Cost-Effectiveness of Convalescent Plasma for COVID-19: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of the CONCOR-1 Randomized Trial (preprint)

Background The CONvalescent Plasma for Hospitalized Adults With COVID-19 Respiratory Illness (CONCOR-1) trial was a multicenter randomized controlled trial assessing convalescent plasma in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Though stopped early due to the lack of treatment benefit, the cost-effectiveness of convalescent plasma provides insight into its potential as an alternative treatment option in resource constrained settings.Methods Individual patient data on health outcomes and healthcare resource utilization from the CONCOR-1 trial were used to conduct the analysis from the Canadian public payer’s perspective with a time horizon of 30 days post-randomization. Baseline and 30-day EQ-5D-5L was measured to calculate quality-adjusted survival. All costs are presented in 2021 Canadian dollars. The base case assessed the EQ-5D-5L scores of patients reporting at both timepoints, and a utility score of 0 was assigned for patients who died within 30 days. Costs for all patients enrolled in the study were used. The sensitivity analysis utilizes EQ-5D-5L scores from the same population but only uses the costs from this population.Results 940 patients were randomized: 627 received CCP and 313 received standard care. The total costs were $28,716 (standard deviation, $25,380) and $24,258 ($22,939) for the convalescent plasma and standard care arms respectively. EQ-5D-5L scores were 0.61 both arms (p = 0.85) at baseline. At 30 days, EQ-5D-5L scores were 0.63 and 0.64 for patients in the convalescent plasma and standard care arms respectively (p = 0.46). The incremental cost was $4,458 and incremental quality-adjusted life day was − 0.078.Conclusion These results indicate that convalescent plasma was less effective and more costly than standard care in treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The sensitivity analysis yielded similar results to the base case analysis.

Establishing a core set of open science practices in biomedicine: a modified Delphi study (preprint)

Background Mandates and recommendations related to embedding open science practices within the research lifecycle are increasingly common. Few stakeholders, however, are monitoring compliance to their mandates or recommendations. It is necessary to monitor the current state of open science to track changes over time and to identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. Monitoring open science practices requires that they are defined and operationalized. Involving the biomedical community, we sought to reach consensus on a core set of open science practices to monitor at biomedical research institutions. Methods and Findings To establish consensus in a structured and systematic fashion, we conducted a modified 3-round Delphi study. Participants in Round 1 were 80 individuals from 20 biomedical research institutions that exhibit interest in or actively support open science. Participants were research administrators, researchers, specialists in dedicated open science roles, and librarians. In Rounds 1 and 2, participants completed an online survey evaluating a set of potential open science practices that could be important and meaningful to monitor in an automated institutional open science dashboard. Participants voted on the inclusion of each item and provided a rationale for their choice. We defined consensus as 80% agreement. Between rounds, participants received aggregated voting scores for each item and anonymized comments from all participants, and were asked to re-vote on items that did not reach consensus. For Round 3, we hosted two half- day virtual meetings with 21 and 17 participants respectively to discuss and vote on all items that had not reached consensus after Round 2. Ultimately, participants reached consensus to include a 19 open science practices. Conclusions A group of international stakeholders used a modified Delphi process to agree upon open science practices to monitor in a proposed open science dashboard for biomedical institutions. The core set of 19 open science practices identified by participants will form the foundation for institutional dashboards that display compliance with open science practices. They will now be assessed and tested for automatic inclusion in terms of technical feasibility. Using user-centered design, participating institutions will be involved in creating a dashboard prototype, which can then be implemented to monitor rates of open science practices at biomedical institutions. Our methods and approach may also transfer to other research settings–other disciplines could consider using our consensus list as a starting point for agreement upon a discipline-specific set of open science practices to monitor. The findings may also be of broader value to the development of policy, education, and interventions.

Airway recommendations for perioperative patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review (preprint)

Purpose Numerous guideline recommendations for airway and perioperative management during the COVID-19 pandemic have been published. We identified, synthesized, and compared guidelines intended for anesthesiologists. Source Member society websites of the World Federation of Societies of Anesthesiologists and the European Society of Anesthesiologists were searched. Recommendations focused on perioperative airway management of patients with proven or potential COVID-19 disease were included. Accelerated screening was used; data extraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by a second. Data was organized into themes based on perioperative phase of care. Principal Findings Thirty unique sets of recommendations were identified. None reported methods for systematically searching or selecting evidence to be included. Four were updated following initial publication. For induction and airway management, most recommended minimizing personnel and having the most experienced anesthesiologist perform tracheal intubation. Significant congruence was observed amongst recommendations that discussed personal protective equipment. Of those that discussed tracheal intubation methods, most (96%) recommended video laryngoscopy, while discordance existed regarding use of flexible bronchoscopy. Intraoperatively, 23% suggested specific anesthesia techniques and most (63%) recommended a specific operating room for patients with COVID-19. Postoperatively, a minority discussed extubation procedures (33%), or care in the recovery room (40%). Non-technical considerations were discussed in 27% and psychological support for healthcare providers in 10%. Conclusion Recommendations: for perioperative airway management of patients with COVID-19 overlap to a large extent. However, we also identified significant differences. This may reflect the absence of a coordinated response towards studying and establishing best-practices in perioperative patients with COVID-19. Registration Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/a2k4u/ )

Convalescent plasma for adults with acute COVID-19 respiratory illness (CONCOR-1): Study protocol for an international, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial (preprint)

Background: Convalescent plasma has been used for numerous viral diseases including influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome, Middle East respiratory syndrome and Ebola virus; however, evidence to support its use is weak. SARS-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus responsible for the 2019 global pandemic of COVID-19 community acquired pneumonia. We have undertaken a randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.Methods: CONCOR-1 is an open-label, multicenter, randomized trial. Inclusion criteria include: patients >16 years; admitted to hospital with COVID-19 infection; receiving supplemental oxygen for respiratory complications of COVID-19; and, availability of blood group compatible CCP. Exclusion criteria are: onset of respiratory symptoms more than 12 days prior to randomization; intubated or planned for intubation; and previous severe reactions to plasma. Consenting patients will be randomized 2:1 to receive either approximately 500 mL of CCP or standard of care. CCP will be collected from donors who have recovered from COVID-19 and who have detectable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies quantified serologically. The primary outcome is intubation or death at Day 30. Secondary outcomes include ventilator free days, length of stay in intensive care or hospital, transfusion reactions, serious adverse events, and reduction in SARS-CoV-2 viral load.  Exploratory analyses include patients who received CCP containing high titre antibodies. A sample size of 1200 patients gives 80% power to detect a 25% relative risk reduction assuming a 30% baseline risk of intubation or death at 30 days (two-sided test; α =0.05). An interim analysis and sample size re-estimation will be done by an unblinded independent biostatistician after primary outcome data are available for 50% of the target recruitment (n= 600). Discussion: This trial will determine whether CCP will reduce intubation or death non-intubated adults with COVID-19. The trial will also provide information on the role of and thresholds for SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers and neutralization assays for donor qualification.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04348656; registered 16 April 2020; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04348656?term=NCT04348656&draw=2&rank=1

Protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial of normobaric versus hyperbaric oxygen therapy for hypoxemic COVID-19 patients (preprint)

Background: At least 1 in 6 COVID-19 patients admitted to hospital and receiving supplemental oxygen will die of complications. More than 50% of patients with COVID-19 that receive invasive treatment such as mechanical ventilation will die in hospital. Such impacts overwhelm the limited intensive care unit resources and may lead to further deaths given inadequate access to care. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is defined as breathing 100% oxygen at a pressure higher than 1.4 atmosphere absolute (ATA). HBOT is safe, including for lungs, when administered by experienced teams and is routinely administrated for a number of approved indications. Preliminary clinical evidence suggests clinical improvement when hypoxemic COVID-19 patients are treated with HBOT. Objective: We aim to determine the effectiveness of HBOT for improving oxygenation, morbidity, and mortality among hypoxemic COVID-19 patients. Methods and analysis: This trial is a sequential Bayesian Parallel-group, individually Randomized, Open, Blinded Endpoint controlled trial. Admitted hypoxemic COVID-19 patients who require supplemental oxygen (without high flow and mechanical ventilation) to maintain a satisfying tissue oxygenation will be eligible to participate. The anticipated sample size of 234 patients is informed by data from a treatment trial of COVID patients recently published. The intervention group will receive one HBOT per day at 2.0 ATA for 75 minutes. Daily HBOT will be administered until either the patient does not require any oxygen supplementation or requires any type of mechanical ventilation or high flow oxygenation until day 28 post-randomization. Patients in the control group will receive the current standard of care treatment (no HBOT). The primary outcome of this trial will be the 7-level COVID ordinal outcomes scale assessed on Day 7 post-randomization. Secondary outcomes will include: (a) clinical outcomes (length of hospital stay, days with oxygen supplementation, oxygen flow values to obtain a saturation by pulse oximetry [≥]90%, intensive care admission and length of stay, days on invasive mechanical ventilation or high flow oxygen, sleep quality, fatigue, major thrombotic events, the 7-level COVID ordinal outcomes scale on Day 28; mortality, safety); (b) biological outcomes (plasma inflammatory markers); and (c) health system outcomes (cost of care and cost-effectiveness). Predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria have been specified. The analytical approach for the primary outcome will use a Bayesian proportional odds ordinal logistic semiparametric model. The primary analysis will be by intention-to-treat. Bayesian posterior probabilities will be calculated every 20 patients to assess accumulating evidence for benefit or harm. A planned subgroup analysis will be performed for pre-specified variables known to impact COVID-19 prognosis and/or HBOT (biologic sex and age). Discussion: Based on the mortality rate and substantial burden of COVID-19 on the healthcare system, it is imperative that solutions be found. HBOT is a non-invasive and low-risk intervention when contraindications are respected. The established safety and relatively low cost of providing HBOT along with its potential to improve the prognosis of severe COVID-19 patients make this intervention worth studying, despite the current limited number of HBOT centres. If this trial finds that HBOT significantly improves outcome and prevents further deterioration leading to critical care for severe COVID-19 patients, practice will change internationally. If no benefit is found from the intervention, then the current standard of care (no HBOT) will be supported by level I evidence.