The efficacy of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Although most randomized controlled trials have shown negative results, uncontrolled studies have suggested that the antibody content could influence patient outcomes. We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma for adults with COVID-19 receiving oxygen within 12 d of respiratory symptom onset (NCT04348656). Patients were allocated 2:1 to 500 ml of convalescent plasma or standard of care. The composite primary outcome was intubation or death by 30 d. Exploratory analyses of the effect of convalescent plasma antibodies on the primary outcome was assessed by logistic regression. The trial was terminated at 78% of planned enrollment after meeting stopping criteria for futility. In total, 940 patients were randomized, and 921 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Intubation or death occurred in 199/614 (32.4%) patients in the convalescent plasma arm and 86/307 (28.0%) patients in the standard of care arm—relative risk (RR) = 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94–1.43, P = 0.18). Patients in the convalescent plasma arm had more serious adverse events (33.4% versus 26.4%; RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.02–1.57, P = 0.034). The antibody content significantly modulated the therapeutic effect of convalescent plasma. In multivariate analysis, each standardized log increase in neutralization or antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity independently reduced the potential harmful effect of plasma (odds ratio (OR) = 0.74, 95% CI 0.57–0.95 and OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.50–0.87, respectively), whereas IgG against the full transmembrane spike protein increased it (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.14–2.05). Convalescent plasma did not reduce the risk of intubation or death at 30 d in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Transfusion of convalescent plasma with unfavorable antibody profiles could be associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to standard care.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: The optimal method of providing transfusion medicine (TM) education has not been determined. Transfusion Camp was established in 2012 at the University of Toronto as a centrally delivered TM education program for postgraduate trainees. The impact of Transfusion Camp on knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported behavior was evaluated. METHODS: Didactic lectures (delivered locally, bywebinar, or recorded) and locally facilitated team-based learning seminars were delivered over 5 days during the academic year to 8 sites: 7 in Canada and 1 in the United Kingdom. Knowledge assessment using a validated 20-question multiple-choice exam was conducted before and after Transfusion Camp. Attitudes and self-reported behavior were collected through a survey. RESULTS:Over 2 academic years (July 2016 to June 2018), 390 trainees from 16 different specialties (predominantly anesthesia, 41%; hematology, 14%; and critical care, 7%) attended at least 1 day of Transfusion Camp. The mean pretest score was 10.3 of 20 (AE2.9; n = 286) compared with posttest score of 13.0 (AE2.8; n = 194; p < 0.0001). Lower pretest score and greater attendance (4-5 days compared with 1-3 days) were associated with larger improvement in posttest score; delivery format, specialty, and postgraduate year were not. Trainees reported an improvement in self-rated abilities to manage TM scenarios; 95% rated TM knowledge as very or extremely important in providing patient care; and 81% indicated that they had applied learning from Transfusion Camp into clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: TransfusionCamp increased TM knowledge, fostered a positive attitude toward TM, and enabled a self-reported positive impact on transfusion practice in postgraduate trainees. It is a novel and scalable approach to delivering TM education. ABBREVIATIONS: PGY = postgraduate year; TBL = team-based learning; TM = transfusion medicine.From the

Background: Oncology guidelines suggest using the Khorana score to select ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy for primary venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention, but its performance in different cancers remains uncertain.Objective: To examine the performance of the Khorana score in assessing 6-month VTE risk, and the efficacy and safety of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) among high-risk Khorana score patients.Methods: This individual patient data meta-analysis evaluated (ultra)-LMWH in patients with solid cancer using data from seven randomized controlled trials.Results: A total of 3293 patients from the control groups with an available Khorana score had lung (n = 1913; 58%), colorectal (n = 452; 14%), pancreatic (n = 264; 8%), gastric (n = 201; 6%), ovarian (n = 184; 56%), breast (n = 164; 5%), brain (n = 84; 3%), or bladder cancer (n = 31; 1%). The 6-month VTE incidence was 9.8% among high-risk Khorana score patients and 6.4% among low-to-intermediate-risk patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.2). The dichotomous Khorana score performed differently in lung cancer patients (OR 1.1; 95% CI, 0.72-1.7) than in the group with other cancer types (OR 3.2; 95% CI, 1.8-5.6; P interaction = .002). Among high-risk patients, LMWH decreased the risk of VTE by 64% compared with controls (OR 0.36; 95% CI, 0.22-0.58), without increasing the risk of major bleeding (OR 1.1; 95% CI, 0.59-2.1). Conclusion:The Khorana score was unable to stratify patients with lung cancer based on their VTE risk. Among those with other cancer types, a high-risk score was associated with a three-fold increased risk of VTE compared with a low-to-intermediate risk score. Thromboprophylaxis was effective and safe in patients with a high-risk Khorana score.

Acute neurological changes in sickle cell disease (SCD) patients often raise the suspicion for stroke. Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES) can mimic stroke in its clinical presentation. We aimed to (i) review the PRES literature in SCD patients including clinical presentation, risk factors, pathophysiology, and management and (ii) elucidate the distinction between PRES and stroke in SCD. The exact pathophysiology of PRES in SCD remains elusive but is likely multifactorial and related to sickling, ischemia, and chronic anemia predisposing to vasogenic edema. PRES and stroke in SCD are distinguishable conditions. Our review may help elucidate a clinical approach to this distinction.

IntroductionParenteral anticoagulants may improve outcomes in patients with cancer by reducing risk of venous thromboembolic disease and through a direct antitumour effect. Study-level systematic reviews indicate a reduction in venous thromboembolism and provide moderate confidence that a small survival benefit exists. It remains unclear if any patient subgroups experience potential benefits.Methods and analysisFirst, we will perform a comprehensive systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, hand search scientific conference abstracts and check clinical trials registries for randomised control trials of participants with solid cancers who are administered parenteral anticoagulants. We anticipate identifying at least 15 trials, exceeding 9000 participants. Second, we will perform an individual participant data meta-analysis to explore the magnitude of survival benefit and address whether subgroups of patients are more likely to benefit from parenteral anticoagulants. All analyses will follow the intention-to-treat principle. For our primary outcome, mortality, we will use multivariable hierarchical models with patient-level variables as fixed effects and a categorical trial variable as a random effect. We will adjust analysis for important prognostic characteristics. To investigate whether intervention effects vary by predefined subgroups of patients, we will test interaction terms in the statistical model. Furthermore, we will develop a risk-prediction model for venous thromboembolism, with a focus on control patients of randomised trials.Ethics and disseminationAside from maintaining participant anonymity, there are no major ethical concerns. This will be the first individual participant data meta-analysis addressing heparin use among patients with cancer and will directly influence recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Major cancer guideline development organisations will use eventual results to inform their guideline recommendations. Several knowledge users will disseminate results through presentations at clinical rounds as well as national and international conferences. We will prepare an evidence brief and facilitate dialogue to engage policymakers and stakeholders in acting on findings.Trial registration numberPROSPERO CRD42013003526.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of premedication for the prevention of nonhemolytic transfusion reactions remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effect of premedication on the rate of nonhemolytic transfusion reactions after allogeneic blood transfusion. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS:We searched the literature using CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, and clinicaltrials.gov databases from inception until October 31, 2018. We included all randomized controlled trials comparing premedication to placebo or no treatment in patients receiving any labile blood product. Outcome measures were reported as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Data were combined for similar outcomes where appropriate using a random-effects model. Analyses were done at both the patient and transfusion level. RESULTS:Three randomized trials using acetaminophen and antihistamine as premedication met the inclusion criteria. A total of 517 patients received 4444 red blood cell or platelet transfusions. Pooled patient-level estimates with premedication for all nonhemolytic, febrile nonhemolytic, and minor allergic reactions were RR, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.63-1.35); RR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.26-1.1); and RR, 1.37 (95% CI 0.81-2.31), respectively. Transfusion-level analyses also showed no benefit with premedication. Of 517 patients randomized, only 27 (5.2%) had a history of transfusion reactions. CONCLUSION: Routine premedication withacetaminophen and antihistamines did not prevent nonhemolytic transfusion reactions; however, the estimate of effect was greatest for febrile reactions. The impact of premedication in patients with a prior history of transfusion reactions remains unknown and requires further evaluation in future clinical trials. ABBREVIATIONS: FNHTRs = febrile nonhemolytic transfusion reactions; GRADE = Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; MARs = minor allergic reactions; NHTRs = nonhemolytic transfusion reactions; RCTs = randomized controlled trials. From the

Lobar GAS pneumonia represents approximately 11% of all cases of invasive disease in this institution during a 22-year period. Compared with patients with SP pneumonia, it appears to cause more effusions and morbidity. The organism is also more frequently recovered from pleural fluid.