Search

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) use between October and December 2020 was characterized using the National Inpatient Sample database. CCP was administered in 18.0% of COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and was strongly associated with older age and increased disease severity. There were disparities in the receipt of CCP by race and ethnicity, geography, and insurance.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19 in immunocompromised (IC) patients. IC patients have a higher risk of persistent infection, severe disease, and death from COVID-19. Despite the continued clinical use of CCP to treat IC patients, the optimal dose, frequency/schedule, and duration of CCP treatment has yet to be determined, and related best practices guidelines are lacking. A group of individuals with expertise spanning infectious diseases, virology and transfusion medicine was assembled to render an expert opinion statement pertaining to the use of CCP for IC patients. For optimal effect, CCP should be recently and locally collected to match circulating variant. CCP should be considered for the treatment of IC patients with acute and protracted COVID-19; dosage depends on clinical setting (acute vs protracted COVID-19). CCP containing high-titer severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies, retains activity against circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants, which have otherwise rendered monoclonal antibodies ineffective.

Given the urgent need for treatments during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration issued emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for multiple therapies. In several instances, however, these EUAs were issued before sufficient evidence of a given therapy’s efficacy and safety were available, potentially promoting ineffective or even harmful therapies and undermining the generation of definitive evidence. We describe the strengths and weaknesses of the different therapeutic EUAs issued during this pandemic. We also contrast them to the vaccine EUAs and suggest a framework and criteria for an evidence-based, trustworthy, and publicly transparent therapeutic EUA process for future pandemics.

Despite the challenges of the pandemic, there has been substantial progress with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies. Pivotal COVID-19 trials like SOLIDARITY, RECOVERY, and ACCT-1 were rapidly conducted and data disseminated to support effective therapies. However, critical shortcomings remain on trial conduct, dissemination and interpretation of study results, and regulatory guidance in pandemic settings. The lessons that we learned have implications for both the current pandemic and future emerging infectious diseases. There is a need for establishing and standardizing clinical meaningful outcomes in therapeutic trials and for targeting defined populations and phenotypes that will most benefit from specific therapies. Standardized processes should be established for rapid and critical data review and dissemination to ensure scientific integrity. Clarity around the evidence standards needed for issuance of both emergency use authorization (EUA) and biologic license application (BLA) should be established and an infrastructure for executing rapid trials in epidemic settings maintained.

There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials. The objective was to develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Based on the most recent search conducted on 31 May 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 32 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and postexposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, and hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines. At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were conducted that provided much-needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved, which we hope future trials can answer.

BackgroundThere are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). There is a need for frequently updated practice guidelines on their use, based on critical evaluation of rapidly emerging literature. The objective was to develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19.MethodsThe Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise. Process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.ResultsThe IDSA guideline panel agreed on 7 treatment recommendations and provided narrative summaries of other treatments undergoing evaluations.ConclusionsThe panel expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials, which would provide much-needed evidence on the efficacy and safety of various therapies for COVID-19, given that we could not make a determination whether the benefits outweigh harms for most treatments.

Background Invasive candidiasis is the third most common bloodstream infection in the intensive care unit (ICU) and is associated with morbidity and mortality. Prophylaxis and preemptive therapy are attractive strategies for this setting. Methods We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of caspofungin as antifungal prophylaxis in 222 adults who were in the ICU for at least 3 days, were ventilated, received antibiotics, had a central line, and had 1 additional risk factor (parenteral nutrition, dialysis, surgery, pancreatitis, systemic steroids, or other immunosuppressants). Subjects' (1,3)-β-d-glucan levels were monitored twice weekly. The primary endpoint was the incidence of proven or probable invasive candidiasis by EORTC/MSG criteria in patients who did not have disease at baseline. Patients who had invasive candidiasis were allowed to break the blind and receive preemptive therapy with caspofungin. The preemptive approach analysis included patients all patients who received study drug, including those positive at baseline. Results The incidence of proven/probable invasive candidiasis in the placebo and caspofungin arms was 16.7% (14/84) and 9.8% (10/102), respectively, for prophylaxis (P = .14), and 30.4% (31/102) and 18.8% (22/117), respectively, for the preemptive approach (P = .04); however, this analysis included patients with baseline disease. There were no significant differences in the secondary endpoints of mortality, antifungal use, or length of stay. There were no safety differences. Conclusions Caspofungin was safe and tended to reduce the incidence of invasive candidiasis when used for prophylaxis, but the difference was not statistically significant. A preemptive therapy approach deserves further study. Clinical trials registration NCT00520234.

During the past half-century, medical advances have led to an increase in the world's population of immunosuppressed individuals. This includes those receiving immunosuppressive therapies, those with acquired immunosuppressive diseases such as the 34 million worldwide with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and AIDS [1], and individuals living longer with any of the over 150 known primary immunodeficiencies [2]. The most severely immunocompromised are those who have been diagnosed with a hematologic malignancy, solid organ tumor, or who receive other immunosuppressive therapies such as chemotherapy and/or solid organ or stem cell transplants. Over 100 000 individuals annually receive solid organ transplants (SOT) worldwide [3] and more than 50 000 with hematologic malignancies and other diseases are treated with hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) annually [4], leaving most of these individuals immunosuppressed for long periods. Even larger numbers of individuals are receiving immunosuppressive chemotherapies making immunocompromised individuals a larger part of the population than during any of the influenza pandemics of the twentieth century. Epidemiologic studies have shown that severe immunosuppression is a major comorbidity that places individuals at the highest risk of severe morbidity and mortality due to influenza infection. Patients with AIDS have increased duration of disease due to influenza and higher incidence of pneumonia leading to increased mortality [5–7]. A study of hospitalized patients with leukemia and influenza reported 80% with pneumonia and 33% mortality [8]. More recently during the 2009 pandemic, studies reported similarly high levels of lower respiratory tract disease and need for hospitalization in those with hematologic malignancies and solid tumors undergoing chemotherapy [9]. Similarly, in a large retrospective study of HSCT recipients, 1.3% of all patients developed influenza infection and 29% developed pneumonia [10]. A more recent study of HSCT patients demonstrated that up to 75% developed pneumonia after influenza infection with mortality as high as 43% [11]. In SOT, nosocomial outbreaks [12] and severe complications of influenza such as myocarditis [13] and severe pneumonitis [14] have been reported, even in those previously vaccinated. Multicenter studies of A(H1N1)pdm09 infection in SOT recipients have reported that 30%–40% of individuals infected developed pneumonia, 16%–17.5% required intensive care, with mortality as high as 7% [15]. Influenza following SOT leads to higher morbidity and mortality rates [16], with increased rates of influenza pneumonia following lung transplantation, and a >20% mortality rate observed in SOT recipients infected with influenza [17, 18]. In addition to increased morbidity and mortality following infection, severely immunocompromised patients have been reported to show prolonged influenza shedding [19–25]. This has been associated with intrahost viral evolution, including antigenic drift within a single immunosuppressed host [24], the development of antiviral resistance after therapy [19, 21–23, 25, 26], and simultaneous coinfection with 2 influenza subtypes [27]. Rigorous vaccination programs and improved pharmacotherapy have decreased the impact of influenza on the general population; however, influenza still remains a serious threat to severely immunocompromised individuals. The 2009 pandemic was a reminder that it is still unclear how well current vaccination strategies and current pharmacotherapy can perform in preventing and mitigating illness in immunocompromised individuals. The primary goal of this study was to compare the natural history of influenza infection in those who were severely immunocompromised to individuals who were not immunocompromised. Careful examination of symptoms and signs of infection, virological measurements, immunological studies, and clinical parameters were performed to investigate the natural pathogenesis of influenza in this group of severely immunocompromised hosts.

Received 6 September 2006; accepted 6 September 2006;electronically published 13 September 2006.Author affiliations are listed at the end of the text.Reprints or correspondence: Dr. Elias J. Anaissie, MyelomaInstitute for Research and Therapy, University of Arkansasfor Medical Sciences, 4301 W. Markham, Slot 816, LittleRock, AR 72205 (anaissieeliasj@uams.edu).

Meningitis due to Cryptococcus neoformans may be associated with elevated intracranial pressure (ICP), but management of this complication is often overlooked. We retrospectively analyzed 39 consecutive patients with cases of culture-proven, community-acquired meningitis and ascertained adherence to Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) practice guidelines for management of cryptococcal meningitis. Of these 39 patients, 26 (67%) had infection due to C. neoformans. Cerebrospinal fluid opening pressure had been measured for 13 (50%) of these 26 patients, and major deviations from the guidelines with respect to ICP management were observed in the care of 14 (54%). Seven (50%) of these 14 patients developed neuropathies during therapy, compared with 1 of the 5 patients whose care had minor or no deviations from the guidelines (P = .024). Major departures from the IDSA guidelines for management of ICP due to C. neoformans meningitis are common and can be associated with neurological injury during therapy.