Collecting and evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19 treatment: why and how?

Plasma provided by COVID-19 convalescent patients may provide therapeutic relief as the number of COVID-19 cases escalates steeply worldwide. Prior findings in various viral respiratory diseases including SARS-CoV-related pneumonia suggest that convalescent plasma can reduce mortality, although formal proof of efficacy is still lacking. By reducing viral spread early on, such an approach may possibly downplay subsequent immunopathology. Identifying, collecting, qualifying and preparing plasma from convalescent patients with adequate SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing Ab titres in an acute crisis setting may be challenging, although well within the remit of most blood establishments. Careful clinical evaluation should allow to quickly establish whether such passive immunotherapy, administered at early phases of the disease in patients at high risk of deleterious evolution, may reduce the frequency of patient deterioration, and thereby COVID-19 mortality.     

Lifitegrast clinical efficacy for treatment of signs and symptoms of dry eye disease across three randomized controlled trials

Objective: Report efficacy findings from three clinical trials (one phase 2 and two phase 3 [OPUS-1, OPUS-2]) of lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5.0% for treatment of dry eye disease (DED).

Research design and methods: Three 84-day, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trials. Adults (≥18 years) with DED were randomized (1:1) to lifitegrast 5.0% or matching placebo. Changes from baseline to day 84 in signs and symptoms of DED were analyzed.

Main outcome measures: Phase 2, pre-specified endpoint: inferior corneal staining score (ICSS; 0–4); OPUS-1, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and visual-related function subscale (0–4 scale); OPUS-2, coprimary endpoints: ICSS and eye dryness score (EDS, VAS; 0–100).

Results: Fifty-eight participants were randomized to lifitegrast 5.0% and 58 to placebo in the phase 2 trial; 293 to lifitegrast and 295 to placebo in OPUS-1; 358 to lifitegrast and 360 to placebo in OPUS-2. In participants with mild-to-moderate baseline DED symptomatology, lifitegrast improved ICSS versus placebo in the phase 2 study (treatment effect, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.05–0.65; p?=?0.0209) and OPUS-1 (effect, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10–0.38; p?=?0.0007). Among more symptomatic participants (baseline EDS ≥40, recent artificial tear use), lifitegrast improved EDS versus placebo in a post hoc analysis of OPUS-1 (effect, 13.34; 95% CI, 2.35–24.33; nominal p?=?0.0178) and in OPUS-2 (effect, 12.61; 95% CI, 8.51–16.70; p?<?0.0001).

Limitations: Trials were conducted over 12 weeks; efficacy beyond this period was not assessed.

Conclusions: Across three trials, lifitegrast improved ICSS in participants with mild-to-moderate baseline symptomatology in two studies, and EDS in participants with moderate-to-severe baseline symptomatology in two studies. Based on the overall findings from these trials, lifitegrast shows promise as a new treatment option for signs and symptoms of DED.     

Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Benzoyl Peroxide Resembling Impetigo

A 17‐year‐old boy presented with recurring severe dermatitis of the face of 5‐months duration that resembled impetigo. He had been treated with several courses of antibiotics without improvement. Biopsy showed changes consistent with allergic contact dermatitis and patch testing later revealed sensitization to benzoyl peroxide, which the patient had been using for the treatment of acne vulgaris.