Aeroallergen immunotherapy associated with reduced risk of severe COVID-19 in 1095 allergic patients

Introduction: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) brings along changes in the immune system, restoring dendritic cell function, reducing T2 inflammation and augmenting the regulatory cell activation. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections, interferes with the immune system causing immune suppression during the first phase and over-activation in more advanced disease. We decided to explore the interaction of both in a real-world observational trial. Methods: We registered COVID-19 outcomes in patients with allergic disorders in Latin America, treated with and without AIT. The registry was conducted during the first 1.3 years of the pandemic, with most of the data collected before COVID-19 vaccination was concluded in most countries. Data collection was anonymous via a web-based instrument. Ten countries participated. Results: 630/1095 (57.6%) of the included patients received AIT. Compared to patients without AIT, those treated with AIT had a reduced risk ratio (RR) for COVID-19 lower respiratory symptoms (RR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.6703–0.9024; p = 0.001662) and need for oxygen therapy (RR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.4217–0.9992; p = 0.048). In adherent patients on maintenance sublingual immunotherapy/subcutaneous immunotherapy (SLIT/SCIT) the RR reduction was larger [RR = 0.6136 (95% CI 0.4623–0.8143; p < 0.001) and RR: 0.3495 (95% CI 0.1822–0.6701; p < 0.005), respectively]. SLIT was slightly more effective (NS). We excluded age, comorbidities, level of health care attendance, and type of allergic disorder as confounders, although asthma was related to a higher frequency of severe disease. When analyzing patients with allergic asthma (n = 503) the RR reduction favoring AIT was more pronounced with 30% for lower respiratory symptoms or worse (RR 0.6914, 95% CI 0.5264 to 0.9081, p = 0.0087) and 51% for need of oxygen therapy or worse (RR 0.4868, 95% CI 0.2829–0.8376, p = 0.0082). Among severe allergic patients treated with biologics (n = 24) only 2/24 needed oxygen therapy. There were no critical cases among them. Conclusion: In our registry AIT was associated with reduced COVID-19 severity

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care