-
BMC Health Services Research Jul 2023Individual participant data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs), which involve harmonising and analysing participant-level data from related studies, provide several advantages over...
BACKGROUND
Individual participant data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs), which involve harmonising and analysing participant-level data from related studies, provide several advantages over aggregate data meta-analyses, which pool study-level findings. IPD-MAs are especially important for building and evaluating diagnostic and prognostic models, making them an important tool for informing the research and public health responses to COVID-19.
METHODS
We conducted a rapid systematic review of protocols and publications from planned, ongoing, or completed COVID-19-related IPD-MAs to identify areas of overlap and maximise data request and harmonisation efforts. We searched four databases using a combination of text and MeSH terms. Two independent reviewers determined eligibility at the title-abstract and full-text stages. Data were extracted by one reviewer into a pretested data extraction form and subsequently reviewed by a second reviewer. Data were analysed using a narrative synthesis approach. A formal risk of bias assessment was not conducted.
RESULTS
We identified 31 COVID-19-related IPD-MAs, including five living IPD-MAs and ten IPD-MAs that limited their inference to published data (e.g., case reports). We found overlap in study designs, populations, exposures, and outcomes of interest. For example, 26 IPD-MAs included RCTs; 17 IPD-MAs were limited to hospitalised patients. Sixteen IPD-MAs focused on evaluating medical treatments, including six IPD-MAs for antivirals, four on antibodies, and two that evaluated convalescent plasma.
CONCLUSIONS
Collaboration across related IPD-MAs can leverage limited resources and expertise by expediting the creation of cross-study participant-level data datasets, which can, in turn, fast-track evidence synthesis for the improved diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
10.17605/OSF.IO/93GF2.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Pandemics; COVID-19 Serotherapy; Prognosis; Publications
PubMed: 37415216
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-09726-8 -
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics &... 2023The new class of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell has emboldened health-care professionals and patients for a more effective treatment of hematological malignancies,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The new class of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell has emboldened health-care professionals and patients for a more effective treatment of hematological malignancies, indicatively lymphoma, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and myeloma. Nevertheless, their burgeoning procurement costs comprise a litmus stress for health systems across the globe. In this context, this systematic review aims to update the current body of evidence assessing CAR-T economic evaluations and elucidate their financial efficiency.
AREAS COVERED
A systematic review of the economic evaluations of tisagenlecleucel, axicabtagene ciloleucel, idecabtagene vicleucel, lisocabtagene maraleucel, ciltacabtagene autoleucel and brexucabtagene autoleucel was performed.
EXPERT OPINION
The updated results corroborated the previously reported favorable cost-effectiveness ratio of CAR-T. They also pointed out differences among CAR-T agents. However, their budget impact emerges as a significant barrier in the reimbursement process. Any proposed Managed Entry Agreement must integrate the ingrained uncertainty of long-term efficacy and precede reimbursement decisions.
Topics: Humans; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Budgets; Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy
PubMed: 37288738
DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2023.2214731 -
Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Jan 2024The safety and efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy in solid organ transplant recipients is poorly understood, given the paucity of available data... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The safety and efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy in solid organ transplant recipients is poorly understood, given the paucity of available data in this patient population. There is a theoretical risk of compromising transplanted organ function with CAR T cell therapy; conversely, organ transplantation-related immunosuppression can alter the function of CAR T cells. Given the prevalence of post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disease, which often can be difficult to treat with conventional chemoimmunotherapy, understanding the risks and benefits of delivering lymphoma-directed CAR T cell therapy in solid organ transplant recipients is of utmost importance. We sought to determine the efficacy of CAR T cell therapy in solid organ transplant recipients as well as the associated adverse effects, including cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), and compromised solid organ transplant function. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of adult recipients of solid organ transplant who received CAR T cell therapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Primary outcomes included efficacy, defined as overall response (OR), complete response (CR), progression-free survival, and overall survival, as well as rates of CRS and ICANS. Secondary outcomes included rates of transplanted organ loss, compromised organ function, and alterations to immunosuppressant regimens. After a systematic literature review and 2-reviewer screening process, we identified 10 studies suitable for descriptive analysis and 4 studies suitable for meta-analysis. Among all patients, 69% (24 of 35) achieved a response to CAR T cell therapy, and 52% (18 of 35) achieved a CR. CRS of any grade occurred in 83% (29 of 35), and CRS grade ≥3 occurred in 9% (3 of 35). Sixty percent of the patients (21 of 35) developed ICANS, and 34% (12 of 35) developed ICANS grade ≥3. The incidence of any grade 5 toxicity among all patients was 11% (4 of 35). Fourteen percent of the patients (5 of 35) experienced loss of the transplanted organ. Immunosuppressant therapy was held in 22 patients but eventually restarted in 68% of them (15 of 22). Among the studies included in the meta-analysis, the pooled OR rate was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI], 29.2% to 100%; I = 71%) and the pooled CR rate was 46% (95% CI, 25.4% to 67.8%; I = 29%). The rates of any grade CRS and grade ≥3 CRS were 88% (95% CI, 69% to 99%; I = 0%) and 5% (95% CI, 0% to 21%; I = 0%), respectively. The rates of any grade ICANS and ICANS grade ≥3 were 54% (95% CI, 9% to 96%; I = 68%) and 40% (95% CI, 3% to 85%; I = 63%), respectively. The efficacy of CAR T cell therapy in solid organ transplant recipients is comparable to that in the general population as reported in prior investigational studies, with an acceptable toxicity profile in terms of CRS, ICANS, and transplanted organ compromise. Further studies are needed to determine long-term effects on organ function, sustained response rates, and best practices peri-CAR T infusion period in this patient population.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Lymphoma; Organ Transplantation; Adaptor Proteins, Signal Transducing; Antigens, CD19; Cytokine Release Syndrome; Immunosuppressive Agents; Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy
PubMed: 37279856
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtct.2023.05.018 -
Immunotherapy Aug 2023The article explores the possibility of using nanoparticles and IgY technology together for biosensing and antibody delivery to fight mammalian infections. The use of... (Review)
Review
The article explores the possibility of using nanoparticles and IgY technology together for biosensing and antibody delivery to fight mammalian infections. The use of IgG in passive immunotherapy has drawbacks; however, nanoparticles and IgY technology offer new opportunities for diagnostic and therapeutic applications. The primary selection of reports was based on the title and abstract, and potential studies were selected based on predefined inclusion criteria such as nanoparticle/nanomaterials and IgY, studies that have employed nanoparticles-IgY for diagnostic and therapeutic applications and animal experiments. Nanoparticle-IgY conjugates have great potential in diagnostics and therapeutics, but translation of nanotechnology-based IgY technology from laboratory settings to clinical setup is still a challenge. As science advances, nanoimmunotherapy can be explored in modern-day medicine.
Topics: Animals; Chickens; Immunoglobulins; Antibodies; Immunization, Passive; Nanotechnology; Mammals
PubMed: 37222153
DOI: 10.2217/imt-2022-0304 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells are an emerging therapy for the treatment of relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies. While CD19 CAR-T cells have been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
UNLABELLED
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells are an emerging therapy for the treatment of relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies. While CD19 CAR-T cells have been FDA-approved, CAR T-cells targeting CD22, as well as dual-targeting CD19/CD22 CAR T-cells, are currently being evaluated in clinical trials. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CD22-targeting CAR T-cell therapies. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to March 3rd 2022 for full-length articles and conference abstracts of clinical trials employing CD22-targeting CAR T-cells in acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). The primary outcome was best complete response (bCR). A DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model with arcsine transformation was used to pool outcome proportions. From 1068 references screened, 100 were included, representing 30 early phase studies with 637 patients, investigating CD22 or CD19/CD22 CAR T-cells. CD22 CAR T-cells had a bCR of 68% [95% CI, 53-81%] in ALL (n= 116), and 64% [95% CI, 46-81%] in NHL (n= 28) with 74% and 96% of patients having received anti-CD19 CAR T-cells previously in ALL and NHL studies respectively. CD19/CD22 CAR T-cells had a bCR rate of 90% [95% CI, 84-95%] in ALL (n= 297) and 47% [95% CI, 34-61%] in NHL (n= 137). The estimated incidence of total and severe (grade ≥3) CRS were 87% [95% CI, 80-92%] and 6% [95% CI, 3-9%] respectively. ICANS and severe ICANS had an estimated incidence of 16% [95% CI, 9-25%] and 3% [95% CI, 1-5%] respectively. Early phase trials of CD22 and CD19/CD22 CAR T-cells show high remission rates in ALL and NHL. Severe CRS or ICANS were (1)rare and dual-targeting did not increase toxicity. Variability in CAR construct, dose, and patient factors amongst studies limits comparisons, with long-term outcomes yet to be reported.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42020193027.
Topics: Humans; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; T-Lymphocytes; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; B-Lymphocytes; Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma; Recurrence; Sialic Acid Binding Ig-like Lectin 2
PubMed: 37180149
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1178403 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate outcomes following chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy in relapsed/refractory acute myeloid... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate outcomes following chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy in relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (RR-AML).
METHODS
We performed a literature search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov. After screening 677 manuscripts, 13 studies were included. Data was extracted following PRISMA guidelines. Pooled analysis was done using the meta-package by Schwarzer et al. Proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed.
RESULTS
We analyzed 57 patients from 10 clinical trials and 3 case reports. The pooled complete and overall response rates were 49.5% (95% CI 0.18-0.81, I=65%) and 65.2% (95% CI 0.36-0.91, I=57%). The pooled incidence of cytokine release syndrome, immune-effector cell associated neurotoxicity syndrome, and graft-versus-host disease was estimated as 54.4% (95% CI 0.17-0.90, I=77%), 3.9% (95% CI 0.00-0.19, I=22%), and 1.6% (95%CI 0.00-0.21, I=33%), respectively.
CONCLUSION
CAR-T therapy has demonstrated modest efficacy in RR-AML. Major challenges include heterogeneous disease biology, lack of a unique targetable antigen, and immune exhaustion.
Topics: Humans; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Antigens, CD19; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy
PubMed: 37168849
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1152457 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have very-low to low certainty evidence for most primary outcomes and moderate certainty for hospital admission or death. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Serotherapy; Virus Diseases; Immunoglobulins
PubMed: 37162745
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013600.pub6 -
Journal For Immunotherapy of Cancer Apr 2023The number of clinical studies evaluating the benefit of cytokine-induced killer cell (CIK) therapy, an adoptive immunotherapy, for colorectal cancer (CRC) is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The number of clinical studies evaluating the benefit of cytokine-induced killer cell (CIK) therapy, an adoptive immunotherapy, for colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing. In many of these trials, CIK therapy was coadministered with conventional cancer therapy. The aim of this review is to systematically assess the available literature, in which the majority were only in Chinese, on CIK therapy for the management of CRC using meta-analysis and to identify parameters associated with successful CIK therapy implementation.
METHODS
Prospective and retrospective clinical studies which compared CIK therapy to non-CIK therapy in patients with CRC were searched for electronically on MEDLINE, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data databases. The clinical endpoints of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), OS and PFS rates, overall response rate (ORR), and toxicity were meta-analyzed using HR and relative ratio (RR), and subgroup analyses were performed using chi-square (χ) test and I-squared (I) statistics for study design, disease stage, cotherapy type, and timing of administration.
RESULTS
In total, 70 studies involving 6743 patients were analyzed. CIK therapy was favored over non-CIK therapy for OS (HR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.65), PFS (HR=0.55, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.63), and ORR (RR=0.65, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.74) without increasing toxicity (HR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.16 to 2.25). Subgroup analyses on OS and PFS by study design (randomized vs non-randomized study design), disease stage (Stage I-III vs Stage IV), cotreatment with dendritic cells (DCs) (CIK vs DC-CIK therapy), or timing of therapy administration (concurrent vs sequential with coadministered anticancer therapy) also showed that the clinical benefit of CIK therapy was robust in any subgroup analysis. Furthermore, cotreatment with DCs did not improve clinical outcomes over CIK therapy alone.
CONCLUSION
Compared with standard therapy, patients who received additional CIK cell therapy had favorable outcomes without increased toxicity, warranting further investigation into CIK therapy for the treatment of CRC.
Topics: Humans; Colorectal Neoplasms; Cytokine-Induced Killer Cells; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37117007
DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2023-006764 -
The Oncologist Jun 2023T-cell receptor (TCR-T) therapies are based on the expression of an introduced TCR targeting a tumor associated antigen (TAA) which has been studied in several trials in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
T-cell receptor (TCR-T) therapies are based on the expression of an introduced TCR targeting a tumor associated antigen (TAA) which has been studied in several trials in cutaneous melanoma. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to assess the primary efficacy of TCR-based adoptive cell therapy in cutaneous melanoma.
METHODS
We searched through PubMed electronic database from its inception until May 21, 2022. Primary endpoints were pooled objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). We conducted logistic regression analyses to identify potential predictive factors for tumor response.
RESULTS
From 187 patients, 50 showed an objective response (pooled ORR 28%; 95% CI, 20%-37%) and a pooled DCR of 38% (95% CI, 27%-50%). Median PFS was 2, 9 months (95% CI, 1.4-3.1). A trend toward higher PFS was demonstrated for patients treated with cancer/testis antigens targeting TCR-T cells (HR 0.91 95% CI, 0.64-1.3, P = .61) among whom, patients treated with NYESO-1 targeting TCR-T showed a significantly higher PFS (HR 0.63 95% CI, 0.64-0.98, P = .03). In addition, the number of infused cells was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of tumor response (OR 6.61; 95% CI, 1.68-21.6; P = .007).
CONCLUSION
TCR-T therapy shows promising results in terms of antitumor activity and survival similar to those reported for TILs with a significantly higher benefit for cancer/testis antigens targeting cells. Since TCR-based therapy shows advantages of great potential over classic ACT strategies, further research in solid cancers is warranted (PROSPERO ID CRD42022328011).
Topics: Male; Humans; Melanoma; Skin Neoplasms; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Receptors, Antigen, T-Cell; Melanoma, Cutaneous Malignant
PubMed: 37036865
DOI: 10.1093/oncolo/oyad078 -
Viruses Mar 2023While passive immunotherapy has been considered beneficial for patients with severe respiratory viral infections, the treatment of COVID-19 cases with convalescent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
While passive immunotherapy has been considered beneficial for patients with severe respiratory viral infections, the treatment of COVID-19 cases with convalescent plasma produced mixed results. Thus, there is a lack of certainty and consensus regarding its effectiveness. This meta-analysis aims to assess the role of convalescent plasma treatment on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients enrolled in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed database (end-of-search: 29 December 2022) for RCTs on convalescent plasma therapy compared to supportive care\standard of care. Pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated with random-effects models. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were also performed, in order to address heterogeneity and examine any potential association between the factors that varied, and the outcomes reported. The present meta-analysis was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A total of 34 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Per overall analysis, convalescent plasma treatment was not associated with lower 28-day mortality [RR = 0.98, 95% CI (0.91, 1.06)] or improved 28-day secondary outcomes, such as hospital discharge [RR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.97, 1.03)], ICU-related or score-related outcomes, with effect estimates of RR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.98, 1.05) and RR = 1.06, 95% CI (0.95, 1.17), respectively. However, COVID-19 outpatients treated with convalescent plasma had a 26% less risk of requiring hospital care, when compared to those treated with the standard of care [RR = 0.74, 95% CI (0.56, 0.99)]. Regarding subgroup analyses, COVID-19 patients treated with convalescent plasma had an 8% lower risk of ICU-related disease progression when compared to those treated with the standard of care (with or without placebo or standard plasma infusions) [RR = 0.92, 95% CI (0.85, 0.99)] based on reported outcomes from RCTs carried out in Europe. Finally, convalescent plasma treatment was not associated with improved survival or clinical outcomes in the 14-day subgroup analyses. Outpatients with COVID-19 treated with convalescent plasma had a statistically significantly lower risk of requiring hospital care when compared to those treated with placebo or the standard of care. However, convalescent plasma treatment was not statistically associated with prolonged survival or improved clinical outcomes when compared to placebo or the standard of care, per overall analysis in hospitalized populations. This hints at potential benefits, when used early, to prevent progression to severe disease. Finally, convalescent plasma was significantly associated with better ICU-related outcomes in trials carried out in Europe. Well-designed prospective studies could clarify its potential benefit for specific subpopulations in the post-pandemic era.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; COVID-19 Serotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Immunization, Passive; Pandemics
PubMed: 36992474
DOI: 10.3390/v15030765