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

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and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ).Methods: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis,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 Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence.Results: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients).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 The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis.Conclusions: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality.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.</p

Is glucose-6-phosphatase dehydrogenase deficiency associated with severe outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients?

Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (G6PDd) is known to suppress the antioxidant system and is likely to aggravate severity of COVID-19, which results in a pro-oxidant response. This possible association has not been explored adequately in human studies. In this research, we report that the occurrence of non-invasive ventilation, intubation or death-all of which are indicative of severe COVID-19, are not significantly different in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with and without G6PDd (4.6 vs. 6.4%, p = 0.33). The likelihood of developing any of these severe outcomes were slightly lower in patients with G6PDd after accounting for age, nationality, presence of comorbidities and drug interventions (Odds ratio 0.40, 95% confidence intervals 0.142, 1.148). Further investigation that extends to both, hospitalized and non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients, is warranted to study this potential association

Vaccine trials during a pandemic: potential approaches to ethical dilemmas

Ever since the emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), global public health infrastructures and systems, along with community-wide collaboration and service, have risen to an unprecedented challenge. Vaccine development was immediately propelled to the centre of all our scientific, public health and community efforts. Despite the development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines arguably being the greatest and most palpable achievements of the past 12 months, they have also been one of the most contentious and debated issues during the pandemic. However, what uniquely differentiates vaccine development is its intimate relationship with the community it seeks to serve; both in its clinical trial testing as an efficacious and safe prophylactic, and its post-developmental 'roll-out' success, as an effective public health tool. These relationships have birthed a myriad of complexities, from community-based mistrust, to academically contended ethical dilemmas. Indeed, the accelerated advances in the COVID-19 vaccine race have further exacerbated this phenomenon, bringing with it new ethical dilemmas that need to be examined to ensure the continued clinical success of these therapeutics and a renewed societal trust in clinical medicine.In this paper, we discuss two major ethical dilemmas: (1) the equipoise of continuing new vaccine trials in the advent of successful candidates and (2) the maleficence of blinded placebo arms. Accordingly, we discuss six different potential approaches to these ethical dilemmas: (1) continuing with placebo-controlled trials, (2) transitioning from placebo-controlled to open-label, (3) unblinding at-risk priority groups only, (4) transitioning to a blinded stepped-wedge cross-over design, (5) progressing to a blinded active-controlled stepped-wedge cross-over trial, and (6) conducting randomised stepped-wedge community trials. We also propose a decision-making algorithm for relevant stakeholders in advanced stages of vaccine trials.It is important to remember that the emergent nature of the COVID-19 situation does not justify a compromise on core ethical values. In fact, the discourse surrounding this topic and the decisions made will remain a potent case study and a continuously referenced example for all such future scenarios

COVID-19 viral load not associated with disease severity: findings from a retrospective cohort study

Background: Being able to use COVID-19 RT-PCR Ct values as simple clinical markers of disease outcome or prognosis would allow for the easy and proactive identification and triaging of high-risk cases. This study's objective was thus to explore whether a correlation exists between COVID-19 viral loads, as indicated by RT-PCR Ct values, and disease severity, as indicated by respiratory indices.Results: A multi-centre cross-sectional retrospective study was conducted, using data obtained from Bahrain's National COVID-19 Task force's centralised database. The study period ranged from May 2, 2020 to July 31, 2020. A multivariable logistic regression was used to assess for a correlation using data from a total of 1057 admitted COVID-19 cases. The covariates adjusted for included sex, age, presentation, and comorbidities. In our cohort, Ct value showed no statistical significance for an association with requirement for oxygenation on admission (Odds ratio 1.046; 95%CI 0.999 to 1.096, p = 0.054).Conclusion: Viral load, as indicated by Ct values, did not seem to be associated with requirement for oxygenation on admission in our cohort. We postulate however that time since onset of symptom may have acted as an unaccounted-for confounder. As such, RT-PCR Ct values may not be a useful prognostic clinical tool in isolation.</p

Efficacy of anti-microbial catheters in preventing catheter associated urinary tract infections in hospitalized patients: A review on recent updates.

Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) are the common hospital-associated infections (HAIs), which can be prevented by practicing necessary precautions and by using antimicrobial urinary catheters (UCs). The efficacy of antimicrobial UCs against standard catheters for averting CAUTIs is poorly studied. The objective of the review is to analyze the efficacy of various types of antimicrobial UCs used in hospitalized patients in preventing CAUTIs. The major antimicrobial UCs are silver and antibiotic catheters, in contrast, few antimicrobial catheters include antimicrobial peptides, bactericidal enzymes, bacteriophages, and many are under clinical evaluation. The review concludes that even though many antimicrobial methods are available to prevent CAUTIs, the incidence rate is still high. Antibiotic resistance, leaching of catheter materials which may cause side effects and additional costs are the major challenges for the UCs. Further research is warranted and should focus on cost-effective and ideal antimicrobial UCs, in which the microorganisms cannot form biofilms or develop resistance.</div

COVID-19 recovery patterns across alpha (B.1.1.7) and delta (B.1.617.2) variants of SARS-CoV-2

Background: B.1.1.7 (alpha) and B.1.617.2 (delta) variants of concern for SARS-CoV-2 have been reported to have differential infectivity and pathogenicity. Difference in recovery patterns across these variants and the interaction with vaccination status has not been reported in population-based studies.Objective: The objective of this research was to study the length of stay and temporal trends in RT-PCR cycle times (Ct) across alpha and delta variants of SARS-CoV-2 between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.Methods: Participants consisted of patients admitted to national COVID-19 treatment facilities if they had a positive RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, and analysis of variants was performed (using whole genome sequencing). Information on vaccination status, age, sex, cycle times (Ct) for four consecutive RT-PCR tests conducted during hospital stay, and total length of hospital stay for each participant were ascertained from electronic medical records.Results: Patients infected with the delta variant were younger (mean age = 35years vs 39 years for alpha, pConclusion: Patients infected with the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 were found to have a slower recovery as indicated by longer length of stay and higher shedding of the virus compared to alpha variant infections, and this trend was consistent in both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.</div

First confirmed case of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus infection in the Kingdom of Bahrain: in a Saudi gentleman after cardiac bypass surgery

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) is well known to cause severe respiratory infection and was first reported in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 2012. We report here the first confirmed MERS-CoV infection in the Kingdom of Bahrain in a Saudi gentleman who was admitted electively for coronary bypass surgery, postoperatively developed an acute respiratory illness, and tested positive for MERS-CoV. 40 close contacts, all healthcare workers, were traced and followed with no documented secondary cases

Time till viral clearance of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 is similar for asymptomatic and non-critically symptomatic individuals.

Despite the modeled estimations of the burden of asymptomatic spread, the duration of viral positivity and infectiousness of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) remains understudied. The objective of the present study was to estimate and compare the time till viral clearance of SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic and non-critical symptomatic individuals. We studied 184 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, of whom 145 were asymptomatic. Our analysis uncovered that time till viral negativity is similar for subclinical [median time till viral clearance: 11 days, interquartile range (IQR): 8, 14] and overt infections (median: 11 days, IQR: 9, 14) after controlling for age and sex. This has implications in understanding the period of infectivity for SARS-CoV-2 in order to plan adequate public health measures to control the community spread

The prevalence of asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID-19 in a cohort of quarantined subjects

Background: The frequency of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection with viral spread is unclear. Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection development and progression was investigated in subjects undergoing mandatory quarantine on airport arrival.Methods: 2714 subjects were tested for SARS-CoV-2 and all were quarantined for 2 weeks. Viral retesting was undertaken on symptom development and routinely at 14 days if asymptomatic. Asymptomatic, positive patients underwent viral testing every 2 days to determine viral clearance.Results: 188/2714 (6.9%) patients became SARS-CoV-2 positive. On arrival, 136/188 tested positive, with 44/188 (23.4%) symptomatic and 92/188 (48.9%) asymptomatic. All 92 patients remained asymptomatic and were retested every 2 days until viral clearance. 2526 quarantined subjects remained virus free at 14 days. Viral clearance did not differ between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (12.6 ± 1.0 days and 12.1 ± 0.4 days, respectively). Of the 52/188 (27.7%) testing negative on arrival, 27/52 subsequently became positive and developed symptoms 2-13 days after arrival. 25/188 (13.3%) remained asymptomatic and tested positive at day 14, with viral testing undertaken every 2 days in these subjects; of these, 24 remained asymptomatic, with viral clearance at 9.4 ± 0.7 days - less than for those who were asymptomatic on arrival (p Conclusion: Asymptomatic patients with COVID-19 were more prevalent than those exhibiting symptoms, and are an infection reservoir.</p

The effect of ABO blood group and antibody class on the risk of COVID-19 infection and severity of clinical outcomes

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected more than 100 million cases and caused immense burdens on governments and healthcare systems worldwide. Since its emergence in December 2019, research has been focused on treating the infected, identifying those at risk and preventing spread. There is currently no known biological biomarker that predicts the risk of infection. Several studies emerged suggesting an association between ABO blood group and the risk of COVID-19 infection. In this study, we used retrospective observational data in Bahrain to investigate the association between ABO blood group and risk of infection, as well as susceptibility to severe ICU-requiring infection. We found a higher risk associated with blood group B, and a lower risk with blood group AB. No association was observed between blood group and the risk of a severe ICU-requiring infection. We extended the analysis to study the association by antibodies; anti-a (blood groups B and O) and anti-b (blood groups A and O). No association between antibodies and both risk of infection or susceptibility to severe infection was found. The current study, along with the variation in blood group association results, indicates that blood group may not be an ideal biomarker to predict risk of COVID-19 infection. <br