Cryoprecipitate transfusion in trauma patients attenuates hyperfibrinolysis and restores normal clot structure and stability : Results from a laboratory sub-study of the FEISTY trial

Acknowledgements We acknowledge the Aberdeen Microscopy and Histology Core Facility and thank Judith de Vries for her guidance in analysing the confocal images. We thank Megan Simpson for measuring PAI-1 and uPA antigen levels in the fibrinogen preparations. We thank all of the FEISTY research staff who collected and processed the patient samples. Funding This work was supported by research grants from CSL Behring and Tenovus Scotland.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

A novel method to quantify fibrin-fibrin and fibrin-α2AP cross-links in thrombi formed from human trauma patient plasma.

The widespread use of the anti-fibrinolytic agent, tranexamic acid (TXA), interferes with the quantification of fibrinolysis by dynamic laboratory assays such as clot lysis, making it difficult to measure fibrinolysis in many trauma patients. At the final stage of coagulation, Factor XIIIa (FXIIIa) catalyses the formation of fibrin-fibrin and fibrin-α2-antiplasmin (α2AP) cross-links which increases clot mechanical strength and resistance to fibrinolysis. Here, we develop a method to quantify fibrin-fibrin and fibrin-α2AP cross-links that avoids the challenges posed by TXA in determining fibrinolytic resistance in conventional assays. Fibrinogen alpha chain (FGA-FGA), fibrinogen gamma chain (FGG-FGG) and FGA-α2AP cross-links were quantified using liquid-chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) and parallel reaction monitoring (PRM) in paired plasma samples from trauma patients pre- and post-fibrinogen replacement. Differences in the abundance of cross-links in trauma patients receiving cryoprecipitate (cryo) or fibrinogen concentrate (Fg-C) were analysed. The study found that the abundance of cross-links was significantly increased in trauma patients post-cryo, but not Fg-C, transfusion (p < 0.0001). The abundance of cross-links was positively correlated with the toughness of individual fibrin fibres, the peak thrombin concentration and FXIII antigen (p < 0.05). We have developed a novel method that allows us to quantify fibrin cross-links in trauma patients who have received TXA, providing an indirect measure of fibrinolytic resistance. Using this novel approach we have avoided the effect of TXA and shown that cryo increases fibrin-fibrin and fibrin-α2AP cross-linking when compared to Fg-C, highlighting the importance of FXIII in clot formation and stability in trauma patients

Renal impairment at diagnosis in myeloma: Patient characteristics, treatment, and impact on outcomes. Results trom the Australia and New Zealand myeloma and related diseases registry

Background: Renal impairment (RI) is a common complication of multiple myeloma (MM) and remains a poor prognostic factor despite improved survival with newer therapies. Patients and Methods: We evaluated baseline characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of newly diagnosed MM patients with RI at diagnosis in the Australia and New Zealand Myeloma and Related Diseases Registry over 5 years to April 2018; we compared patients with RI (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR

Efficacy and Safety Analyses of Recombinant Factor VIIa in Severe Post-Partum Hemorrhage

Background: Despite a range of available treatments, it is still sometimes challenging to treat patients with severe post-partum hemorrhage (sPPH). Objective: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of recombinant activated factor VIIa (rFVIIa) in sPPH management. Methods: An open-label, multi-center, randomized controlled trial (RCT; NCT00370877) and four observational studies (OS; OS-1 (NCT04723979), OS-2, OS-3, and OS-4) were analyzed regarding efficacy (need for subsequent invasive procedures, including uterine compression sutures, uterine or iliac artery ligations, arterial embolization, or hysterectomy) and safety (incidence of thromboembolic events (TE) and maternal mortality) of rFVIIa for sPPH. The RCT, and OS-1 and OS-2, included a control group of women who did not receive rFVIIa (with propensity score-matching used in OS-1 and OS-2), whereas OS-3 and OS-4 provided descriptive data for rFVIIa-exposed women only. Results: A total of 446 women exposed to rFVIIa and 1717 non-exposed controls were included. In the RCT, fewer rFVIIa-exposed women (50% [21/42]) had an invasive procedure versus non-exposed women (91% [38/42]; odds ratio: 0.11; 95% confidence interval: 0.03–0.35). In OS-1, more rFVIIa-exposed women (58% [22/38]) had an invasive procedure versus non-exposed women (35% [13.3/38]; odds ratio: 2.46; 95% confidence interval: 1.06–5.99). In OS-2, 17% (3/18) of rFVIIa-exposed women and 32% (5.6/17.8) of non-exposed women had an invasive procedure (odds ratio: 0.33; 95% confidence interval: 0.03–1.75). Across all included women, TEs occurred in 1.5% (0.2% arterial and 1.2% venous) of rFVIIa-exposed women and 1.6% (0.2% arterial and 1.4% venous) of non-exposed women with available data. Conclusions: The positive treatment effect of rFVIIa on the RCT was not confirmed in the OS. However, the safety analysis did not show any increased incidence of TEs with rFVIIa treatment

A point-of-care lateral flow assay for neutralising antibodies against SARS-CoV-2

Background: As vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are now being rolled out, a better understanding of immunity to the virus, whether from infection, or passive or active immunisation, and the durability of this protection is required. This will benefit from the ability to measure antibody-based protection to SARS-CoV-2, ideally with rapid turnaround and without the need for laboratory-based testing. Methods: We have developed a lateral flow POC test that can measure levels of RBD-ACE2 neutralising antibody (NAb) from whole blood, with a result that can be determined by eye or quantitatively on a small instrument. We compared our lateral flow test with the gold-standard microneutralisation assay, using samples from convalescent and vaccinated donors, as well as immunised macaques. Findings: We show a high correlation between our lateral flow test with conventional neutralisation and that this test is applicable with animal samples. We also show that this assay is readily adaptable to test for protection to newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, including the beta variant which revealed a marked reduction in NAb activity. Lastly, using a cohort of vaccinated humans, we demonstrate that our whole-blood test correlates closely with microneutralisation assay data (specificity 100% and sensitivity 96% at a microneutralisation cutoff of 1:40) and that fingerprick whole blood samples are sufficient for this test. Interpretation: Taken together, the COVID-19 NAb-testTM device described here provides a rapid readout of NAb based protection to SARS-CoV-2 at the point of care

Effect of Convalescent Plasma on Organ Support-Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: The evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is inconclusive. Objective: To determine whether convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ongoing Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial, Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) enrolled and randomized 4763 adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 between March 9, 2020, and January 18, 2021, within at least 1 domain; 2011 critically ill adults were randomized to open-label interventions in the immunoglobulin domain at 129 sites in 4 countries. Follow-up ended on April 19, 2021. Interventions: The immunoglobulin domain randomized participants to receive 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma (total volume of 550 mL ± 150 mL) within 48 hours of randomization (n = 1084) or no convalescent plasma (n = 916). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary ordinal end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based organ support) up to day 21 (range, -1 to 21 days; patients who died were assigned -1 day). The primary analysis was an adjusted bayesian cumulative logistic model. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority &gt;99%). Futility was defined as the posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 (threshold for trial conclusion of futility &gt;95%). An OR greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. The prespecified secondary outcomes included in-hospital survival; 28-day survival; 90-day survival; respiratory support-free days; cardiovascular support-free days; progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation, or death; intensive care unit length of stay; hospital length of stay; World Health Organization ordinal scale score at day 14; venous thromboembolic events at 90 days; and serious adverse events. Results: Among the 2011 participants who were randomized (median age, 61 [IQR, 52 to 70] years and 645/1998 [32.3%] women), 1990 (99%) completed the trial. The convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after the prespecified criterion for futility was met. The median number of organ support-free days was 0 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the convalescent plasma group and 3 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the no convalescent plasma group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 37.3% (401/1075) for the convalescent plasma group and 38.4% (347/904) for the no convalescent plasma group and the median number of days alive and free of organ support was 14 (IQR, 3 to 18) and 14 (IQR, 7 to 18), respectively. The median-adjusted OR was 0.97 (95% credible interval, 0.83 to 1.15) and the posterior probability of futility (O

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

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570