BACKGROUND Some observational studies have reported that transfusion of red-cell units that have been stored for more than 2 to 3 weeks is associated with serious, even fatal, adverse events. Patients undergoingcardiac surgery may be especially vulnerable to the adverse effects of transfusion. METHODS We conducted a randomized trial at multiple sites from 2010 to 2014. Participants 12 years of age or older who were undergoing complex cardiac surgery and were likely to undergo transfusion of red cells were randomly assigned to receive leukocyte-reduced red cells stored for 10 days or less (shorter-term storage group) or for 21 days or more (longer-term storage group) for all intraoperative and postoperative transfusions. The primary outcome was the change in Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score (MODS; range, 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating more severe organ dysfunction) from the preoperative score to the highest composite score through day 7 or the time of death or discharge. RESULTS The median storage time of red-cell units provided to the 1098 participants who received red-cell transfusion was 7 days in the shorter-term storage group and 28 days in the longer-term storage group. The mean change in MODS was an increase of 8.5 and 8.7 points, respectively (95% confidence interval for the difference, −0.6 to 0.3; P = 0.44). The 7-day mortality was 2.8% in the shorter-term storage group and 2.0% in the longer-term storage group (P = 0.43); 28-day mortality was 4.4% and 5.3%, respectively (P = 0.57). Adverse events did not differ significantly between groups except that hyperbilirubinemia was more common in the longer-term storage group. CONCLUSIONS The duration of red-cell storage was not associated with significant differences in the change in MODS. We did not find that the transfusion of red cells stored for 10 days or less was superior to the transfusion of red cells stored for 21 days or more among patients 12 years of age or older who were undergoing complex cardiac surgery. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; RECESS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00991341.)

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.

Patients with cancer may be at increased risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the role of viral load on this risk is unknown. We measured SARS-CoV-2 viral load using cycle threshold (C T ) values from reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction assays applied to nasopharyngeal swab specimens in 100 patients with cancer and 2914 without cancer who were admitted to three New York City hospitals. Overall, the in-hospital mortality rate was 38.8% among patients with a high viral load, 24.1% among patients with a medium viral load, and 15.3% among patients with a low viral load ( P <0.001). Similar findings were observed in patients with cancer (high, 45.2% mortality; medium, 28.0%; low, 12.1%; P =0.008). Patients with hematologic malignancies had higher median viral loads (C T =25.0) than patients without cancer (C T =29.2; P =0.0039). SARS-CoV-2 viral load results may offer vital prognostic information for patients with and without cancer who are hospitalized with COVID-19.