Background Convalescent plasma (CP), despite limited evidence on its efficacy, is being widely used as a compassionate therapy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early CP therapy in COVID-19 progression. Methods and findings The study was an open-label, single-center randomized clinical trial performed in an academic medical center in Santiago, Chile, from May 10, 2020, to July 18, 2020, with final follow-up until August 17, 2020. The trial included patients hospitalized within the first 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset, presenting risk factors for illness progression and not on mechanical ventilation. The intervention consisted of immediate CP (early plasma group) versus no CP unless developing prespecified criteria of deterioration (deferred plasma group). Additional standard treatment was allowed in both arms. The primary outcome was a composite of mechanical ventilation, hospitalization for >14 days, or death. The key secondary outcomes included time to respiratory failure, days of mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, mortality at 30 days, and SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR clearance rate. Of 58 randomized patients (mean age, 65.8 years; 50% male), 57 (98.3%) completed the trial. A total of 13 (43.3%) participants from the deferred group received plasma based on clinical aggravation. We failed to find benefit in the primary outcome (32.1% versus 33.3%, odds ratio [OR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.32–2.84, p > 0.999) in the early versus deferred CP group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 17.9% versus 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54–17.17 p = 0.246), mechanical ventilation 17.9% versus 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54–17.17, p = 0.246), and prolonged hospitalization 21.4% versus 30.0% (OR 0.64, 95% CI, 0.19–2.10, p = 0.554) in the early versus deferred CP group, respectively. The viral clearance rate on day 3 (26% versus 8%, p = 0.204) and day 7 (38% versus 19%, p = 0.374) did not differ between groups. Two patients experienced serious adverse events within 6 hours after plasma transfusion. The main limitation of this study is the lack of statistical power to detect a smaller but clinically relevant therapeutic effect of CP, as well as not having confirmed neutralizing antibodies in donor before plasma infusion. Conclusions In the present study, we failed to find evidence of benefit in mortality, length of hospitalization, or mechanical ventilation requirement by immediate addition of CP therapy in the early stages of COVID-19 compared to its use only in case of patient deterioration. Trial registration NCT04375098.

Background Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been widely implemented in low- and middle-income countries. However, immunogenicity in immunocompromised patients has not been established. Herein, we aimed to evaluate immune response to CoronaVac vaccine in these patients. Methods This prospective cohort study included 193 participants with five different immunocompromising conditions and 67 controls, receiving two doses of CoronaVac 8-12 weeks before enrollment. The study was conducted between May and August 2021, at Red de Salud UC-CHRISTUS, Chile. Neutralizing antibodies (NAb) positivity, total anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies (TAb) concentration, and T cell response were determined. Results NAb positivity and median neutralizing activity were 83.1% and 51.2% for the control group versus 20.6% (p<0.0001) and 5.7% (p<0.0001) in the solid organ transplant (SOT) group, 41.5% (p<0.0001) and 19.2% (p<0.0001) in the autoimmune rheumatic diseases group, 43.3% (p=0.0002) and 21.4% (p=0.0013) in the cancer patients with solid tumors group, 45.5% (p<0.0001) and 28.7% (p=0.0006) in the HIV infected group, 64.3% (p=n.s.) and 56.6% (p=n.s.) in the hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) group, respectively. TAb seropositivity was also lower for the SOT (20.6%, p<0.0001), rheumatic diseases (61%, p=0.0001) and HIV groups (70.9%, p=0.0032), compared to control group (92.3%). On the other hand, the number of IFN-y Spot Forming T Cells specific for SARS-CoV-2 tended to be lower but did not differ significantly between groups. Conclusions Diverse immunocompromising conditions markedly reduce the humoral response to CoronaVac vaccine. These findings suggest a boosting vaccination strategy should be considered in these vulnerable patients.

Autologous stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) is an effective treatment strategy for hematological malignancies. The standard mode of handling hematopoietic progenitors for the autologous procedure (CRYO) consists on its collection and freezing with dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and its subsequent thawing and re-infusion. This process is toxic and expensive. Non-cryopreserved (non-CRYO) is a less expensive mode of auto-HSCT. We designed a comparative study between both strategies performed in two different centers to analyze the short-term complications. In total 111 auto-HSCT were performed from January/2015 to October/2016 (42 non-CRYO and 74 CRYO). There were 74 males and 69 (62%) patients had the underlying diagnosis of multiple myeloma. No differences were seen on the characteristics of the apheresis products and their viability. Engraftment was significantly faster in the non-CRYO group (p = 0.001). Febrile neutropenia and severe mucositis were lower in the non-CRYO group (40% vs 92% p = 0.0001 and 11% vs 64%, p = 0.001, respectively). In addition, length of hospitalization was 5 days shorter in the non-CRYO group (p = 0.0001). Overall responses and transplantation outcomes were similar. Our data demonstrate a clear advantage of the non-CRYO over CRYO auto-HSCT with faster engraftment, lower incidence of febrile neutropenia and shorter hospital stay after the transplantation procedure. These data are especially relevant for centers with high transplant activity or with limited resources.

Background: Convalescent plasma (CP), despite limited evidence on its efficacy, is being widely used as a compassionate therapy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early CP therapy in COVID-19 progression. Methods: Open-label, single-center, randomized clinical trial performed in an academic center in Santiago, Chile from May 10, 2020, to July 18, 2020, with final follow-up August 17, 2020. The trial included patients hospitalized within the first 7 days of COVID-19 symptoms onset, presenting risk factors for illness progression and not on mechanical ventilation. The intervention consisted in immediate CP (early plasma group) versus no CP unless developing pre-specified criteria of deterioration (deferred plasma group). Additional standard treatment was allowed in both arms. The primary outcome was a composite of mechanical ventilation, hospitalization for >14 days or death. Key secondary outcomes included: time to respiratory failure, days of mechanical ventilation, hospital length-of-stay, mortality at 30 days, and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR clearance rate. Results: Of 58 randomized patients (mean age, 65.8 years, 50% male), 57 (98.3%) completed the trial. A total of 13 (43.3%) participants from the deferred group received plasma based on clinical aggravation. We found no benefit in the primary outcome (32.1% vs 33.3%, OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.32-2.84, p>0.99) in the early versus deferred CP group. In-hospital mortality rate was 17.9% vs 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54-17.2, p=0.25), mechanical ventilation 17.9% vs 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54-17.2, p=0.25), and prolonged hospitalization 21.4% vs 30% (OR 0.64, 95%CI, 0.19-2.1, p=0.55) in early versus deferred CP group, respectively. Viral clearance rate on day 3 (26% vs 8%, p=0.20) and day 7 (38% vs 19%, p=0.37) did not differ between groups. Two patients experienced serious adverse events within 6 or less hours after plasma transfusion. Conclusion: Immediate addition of CP therapy in early stages of COVID-19 -compared to its use only in case of patient deterioration- did not confer benefits in mortality, length of hospitalization or mechanical ventilation requirement.

No abstract