Background Convalescent plasma (CP), despite limited evidence on its efficacy, is being widely used as a compassionate therapy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early CP therapy in COVID-19 progression. Methods and findings The study was an open-label, single-center randomized clinical trial performed in an academic medical center in Santiago, Chile, from May 10, 2020, to July 18, 2020, with final follow-up until August 17, 2020. The trial included patients hospitalized within the first 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset, presenting risk factors for illness progression and not on mechanical ventilation. The intervention consisted of immediate CP (early plasma group) versus no CP unless developing prespecified criteria of deterioration (deferred plasma group). Additional standard treatment was allowed in both arms. The primary outcome was a composite of mechanical ventilation, hospitalization for >14 days, or death. The key secondary outcomes included time to respiratory failure, days of mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, mortality at 30 days, and SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR clearance rate. Of 58 randomized patients (mean age, 65.8 years; 50% male), 57 (98.3%) completed the trial. A total of 13 (43.3%) participants from the deferred group received plasma based on clinical aggravation. We failed to find benefit in the primary outcome (32.1% versus 33.3%, odds ratio [OR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.32–2.84, p > 0.999) in the early versus deferred CP group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 17.9% versus 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54–17.17 p = 0.246), mechanical ventilation 17.9% versus 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54–17.17, p = 0.246), and prolonged hospitalization 21.4% versus 30.0% (OR 0.64, 95% CI, 0.19–2.10, p = 0.554) in the early versus deferred CP group, respectively. The viral clearance rate on day 3 (26% versus 8%, p = 0.204) and day 7 (38% versus 19%, p = 0.374) did not differ between groups. Two patients experienced serious adverse events within 6 hours after plasma transfusion. The main limitation of this study is the lack of statistical power to detect a smaller but clinically relevant therapeutic effect of CP, as well as not having confirmed neutralizing antibodies in donor before plasma infusion. Conclusions In the present study, we failed to find evidence of benefit in mortality, length of hospitalization, or mechanical ventilation requirement by immediate addition of CP therapy in the early stages of COVID-19 compared to its use only in case of patient deterioration. Trial registration NCT04375098.

Background Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been widely implemented in low- and middle-income countries. However, immunogenicity in immunocompromised patients has not been established. Herein, we aimed to evaluate immune response to CoronaVac vaccine in these patients. Methods This prospective cohort study included 193 participants with five different immunocompromising conditions and 67 controls, receiving two doses of CoronaVac 8-12 weeks before enrollment. The study was conducted between May and August 2021, at Red de Salud UC-CHRISTUS, Chile. Neutralizing antibodies (NAb) positivity, total anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies (TAb) concentration, and T cell response were determined. Results NAb positivity and median neutralizing activity were 83.1% and 51.2% for the control group versus 20.6% (p<0.0001) and 5.7% (p<0.0001) in the solid organ transplant (SOT) group, 41.5% (p<0.0001) and 19.2% (p<0.0001) in the autoimmune rheumatic diseases group, 43.3% (p=0.0002) and 21.4% (p=0.0013) in the cancer patients with solid tumors group, 45.5% (p<0.0001) and 28.7% (p=0.0006) in the HIV infected group, 64.3% (p=n.s.) and 56.6% (p=n.s.) in the hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) group, respectively. TAb seropositivity was also lower for the SOT (20.6%, p<0.0001), rheumatic diseases (61%, p=0.0001) and HIV groups (70.9%, p=0.0032), compared to control group (92.3%). On the other hand, the number of IFN-y Spot Forming T Cells specific for SARS-CoV-2 tended to be lower but did not differ significantly between groups. Conclusions Diverse immunocompromising conditions markedly reduce the humoral response to CoronaVac vaccine. These findings suggest a boosting vaccination strategy should be considered in these vulnerable patients.

In this prospective, multicentric, observational study, we describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of people living with HIV (PLHIV) requiring hospitalization due to COVID-19 in Chile and compare them with Chilean general population admitted with SARS-CoV-2. Consecutive PLHIV admitted with COVID-19 in 23 hospitals, between 16 April and 23 June 2020, were included. Data of a temporally matched-hospitalized general population were used to compare demography, comorbidities, COVID-19 symptoms, and major outcomes. In total, 36 PLHIV subjects were enrolled; 92% were male and mean age was 44 years. Most patients (83%) were on antiretroviral therapy; mean CD4 count was 557 cells/mm3. Suppressed HIV viremia was found in 68% and 56% had, at least, one comorbidity. Severe COVID-19 occurred in 44.4%, intensive care was required in 22.2%, and five patients died (13.9%). No differences were seen between recovered and deceased patients in CD4 count, HIV viral load, or time since HIV diagnosis. Hypertension and cardiovascular disease were associated with a higher risk of death ( p = 0.02 and 0.006, respectively). Compared with general population, the HIV cohort had significantly more men (OR 0.15; IC 95% 0.07–0.31) and younger age (OR 8.68; IC 95% 2.66–28.31). In PLHIV, we found more intensive care unit admission (OR 2.31; IC 95% 1.05–5.07) but no differences in the need for mechanical ventilation or death. In this cohort of PLHIV hospitalized with COVID-19, hypertension and cardiovascular comorbidities, but not current HIV viro-immunologic status, were the most important risk factors for mortality. No differences were found between PLHIV and general population in the need for mechanical ventilation and death.

Background: Convalescent plasma (CP), despite limited evidence on its efficacy, is being widely used as a compassionate therapy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early CP therapy in COVID-19 progression. Methods: Open-label, single-center, randomized clinical trial performed in an academic center in Santiago, Chile from May 10, 2020, to July 18, 2020, with final follow-up August 17, 2020. The trial included patients hospitalized within the first 7 days of COVID-19 symptoms onset, presenting risk factors for illness progression and not on mechanical ventilation. The intervention consisted in immediate CP (early plasma group) versus no CP unless developing pre-specified criteria of deterioration (deferred plasma group). Additional standard treatment was allowed in both arms. The primary outcome was a composite of mechanical ventilation, hospitalization for >14 days or death. Key secondary outcomes included: time to respiratory failure, days of mechanical ventilation, hospital length-of-stay, mortality at 30 days, and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR clearance rate. Results: Of 58 randomized patients (mean age, 65.8 years, 50% male), 57 (98.3%) completed the trial. A total of 13 (43.3%) participants from the deferred group received plasma based on clinical aggravation. We found no benefit in the primary outcome (32.1% vs 33.3%, OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.32-2.84, p>0.99) in the early versus deferred CP group. In-hospital mortality rate was 17.9% vs 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54-17.2, p=0.25), mechanical ventilation 17.9% vs 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54-17.2, p=0.25), and prolonged hospitalization 21.4% vs 30% (OR 0.64, 95%CI, 0.19-2.1, p=0.55) in early versus deferred CP group, respectively. Viral clearance rate on day 3 (26% vs 8%, p=0.20) and day 7 (38% vs 19%, p=0.37) did not differ between groups. Two patients experienced serious adverse events within 6 or less hours after plasma transfusion. Conclusion: Immediate addition of CP therapy in early stages of COVID-19 -compared to its use only in case of patient deterioration- did not confer benefits in mortality, length of hospitalization or mechanical ventilation requirement.

Purpose To examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on PET-CT scanning activity across England. Methods Monthly PET-CT scanning activity was collected from 41/48 NHS England provider sites. Data from 31/41sites was stratified by non-oncology/oncology and cancer type. Lung cancer and lymphoma activity was split into specific indications. The data was compiled in Excel and analysed using Stata software to assess distribution and statistical significance of variation in activity comparing levels before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results In April and May 2020 a 32% and 31% decrease in activity was observed; a larger decrease for non-cancer compared with cancer PET-CT. In June 2020 PET-CT activity started to recover with 6% fewer scans recorded compared with June 2019. Decrease and recovery varied according to cancer types. Of the six most common indications for PET CT, lung and oesophageal cancer had the largest decrease in activity: lung -29%, -45% and oesophagus -43%, -59% in April and May respectively, and slowest recovery, -23%, -26% respectively in June. By contrast, lymphoma and melanoma showed the smallest decrease: lymphoma -14%, -9%; melanoma -16%, +5% in April and May respectively, and fastest recovery +12% lymphoma +14% respectively. Specifically, lung cancer PET-CTs related to initial diagnosis and staging saw the largest fall and slowest recovery compared with PET-CTs for people with known lung cancer. Conclusions There was considerable variation in the rate of decline and recovery in PET-CT scanning across cancer types and specific indications related to the cancer type. The causes for the variation remain to be explained.