Convalescent Plasma in treatment of COVID-19: A review of evidence for a living systematic benefit-risk assessment
Davies, M.; Lane, S.; Evans, A.; Denyer, J.; Dhanda, S.; Roy, D.; Osborne, V.; Shakir, S. A.
Show abstract
ObjectivesWe aimed to review the evidence for a living systematic benefit risk assessment for convalescent plasma use amongst patients with severe COVID-19 disease, based on currently available data. MethodsThe assessment used the Benefit-Risk Action Team (BRAT) framework. Convalescent plasma treatment in severe COVID-19 was compared to standard of care, placebo or other treatments. A literature search was conducted to identify published papers from January 1st, 2019 until July 8th, 2020. A value tree was constructed which included ranked key benefits and risks. ResultsWe screened 396 papers from PubMed and 127 papers from Embase. Four studies were eligible for inclusion as they contained comparative data. Results from a randomised controlled trial revealed a non-statistically significant shortening of time to clinical improvement of 2.15 days (95% CI, -5.28 to 0.99 days) in the intervention group compared with the control group, with a possible signal of increased efficacy amongst a small subset of patients with severe disease (but not life threatening disease), however this study may have been underpowered. Interpretation of findings amongst the three controlled non-randomised studies were limited by small patient numbers, lack of randomisation, and confounding by co-administration of other treatments. Limited data availability at the current time precluded construction of a data summary table and further quantitative analysis. ConclusionsThere was insufficient evidence from controlled studies to complete a data summary table for a systematic benefit-risk assessment of the use of CP for severe COVID-19 disease at the current time, and as such a benefit-risk conclusion could not be made. Whilst uncontrolled case series have suggested positive findings with CP, results from these studies are very difficult to interpret. We provide a framework which can be updated when further data that have an impact on the benefit-risk become available. Article SummaryStrengths and limitations of this study O_LIprovides a living systematic benefit risk assessment based on currently available data for the use of convalescent plasma in patients with severe COVID-19 disease C_LIO_LIestablishes a framework inclusive of ranked key benefits and risks for convalescent plasma in severe COVID-19 disease, into which additional data can be added as this becomes available facilitating re-assessment of the benefit risk profile C_LIO_LIuses a transparent framework (BRAT framework) which can be applied to other potential treatment options in this disease context C_LIO_LIinsufficient data available at the current time from comparative studies to form a benefit risk conclusion C_LI
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Randomised, controlled, feasibility trial comparing vasopressor infusion administered via peripheral cannula versus central venous catheter for critically ill adults: a study protocol 92%
- Protocol for the systematic review of the Pneumocystis jirovecii -associated pneumonia in non-HIV immunocompromised patients 92%
- STIMULATE-ICP: A pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster randomised trial of an integrated care pathway with a nested, Phase III, open label, adaptive platform randomised drug trial in individuals with Long COVID: a structured protocol 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- The DEXACELL Trial; a protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, parallel group, phase 3 superiority trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of DEXAmethasone as an adjunctive therapy for the management of CELLulitis in adults presenting to urgent secondary care in the UK 93%
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 92%
- Adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, and lopinavir/ritonavir when used for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Repurposing Existing Medications for Coronavirus Disease 2019: Protocol for a Rapid and Living Systematic Review 92%
- Adverse events of iron and/or erythropoiesis-stimulating agent therapy in preoperatively anaemic elective surgery patients: a systematic review 91%
- Evidence-Based, Cost-Effective Interventions To Suppress The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care (EVIDENCE): Protocol of a cluster randomised controlled equivalence trial of prescribing policy to compare the effectiveness of thiazide-type diuretics in hypertension. 91%
- Decision support system to evaluate VENTilation in the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (DeVENT study) – Trial Protocol 91%
- Controlled evaLuation of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for COVID-19 respIraTorY disease (CLARITY): Statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled Bayesian adaptive sample size trial 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical Trials in COVID-19 Management & Prevention: A Meta-epidemiological Study examining methodological quality 92%
- Bias as a source of inconsistency in ivermectin trials for COVID-19: A systematic review 92%
- Clinical practice guidelines and recommendations in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: systematic review and critical appraisal 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.