly searches in the above mentioned databases and registries. These updates are likely to show different results to those reported here.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required. OBJECTIVES: To continually assess, as more evidence becomes available, whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in treatment of people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trial registries to identify completed and ongoing studies on 19 August 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of study design, disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and 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' 2.0 tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), and the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-controlled NRSIs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at hospital discharge, mortality (time to event), improvement of clinical symptoms (7, 15, and 30 days after transfusion), grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). MAIN RESULTS: This is the second living update of our review. We included 19 studies (2 RCTs, 8 controlled NRSIs, 9 non-controlled NRSIs) with 38,160 participants, of whom 36,081 received convalescent plasma. Two completed RCTs are awaiting assessment (published after 19 August 2020). We identified a further 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are randomised (3 reported in a study registry as already being completed, but without results). We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We did not include data from controlled NRSIs in data synthesis because of critical risk of bias. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low, due to study limitations and results including both potential benefits and harms. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from two RCTs (both stopped early) with 189 participants, of whom 95 received convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.34; 1 RCT, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases mortality (time to event) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.25; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may result in little to no difference in improvement of clinical symptoms (i.e. need for respiratory support) at seven days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19; 1 RCT, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may increase improvement of clinical symptoms at up to 15 days (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.11; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence), and at up to 30 days (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43; 2 studies, 188 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies reported on quality of life. Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from two RCTs, eight controlled NRSIs and nine non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of safety data and duration of follow-up was variable. The controlled studies reported on AEs and SAEs only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. Some, but not all, studies included death as a SAE. The studies did not report the grade of AEs. Fourteen studies (566 participants) reported on AEs of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these AEs were allergic or respiratory events. We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe AEs (very low-certainty evidence). 17 studies (35,944 participants) assessed SAEs for 20,622 of its participants. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (20,000 participants), which reported on SAEs within the first four hours and within an additional seven days after transfusion. There were 63 deaths, 12 were possibly and one was probably related to transfusion. There were 146 SAEs within four hours and 1136 SAEs within seven days post-transfusion. These were predominantly allergic or respiratory, thrombotic or thromboembolic and cardiac events. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy results in a clinically relevant increased risk of SAEs (low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. There was limited information regarding grade 3 and 4 AEs to determine the effect of convalescent plasma therapy on clinically relevant SAEs. In the absence of a control group, we are unable to assess the relative safety of convalescent plasma therapy. While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies is problematic. The early termination of the first two RCTs investigating convalescent plasma, and the lack of data from 20 studies that have completed or were due to complete at the time of this update illustrate these challenges. Well-designed studies should be prioritised. Moreover, studies should report outcomes in the same way, and should consider the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms. There are 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are RCTs (three already completed). This is the second living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. Future updates may show different results to those reported here.

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.

Abstract Metabolomics examines the small molecules involved in cellular metabolism. Approximately 50% of total phenotypic differences in metabolite levels is due to genetic variance, but heritability estimates differ across metabolite classes. We perform a review of all genome-wide association and (exome-) sequencing studies published between November 2008 and October 2018, and identify >800 class-specific metabolite loci associated with metabolite levels. In a twin-family cohort ( N = 5117), these metabolite loci are leveraged to simultaneously estimate total heritability (h 2 total ), and the proportion of heritability captured by known metabolite loci (h 2 Metabolite-hits ) for 309 lipids and 52 organic acids. Our study reveals significant differences in h 2 Metabolite-hits among different classes of lipids and organic acids. Furthermore, phosphatidylcholines with a high degree of unsaturation have higher h 2 Metabolite-hits estimates than phosphatidylcholines with low degrees of unsaturation. This study highlights the importance of common genetic variants for metabolite levels, and elucidates the genetic architecture of metabolite classes.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving red-blood-cells may form antibodies against the alloantigens expressed by red-blood-cells, with the risk of serious morbidity and the need for extensive phenotype-matching in subsequent transfusions. The incidence of alloimmunization is considered variable for specific patient groups and for first time antibody formation. We therefore studied the cumulative incidence of the first formed alloantibody as a function of red-blood-cells exposure. METHODS: We performed a new-user cohort among all previously non-transfused non-alloimmunized patients that received non-extended matched (ABO and RhD) red-blood-cells transfusions from January 2005 to December 2009 in our university medical centre. Alloimmunization incidences were estimated by Kaplan-Meier survival-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3002 previously non-transfused patients received 31103 red-blood-cell units. A first time alloantibody forming event was experienced by 54 (1·8%) patients. The cumulative incidence of alloimmunization was 1·0% at 5 units, 2·4% at 10 units, 3·4% at 20 units and 6·5% at 40 units of red-blood-cells transfused. CONCLUSION: The risk to develop a first red-blood-cells alloantibody increases up to the 40th transfusion and is similar for men and women. More data are needed to examine the risk after 40th transfusion.

In experimental studies, mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) transplantation in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) models has been associated with enhanced neovascularization and myogenesis. Clinical data however, are scarce. Therefore, the present study evaluates the safety and feasibility of intramyocardial MSC injection in nine patients, shortly after AMI during short-term and 5-year follow-up. Periprocedural safety analysis demonstrated one transient ischemic attack. No other adverse events related to MSC treatment were observed during 5-year follow-up. Clinical events were compared to a nonrandomized control group comprising 45 matched controls. A 5-year event-free survival after MSC-treatment was comparable to controls (89 vs. 91 %, P = 0.87). Echocardiographic imaging for evaluation of left ventricular function demonstrated improvements up to 5 years after MSC treatment. These findings were not significantly different when compared to controls. The present safety and feasibility study suggest that intramyocardial injection of MSC in patients shortly after AMI is feasible and safe up to 5-year follow-up.

Fc-gamma receptors (FcγR) are the cellular receptors for Immunoglobulin G (IgG). and Upon binding of complexed IgG, FcγRs can trigger various cellular immune effector functions, thereby linking the adaptive and innate immune systems. In humans, six classic FcγRs are known: one high-affinity receptor (FcγRI) and five low-to-medium-affinity FcγRs (FcγRIIA, -B and -C, FcγRIIIA and -B). In this review we describe the five genes encoding the low-to-medium -affinity FcγRs (FCGR2A, FCGR2B, FCGR2C, FCGR3A and FCGR3B), including functionally relevant single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), haplotypes as well as copy number variants (CNVs), which occur in distinct copy number regions across the locus. Importantly, we recommend a consistent nomenclature of genetic variants in the FCGR2/3 locus. Next, we focus on the relevance of genetic variation in the FCGR2/3 locus in auto-immune and auto-inflammatory diseases, highlighting pathophysiological insights that are informed by genetic association studies. Finally, we illustrate how specific FcγR variants relate to variation in treatment responses and prognosis amongst autoimmune diseases, cancer and transplant immunology, suggesting novel opportunities for personalized medicine.

The ratios between von Willebrand factor propeptide (VWFpp) or factor VIII activity ( FVIII: C) and VWF antigen (VWF:Ag) reflect synthesis, secretion, and clearance of VWF. We aimed to define the pathophysiology of 658 patients with type 1, 2, or 3 von Willebrand disease (VWD) with VWF levels ≤30 U/dL from the Willebrand in The Netherlands (WiN) study using the VWFpp/VWF:Ag and FVIII: C/VWF:Ag ratios. We evaluated the use of VWFpp in the classification and diagnosis of VWD. On the basis of the ratios, reduced VWF synthesis was observed in 18% of type 1 and only 2% of type 2 patients. A significant proportion of type 3 patients had detectable VWFpp (41%). These patients had a lower bleeding score than type 3 patients who had a complete absence of VWF:Ag and VWFpp (14.0 vs 19.5; P = .025). The majority of these patients had missense mutations with rapid VWF clearance, whereas type 3 patients with no VWFpp were homozygous for null alleles. In conclusion, VWFpp identified severe type 1 VWD with very low VWF levels in patients who had previously been classified as type 3 VWD. This study underlines the clinical significance of the VWFpp assay in the diagnosis and classification of VWD.

BACKGROUND: Blood transfusion is the most common hospital procedure performed in the United States. While inadequate physician transfusion medicine knowledge may lead to inappropriate practice, such an educational deficit has not been investigated on an international scale using a validated assessment tool. Identifying specific deficiencies is critical for developing curricula to improve patient care. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Rasch analysis, a method used in high-stakes testing, was used to validate an assessment tool consisting of a 23-question survey and a 20-question examination. The assessment tool was administered to internal medicine residents to determine prior training, attitudes, perceived ability, and actual knowledge related to transfusion medicine. RESULTS: A total of 474 residents at 23 programs in nine countries completed the examination. The overall mean score of correct responses was 45.7% (site range, 32%-56%). The mean score for Postgraduate Year (PGY)1 (43.9%) was significantly lower than for PGY3 (47.1%) and PGY4 (50.6%) residents. Although 89% of residents had participated in obtaining informed consent from a patient for transfusion, residents scored poorly (<25% correct) on questions related to transfusion reactions. The majority of residents (65%) would find additional transfusion medicine training "very" or "extremely" helpful. CONCLUSION: Internationally, internal medicine residents have poor transfusion medicine knowledge and would welcome additional training. The especially limited knowledge of transfusion reactions suggests an initial area for focused training. This study not only represents the largest international assessment of transfusion medicine knowledge, but also serves as a model for rigorous, collaborative research in medical education.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aim to evaluate trends in the condition of fetuses and neonates with hemolytic disease at the time of first intrauterine transfusion (IUT) and at birth, in relation to routine first-trimester antibody screening, referral guidelines, and centralization of fetal therapy. METHOD: We conducted a 30-year cohort study including all women and fetuses treated with IUT for red cell alloimmunization at the Dutch national referral center for fetal therapy. RESULTS: Six hundred forty-five fetuses received 1852 transfusions between 1 January 1987 and 31 December 2016. After the introduction of routine first-trimester antibody screening, the hydrops rate declined from 39% to 15% (OR 0.284, 95% CI, 0.19-0.42, P < 0.001). In the last time cohort, only one fetus presented with severe hydrops (OR 0.482, 95% CI, 0.38-0.62, P < 0.001). Infants are born less often <32 weeks (OR 0.572, 95% CI, 0.39-0.83, P = 0.004) and with higher neonatal hemoglobin (P < 0.001). Neonatal hemoglobin was positively independently associated with gestational age at birth, fetal hemoglobin, and additional intraperitoneal transfusion at last IUT. CONCLUSION: Severe alloimmune hydrops, a formerly often lethal condition, has practically disappeared, most likely as a result of the introduction of routine early alloantibody screening, use of national guidelines, and pooling of expertise in national reference laboratories and a referral center for fetal therapy.

Aspirin is used for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention by millions of patients on a daily basis. Previous studies suggested that aspirin intake at bedtime reduces blood pressure compared with intake on awakening. This has never been studied in patients with CVD. Moreover, platelet reactivity and CVD incidence is highest during morning hours. Bedtime aspirin intake may attenuate morning platelet reactivity. This clinical trial examined the effect of bedtime aspirin intake compared with intake on awakening on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurement and morning platelet reactivity in patients using aspirin for CVD prevention. In this randomized open-label crossover trial, 290 patients were randomized to take 100 mg aspirin on awakening or at bedtime during 2 periods of 3 months. At the end of each period, 24-hour blood pressure and morning platelet reactivity were measured. The primary analysis population comprised 263 (blood pressure) and 133 (platelet reactivity) patients. Aspirin intake at bedtime did not reduce blood pressure compared with intake on awakening (difference systolic/diastolic: -0.1 [95% confidence interval, -1.0, 0.9]/-0.6 [95% confidence interval, -1.2, 0.0] mm Hg). Platelet reactivity during morning hours was reduced with bedtime aspirin intake (difference: -22 aspirin reaction units [95% confidence interval, -35, -9]). The intake of low-dose aspirin at bedtime compared with intake on awakening did not reduce blood pressure of patients with CVD. However, bedtime aspirin reduced morning platelet reactivity. Future studies are needed to assess the effect of this promising simple intervention on the excess of cardiovascular events during the high risk morning hours.

Autoimmune or alloimmune cytopenia (AIC) is a known rare complication of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT). AIC after SCT is considered difficult to treat and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. In this retrospective study in pediatric patients we evaluated incidence, outcome, potential risk factors, and current treatment strategies. A nested matched case-control study was performed to search for biomarkers associated with AIC. Of 531 consecutive SCTs at our center between 2000 and 2016, 26 were complicated by the development of AIC (cumulative incidence, 5.0%) after a median of 5 months post-SCT. Autoimmune hemolytic anemia was the most common AIC with 12 patients (46%). We identified nonmalignant disease, alemtuzumab serotherapy pre-SCT, and cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation as independently associated risk factors. The cytokine profile of patients at the time of AIC diagnosis appeared to skew toward a more pronounced Th 2 response compared with control subjects at the corresponding time point post-SCT. Corticosteroids and intravenous immunoglobulin as first-line treatment or a wait-and-see approach led to resolution of AIC in 35% of cases. Addition of step-up therapies rituximab (n = 15), bortezomib (n = 7), or sirolimus (n = 3) was associated with AIC resolution in 40%, 57%, and 100% of cases, respectively. In summary, we identified CMV reactivation post-SCT as a new clinical risk factor for the development of AIC in children. The cytokine profile during AIC appears to favor a Th 2 response. Rituximab, bortezomib, and sirolimus are promising step-up treatment modalities.

BACKGROUND: Most incidentally transfused patients receive only ABO-D-compatible transfusions and antibodies are formed in up to 8%. The effect of extended (c, C, E, K, Fy(a) , Jk(a) , and S antigens) matched (EM) and ABO-D-matched red blood cell (RBC) transfusions on the incidence of new clinically relevant RBC antibody formation after a first elective transfusion event in surgical patients was studied. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A multicenter randomized trial was performed in nontransfused patients who were scheduled to experience a single elective transfusion event of maximal 4 RBC units. The primary outcome was the incidence of newly formed warm reacting clinically relevant RBC alloantibodies measured in three follow-up (FU) samples taken at 7 to 10 days, 4 to 6 weeks, and 4 to 6 months posttransfusion. RESULTS: A total of 853 patients were randomized, and of these, 333 patients were transfused with a total of 1035 RBC units. At least one FU sample was available from 97% of transfused patients. In intention-to-treat analysis, new antibodies were detected in 10 of 155 ABO-D and seven of 178 EM patients, respectively. Per-protocol analysis including 190 patients showed a nonsignificant absolute risk difference (ARD) of 5.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4% to 12%) in alloimmunization between study arms. In a post hoc analysis of 138 patients who received RBCs but no platelet (PLT) transfusions the ARD increased to significance, 8.0% (95% CI, 0.4-16.0). CONCLUSION: Extended matching for selected antigens reduced the alloimmunization risk by 64% in surgical patients. Extended matching seems successful only if the patient did not receive accompanying nonmatched PLT transfusions.

BACKGROUND: Transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) is one of the most serious complications of blood transfusion. It can be caused by incompatible white blood cell antibodies in transfused plasma. The objective of this study was to quantify the reduction of TRALI after introduction of male-only plasma for transfusion as a preventive measure, which took effect in 2007. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In the Netherlands all cases of TRALI are reported to the national hemovigilance office. All reported cases of TRALI from 2002 to November 2009 were considered for inclusion. Those meeting the Canadian consensus clinical definition were included and subdivided according to whether or not the patient had received quarantine fresh-frozen plasma (Q-FFP) in the 6-hour period before the reaction. The numbers of TRALI cases involving plasma donated before the measure and of those involving plasma donated after the measure were compared to TRALI cases that did not involve Q-FFP to adjust for reporting bias. RESULTS: A total of 110 cases were included in the analysis. Of 68 cases before the measure, 36 involved Q-FFP. Thirty-one cases occurred after the measure of which eight involved Q-FFP. Eleven occurred in the transitional period, of which four involved Q-FFP. The population-attributable risk of premeasure plasma among TRALI cases occurring before the measure was 0.33 (95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.51). CONCLUSIONS: In the Netherlands the male-only Q-FFP measure was associated with a 33% reduction of TRALI cases.

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess whether SARS‐CoV‐2‐neutralising mAbs are effective and safe for treating patients with COVID‐19 in comparison to an active comparator, placebo or no intervention, and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. A secondary objective is to track newly developing SARS‐CoV‐2‐targeting mAbs from first tests in humans onwards.