Clinical use of Convalescent Plasma in the COVID-19 pandemic: a transfusion-focussed gap analysis with recommendations for future research priorities

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

Clinical use of convalescent plasma in the COVID-19 pandemic: a transfusion-focussed gap analysis with recommendations for future research priorities

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

Guidance for the procurement of COVID-19 convalescent plasma: differences between high- and low-middle-income countries

Background and objectives: COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been used, predominantly in high-income countries (HICs) to treat COVID-19; available data suggest the safety and efficacy of use. We sought to develop guidance for procurement and use of CCP, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) for which data are lacking. Materials and methods: A multidisciplinary, geographically representative group of individuals with expertise spanning transfusion medicine, infectious diseases and haematology was tasked with the development of a guidance document for CCP, drawing on expert opinion, survey of group members and review of available evidence. Three subgroups (i.e. donor, product and patient) were established based on self-identified expertise and interest. Here, the donor and product-related challenges are summarized and contrasted between HICs and LMICs with a view to guide related practices. Results: The challenges to advance CCP therapy are different between HICs and LMICs. Early challenges in HICs related to recruitment and qualification of sufficient donors to meet the growing demand. Antibody testing also posed a specific obstacle given lack of standardization, variable performance of the assays in use and uncertain interpretation of results. In LMICs, an extant transfusion deficit, suboptimal models of donor recruitment (e.g. reliance on replacement and paid donors), limited laboratory capacity for pre-donation qualification and operational considerations could impede wide adoption. Conclusion: There has been wide-scale adoption of CCP in many HICs, which could increase if clinical trials show efficacy of use. By contrast, LMICs, having received little attention, require locally applicable strategies for adoption of CCP