Convalescent Plasma in Critically ill Patients with COVID-19
The REMAP-CAP Investigators, ; Estcourt, L. J.
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 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Effectiveness of casirivimab and imdevimab, and sotrovimab during Delta variant surge: a prospective cohort study and comparative effectiveness randomized trial 93%
- Corticosteroids in COVID-19: Optimizing Observational Research through Target Trial Emulations 91%
- Chloroquine diphosphate in two different dosages as adjunctive therapy of hospitalized patients with severe respiratory syndrome in the context of coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection: Preliminary safety results of a randomized, double-blinded, phase IIb clinical trial (CloroCovid-19 Study) 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Prognostic and predictive biomarkers in patients with COVID-19 treated with tocilizumab in a randomised controlled trial 95%
- COVID-19 as cause of viral sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis 90%
- Prone positioning of non-intubated patients with COVID-19 - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis 90%
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 95%
- A randomised clinical trial of azithromycin versus standard care in ambulatory COVID-19 – the ATOMIC2 trial 93%
- Peginterferon-lambda for the treatment of COVID-19 in outpatients 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Convalescent plasma for outpatients with early COVID-19 95%
- Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial 94%
- Peginterferon Lambda-1a for treatment of outpatients with uncomplicated COVID-19: a randomized placebo-controlled trial 94%
"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.