BACKGROUND. Convalescent plasma is the only antibody-based therapy currently available for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It has robust historical precedence and sound biological plausibility. Although promising, convalescent plasma has not yet been shown to be safe as a treatment for COVID-19. METHODS. Thus, we analyzed key safety metrics after transfusion of ABO-compatible human COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 5000 hospitalized adults with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, with 66% in the intensive care unit, as part of the US FDA expanded access program for COVID-19 convalescent plasma. RESULTS. The incidence of all serious adverse events (SAEs), including mortality rate (0.3%), in the first 4 hours after transfusion was <1%. Of the 36 reported SAEs, there were 25 reported incidences of related SAEs, including mortality (n = 4), transfusion-associated circulatory overload (n = 7), transfusion-related acute lung injury (n = 11), and severe allergic transfusion reactions (n = 3). However, only 2 of 36 SAEs were judged as definitely related to the convalescent plasma transfusion by the treating physician. The 7-day mortality rate was 14.9%. CONCLUSION. Given the deadly nature of COVID-19 and the large population of critically ill patients included in these analyses, the mortality rate does not appear excessive. These early indicators suggest that transfusion of convalescent plasma is safe in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04338360. FUNDING. Mayo Clinic, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (75A50120C00096), National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR002377), National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (5R35HL139854 and R01 HL059842), National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (5T32DK07352), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (PDF-532926-2019), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (R21 AI145356, R21 AI152318, and AI152078), Schwab Charitable Fund, United Health Group, National Basketball Association, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, and Octapharma USA Inc.

Importance: Passive antibody transfer is a longstanding treatment strategy for infectious diseases that involve the respiratory system. In this context, human convalescent plasma has been used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the efficacy remains uncertain. Objective: To explore potential signals of efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma. Design: Open-label, Expanded Access Program (EAP) for the treatment of COVID-19 patients with human convalescent plasma. Setting: Multicenter, including 2,807 acute care facilities in the US and territories. Participants: Adult participants enrolled and transfused under the purview of the US Convalescent Plasma EAP program between April 4 and July 4, 2020 who were hospitalized with (or at risk of) severe or life threatening acute COVID-19 respiratory syndrome. Intervention: Transfusion of at least one unit of human COVID-19 convalescent plasma using standard transfusion guidelines at any time during hospitalization. Convalescent plasma was donated by recently-recovered COVID-19 survivors, and the antibody levels in the units collected were unknown at the time of transfusion. Main Outcomes and Measures: Seven and thirty-day mortality. Results: The 35,322 transfused patients had heterogeneous demographic and clinical characteristics. This cohort included a high proportion of critically-ill patients, with 52.3% in the intensive care unit (ICU) and 27.5% receiving mechanical ventilation at the time of plasma transfusion. The seven-day mortality rate was 8.7% [95% CI 8.3%-9.2%] in patients transfused within 3 days of COVID-19 diagnosis but 11.9% [11.4%-12.2%] in patients transfused 4 or more days after diagnosis (p<0.001). Similar findings were observed in 30-day mortality (21.6% vs. 26.7%, p18.45 S/Co), seven-day mortality was 8.9% (6.8%, 11.7%); for recipients of medium IgG plasma (4.62 to 18.45 S/Co) mortality was 11.6% (10.3%, 13.1%); and for recipients of low IgG plasma (<4.62 S/Co) mortality was 13.7% (11.1%, 16.8%) (p=0.048). This unadjusted dose-response relationship with IgG was also observed in thirty-day mortality (p=0.021). The pooled relative risk of mortality among patients transfused with high antibody level plasma units was 0.65 [0.47-0.92] for 7 days and 0.77 [0.63-0.94] for 30 days compared to low antibody level plasma units. Conclusions and Relevance: The relationships between reduced mortality and both earlier time to transfusion and higher antibody levels provide signatures of efficacy for convalescent plasma in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This information may be informative for the treatment of COVID-19 and design of randomized clinical trials involving convalescent plasma. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04338360 Key Points: Question: Does transfusion of human convalescent plasma reduce mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients? Findings: Transfusion of convalescent plasma with higher antibody levels to hospitalized COVID-19 patients significantly reduced mortality compared to transfusions with low antibody levels. Transfusions within three days of COVID-19 diagnosis yielded greater reductions in mortality. Meaning: Embedded in an Expanded Access Program providing access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma and designed to assess its safety, several signals consistent with efficacy of convalescent plasma in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients emerged.

Coccidioidomycosis is an endemic fungal infection of the southwestern United States. Normally a self-limited infection in healthy hosts, coccidioidom

In academic medicine, women physicians lag behind their male counterparts in advancement and promotion to leadership positions. Lack of mentoring, among other factors, has been reported to contribute to this disparity. Peer mentoring has been reported as a successful alternative to the dyadic mentoring model for women interested in improving their academic productivity. We describe a facilitated peer mentoring program in our institution's department of medicine. Nineteen women enrolled in the program were divided into 5 groups. Each group had an assigned facilitator. Members of the respective groups met together with their facilitators at regular intervals during the 12 months of the project. A pre- and post-program evaluation consisting of a 25-item self-assessment of academic skills, self-efficacy, and academic career satisfaction was administered to each participant. At the end of 12 months, a total of 9 manuscripts were submitted to peer-reviewed journals, 6 of which are in press or have been published, and another 2 of which have been invited to be revised and resubmitted. At the end of the program, participants reported an increase in their satisfaction with academic achievement (mean score increase, 2.32 to 3.63; P = 0.0001), improvement in skills necessary to effectively search the medical literature (mean score increase, 3.32 to 4.05; P = 0.0009), an improvement in their ability to write a comprehensive review article (mean score increase, 2.89 to 3.63; P = 0.0017), and an improvement in their ability to critically evaluate the medical literature (mean score increased from 3.11 to 3.89; P = 0.0008). This facilitated peer mentoring program demonstrated a positive impact on the academic skills and manuscript writing for junior women faculty. This 1-year program required minimal institutional resources, and suggests a need for further study of this and other mentoring programs for women faculty.

Purpose: To understand the pregnancy, childbirth, and parental leave plans and experiences of trainees in multiple graduate medical education (GME) programs at a single institution. Method: In 2013, the authors developed and deployed a voluntary, Internet-based survey of trainees in 269 residency and fellowship programs across the three sites of the Mayo School of Graduate Medical Education. The survey assessed pregnancy-related issues, including use of relevant institutional policies, changes in work due to pregnancy, and activities during pregnancy and parental leave. The authors analyzed the responses to make comparisons across groups. Results: Forty-two percent (644/1,516) of trainees responded. Less than half (264; 41%) had children, and 46 (7%) were currently pregnant (themselves or their partners). Among parents, 24 (of 73; 33%) women and 28 (of 81; 35%) men planned to have another child during their current training program, and 13 (18%) women and 14 (17%) men planned to do so during their next training program. Among nonparents, 40 (of 135; 30%) women and 36 (of 111; 32%) men planned pregnancies during their current training program, and 25 (19%) women and 14 (13%) men planned pregnancies during their next training program. Of respondents eligible for parental leave, 81 (of 83; 98%) women and 89 (of 101; 88%) men had used it. Conclusions: Approximately 40% of respondents planned to have children during their GME training; most will require family leave and institutional support. GME programs should pursue policies and practices to minimize the effects of these leaves on their workforce.