Evaluating the effect of convalescent plasma (CP) on some cytokine storm indices in severe COVID-19 patients. Totally, 62 patients were randomly assigned into two groups for this clinical trial. Patients in the intervention group received one unit (500 mL) plasma on the admission day plus standard drugs while the controls merely received standard treatments. Eventually, primary and secondary outcomes were evaluated. In the CP group, compared with controls, the mean levels of lymphocytes and IL-10 significantly increased while the levels of IL-6, TNF-α, and IFN-γ decreased ( p < 0.05). The length of in-hospital stay, and mortality rate did not significantly reduce in the CP group compared with controls ( p > 0.05) while WHO severity scores remarkably improved ( p = 0.01), despite the higher frequency of underlying diseases among the CP group (66.7%) vs. controls (33.3%). Although CP has a remarkable immunomodulatory and antiviral potential to improve the cytokine storm and disease severity in COVID-19 patients, it did not considerably affect the mortality rate. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11739-021-02734-8.

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and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX).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 Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model.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.

Microwave-assisted distillation–precipitation polymerization (MWDPP) for the synthesis of magnetic molecularly imprinted polymers (MMIPs) under atmospheric pressure is reported.

No abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is the predictive validation of red cell distribution width (RDW) in COVID-19 patients. Method: In total, 331 COVID-19 patients were classified as ‘severe’ and ‘nonsevere’ groups based on the WHO standard criteria. The levels of RDW standard deviation (SD) were evaluated as both continuous and categorical variables. Multivariate statistical analyses were used. Results: RDW-SD ≤43 and ≤47 fl thresholds showed high specificity (90.1–91.4%) for diagnosing nonsevere illness and no risk of death. RDW-SD >47 indicated severe illness and a high mortality risk while 43<RDW-SD≤47 indicated severe illness with low risk of death. Conclusion: RDW-SD levels may be a potent independent predictor of the infection severity and mortality probability in COVID-19 patients.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract