Background and objectives COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been used, predominantly in high‐income countries (HICs) to treat COVID‐19; available data suggest the safety and efficacy of use. We sought to develop guidance for procurement and use of CCP, particularly in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) for which data are lacking. Materials and methods A multidisciplinary, geographically representative group of individuals with expertise spanning transfusion medicine, infectious diseases and haematology was tasked with the development of a guidance document for CCP, drawing on expert opinion, survey of group members and review of available evidence. Three subgroups (i.e. donor, product and patient) were established based on self‐identified expertise and interest. Here, the donor and product‐related challenges are summarized and contrasted between HICs and LMICs with a view to guide related practices. Results The challenges to advance CCP therapy are different between HICs and LMICs. Early challenges in HICs related to recruitment and qualification of sufficient donors to meet the growing demand. Antibody testing also posed a specific obstacle given lack of standardization, variable performance of the assays in use and uncertain interpretation of results. In LMICs, an extant transfusion deficit, suboptimal models of donor recruitment (e.g. reliance on replacement and paid donors), limited laboratory capacity for pre‐donation qualification and operational considerations could impede wide adoption. Conclusion There has been wide‐scale adoption of CCP in many HICs, which could increase if clinical trials show efficacy of use. By contrast, LMICs, having received little attention, require locally applicable strategies for adoption of CCP.

Background. Ivermectin has received particular attention as a potential treatment for COVID-19. However, the evidence to support its clinical efficacy is controversial. Objectives. We undertook a new systematic review of ivermectin for the treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19, including new primary studies, outcomes other than mortality, and grading the quality of the available evidence following the Cochrane guidance for methodology. Methods. We searched electronic databases, repository databases, and clinical trial registries (up to June 2021). The measure of treatment effect was risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. Results. The review includes 11 RCTs (2436 participants). The certainty of the available evidence was quite low or very low due to risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. When the analysis was limited to patients with baseline mild or moderate disease (8 reports, 1283 patients), there were no differences in mortality between ivermectin and control groups (low level of certainty); in patients with baseline severe diseases (3 reports, 304 patients), the use of ivermectin significantly decreased mortality compared to the controls (RD −0.17; 95% CIs, −0.24/−0.10; p = 0.00001; low level of certainty). In terms of disease progression (to severe pneumonia, admission to intensive care unit, and/or mechanical ventilation), the results were much the same. At day 14, the rate of patients with a negative RT-PCR test was 21% higher (from 5 to 36% higher) for ivermectin recipients than it was for the controls (low quality of evidence). Three studies (736 subjects) indicated that prophylaxis with ivermectin increased the likelihood of preventing COVID-19 compared to controls (low quality of evidence). Serious adverse events were rarely reported. Conclusions. There is limited evidence for the benefit of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment and prophylaxis, and most of this evidence is of low quality. Further evidence is needed to fine-tune potential indications and optimal treatment protocols for ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: In the past two decades peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) have increasingly replaced marrow as stem cells source for allogeneic transplantation. The PBSC donation initially applied only to related donors; later, due to the safety of the procedure, it was extended to unrelated donors. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We have retrospectively collected data regarding mobilization, collection, and short‐ and long‐term follow‐up of 190 consecutive donors, 174 related and 16 unrelated. All donors followed a standard protocol for mobilization and underwent at least one PBSC collection. Follow‐up in related donors was performed every 4 months in the first year and then annually, with no time limits, while unrelated donors were monitored for 10 years. RESULTS: All 190 donors completed the established mobilization protocol. The mobilizing capacity was significantly greater in males and in donors less than 60 years old. No case of major toxicity by granulocyte–colony‐stimulating factor was found, nor thromboembolic events. The total dose of CD34+/recipient (median 5.8 × 106/kg recipient/body weight) was statistically correlated with age, CD34+ before and after mobilization, and collection efficiency. Compliance to follow‐up was 66%, with a significant difference between related and unrelated (63% vs. 100%, p = 0.03). During follow‐up no significant abnormalities in hematologic variables or hematologic malignancies were reported. CONCLUSION: Our study allowed us to define the PBSC donation as “a safe procedure for the donors,” with short‐ and long‐term effects limited to a small percentage of donors and “effective for the recipient,” due to the dose of collected CD34+, adequate for transplantation in almost all recipients.

Purpose. An expanded access program (PRIDE study) in Italy to provide ranibizumab 0.5 mg to diabetic macular edema (DME) patients, prior to reimbursement. Methods. Open-label, prospective, phase IIIb study. Majority of patients were not treatment-naïve before enrollment. Patients received ranibizumab as per the EU label (2011). Safety was assessed by incidences of ocular/systemic adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) and efficacy in terms of visual acuity (VA) change from baseline (decimal score or Snellen (20/value)). Results. Overall, 515 patients (83.5%) completed the study. In unilateral/bilateral patients, commonly observed AEs were cardiac disorders (1.3%/1.3%) and nervous system disorders (1.3%/1.1%); SAEs were reported in 4.5%/4.8% of patients. Acute renal failure, lung carcinoma, and cardiac arrest were the causes of death in one unilateral and two bilateral patients. Ranibizumab improved/maintained VA (Snellen (20/value)/decimal scores) in both unilateral (up to −16.7/1.5) and bilateral patients (up to −23.6/1.2) at Month 5, with a mean of 4.15 and 4.40 injections, respectively. Overall, no difference was observed in the VA outcomes and treatment exposure between unilateral/bilateral patients. Conclusions. The PRIDE study provided early ranibizumab access to >600 Italian patients. Ranibizumab was well-tolerated and improved/maintained VA in 40.2%–68.8% patients, with no differences in case of unilateral or bilateral pathology. The study is registered with EudraCT.

Passive immunotherapy with plasma derived from patients convalescent from SARS-CoV-2 infection can be a promising approach in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. It is important that Blood Establishments are prepared to satisfy requests for immune plasma by defining the requirements applicable to plasma donors and the standards for preparation, qualification, storage, distribution and control of use of the product. This position paper is aimed to give recommendations on biological characteristics of a plasma preparation from convalescent donors and to support the evaluation of this therapeutic approach in more rigorous investigations.