ABSTRACT
Efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in COVID-19 pneumonia is uncertain. The CORIPLASM study was an open-label, Bayesian randomised clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of CCP in patients with moderate COVID-19, including immunocompromised patients. Patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and less than 9 days since symptoms onset were assigned to receive 4 units of plasma over 2 days ({approx} 840 ml)(CCP) or usual care alone (UC). Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with a WHO-Clinical Progression Score (CPS) [≥]6 on the 10-point scale on day (d) 4 and survival without ventilation or additional immunomodulatory treatment by d14. A total of 120 patients were recruited and assigned to CCP (n=60) or UC (n=60), including 22 (CCP) and 27 (UC) immunocompromised patients. Thirteen (22%) patients with CCP had a WHO-CPS [≥]6 at d4 versus 8 (13%) with UC, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.88 [95%CI 0.71 to 5.24]. By d14, 19 (31.6%) patients with CCP and 20 (33.3%) patients with UC had ventilation, additional immunomodulatory treatment or had died. Cumulative incidence of death was 3 (5%) with CCP and 8 (13%) with UC at d14 (aHR 0.40 [95%CI 0{middle dot}10 -1{middle dot}53]), and 7 (12%) with CCP and 12 (20%) with UC at d28 (aHR 0.51 [95%CI 0.20-1.32]). Subgroup analysis indicated that CCP might be associated with a lower mortality in immunocompromised patients (HR 0.37 [95%CI 0.14-0.97]). CCP treatment did not improve early outcomes in patients with moderate COVID-19 but was associated with reduced mortality in the subgroup of immunocompromised patients.
ABSTRACT
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential to support clinical decision making. We assessed the transparency, completeness and consistency of reporting of 244 reports (120 peer-reviewed journal publications; 124 preprints) of RCTs assessing pharmacological interventions for the treatment of COVID-19 published the first 17 months of the pandemic (up to May 31, 2021). Transparency was poor. Only 55% of trials were prospectively registered; 39% made their full protocols available and 29% provided access to their statistical analysis plan. Only 6% completely reported the most important information. Primary outcome(s) reported in trial registries and published reports were inconsistent in 47% of trials. Of the 124 RCTs published as preprint, 76 were secondarily published in a peer-reviewed journal. There was no major improvement after the peer-review process. Lack of transparency, completeness and consistency of reporting is an important barrier to trust, interpretation and synthesis in COVID-19 clinical trials.
ABSTRACT
ObjectivesTo develop and validate patient-reported instruments, based on patients lived experiences, for monitoring the symptoms and impact of long covid. DesignThe long covid Symptom and Impact Tools (ST and IT) were constructed from the answers to a survey with open-ended questions to 492 patients with long covid. Validation of the tools involved adult patients with suspected or confirmed covid-19 and symptoms extending over three weeks after onset. Construct validity was assessed by examining the relations of the ST and IT scores with health related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), function (PCFS, post-covid functional scale), and perceived health (MYMOP2). Reliability was determined by a test-retest. The "patient acceptable symptomatic state" (PASS) was determined by the percentile method. ResultsValidation involved 1022 participants (55% with confirmed covid-19, 79% female and 12.5% hospitalised for covid-19). The long covid ST and IT scores were strongly correlated with the EQ-5D-5L (rs = -0.45 and rs = -0.59 respectively), the PCFS (rs = -0.39 and rs = -0.55), and the MYMOP2 (rs = -0.40 and rs = -0.59). Reproducibility was excellent with an interclass correlation coefficient of 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.86) for the ST score and 0.84 (0.80 to 0.87) for the IT score. In total, 793 (77.5%) patients reported an unacceptable symptomatic state, thereby setting the PASS for the long covid IT score at 30 (28 to 33). ConclusionsThe long covid ST and IT tools, constructed from patients lived experiences, provide the first validated and reliable instruments for monitoring the symptoms and impact of long covid. Short summaryWe developed the long covid Symptom and Impact Tools (ST and IT) from the experiences of 492 patients, captured during a survey with open-ended questions, and assessed their validity and reliability in a sample of 1022 patients with long covid.
ABSTRACT
Objective To assess the effectiveness of corticosteroids on outcomes of patients with mild COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods We used routine care data from 51 hospitals in France and Luxembourg to assess the effectiveness of corticosteroids at 0.8 mg/kg/day eq. prednisone (CTC group) vs standard of care (no-CTC group) among patients [≤] 80 years old with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring oxygen without mechanical ventilation. The primary outcome was intubation or death at Day 28. Baseline characteristics of patients were balanced using propensity score inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results Among the 891 patients included in the analysis, 203 were assigned to the CTC group. At day 28, corticosteroids did not reduce the rate of the primary outcome (wHR 0.92, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.39) nor the cumulative death rate (wHR 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.98). Corticosteroids significantly reduced the rate of the primary outcome for patients requiring oxygen [≥] at 3L/min (wHR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.85) or C-Reactive Protein (CRP) [≥] 100mg/L (wHR 0.44, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.85). We found a higher number of hyperglycaemia events among patients who received corticosteroids, but number of infections were similar across the two groups. Conclusions We found no association between the use of corticosteroids and intubation or death in the broad population of patients [≤]80 years old with COVID-19 hospitalized in non-ICU settings. However, the treatment was beneficial for patients with [≥] 3L/min oxygen or CRP [≥] 100mg/L at baseline. These data support the need to confirm the right timing of corticosteroids for patients with mild COVID.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundTreatments are urgently needed to prevent respiratory failure and deaths from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has received worldwide attention because of positive results from small studies. MethodsWe used data collected from routine care of all adults in 4 French hospitals with documented SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and requiring oxygen [≥] 2 L/min to emulate a target trial aimed at assessing the effectiveness of HCQ at 600 mg/day. The composite primary endpoint was transfer to intensive care unit (ICU) within 7 days from inclusion and/or death from any cause. Analyses were adjusted for confounding factors by inverse probability of treatment weighting. ResultsThis study included 181 patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia; 84 received HCQ within 48 hours of admission (HCQ group) and 97 did not (no-HCQ group). Initial severity was well balanced between the groups. In the weighted analysis, 20.2% patients in the HCQ group were transferred to the ICU or died within 7 days vs 22.1% in the no-HCQ group (16 vs 21 events, relative risk [RR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.47-1.80). In the HCQ group, 2.8% of the patients died within 7 days vs 4.6% in the no-HCQ group (3 vs 4 events, RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.13-2.89), and 27.4% and 24.1%, respectively, developed acute respiratory distress syndrome within 7 days (24 vs 23 events, RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.65-2.00). Eight patients receiving HCQ (9.5%) experienced electrocardiogram modifications requiring HCQ discontinuation. InterpretationThese results do not support the use of HCQ in patients hospitalised for documented SARS-CoV-2-positive hypoxic pneumonia.