Association of Convalescent Plasma Therapy With Survival in Patients With Hematologic Cancers and COVID-19

Abstract

IMPORTANCE COVID-19 is a life-threatening illness for many patients. Prior studies have established hematologic cancers as a risk factor associated with particularly poor outcomes from COVID-19. To our knowledge, no studies have established a beneficial role for anti-COVID-19 interventions in this at-risk population. Convalescent plasma therapy may benefit immunocompromised individuals with COVID-19, including those with hematologic cancers.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association of convalescent plasma treatment with 30-day mortality in hospitalized adults with hematologic cancers and COVID-19 from a multi-institutional cohort. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis retrospective cohort study using data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry with propensity score matching evaluated patients with hematologic cancers who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Data were collected between

COVID-19 in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies: Outcomes and Options for Treatments

“…These patients have impaired seroconversion due to COVID-19 infection and COVID-19 vaccination, and the biologic rationale for using viable antibodies from a recovered donor is strong [70]. Thompson and et al [71] conducted a retrospective cohort study on propensity score-matched patients with hematologic malignancies and COVID-19 from the CCC-19 registry. The authors found that the use of convalescent plasma was associated with a lower 30-day mortality (HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.29-0.92) and lower mortality in those admitted to an intensive care unit (0.4, 95% CI: 0.2-0.8) or receiving mechanical ventilation (0.32, 95% CI: 0.14-0.72).…”

CONVALESCENT plasma for COVID‐19: A meta‐analysis of clinical trials and real‐world evidence

“…There were 47 studies 16‐62 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were used for the systematic review and meta‐analysis (Figure 1). Of 47 included studies, 21 were clinical trials 16‐33,60‐62 and 26 were observational studies 34‐59 . Among clinical trials, there were 18 studies published in peer‐reviewed journals 16‐33 while the other three were preprints 60‐62 .…”

“…All studies provided complete outcome data and were clear from reporting bias (Table S5). For observational studies, there were ten studies conducted in the USA 35,42,45,50,52,[54][55][56][57]59 ; three in China 36,37,43 ; three in Poland 40,48,58 ; three in India 41,47,51 ; two in Turkey 34,39 ; and one each in United Arab Emirates, 38 Austria, 44 Brazil, 46 Qatar 49 and Argentina. 53 Almost of observational studies included patients with severe or critical COVID-19 disease (Table 2).…”

“…Sixteen studies 34,35,38,[42][43][44][45][46]49,50,52,54,55,[57][58][59] had summary scores ranging from 8 to 9 which represented as high quality (Table S6 and Table S7).…”

“…The current systemic review and meta‐analysis aimed to summarize the existing data on the efficacy of CP in COVID‐19 patients, which remains a challenge to explore treatment for SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic to respond the increasing of the incidence of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. According to the eligible criteria, 47 studies 16‐62 were included and critically evaluated. Corresponding to the results of our systematic review and meta‐analysis, the CP may be effective in reducing the mortality of CP‐treated COVID‐19 patients compared with non‐CP‐treated COVID‐19 patients, especially in severe or critical patients and in Asia region.…”