Choudhuri Anirban Hom, Duggal Sakshi, Singh Jotika, Biswas Partha Sarathi
Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, GIPMER, New Delhi, India.
Department of Psychiatry, GIPMER, New Delhi, India.
J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2022 Jul;38(Suppl 1):S22-S33. doi: 10.4103/joacp.joacp_309_21. Epub 2022 Jun 15.
The safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) in SARS-CoV-2 is promising but intriguing due to heterogeneity of published studies. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis of convalescent plasma use in COVID-19 to identify its safety and efficacy.
We comprehensively searched the databases - PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for journal papers published between December 2019 and January 2021 about the use of CPT in SARS-CoV-2, and performed a meta-analysis using random effects models and assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
Of 1529 records, 11 studies were eligible (five RCTs, two nonrandomized intervention trials, three prospective observational, and one retrospective), and all were conducted in confirmed patients of SARS-CoV-2. Out of the 11 studies, four investigated the effect of CPT on mortality, three on symptom alleviation, five on duration of hospital stay, four on time to discharge, three on the effect on viral clearance, three on the improvement in antibody titers, two on oxygen requirement, and two on adverse events. The pooled estimate for relative risk of death from SARS-CoV-2 was no different after CPT than control (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.69, 1.10), (p = 0.426) but the relative risk of clinical improvement of symptoms was better after CPT (RR: 1.61, 95% CI: 0.97. 2.70). There was earlier hospital discharge after CPT over control (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 0.79, 2.80), improved viral clearance (RR: 1.95; 95% CI: 1.07, 3.53), and quicker detection of antibody titer (RR: 1.95; 95% CI: 1.07, 3.53). No difference was observed for adverse effects between CPT and control (RR: 0.92.; 95% CI: 0.63 1.35).
CPT appears to be a safe and promising treatment in moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 leading to faster clinical improvement, reduced oxygen requirement, early hospital discharge, and quicker emergence of protective antibodies despite having no mortality benefit.
恢复期血浆疗法(CPT)用于治疗新冠病毒(SARS-CoV-2)的安全性和有效性颇具前景,但由于已发表研究的异质性,情况也较为复杂。我们开展了这项关于新冠病毒疾病(COVID-19)中使用恢复期血浆的系统评价和荟萃分析,以确定其安全性和有效性。
我们全面检索了数据库——PubMed、科学网、Embase和考克兰图书馆,查找2019年12月至2021年1月期间发表的关于在新冠病毒中使用CPT的期刊论文,并使用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析,采用推荐分级评估、制定与评价(GRADE)方法评估证据质量。
在1529条记录中,11项研究符合条件(5项随机对照试验、2项非随机干预试验、3项前瞻性观察性研究和1项回顾性研究),所有研究均在确诊的新冠病毒患者中进行。在这11项研究中,4项研究了CPT对死亡率的影响,3项研究了对症状缓解的影响,5项研究了住院时间,4项研究了出院时间,3项研究了对病毒清除的影响,3项研究了抗体滴度的改善情况,2项研究了氧气需求,2项研究了不良事件。CPT治疗后新冠病毒导致死亡的相对风险合并估计值与对照组无差异(风险比:0.87,95%置信区间:0.69,1.10),(p = 0.426),但CPT治疗后症状临床改善的相对风险更好(风险比:1.61,95%置信区间:0.97,2.70)。与对照组相比,CPT治疗后出院更早(风险比:1.49,95%置信区间:0.79,2.80),病毒清除改善(风险比:1.95;95%置信区间:1.07,3.53),抗体滴度检测更快(风险比:1.95;95%置信区间:1.07,3.53)。CPT与对照组在不良反应方面未观察到差异(风险比:0.92;95%置信区间:0.63,1.35)。
尽管恢复期血浆疗法对死亡率没有益处,但在治疗中重度新冠病毒感染方面似乎是一种安全且有前景的治疗方法,可使临床改善更快、氧气需求减少、更早出院,并更快产生保护性抗体。