Treatment of severe COVID-19 patients with either low- or high-volume of convalescent plasma versus standard of care: A multicenter Bayesian randomized open-label clinical trial (COOP-COVID-19-MCTI)

Cytokine, Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody, and Neutralizing Antibody Levels in Conventional Blood Donors Who Have Recovered from COVID-19

Background

At the beginning of the pandemic, COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was suggested as a source of therapy. In the last 3 years, many trials have demonstrated the limited usefulness of CCP therapy. This led us to the hypothesis that CCP could contain other elements, along with the desired neutralizing antibodies, which could potentially prevent it from having a therapeutic effect, among them cytokines, chemokines, growth factors, clotting factors, and autoantibodies.

Methods

In total, 39 cytokines were analyzed in the plasma of 190 blood donors, and further research focused on the levels of 23 different cytokines in CCP (sCD40L, eotaxin, FGF-2, FLT-3L, ractalkine, GRO-α, IFNα2, IL-1β, IL-1RA, IL-5, IL-6, IL-8, IL-12, IL-13, IL-15, IL-17E, IP-10, MCP-1, MIP-1b, PDGF-AA, TGFα, TNFα, and TRAIL). Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and neutralizing antibodies were detected in CCP.

Results

We found no significant differences between CCP taken within a maximum of 180 days from the onset of the first COVID-19 symptoms and the controls. We also made a comparison of the cytokine levels between the low neutralizing antibodies (<160) group and the high neutralizing antibodies (≥160) group and found there were no differences between the groups. Our research also showed no correlation either to levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG Ab or to the levels of neutralizing antibodies. There were also no significant changes in cytokine levels based on the period after the start of COVID-19 symptoms.

Conclusions

No elements which could potentially be responsible for preventing CCP from having a therapeutic effect were found.

Statistical analyses of ordinal outcomes in randomised controlled trials: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aim to estimate the causal effect of one or more interventions relative to a control. One type of outcome that can be of interest in an RCT is an ordinal outcome, which is useful to answer clinical questions regarding complex and evolving patient states. The target parameter of interest for an ordinal outcome depends on the research question and the assumptions the analyst is willing to make. This review aimed to provide an overview of how ordinal outcomes have been used and analysed in RCTs.

METHODS

The review included RCTs with an ordinal primary or secondary outcome published between 2017 and 2022 in four highly ranked medical journals (the British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, and the Journal of the American Medical Association) identified through PubMed. Details regarding the study setting, design, the target parameter, and statistical methods used to analyse the ordinal outcome were extracted.

RESULTS

The search identified 309 studies, of which 144 were eligible for inclusion. The most used target parameter was an odds ratio, reported in 78 (54%) studies. The ordinal outcome was dichotomised for analysis in 47 ( 33 % ) studies, and the most common statistical model used to analyse the ordinal outcome on the full ordinal scale was the proportional odds model (64 [ 44 % ] studies). Notably, 86 (60%) studies did not explicitly check or describe the robustness of the assumptions for the statistical method(s) used.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review indicate that in RCTs that use an ordinal outcome, there is variation in the target parameter and the analytical approaches used, with many dichotomising the ordinal outcome. Few studies provided assurance regarding the appropriateness of the assumptions and methods used to analyse the ordinal outcome. More guidance is needed to improve the transparent reporting of the analysis of ordinal outcomes in future trials.

Balanced resuscitation and earlier mortality end points: bayesian post hoc analysis of the PROPPR trial

Introduction

The Pragmatic Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios (PROPPR) trial failed to demonstrate a mortality difference for hemorrhaging patients receiving a balanced (1:1:1) vs a 1:1:2 resuscitation at 24 hours and 30 days. Recent guidelines recommend earlier mortality end points for hemorrhage-control trials, and the use of contemporary statistical methods. The aim of this post hoc analysis of the PROPPR trial was to evaluate the impact of a balanced resuscitation strategy at early resuscitation time points using a Bayesian analytical framework.

Methods

Bayesian hierarchical models were created to assess mortality differences at the 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 hours time points between study cohorts. Posterior probabilities and Bayes factors were calculated for each time point.

Results

A 1:1:1 resuscitation displayed a 96%, 99%, 94%, 92%, 96%, and 94% probability for mortality benefit at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 hours, respectively, when compared with a 1:1:2 approach. Associated Bayes factors for each respective time period were 21.2, 142, 14.9, 11.4, 26.4, and 15.5, indicating 'strong' to 'decisive' supporting evidence in favor of balanced transfusions.

Conclusion

This analysis provides evidence in support that a 1:1:1 resuscitation has a high probability of mortality benefit when compared with a 1:1:2 strategy, especially at the newly defined more proximate time points during the resuscitative period. Researchers should consider using Bayesian approaches, along with more proximate end points when assessing hemorrhage-related mortality, for the analysis of future clinical trials.

Level of evidence

Level III/Therapeutic.

Statistical analyses of ordinal outcomes in randomised controlled trials: protocol for a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aim to assess the effect of one (or more) unproven health interventions relative to other reference interventions. RCTs sometimes use an ordinal outcome, which is an endpoint that comprises of multiple, monotonically ordered categories that are not necessarily separated by a quantifiable distance. Ordinal outcomes are appealing in clinical settings as specific disease states can represent meaningful categories that may be of clinical importance to researchers. Ordinal outcomes can also retain information and increase statistical power compared to dichotomised outcomes and can allow multiple clinical outcomes to be comprised in a single endpoint. Target parameters for ordinal outcomes in RCTs may vary depending on the nature of the research question, the modelling assumptions and the expertise of the data analyst. The aim of this scoping review is to systematically describe the use of ordinal outcomes in contemporary RCTs. Specifically, we aim to: [Formula: see text] Identify which target parameters are of interest in trials that use an ordinal outcome, and whether these parameters are explicitly defined. [Formula: see text] Describe how ordinal outcomes are analysed in RCTs to estimate a treatment effect. [Formula: see text] Describe whether RCTs that use an ordinal outcome adequately report key methodological aspects specific to the analysis of the ordinal outcome. Results from this review will outline the current state of practice of the use of ordinal outcomes in RCTs. Ways to improve the analysis and reporting of ordinal outcomes in RCTs will be discussed.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will review RCTs that are published in the top four medical journals (British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the Journal of the American Medical Association) between 1 January 2012 and 31 July 2022 that use an ordinal outcome as either a primary or a secondary outcome. The review will identify articles through a PubMed-specific search strategy. Our review will adhere to guidelines for scoping reviews as described in the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The study characteristics and details of the study design and analysis, including the target parameter(s) and statistical methods used to analyse the ordinal outcome, will be extracted from eligible studies. The screening, review and data extraction will be conducted using Covidence, a web-based tool for managing systematic reviews. The data will be summarised using descriptive statistics.

Simple prediction of COVID-19 convalescent plasma units with high levels of neutralization antibodies

BACKGROUND

Hyperimmune convalescent COVID-19 plasma (CCP) containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) was proposed as a therapeutic option for patients early in the new coronavirus disease pandemic. The efficacy of this therapy depends on the quantity of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) in the CCP units, with titers ≥ 1:160 being recommended. The standard neutralizing tests (NTs) used for determining appropriate CCP donors are technically demanding and expensive and take several days. We explored whether they could be replaced by high-throughput serology tests and a set of available clinical data.

METHODS

Our study included 1302 CCP donors after PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection. To predict donors with high NAb titers, we built four (4) multiple logistic regression models evaluating the relationships of demographic data, COVID-19 symptoms, results of various serological testing, the period between disease and donation, and COVID-19 vaccination status.

RESULTS

The analysis of the four models showed that the chemiluminescent microparticle assay (CMIA) for the quantitative determination of IgG Abs to the RBD of the S1 subunit of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was enough to predict the CCP units with a high NAb titer. CCP donors with respective results > 850 BAU/ml SARS-CoV-2 IgG had a high probability of attaining sufficient NAb titers. Including additional variables such as donor demographics, clinical symptoms, or time of donation into a particular predictive model did not significantly increase its sensitivity and specificity.

CONCLUSION

A simple quantitative serological determination of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies alone is satisfactory for recruiting CCP donors with high titer NAbs.

The efficiency of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials

The objective of this study was to assess whether convalescent plasma therapy could offer survival advantages for patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). An electronic search of Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane library and MedRxiv was performed from January 1st, 2020 to April 1st, 2022. We included studies containing patients with COVID-19 and treated with CCP. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers and synthesized with a random-effect analysis model. The primary outcome was 28-d mortality. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, ventilation-free days, 14-d mortality, improvements of symptoms, progression of diseases and requirements of mechanical ventilation. Safety outcomes included the incidence of all adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). The Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool 2.0 was used to assess the potential risk of bias in eligible studies. The heterogeneity of results was assessed by I^2 test and Q statistic test. The possibility of publication bias was assessed by conducting Begg and Egger test. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method were used for quality of evidence. This study had been registered on PROSPERO, CRD42021273608. 32 RCTs comprising 21478 patients with Covid-19 were included. Compared to the control group, COVID-19 patients receiving CCP were not associated with significantly reduced 28-d mortality (CCP 20.0% vs control 20.8%; risk ratio 0.94; 95% CI 0.87-1.02; p = 0.16; I² = 8%). For all secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between CCP group and control group. The incidence of AEs (26.9% vs 19.4%,; risk ratio 1.14; 95% CI 0.99-01.31; p = 0.06; I² = 38%) and SAEs (16.3% vs 13.5%; risk ratio 1.03; 95% CI 0.87-1.20; p = 0.76; I² = 42%) tended to be higher in the CCP group compared to the control group, while the differences did not reach statistical significance. In all, CCP therapy was not related to significantly improved 28-d mortality or symptoms recovery, and should not be viewed as a routine treatment for COVID-19 patients.

Trial registration number

CRD42021273608. Registration on February 28, 2022.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, Identifier CRD42022313265.