Back

Convalescent Plasma in Critically ill Patients with COVID-19

The REMAP-CAP Investigators, ; Estcourt, L. J.

2021-06-13 intensive care and critical care medicine
10.1101/2021.06.11.21258760 medRxiv
Show abstract

BACKGROUNDThe evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with Covid-19 is inconsistent. We hypothesized that convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adult patients with Covid-19. METHODSIn an ongoing adaptive platform trial, critically ill patients with confirmed Covid-19, defined as receiving intensive care-level organ support, were randomized to open-label convalescent plasma or not (i.e., control group). The primary end point was organ support-free days (i.e., days alive and free of ICU-based organ support) up to day 21. The primary analysis was a Bayesian cumulative logistic model with predefined criteria for superiority or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. RESULTSThe convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after pre-specified criteria for futility were met. At that time, 1084 participants had been randomized to convalescent plasma and 916 to no convalescent plasma (control). The median organ support-free days were 0 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) for the convalescent plasma group and 3 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) days for the control group. The median adjusted odds ratio (OR) was 0.97 (95% credible interval 0.83 to 1.15) and posterior probability of futility (OR < 1.2) was 99.4% for convalescent plasma compared to control. In-hospital mortality was 37.3% (401/1075) in convalescent plasma group, and 38.4% (347/904) in controls. The observed treatment effects were consistent across primary and secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONSIn critically ill adults with confirmed Covid-19, treatment with convalescent plasma, did not improve clinical outcomes. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02735707

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
28.0%
2
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.2%
3
Critical Care Explorations
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.3%
4
New England Journal of Medicine
50 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 34%
4.2%
6
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.6%
7
British Journal of Anaesthesia
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
8
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.1%
9
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.1%
10
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.1%
11
The Lancet Healthy Longevity
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
12
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
13
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
14
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
15
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
16
Neurocritical Care
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
17
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
18
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
19
Critical Care
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
20
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
21
Journal of Internal Medicine
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
22
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
23
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
24
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 72%
0.8%
25
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 61%
0.8%
26
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
27
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.7%
28
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
29
Life
27 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
30
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%