Effectiveness of convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients with haematological malignancies

  1. Sapha Shibeeb
  2. Ilham Ajaj
  3. Hadeel Al-Jighefee
  4. Atiyeh Abdallah

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

Immunocompromised patients, including those with haematological malignancies, are among the high-risk group to develop severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) complications. The effectiveness of passive immunotherapy with convalescent plasma (CP) on such patients diagnosed with COVID-19 has not been reviewed. Therefore, the aim of this review was to systematically appraise the current evidence for the efficacy of this therapy in haematological malignancies patients with COVID-19 infection.

Methods

A comprehensive search was conducted up-to October 2021, using four databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Scopus. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the included studies. Data collection analysis were performed using Microsoft Excel 365 and GraphPad Prism software.

Results

17 studies met the inclusion criteria; these records included 258 COVID-19 patients with haematological malignancies and treated with CP therapy (CPT). The main findings from the reviewed data suggests CPT may be associated with improved clinical outcomes including (a) higher survival rate, (b) improved SARS-CoV-2 clearance and presence of detectable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies post CP transfusion, (c) improved hospital discharge time, and recovery after 1 month of CP therapy. Furthermore, treatment with convalescent plasma was not associated with development of adverse events.

Conclusion

Owing to its safety and beneficial effects in improving clinical outcomes, CPT appears to be an effective supportive therapeutic option for haematological malignancy patients infected with COVID-19.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.04.06.22273542: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationInclusion and exclusion criteria: Articles were screened by title and abstracts, the following inclusion criteria were used for eligibility: 1) reported in English 2) clinical trials including, randomized and controlled clinical trials 3) prospective and retrospective comparative cohort studies, case-control studies; cross-sectional studies, case series, and case reports.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The search was conducted up-to October 2021, using four major databases; PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Scopus.
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    The findings were collected using Microsoft Excel sheets.
    Microsoft Excel
    suggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    However, this review includes some limitations, including heterogeneity, lack of control group in most of the included studies, and randomized control trials. The heterogeneity of CPT dose, time of transfusion, reported outcome such as viral clearance, donor antibody titters, and lack of control groups to compare the result made it difficult to preform a meta-analysis.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2022.04.06.22273542v1 on medRxiv