Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care.
Objective Convalescent plasma has been tried as therapy for various viral infections. Early observational studies of convalescent plasma treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients were promising, but randomized controlled studies were lacking at the time. The objective of this study was to investigate if convalescent plasma is beneficial to hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Results Hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 and an oxygen saturation below 94% were randomized 1:1 to receive convalescent plasma in addition to standard of care or standard of care only. The primary outcome was number of days of oxygen treatment to keep saturation above 93% within 28 days from inclusion. The study was prematurely terminated when thirty-one of 100 intended patients had been included. The median time of oxygen treatment among survivors was 11 days (IQR 6–15) for the convalescent plasma group and 7 days (IQR 5–9) for the standard of care group (p = 0.4, median difference -4). Two patients in the convalescent plasma group and three patients in the standard of care group died (p = 0.64, OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.08–2.79). Thus no significant differences were observed between the groups. Trial registration ClinicalTrials NCT04600440, retrospectively registered Oct 23, 2020.
The objective of this study is to explore the following: (1) the impact of two different initial doses and cumulative 2-year dose of rituximab (RTX) on drug adherence and predictors of adherence to treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in an observational clinical setting, (2) immunoglobulin levels (IgG/IgM/IgA) during repeated treatment and their relation to infections, and (3) development of anti-rituximab antibodies (ADA). All RA patients receiving RTX from January 2003 to April 2012 at the department were included. The initiating doses were 500 or 1000 mg intravenously days 1 and 15. Drug adherence was estimated using life-table. Baseline predictors of adherence to treatment were analyzed using Cox regression model. Levels of immunoglobulins were measured at treatment initiation and before retreatment. Serum levels of RTX and ADA were measured in 96 patients at 6 months using ELISA. One hundred fifty-three patients were included. Seventy-four (48%) started treatment with 500 and 79 (52%) with 1000 mg. No difference in drug adherence was seen between the different initial or cumulative RTX doses. Methotrexate (MTX) use and low DAS28 at baseline predicted better drug adherence. Ig levels decreased with repeated treatments but low levels were not associated with infections. 11/96 patients had developed ADA at 6 months. Long-term adherence to RTX in RA patient was not influenced by starting- or cumulative 2-year doses. MTX use and low DAS28 at baseline was positively associated with drug adherence. Decreasing Ig levels during treatment were not associated with risk of infections. Development of ADA may influence treatment efficacy and tolerability.
Objective. The COVID-19 pandemic poses an immense need for accurate, sensitive and high-throughput clinical tests, and serological assays are needed for both overarching epidemiological studies and evaluating vaccines. Here, we present the development and validation of a high-throughput multiplex bead-based serological assay. Methods. More than 100 representations of SARS-CoV-2 proteins were included for initial evaluation, including antigens produced in bacterial and mammalian hosts as well as synthetic peptides. The five bestperforming antigens, three representing the spike glycoprotein and two representing the nucleocapsid protein, were further
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.