Casirivimab and imdevimab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

BACKGROUND: Casirivimab and imdevimab are non-competing monoclonal antibodies that bind to two different sites on the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein, blocking viral entry into host cells. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of casirivimab and imdevimab administered in combination in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. METHODS: RECOVERY is a randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial comparing several possible treatments with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. 127 UK hospitals took part in the evaluation of casirivimab and imdevimab. Eligible participants were any patients aged at least 12 years admitted to hospital with clinically suspected or laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual care plus casirivimab 4 g and imdevimab 4 g administered together in a single intravenous infusion. Investigators and data assessors were masked to analyses of the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality assessed by intention to treat, first only in patients without detectable antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 infection at randomisation (ie, those who were seronegative) and then in the overall population. Safety was assessed in all participants who received casirivimab and imdevimab. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). FINDINGS: Between Sept 18, 2020, and May 22, 2021, 9785 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible for casirivimab and imdevimab, of which 4839 were randomly assigned to casirivimab and imdevimab plus usual care and 4946 to usual care alone. 3153 (32%) of 9785 patients were seronegative, 5272 (54%) were seropositive, and 1360 (14%) had unknown baseline antibody status. 812 (8%) patients were known to have received at least one dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In the primary efficacy population of seronegative patients, 396 (24%) of 1633 patients allocated to casirivimab and imdevimab versus 452 (30%) of 1520 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio [RR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·69-0·91; p=0·0009). In an analysis of all randomly assigned patients (regardless of baseline antibody status), 943 (19%) of 4839 patients allocated to casirivimab and imdevimab versus 1029 (21%) of 4946 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (RR 0·94, 95% CI 0·86-1·02; p=0·14). The proportional effect of casirivimab and imdevimab on mortality differed significantly between seropositive and seronegative patients (p value for heterogeneity=0·002). There were no deaths attributed to the treatment, or meaningful between-group differences in the pre-specified safety outcomes of cause-specific mortality, cardiac arrhythmia, thrombosis, or major bleeding events. Serious adverse reactions reported in seven (<1%) participants were believed by the local investigator to be related to treatment with casirivimab and imdevimab. INTERPRETATION: In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, the monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab reduced 28-day mortality in patients who were seronegative (and therefore had not mounted their own humoral immune response) at baseline but not in those who were seropositive at baseline. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

BACKGROUND: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. METHODS: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. FINDINGS: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93-1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94-1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93-1·05; p=0·79). INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Aspirin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

BACKGROUND: Aspirin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its anti-thrombotic properties. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aspirin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial, several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The trial took place at 177 hospitals in the UK, two hospitals in Indonesia, and two hospitals in Nepal. Eligible and consenting adults were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either usual standard of care plus 150 mg aspirin once per day until discharge or usual standard of care alone using web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment. The primary outcome was 28 day mortality. All analyses were done by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). FINDINGS: Between Nov 1, 2020, and March 21, 2021, 14 892 (66%) of 22 560 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were eligible to be randomly allocated to aspirin. 7351 patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive aspirin and 7541 patients to receive usual care alone. Overall, 1222 (17%) of 7351 patients allocated to aspirin and 1299 (17%) of 7541 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·89-1·04; p=0·35). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. Patients allocated to aspirin had a slightly shorter duration of hospitalisation (median 8 days, IQR 5 to >28, vs 9 days, IQR 5 to >28) and a higher proportion were discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (75% vs 74%; rate ratio 1·06, 95% CI 1·02-1·10; p=0·0062). Among patients not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (21% vs 22%; risk ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·90-1·03; p=0·23). Aspirin use was associated with a reduction in thrombotic events (4·6% vs 5·3%; absolute reduction 0·6%, SE 0·4%) and an increase in major bleeding events (1·6% vs 1·0%; absolute increase 0·6%, SE 0·2%). INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, aspirin was not associated with reductions in 28 day mortality or in the risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, but was associated with a small increase in the rate of being discharged alive within 28 days. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), National Institute of Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator

Immunomodulatory therapy in children with paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2 (PIMS-TS, MIS-C; RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial.

BACKGROUND: Paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2 (PIMS-TS), also known as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) emerged in April, 2020. The paediatric comparisons within the RECOVERY trial aimed to assess the effect of intravenous immunoglobulin or corticosteroids compared with usual care on duration of hospital stay for children with PIMS-TS and to compare tocilizumab (anti-IL-6 receptor monoclonal antibody) or anakinra (anti-IL-1 receptor antagonist) with usual care for those with inflammation refractory to initial treatment. METHODS: We did this randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial in 51 hospitals in the UK. Eligible patients were younger than 18 years and had been admitted to hospital for PIMS-TS. In the first randomisation, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to usual care (no additional treatments), usual care plus methylprednisolone (10mg/kg per day for 3 consecutive days), or usual care plus intravenous immunoglobulin (a single dose of 2 g/kg). If further anti-inflammatory treatment was considered necessary, children aged at least 1 year could be considered for a second randomisation, in which patients were randomly assigned (1:2:2) to usual care, intravenous tocilizumab (12 mg/kg in patients 99%). Mean duration of hospital stay was 8·5 days (SD 1·2) in children assigned to anakinra (difference from usual care -1·4 days, 95% CrI -4·3 to 1·8; posterior probability 84%). Two persistent coronary artery aneurysms were reported among patients assigned to usual care in the first randomisation. There were few cardiac arrythmias, bleeding, or thrombotic events in any group. Two children died; neither was considered related to study treatment. INTERPRETATION: Moderate evidence suggests that, compared with usual care, first-line intravenous methylprednisolone reduces duration of hospital stay for children with PIMS-TS. Good evidence suggests that second-line tocilizumab reduces duration of hospital stay for children with inflammation refractory to initial treatment. Neither intravenous immunoglobulin nor anakinra had any effect on duration of hospital stay compared with usual care. FUNDING: Medical Research Council and National Institute of Health Research

Higher dose corticosteroids in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 who are hypoxic but not requiring ventilatory support (RECOVERY) : a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), National Institute of Health and Care Research, and Wellcome Trust.BACKGROUND: Low-dose corticosteroids have been shown to reduce mortality for patients with COVID-19 requiring oxygen or ventilatory support (non-invasive mechanical ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). We evaluated the use of a higher dose of corticosteroids in this patient group. METHODS: This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing multiple possible treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19. Eligible and consenting adult patients with clinical evidence of hypoxia (ie, receiving oxygen or with oxygen saturation <92% on room air) were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual care with higher dose corticosteroids (dexamethasone 20 mg once daily for 5 days followed by 10 mg dexamethasone once daily for 5 days or until discharge if sooner) or usual standard of care alone (which included dexamethasone 6 mg once daily for 10 days or until discharge if sooner). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality among all randomised participants. On May 11, 2022, the independent data monitoring committee recommended stopping recruitment of patients receiving no oxygen or simple oxygen only due to safety concerns. We report the results for these participants only. Recruitment of patients receiving ventilatory support is ongoing. The RECOVERY trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). FINDINGS: Between May 25, 2021, and May 13, 2022, 1272 patients with COVID-19 and hypoxia receiving no oxygen (eight [1%]) or simple oxygen only (1264 [99%]) were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus higher dose corticosteroids (659 patients) versus usual care alone (613 patients, of whom 87% received low-dose corticosteroids during the follow-up period). Of those randomly assigned, 745 (59%) were in Asia, 512 (40%) in the UK, and 15 (1%) in Africa. 248 (19%) had diabetes and 769 (60%) were male. Overall, 123 (19%) of 659 patients allocated to higher dose corticosteroids versus 75 (12%) of 613 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·59 [95% CI 1·20-2·10]; p=0·0012). There was also an excess of pneumonia reported to be due to non-COVID infection (64 cases [10%] vs 37 cases [6%]; absolute difference 3·7% [95% CI 0·7-6·6]) and an increase in hyperglycaemia requiring increased insulin dose (142 [22%] vs 87 [14%]; absolute difference 7·4% [95% CI 3·2-11·5]). INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised for COVID-19 with clinical hypoxia who required either no oxygen or simple oxygen only, higher dose corticosteroids significantly increased the risk of death compared with usual care, which included low-dose corticosteroids. The RECOVERY trial continues to assess the effects of higher dose corticosteroids in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 who require non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Caesarean section surgical techniques: 3 year follow-up of the CORONIS fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The CORONIS trial reported differences in short-term maternal morbidity when comparing five pairs of alternative surgical techniques for caesarean section. Here we report outcomes at 3 years follow-up. METHODS: The CORONIS trial was a pragmatic international 2 × 2 × 2 × 2× 2 non-regular fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial done at 19 sites in Argentina, Chile, Ghana, India, Kenya, Pakistan, and Sudan. Pregnant women were eligible if they were to undergo their first or second caesarean section through a planned transverse abdominal incision. Women were randomly assigned by a secure web-based allocation system to one intervention from each of the three assigned pairs. All investigators, surgeons, and participants were unmasked to treatment allocation. In this follow-up study, we compared outcomes at 3 years following blunt versus sharp abdominal entry, exteriorisation of the uterus for repair versus intra-abdominal repair, single versus double layer closure of the uterus, closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum, and chromic catgut versus polyglactin-910 for uterine repair. Outcomes included pelvic pain; deep dyspareunia; hysterectomy and outcomes of subsequent pregnancies. Outcomes were assessed masked to the original trial allocation. This trial is registered with the Current Controlled Trials registry, number ISRCTN31089967. FINDINGS: Between Sept 1, 2011, and Sept 30, 2014, 13,153 (84%) women were followed-up for a mean duration of 3·8 years (SD 0·86). For blunt versus sharp abdominal entry there was no evidence of a difference in risk of abdominal hernias (adjusted RR 0·66; 95% CI 0·39-1·11). We also recorded no evidence of a difference in risk of death or serious morbidity of the children born at the time of trial entry (0·99, 0·83-1·17). For exteriorisation of the uterus versus intra-abdominal repair there was no evidence of a difference in risk of infertility (0·91, 0·71-1·18) or of ectopic pregnancy (0·50, 0·15-1·66). For single versus double layer closure of the uterus there was no evidence of a difference in maternal death (0·78, 0·46-1·32) or a composite of pregnancy complications (1·20, 0·75-1·90). For closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum there was no evidence of a difference in any outcomes relating to symptoms associated with pelvic adhesions such as infertility (0·80, 0·61-1·06). For chromic catgut versus polyglactin-910 sutures there was no evidence of a difference in the main comparisons for adverse pregnancy outcomes in a subsequent pregnancy, such as uterine rupture (3·05, 0·32-29·29). Overall, severe adverse outcomes were uncommon in these settings. INTERPRETATION: Although our study was not powered to detect modest differences in rare but serious events, there was no evidence to favour one technique over another. Other considerations will probably affect clinical practice, such as the time and cost saving of different approaches

Supporting people with type 2 diabetes in effective use of their medicine through mobile health technology integrated with clinical care (SuMMiT-D Feasibility) : a randomised feasibility trial protocol

The SUpport through Mobile Messaging and digital health Technology for Diabetes research team acknowledge the support of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) through the Clinical Research Networks (AF: NIHR Senior Investigator and AF and RR: funding from NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Consortium). All trial data will be entered on electronic case report forms. The clinical database is built on Research Electronic Data Capture, a secure, web-based application designed to support data capture for research studiesPeer reviewedPublisher PD

The WOMAN (World Maternal Antifibrinolytic) Trial Dataset

The WOMAN trial was a large, pragmatic, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial to quantify the effects of the early administration of tranexamic acid on death, hysterectomy and other relevant outcomes. This dataset includes the data for 20,060 adult women, who had clinically diagnosed postpartum haemorrhage and who fulfilled the eligibility criteria, who were randomised to receive either TXA or placebo. Relevant data on an entry form was collected before randomisation to assess eligibility and then the woman was randomised. Outcome data was completed at death, discharge from the randomising hospital or 6 weeks (42 days) after randomisation, whichever occurred first. Each row in the dataset represents the full entry and outcome data collected for one woman. Additional information was collected on the sequence of events leading to death to confirm the cause of death

Current misconception 3: that subgroup-specific trial mortality results often provide a good basis for individualising patient care

Misconceptions and ill-founded theories can arise in all areas of science. However, the apparent accessibility of many epidemiology findings and popular interest in the subject can lead to additional misunderstandings. The article below is the third in an occasional series of short editorials highlighting some current misinterpretations of epidemiological findings. Invited authors will be given wide scope in judging the prevalence of the misconception under discussion. We hope that this series will prove instructive to cancer researchers in other disciplines as well as to students of epidemiology. Adrian L Harris and Leo Kinle

Progress in prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV infection in Ukraine: results from a birth cohort study

Background: Ukraine was the epicentre of the HIV epidemic in Eastern Europe, which has the most rapidly accelerating HIV epidemic world-wide today; national HIV prevalence is currently estimated at 1.6%. Our objective was to evaluate the uptake and effectiveness of interventions for prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) over an eight year period within operational settings in Ukraine, within the context of an ongoing birth cohort study.Methods: The European Collaborative Study (ECS) is an ongoing birth cohort study in which HIV-infected pregnant women identified before or during pregnancy or at delivery were enrolled and their infants prospectively followed. Three centres in Ukraine started enrolling in 2000, with a further three joining in September 2006.Results: Of the 3356 women enrolled, 21% (689) reported current or past injecting drug use (IDU). Most women were diagnosed antenatally and of those, the proportion diagnosed in the first/second trimester increased from 47% in 2000/01 (83/178) to 73% (776/1060) in 2006/07 (p < 0.001); intrapartum diagnosis was associated with IDU (Adjusted odds ratio 4.38; 95% CI 3.19-6.02). The percentage of women not receiving any antiretroviral prophylaxis declined from 18% (36/205) in 2001 to 7% in 2007 (61/843) p < 0.001). Use of sdNVP alone substantially declined after 2003, with a concomitant increase in zidovudine prophylaxis. Median antenatal zidovudine prophylaxis duration increased from 24 to 72 days between 2000 and 2007. Elective caesarean section (CS) rates were relatively stable over time and 34% overall. Mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) rates decreased from 15.2% in 2001 (95% CI 10.2-21.4) to 7.0% in 2006 (95% CI 2.6-14.6). In adjusted analysis, MTCT risk was reduced by 43% with elective CS versus vaginal delivery and by 75% with zidovudine versus no prophylaxis.Conclusion: There have been substantial improvements in use of PMTCT interventions in Ukraine, including earlier diagnosis of HIV-infected pregnant women and increasing coverage with antiretroviral prophylaxis and the initial MTCT rate has more than halved. Future research should focus on hard-to-reach populations such as IDU and on missed opportunities for further reducing the MTCT rate