Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial
Horby, P. W.; Estcourt, L.; Peto, L.; Emberson, J. R.; Staplin, N.; Spata, E.; Pessoa-Amorim, G.; Campbell, M.; Roddick, A.; Brunskill, N. E.; George, T.; Zehnder, D.; Tiberi, S.; Aung, N. N.; Uriel, A.; Widdrington, J.; Koshy, G.; Brown, T.; Scott, S.; Baillie, J. K.; Buch, M. H.; Chappell, L. C.; Day, J. N.; Faust, S. N.; Jaki, T.; Jeffery, K.; Juszczak, E.; Lim, W. S.; Montgomery, A.; Mumford, A.; Rowan, K.; Thwaites, G.; Mafham, M.; Roberts, D.; Haynes, R.; Landray, M. J.
Show abstract
BackgroundTreatment 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. MethodsIn 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. FindingsBetween 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{middle dot}00; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0{middle dot}93 to 1{middle dot}07; p=0{middle dot}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{middle dot}98; 95% CI 0{middle dot}94-1{middle dot}03, p=0{middle dot}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{middle dot}99; 95% CI 0{middle dot}93-1{middle dot}05, p=0{middle dot}79). InterpretationAmong 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 (Grant refs: MC_PC_19056; COV19-RECPLA).
Matching journals
The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Namilumab or infliximab compared to standard of care in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (CATALYST): a phase 2 randomised adaptive trial 96%
- A randomised clinical trial of azithromycin versus standard care in ambulatory COVID-19 – the ATOMIC2 trial 95%
- Inhaled budesonide in the treatment of early COVID-19 illness: a randomised controlled trial 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial 96%
- Convalescent plasma for outpatients with early COVID-19 95%
- Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19: an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Outpatient Therapy to Prevent Outpatient Hospitalization: A Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data From Five Randomized Trials 95%
- A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of Sarilumab in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19 94%
- Randomized controlled trial transfusing convalescent plasma as post-exposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection 93%
"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.