Mary Wilson
Well-known member
This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review.
Posted March 10, 2021.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.09.21252736
Peter W Horby, Lise Estcourt, Leon Peto, Jonathan R Emberson, Natalie Staplin, Enti Spata, Guilherme Pessoa-Amorim, Mark Campbell, Alistair Roddick, Nigel E Brunskill, Tina George, Daniel Zehnder, Simon Tiberi, Ni Ni Aung, Alison Uriel, John Widdrington, George Koshy, Thomas Brown, Steven Scott, J Kenneth Baillie, Maya H Buch, Lucy C Chappell, Jeremy N Day, Saul N Faust, Thomas Jaki, Katie Jeffery, Edmund Juszczak, Wei Shen Lim, Alan Montgomery, Andrew Mumford, Kathryn Rowan, Guy Thwaites, Marion Mafham, David Roberts, Richard Haynes, Martin J Landray
Abstract
Background: Treatment of COVID-19 patients with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may have a beneficial effect on clinical outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: In this randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) several possible treatments are being compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to receive either usual care plus high titre convalescent plasma or usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Findings: Between 28 May 2020 and 15 January 2021, 5795 patients were randomly allocated to receive convalescent plasma and 5763 to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1398 (24%) of 5795 patients allocated convalescent plasma and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients allocated usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio [RR] 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93 to 1.07; p=0.93). 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 (66% vs. 67%; rate ratio 0.98; 95% CI 0.94-1.03, p=0.50). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (28% vs. 29%; rate ratio 0.99; 95% CI 0.93-1.05, p=0.79). Interpretation: Among patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes.
Preview PDF
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.09.21252736v1
Posted March 10, 2021.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.09.21252736
Peter W Horby, Lise Estcourt, Leon Peto, Jonathan R Emberson, Natalie Staplin, Enti Spata, Guilherme Pessoa-Amorim, Mark Campbell, Alistair Roddick, Nigel E Brunskill, Tina George, Daniel Zehnder, Simon Tiberi, Ni Ni Aung, Alison Uriel, John Widdrington, George Koshy, Thomas Brown, Steven Scott, J Kenneth Baillie, Maya H Buch, Lucy C Chappell, Jeremy N Day, Saul N Faust, Thomas Jaki, Katie Jeffery, Edmund Juszczak, Wei Shen Lim, Alan Montgomery, Andrew Mumford, Kathryn Rowan, Guy Thwaites, Marion Mafham, David Roberts, Richard Haynes, Martin J Landray
Abstract
Background: Treatment of COVID-19 patients with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may have a beneficial effect on clinical outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: In this randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) several possible treatments are being compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to receive either usual care plus high titre convalescent plasma or usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Findings: Between 28 May 2020 and 15 January 2021, 5795 patients were randomly allocated to receive convalescent plasma and 5763 to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1398 (24%) of 5795 patients allocated convalescent plasma and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients allocated usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio [RR] 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93 to 1.07; p=0.93). 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 (66% vs. 67%; rate ratio 0.98; 95% CI 0.94-1.03, p=0.50). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (28% vs. 29%; rate ratio 0.99; 95% CI 0.93-1.05, p=0.79). Interpretation: Among patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes.
Preview PDF
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.09.21252736v1