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

Comparison of the source and prognostic utility of cfDNA in trauma and sepsis

Abstract Background Circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) may contribute to the pathophysiology of post-injury inflammation and coagulation in trauma. However, the source and mechanism of release of cfDNA in trauma is not well understood. One potential source of cfDNA is from Neutrophil Extracellular Traps (NETs), released by activated neutrophils during the process of NETosis. The primary objective of our study was to determine if cfDNA has prognostic utility in trauma. The secondary objective of this study was to determine the source of cfDNA in trauma compared to sepsis. Methods We studied trauma patients from two prospective observational cohort studies: the DNA as a Prognostic Marker in ICU Patients (DYNAMICS) study and the Endotoxin in Polytrauma (ENPOLY) study. We also studied septic patients from the DYNAMICS study. Citrated plasma samples were collected longitudinally from the patients (days 1 to 7). The following molecules were measured in the plasma samples: cfDNA, protein C (PC), myeloperoxidase (MPO) (a marker of neutrophil activation), citrullinated Histone H3 (H3Cit, a marker of NETosis), cyclophilin A (a marker of necrosis), and caspase-cleaved K18 (a marker of apoptosis). Results A total of 77 trauma patients were included (n = 38 from DYNAMICS and n = 39 from ENPOLY). The median age was 49 years; 27.3% were female, and mortality was 16.9% at 28 days. Levels of cfDNA were elevated compared to healthy values but not significantly different between survivors and non-survivors. There was a positive correlation between MPO and cfDNA in septic patients (r = 0.424, p < 0.001). In contrast, there was no correlation between MPO and cfDNA in trauma patients (r = – 0.192, p = 0.115). Levels of H3Cit, a marker of NETosis, were significantly elevated in septic patients compared to trauma patients (p < 0.01) while apoptosis and necrosis markers did not differ between the two groups. Conclusion Our studies suggest that the source and mechanism of release of cfDNA differ between trauma and sepsis patients. In sepsis, cfDNA is likely primarily released by activated neutrophils via the process of NETosis. In contrast, cfDNA in trauma appears to originate mainly from injured or necrotic cells. Although cfDNA is elevated in trauma and sepsis patients compared to healthy controls, cfDNA does not appear to have prognostic utility in trauma patients. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01355042 . Registered May 17, 201