Dataset Information

Convalescent plasma for adults with acute COVID-19 respiratory illness (CONCOR-1): study protocol for an international, multicentre, randomized, open-label trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Convalescent plasma has been used for numerous viral diseases including influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome, Middle East respiratory syndrome and Ebola virus; however, evidence to support its use is weak. SARS-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus responsible for the 2019 global pandemic of COVID-19 community acquired pneumonia. We have undertaken a randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Methods

CONCOR-1 is an open-label, multicentre, randomized trial. Inclusion criteria include the following: patients > 16 years, admitted to hospital with COVID-19 infection, receiving supplemental oxygen for respiratory complications of COVID-19, and availability of blood group compatible CCP. Exclusion criteria are : onset of respiratory symptoms more than 12 days prior to randomization, intubated or imminent plan for intubation, and previous severe reactions to plasma. Consenting patients are randomized 2:1 to receive either approximately 500 mL of CCP or standard of care. CCP is collected from donors who have recovered from COVID-19 and who have detectable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies quantified serologically. The primary outcome is intubation or death at day 30. Secondary outcomes include ventilator-free days, length of stay in intensive care or hospital, transfusion reactions, serious adverse events, and reduction in SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Exploratory analyses include patients who received CCP containing high titre antibodies. A sample size of 1200 patients gives 80% power to detect a 25% relative risk reduction assuming a 30% baseline risk of intubation or death at 30 days (two-sided test; α = 0.05). An interim analysis and sample size re-estimation will be done by an unblinded independent biostatistician after primary outcome data are available for 50% of the target recruitment (n = 600).

Discussion

This trial will determine whether CCP will reduce intubation or death non-intubated adults with COVID-19. The trial will also provide information on the role of and thresholds for SARS-CoV-2 antibody titres and neutralization assays for donor qualification.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04348656 . Registered on 16 April 2020.

SUBMITTER: Begin P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8094980 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Respiratory virus infection is a common cause of hospitalisation in adults. Rapid point-of-care testing (POCT) for respiratory viruses might improve clinical care by reducing unnecessary antibiotic use, shortening length of hospital stay, improving influenza detection and treatment, and rationalising isolation facility use; however, insufficient evidence exists to support its use over standard clinical care. We aimed to assess the effect of routine POCT on a broad range of clinical outcomes including antibiotic use. METHODS:In this pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we enrolled adults (aged ?18 years) within 24 h of presenting to the emergency department or acute medical unit of a large UK hospital with acute respiratory illness or fever higher than 37·5°C (?7 days duration), or both, over two winter seasons. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via an internet-based allocation sequence with random permuted blocks, to have a molecular POC test for respiratory viruses or routine clinical care. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received antibiotics while hospitalised (up to 30 days). Secondary outcomes included duration of antibiotics, proportion of patients receiving single doses or brief courses of antibiotics, length of stay, antiviral use, isolation facility use, and safety. Analysis was by modified intention to treat, excluding patients who declined intervention or were withdrawn for protocol violations. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number 90211642, and has been completed. FINDINGS:Between Jan 15, 2015, and April 30, 2015, and between Oct 1, 2015, and April 30, 2016, we enrolled 720 patients (362 assigned to POCT and 358 to routine care). Six patients withdrew or had protocol violations. 301 (84%) of 360 patients in the POCT group received antibiotics compared with 294 (83%) of 354 controls (difference 0·6%, 95% CI -4·9 to 6·0; p=0·84). Mean duration of antibiotics did not differ between groups (7·2 days [SD 5·1] in the POCT group vs 7·7 days [4·9] in the control group; difference -0·4, 95% CI -1·2 to 0·4; p=0·32). 50 (17%) of 301 patients treated with antibiotics in the POCT group received single doses or brief courses of antibiotics (<48 h) compared with 26 (9%) of 294 patients in the control group (difference 7·8%, 95% CI 2·5 to 13·1; p=0·0047; number needed to test=13). Mean length of stay was shorter in the POCT group (5·7 days [SD 6·3]) than in the control group (6·8 days [7·7]; difference -1·1, 95% CI -2·2 to -0·3; p=0·0443). Appropriate antiviral treatment of influenza-positive patients was more common in the POCT group (52 [91%] of 57 patients) than in the control group (24 [65%] of 37 patients; difference 26·4%, 95% CI 9·6 to 43·2; p=0·0026; number needed to test=4). We found no differences in adverse outcomes between the groups (77 [21%] of 360 patients in the POCT group vs 88 [25%] of 354 patients in the control group; -3·5%, -9·7 to 2·7; p=0·29). INTERPRETATION:Routine use of molecular POCT for respiratory viruses did not reduce the proportion of patients treated with antibiotics. However, the primary outcome measure failed to capture differences in antibiotic use because many patients were started on antibiotics before the results of POCT could be made available. Although POCT was not associated with a reduction in the duration of antibiotics overall, more patients in the POCT group received single doses or brief courses of antibiotics than did patients in the control group. POCT was also associated with a reduced length of stay and improved influenza detection and antiviral use, and appeared to be safe. FUNDING:University of Southampton.

Project description:BackgroundMany patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.MethodsThis randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.FindingsBetween May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93-1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94-1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93-1·05; p=0·79).InterpretationIn patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes.FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

Project description:Background: Influenza causes substantial morbidity and mortality despite available treatments. Anecdotal reports suggest that plasma with high antibody titres to influenza might be of benefit in the treatment of severe influenza.Methods: In this randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial, 29 academic medical centres in the USA assessed the safety and efficacy of anti-influenza plasma with haemagglutination inhibition antibody titres of 1:80 or more to the infecting strain. Hospitalised children and adults (including pregnant women) with severe influenza A or B (defined as the presence of hypoxia or tachypnoea) were randomly assigned to receive either two units (or paediatric equivalent) of anti-influenza plasma plus standard care, versus standard care alone, and were followed up for 28 days. The primary endpoint was time to normalisation of patients' respiratory status (respiratory rate of ?20 breaths per min for adults or age-defined thresholds of 20-38 breaths per min for children) and a room air oxygen saturation of 93% or more. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01052480.Findings: Between Jan 13, 2011, and March 2, 2015, 113 participants were screened for eligibility and 98 were randomly assigned from 20 out of 29 participating sites. Of the participants with confirmed influenza (by PCR), 28 (67%) of 42 in the plasma plus standard care group normalised their respiratory status by day 28 compared with 24 (53%) of 45 participants on standard care alone (p=0·069). The hazard ratio (HR) comparing plasma plus standard care with standard care alone was 1·71 (95% CI 0·96-3·06). Six participants died, one (2%) from the plasma plus standard care group and five (10%) from the standard care group (HR 0·19 [95% CI 0·02-1·65], p=0·093). Participants in the plasma plus standard care group had non-significant reductions in days in hospital (median 6 days [IQR 4-16] vs 11 days [5-25], p=0·13) and days on mechanical ventilation (median 0 days [IQR 0-6] vs 3 days [0-14], p=0·14). Fewer plasma plus standard care participants had serious adverse events compared with standard care alone recipients (nine [20%] of 46 vs 20 [38%] of 52, p=0·041), the most frequent of which were acute respiratory distress syndrome (one [2%] vs two [4%] patients) and stroke (one [2%] vs two [4%] patients).Interpretation: Although there was no significant effect of plasma treatment on the primary endpoint, the treatment seemed safe and well tolerated. A phase 3 randomised trial is now underway to further assess this intervention.Funding: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, US National Institutes of Health.