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.

Iron deficiency (ID) affects billions of people worldwide and remains the leading cause of anemia with significant negative impacts on health. Our approach to ID and iron deficiency anemia (IDA) involves three steps (I3): (1) identification of ID/IDA, (2) investigation of and management of the underlying etiology of ID, and (3) iron repletion. Iron repletion options include oral and intravenous (IV) iron formulations. Oral iron remains a therapeutic option for the treatment of ID in stable patients, but there are many populations for whom IV iron is more effective. Therefore, IV iron should be considered when there are no contraindications, when poor response to oral iron is anticipated, when rapid hematologic responses are desired, and/or when there is availability of and accessibility to the product. Judicious use of red cell blood transfusion is recommended and should be considered only for severe, symptomatic IDA with hemodynamic instability. Identification and management of ID and IDA is a central pillar in patient blood management.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of premedication for the prevention of nonhemolytic transfusion reactions remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effect of premedication on the rate of nonhemolytic transfusion reactions after allogeneic blood transfusion. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS:We searched the literature using CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, and clinicaltrials.gov databases from inception until October 31, 2018. We included all randomized controlled trials comparing premedication to placebo or no treatment in patients receiving any labile blood product. Outcome measures were reported as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Data were combined for similar outcomes where appropriate using a random-effects model. Analyses were done at both the patient and transfusion level. RESULTS:Three randomized trials using acetaminophen and antihistamine as premedication met the inclusion criteria. A total of 517 patients received 4444 red blood cell or platelet transfusions. Pooled patient-level estimates with premedication for all nonhemolytic, febrile nonhemolytic, and minor allergic reactions were RR, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.63-1.35); RR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.26-1.1); and RR, 1.37 (95% CI 0.81-2.31), respectively. Transfusion-level analyses also showed no benefit with premedication. Of 517 patients randomized, only 27 (5.2%) had a history of transfusion reactions. CONCLUSION: Routine premedication withacetaminophen and antihistamines did not prevent nonhemolytic transfusion reactions; however, the estimate of effect was greatest for febrile reactions. The impact of premedication in patients with a prior history of transfusion reactions remains unknown and requires further evaluation in future clinical trials. ABBREVIATIONS: FNHTRs = febrile nonhemolytic transfusion reactions; GRADE = Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; MARs = minor allergic reactions; NHTRs = nonhemolytic transfusion reactions; RCTs = randomized controlled trials. From the

BACKGROUND: Platelet (PLT) transfusions are frequently administered in the setting of critical illness but their clinical impacts remain unknown. This study examined the association between PLT transfusions and death in a large intensive care unit (ICU) patient population. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Using a transfusionregistry spanning 2008 to 2015, this study assessed effect of in-ICU PLT transfusions on ICU and in-hospital mortality using a stratified, time-dependent Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for illness severity, thrombocytopenia, and other confounders. Patients with known malignancy were excluded. Exposure to PLT transfusions were analyzed dichotomously (ever or never transfused) and continuously (number of transfusions). Medical, general surgery, and cardiac surgery subgroups were analyzed separately. RESULTS:Overall 32,842 adult patients were admitted to ICU, and 4927 patients received PLT transfusion(s). Crude in-ICU and in-hospital mortality were higher for PLT-transfused patients compared to nontransfused patients (9.2% vs. 6.7% and 12.3% vs. 9.3%, respectively). After confounders were adjusted for, PLT transfusions (ever vs. never) were not associated with increased mortality in ICU (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-1.02; p = 0.06) or in hospital (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.68-1.09; p = 0.41). Continuous exposure analysis also showed no association between PLT transfusions and death. PLT transfusions have a protective effect on in-hospital mortality in the subgroup of general surgery patients (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.99; p = 0.04; ever or never analysis). CONCLUSION:Platelet transfusions were not associated with increased risk of death in critically ill patients. Further studies are required to identify subgroups for which PLT transfusions may be beneficial.ABBREVIATIONS: HR = hazard ratio; ICU = intensive care unit; IQR(s) = interquartile range(s); MODS(s) = multiorgan dysfunction score(s). From the RESULTS Patient demographicsBetween 2008 and 2015, a total of 32,842 nononcology adult patients were admitted to one of three participating ICUs (Fig. 1). Median (IQR) age at admission was 66 (54-76) years and 11,944 (36.5%) of patients were female. Median (IQR) duration of ICU stay was 2 (1-4) days. Thrombocytopenia Volume 59, June 2019 TRANSFUSION 1963 PLT TRANSFUSION AND DEATH IN THE ICU * Data are reported as number (%) or median (IQR). † Cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. ‡ Bleeding disorders include qualitative PLT defects, von Willebrand's disease, acquired factor deficiencies. § Mechanical ventilation may either be invasive or noninvasive. k MODS = multiple organ dysfunction score at baseline (range, 0-20). MODS were available for 29,550 (90.0%) of the overall patient population.