Heng Mei

Importance: Convalescent plasma is a potential therapeutic option for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but further data from randomized clinical trials are needed. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of convalescent plasma therapy for patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed in 7 medical centers in Wuhan, China, from February 14, 2020, to April 1, 2020, with final follow-up April 28, 2020. The trial included 103 participants with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 that was severe (respiratory distress and/or hypoxemia) or life-threatening (shock, organ failure, or requiring mechanical ventilation). The trial was terminated early after 103 of a planned 200 patients were enrolled. Intervention: Convalescent plasma in addition to standard treatment (n = 52) vs standard treatment alone (control) (n = 51), stratified by disease severity. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was time to clinical improvement within 28 days, defined as patient discharged alive or reduction of 2 points on a 6-point disease severity scale (ranging from 1 [discharge] to 6 [death]). Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, time to discharge, and the rate of viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results turned from positive at baseline to negative at up to 72 hours. Results: Of 103 patients who were randomized (median age, 70 years; 60 [58.3%] male), 101 (98.1%) completed the trial. Clinical improvement occurred within 28 days in 51.9% (27/52) of the convalescent plasma group vs 43.1% (22/51) in the control group (difference, 8.8% [95% CI, -10.4% to 28.0%]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [95% CI, 0.79-2.49]; P = .26). Among those with severe disease, the primary outcome occurred in 91.3% (21/23) of the convalescent plasma group vs 68.2% (15/22) of the control group (HR, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.07-4.32]; P = .03); among those with life-threatening disease the primary outcome occurred in 20.7% (6/29) of the convalescent plasma group vs 24.1% (7/29) of the control group (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.30-2.63]; P = .83) (P for interaction = .17). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (15.7% vs 24.0%; OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.22-1.59]; P = .30) or time from randomization to discharge (51.0% vs 36.0% discharged by day 28; HR, 1.61 [95% CI, 0.88-2.95]; P = .12). Convalescent plasma treatment was associated with a negative conversion rate of viral PCR at 72 hours in 87.2% of the convalescent plasma group vs 37.5% of the control group (OR, 11.39 [95% CI, 3.91-33.18]; P < .001). Two patients in the convalescent plasma group experienced adverse events within hours after transfusion that improved with supportive care. Conclusion and Relevance: Among patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, convalescent plasma therapy added to standard treatment, compared with standard treatment alone, did not result in a statistically significant improvement in time to clinical improvement within 28 days. Interpretation is limited by early termination of the trial, which may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000029757.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this article is to describe the function of the vascular cell adhesion and signaling molecule, platelet/endothelial cell adhesion molecule-1 (PECAM-1), in endothelial cells, with special emphasis on its role in maintaining and restoring the vascular permeability barrier following disruption of the endothelial cell junction. RECENT FINDINGS: In addition to its role as an inhibitory receptor in circulating platelets and leukocytes, PECAM-1 is highly expressed at endothelial cell-cell junctions, where it functions as an adhesive stress-response protein to both maintain endothelial cell junctional integrity and speed restoration of the vascular permeability barrier following inflammatory or thrombotic challenge. SUMMARY: Owing to the unique ability of antibodies that bind the membrane proximal region of the extracellular domain to trigger conformational changes leading to affinity modulation and homophilic adhesion strengthening, PECAM-1 might be an attractive target for treating vascular permeability disorders.

Background: To investigate deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we performed a single institutional study to evaluate its prevalence, risk factors, prognosis, and potential thromboprophylaxis strategies in a large referral and treatment center. Methods: We studied a total of 143 patients with COVID-19 from January 29, 2020 to February 29, 2020. Demographic and clinical data, laboratory data, including ultrasound scans of the lower extremities, and outcome variables were obtained, and comparisons were made between groups with and without DVT. Results: Of the 143 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (age 63±14 years, 74 [51.7%] men), 66 patients developed lower extremity DVT (46.1%: 23 [34.8%] with proximal DVT and 43 [65.2%] with distal DVT). Compared with patients who did not have DVT, patients with DVT were older and had a lower oxygenation index, a higher rate of cardiac injury, and worse prognosis, including an increased proportion of deaths (23 [34.8%] versus 9 [11.7%]; P =0.001) and a decreased proportion of patients discharged (32 [48.5%] versus 60 [77.9%]; P &lt;0.001). Multivariant analysis showed an association only between CURB-65 (confusion status, urea, respiratory rate, and blood pressure) score 3 to 5 (odds ratio, 6.122; P =0.031), Padua prediction score ≥4 (odds ratio, 4.016; P =0.04), D-dimer &gt;1.0 μg/mL (odds ratio, 5.818; P &lt;0.014), and DVT in this cohort, respectively. The combination of a CURB-65 score 3 to 5, a Padua prediction score ≥4, and D-dimer &gt;1.0 μg/mL has a sensitivity of 88.52% and a specificity of 61.43% for screening for DVT. In the subgroup of patients with a Padua prediction score ≥4 and whose ultrasound scans were performed &gt;72 hours after admission, DVT was present in 18 (34.0%) patients in the subgroup receiving venous thromboembolism prophylaxis versus 35 (66.0%) patients in the nonprophylaxis group ( P =0.010). Conclusions: The prevalence of DVT is high and is associated with adverse outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism may be protective in patients with a Padua protection score ≥4 after admission. Our data seem to suggest that COVID-19 is probably an additional risk factor for DVT in hospitalized patients.