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

Funder: laura and john arnold foundationBACKGROUND: 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and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ).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 Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. RESULTS: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients).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 The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis.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

Elevated plasma levels of IL-6 and MCP-1 selectively identify CML patients who better sustain molecular remission after TKI withdrawal

Abstract Treatment-free remission (TFR) in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is safe under adequate molecular monitoring, but questions remain regarding which factors may be considered predictive for TFR. Argentina Stop Trial (AST) is a multicenter TFR trial showing that 65% of patients sustain molecular remission, and the prior time in deep molecular response (DMR) was associated with successful TFR. Luminex technology was used to characterize cytokines in plasma samples. Using machine learning algorithms, MCP-1 and IL-6 were identified as novel biomarkers and MCP-1low/IL-6low patients showed eightfold higher risk of relapse. These findings support the feasibility of TFR for patients in DMR and MCP-1/IL-6 plasma levels are strong predictive biomarkers

Development and validation of a scoring system to predict response to obeticholic acid in primary biliary cholangitis

Background & aims: Obeticholic acid (OCA) is the only licensed second-line therapy for primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). With novel therapeutics in advanced development, clinical tools are needed to tailor the treatment algorithm. We aimed to derive and externally validate the OCA response score (ORS) for predicting the response probability of individuals with PBC to OCA. Methods: We used data from the Italian RECAPITULATE (N 441) and the IBER-PBC (N 244) OCA real-world prospective cohorts to derive/validate a score including widely available variables obtained either pre-treatment (ORS), or also after 6 months of treatment (ORS+). Multivariable Cox's regressions with backward selection were applied to obtain parsimonious predictive models. The predicted outcomes were biochemical response according to POISE (ALP/ULN<1.67 with a reduction of at least 15%, and normal bilirubin), or ALP/ULN<1.67, or NORMAL RANGE criteria (NR: normal ALP, ALT and bilirubin) up to 24 months. Results: Depending on the response criteria, ORS included age, pruritus, cirrhosis, ALP/ULN, ALT/ULN, GGT/ULN and bilirubin. ORS+ also included ALP/ULN and bilirubin after 6 months of OCA therapy. Internally validated c-statistics for ORS were of 0.75, 0.78 and 0.72 for POISE, ALP/ULN<1.67 and NR response, which raised to 0.83, 0.88, 0.81 with ORS+, respectively. The respective performances in validation were of 0.70, 0.72 and 0.71 for ORS, and 0.80, 0.84, 0.78 for ORS+. Results were consistent across groups with mild/severe disease. Conclusions: We developed and externally validated a scoring system capable to predict OCA response according to different criteria. This tool will enhance a stratified second-line therapy model to streamline standard care and trial delivery in PBC

Uncovering Causes of Childhood Death Using the Minimally Invasive Autopsy at the Community Level in an Urban Vulnerable Setting of Argentina: A Population-Based Study

Background: Precise determination of the causal chain that leads to community deaths in children in low-and middle-income countries is critical to estimating all causes of mortality accurately and to planning preemptive strategies for targeted allocation of resources to reduce this scourge. Methods: An active surveillance population-based study that combined minimally invasive tissue sampling (MITS) and verbal autopsies (VA) among children under 5 was conducted in Buenos Aires, Argentina, from September 2018 to December 2020 to define the burden of all causes of community deaths. Results: Among 90 cases enrolled (86% of parental acceptance), 81 had complete MITS, 15.6% were neonates, 65.6% were post-neonatal infants, and 18.9% were children aged 1-5 years. Lung infections were the most common cause of death (CoD) in all age groups (57.8%). Among all cases of lung infections, acute bronchiolitis was the most common CoD in infants aged 12 months (8 of 11, 72.7%). The most common comorbid condition in all age groups was undernutrition in 18 of 90 (20%). It was possible to find an immediate CoD in 78 of 81 subjects where MITS could be done. With this combined approach, we were able to determine that sudden infant death syndrome was overestimated in state reports. Conclusions: CoD determination by a combination of MITS and VA provides an accurate estimation of the chain of events that leads to death, emphasizing possible interventions to prevent mortality in children.Fil: Caballero, Mauricio Tomás. Fundación Infant; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Diaz Grigaites, Sebastian. Gobierno de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Ministerio Publico; ArgentinaFil: de la Iglesia Niveyro, Paola Ximena. Instituto Universitario del Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Esperante, Sebastian. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Fundación Infant; ArgentinaFil: Bianchi, Alejandra M.. Fundación Infant; ArgentinaFil: Nuño, Alejandra. Fundación Infant; ArgentinaFil: Valle, Sandra. Fundación Infant; ArgentinaFil: Afarian, Gabriela. Gobierno de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Ministerio Publico; ArgentinaFil: Ferretti, Adrian Julio Pantaleon. Fundación Infant; ArgentinaFil: Baglivo, Sofia Jares. Fundación Infant; ArgentinaFil: De Luca, Julian. Fundación Infant; ArgentinaFil: Zea, Cristian M. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Pediatría "Juan P. Garrahan"; ArgentinaFil: Caporal, Paula. Provincia de Buenos Aires. Ministerio de Salud. Hospital de Niños "Sor María Ludovica" de La Plata; ArgentinaFil: Labanca, Maria Jose. Instituto Universitario del Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Diamanti, Adriana. Gobierno de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Ministerio Publico; ArgentinaFil: Álvarez Paggi, Damián Jorge. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Fundación Infant; ArgentinaFil: Bassat, Quique. Consorcio de Investigación Biomédica En Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública; España. Centro de Investigação Em Saúde de Manhiça; Mozambique. Universidad de Barcelona; España. Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avancats; EspañaFil: Polack, Fernando Pedro. Fundación Infant; ArgentinaFil: Carballo, Ana M. Gobierno de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Ministerio Publico; ArgentinaFil: Hernandez, Gabriela. Gobierno de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Ministerio Publico; ArgentinaFil: Figueroa, Paola. Gobierno de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Ministerio Publico; ArgentinaFil: Ares, Patricia E.. Gobierno de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Ministerio Publico; ArgentinaFil: Rodriquez Paquete, Cesar A.. Gobierno de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Ministerio Publico; Argentin

Development and Validation of a Scoring System to Predict Response to Obeticholic Acid in Primary Biliary Cholangitis

Background &amp; aims: Obeticholic acid (OCA) is the only licensed second-line therapy for primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). With novel therapeutics in advanced development, clinical tools are needed to tailor the treatment algorithm. We aimed to derive and externally validate the OCA response score (ORS) for predicting the response probability of individuals with PBC to OCA. Methods: We used data from the Italian RECAPITULATE (N&nbsp;= 441) and the IBER-PBC (N&nbsp;= 244) OCA real-world prospective cohorts to derive/validate a score including widely available variables obtained either pre-treatment (ORS) or also after 6 months of treatment (ORS+). Multivariable Cox regressions with backward selection were applied to obtain parsimonious predictive models. The predicted outcomes were biochemical response according to POISE (alkaline phosphatase [ALP]/upper limit of normal [ULN]&lt;1.67 with a reduction of at least 15%, and normal bilirubin), or ALP/ULN&lt;1.67, or normal range criteria (NR: normal ALP, alanine aminotransferase [ALT], and bilirubin) up to 24 months. Results: Depending on the response criteria, ORS included age, pruritus, cirrhosis, ALP/ULN, ALT/ULN, GGT/ULN, and bilirubin. ORS+ also included ALP/ULN and bilirubin after 6 months of OCA therapy. Internally validated c-statistics for ORS were 0.75, 0.78, and 0.72 for POISE, ALP/ULN&lt;1.67, and NR response, which raised to 0.83, 0.88, and 0.81 with ORS+, respectively. The respective performances in validation were 0.70, 0.72, and 0.71 for ORS and 0.80, 0.84, and 0.78 for ORS+. Results were consistent across groups with mild/severe disease. Conclusions: We developed and externally validated a scoring system capable to predict OCA response according to different criteria. This tool will enhance a stratified second-line therapy model to streamline standard care and trial delivery in PBC

Additional file 7 of Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Additional file 7. Sensitivity analyses: various meta-analytic approaches

Additional file 2 of Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Additional file 2. Email invitation

Additional file 1 of Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Additional file 1. Search strategy

Additional file 5 of Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Additional file 5. Risk of bias

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