Convalescent Plasma for Patients With Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. METHODS: In a matched cohort analysis of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19, the impact of CP treatment on in-hospital mortality was evaluated using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional-hazards models, and the impact of CP treatment on time to hospital discharge was assessed using a stratified log-rank analysis. RESULTS: In total, 64 patients who received CP a median of 7 days after symptom onset were compared to a matched control group of 177 patients. The incidence of in-hospital mortality was 12.5% and 15.8% in the CP and control groups, respectively (P = .52). There was no significant difference in the risk of in-hospital mortality between the 2 groups (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] .39-2.20). The overall rate of hospital discharge was not significantly different between the 2 groups (rate ratio [RR] 1.28, 95% CI .91-1.81), although there was a significantly increased rate of hospital discharge among patients 65-years-old or greater who received CP (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.03-3.36). There was a greater than expected frequency of transfusion reactions in the CP group (2.8% reaction rate observed per unit transfused). CONCLUSIONS: We did not demonstrate a significant difference in risk of mortality or rate of hospital discharge between the CP and control groups. There was a signal for improved outcomes among the elderly, and further adequately powered randomized studies should target this subgroup when assessing the efficacy of CP treatment.

Remdesivir Use Compared With Supportive Care in Hospitalized Patients With Severe COVID-19: A Single-Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration issued an Emergency Use Authorization for remdesivir use in patients with severe COVID-19. METHODS: We utilized data from 2 quaternary acute care hospitals. The outcomes of interest were the impact of remdesivir on in-hospital death by day 28 and time to recovery, clinical improvement, and discharge. We utilized Cox proportional hazards models and stratified log-rank tests. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-four patients were included in the study. The median age was 59 years; 67.0% were male; 17/125 patients (13.6%) who received supportive care and 7/99 patients (7.1%) who received remdesivir died. The unadjusted risk for 28-day in-hospital death was lower for patients who received remdesivir compared with patients who received supportive care (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.16-1.08). Although this trend remained the same after adjusting for age, sex, race, and oxygen requirements on admission (adjusted HR [aHR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.19-1.28), as well as chronic comorbidities and use of corticosteroids (aHR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.16-1.23), it did not reach statistical significance. The use of remdesivir was not associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) or liver test abnormalities. Although not statistically significant, the rate ratios for time to recovery, clinical improvement, and discharge were higher in women and black or African American patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients on remdesivir had lower, albeit not significant, all-cause in-hospital mortality, and the use of remdesivir did not increase the risk for AKI. Promising signals from this study need to be confirmed by future placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials.