Thrombotic Events in COVID-19 Patients Undergoing Convalescent Plasma Therapy: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract INTRODUCTION Convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) has been proposed as a mechanism of passive immunization against COVID-19. Current guidelines on the efficacy of its use is not well delineated with limited studies analyzing the risk of thromboembolic events during treatment. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the risk of arterial and venous thromboembolisms from CPT in patients with COVID-19. METHODS We conducted a comprehensive literature review of Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and EMBASE from inception to June 2021. Title and abstract screening and full-text screening was done in duplicate by two independent reviewers. All randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that analyzed adult COVID-19 patients undergoing CPT were included for analysis. Editorials, conference abstracts, narrative reviews, case series, containing less than 100 patients were excluded. The primary outcome analyzed was the risk of thrombotic events in CPT + standard therapy vs standard therapy alone. Meta-analysis was done using a random-effects model using the Revman 5 software. RESULTS Of 1774 studies identified from our search, three randomized (n= 660 patients), and one non-randomized matched cohort study) (n = 96 patients) were included for analysis. The risk ratio for thrombotic events was 2.33, favoring the CPT group (95% CI, [0.70, 7.72], P = 0.17, I2 = 29%). Subgroup analyses showed that CPT + standard therapy was associated with a decreased risk of in-hospital mortality (RR = 0.70 [0.49, 0.98], P = 0.04, I2 = 0%). No significant difference in cardiovascular events (RR = 0.90 [0.67, 1.20], P = 0.48, I2 = 0%), hypertension (RR = 1.67 [0.56, 4.98], P = 0.35, I2 = 0%), and septic shock (RR = 0.97 [0.40, 2.35], P = 0.94, I2 = 41%) was found between CPT + standard therapy and standard therapy alone. CONCLUSION We found treatment of COVID-19 with standard therapy + CPT was not associated with an increase in the risk of thromboembolic events. CPT was associated with a decreased risk of in-hospital mortality but not of MACE, hypertension, or septic shock. Disclosures Crowther: Hemostasis reference laboratories: Honoraria; Bayer: Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Speakers Bureau; Precision Biologicals: Honoraria; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Syneos Health: Honoraria.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".