Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Hospitalized Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: There is clinical equipoise for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) use in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Objective: To determine the safety and efficacy of CCP compared with placebo in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving noninvasive supplemental oxygen. Design, setting, and participants: CONTAIN COVID-19, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of CCP in hospitalized adults with COVID-19, was conducted at 21 US hospitals from April 17, 2020, to March 15, 2021. The trial enrolled 941 participants who were hospitalized for 3 or less days or presented 7 or less days after symptom onset and required noninvasive oxygen supplementation. Interventions: A unit of approximately 250 mL of CCP or equivalent volume of placebo (normal saline). Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was participant scores on the 11-point World Health Organization (WHO) Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement on day 14 after randomization; the secondary outcome was WHO scores determined on day 28. Subgroups were analyzed with respect to age, baseline WHO score, concomitant medications, symptom duration, CCP SARS-CoV-2 titer, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serostatus, and enrollment quarter. Outcomes were analyzed using a bayesian proportional cumulative odds model. Efficacy of CCP was defined as a cumulative adjusted odds ratio (cOR) less than 1 and a clinically meaningful effect as cOR less than 0.8. Results: Of 941 participants randomized (473 to placebo and 468 to CCP), 556 were men (59.1%); median age was 63 years (IQR, 52-73); 373 (39.6%) were Hispanic and 132 (14.0%) were non-Hispanic Black. The cOR for the primary outcome adjusted for site, baseline risk, WHO score, age, sex, and symptom duration was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.75-1.18) with posterior probability (P[cOR Conclusions and relevance: In this trial, CCP did not meet the prespecified primary and secondary outcomes for CCP efficacy. However, high-titer CCP may have benefited participants early in the pandemic when remdesivir and corticosteroids were not in use. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364737

COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Therapy: Long-term Implications

BACKGROUND: The long-term effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute treatments on postacute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (PASC) is unknown. The CONTAIN-Extend study explores the long-term impact of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) therapy on postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) symptoms and general health 18 months following hospitalization. METHODS: The CONTAIN-Extend study examined 281 participants from the original CONTAIN COVID-19 trial (CONTAIN-RCT, NCT04364737) at 18 months post-hospitalization for acute COVID-19. Symptom surveys, global health assessments, and biospecimen collection were performed from November 2021 to October 2022. Multivariable logistic and linear regression estimated associations between the randomization arms and self-reported symptoms and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores and adjusted for covariables, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, disease severity, and CONTAIN enrollment quarter and sites. RESULTS: There were no differences in symptoms or PROMIS scores between CCP and placebo (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of general symptoms, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.54-1.67). However, females (aOR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.73-5.34), those 45-64 years (aOR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.14-6.23), and April-June 2020 enrollees (aOR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.10-5.19) were more likely to report general symptoms and have poorer PROMIS physical health scores than their respective reference groups. Hispanic participants (difference, -3.05; 95% CI, -5.82 to -0.27) and Black participants (-4.48; 95% CI, -7.94 to -1.02) had poorer PROMIS physical health than White participants. CONCLUSIONS: CCP demonstrated no lasting effect on PASC symptoms or overall health in comparison to the placebo. This study underscores the significance of demographic factors, including sex, age, and timing of acute infection, in influencing symptom reporting 18 months after acute hypoxic COVID-19 hospitalization

COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Therapy: Long Term Implications

Abstract Background The long-term effect of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute treatments on post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) is unknown. The CONTAIN-Extend study explores the long-term impact of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) therapy on Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) symptoms and general health 18 months following hospitalization. Methods The CONTAIN-Extend study examined 281 participants from the original CONTAIN COVID-19 trial (CONTAIN-RCT, NCT04364737) at 18 months post-hospitalization for acute COVID-19. Symptom surveys, global health assessments, and biospecimen collection was performed from November 2021 to October 2022. Multivariable logistic and linear regression estimated associations between the randomization arms and self-reported symptoms and PROMIS scores, adjusted for covariables, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, disease severity, and CONTAIN enrollment quarter and sites. Results There were no differences in symptoms or PROMIS scores between CCP and placebo (adjusted odds ratio of general symptoms, 0.95; 95% confidence intervals, 0.54, 1.67). However, females (3.01; 1.73, 5.34), those 45-64 years (2.55; 1.14, 6.23), and April-June 2020 enrollees (2.39; 1.10, 5.19) were more likely to report general symptoms and have poorer PROMIS physical health scores than their respective reference groups. Hispanic participants (difference, -3.05; 95% CI, -5.82, -0.27) and Black participants (-4.48; -7.94, -1.02) had poorer PROMIS physical health than White participants. Conclusions CCP demonstrated no lasting effect on PASC symptoms or overall health in comparison to the placebo. This study underscores the significance of demographic factors, including sex, age, and the timing of acute infection, in influencing symptom reporting 18 months after acute hypoxic COVID-19 hospitalization

Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Hospitalized Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial

There is clinical equipoise for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) use in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. To determine the safety and efficacy of CCP compared with placebo in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving noninvasive supplemental oxygen. CONTAIN COVID-19, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of CCP in hospitalized adults with COVID-19, was conducted at 21 US hospitals from April 17, 2020, to March 15, 2021. The trial enrolled 941 participants who were hospitalized for 3 or less days or presented 7 or less days after symptom onset and required noninvasive oxygen supplementation. A unit of approximately 250 mL of CCP or equivalent volume of placebo (normal saline). The primary outcome was participant scores on the 11-point World Health Organization (WHO) Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement on day 14 after randomization; the secondary outcome was WHO scores determined on day 28. Subgroups were analyzed with respect to age, baseline WHO score, concomitant medications, symptom duration, CCP SARS-CoV-2 titer, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serostatus, and enrollment quarter. Outcomes were analyzed using a bayesian proportional cumulative odds model. Efficacy of CCP was defined as a cumulative adjusted odds ratio (cOR) less than 1 and a clinically meaningful effect as cOR less than 0.8. Of 941 participants randomized (473 to placebo and 468 to CCP), 556 were men (59.1%); median age was 63 years (IQR, 52-73); 373 (39.6%) were Hispanic and 132 (14.0%) were non-Hispanic Black. The cOR for the primary outcome adjusted for site, baseline risk, WHO score, age, sex, and symptom duration was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.75-1.18) with posterior probability (P[cOR<1] = 72%); the cOR for the secondary adjusted outcome was 0.92 (95% CrI, 0.74-1.16; P[cOR<1] = 76%). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested heterogeneity of treatment effect: at day 28, cORs were 0.72 (95% CrI, 0.46-1.13; P[cOR<1] = 93%) for participants enrolled in April-June 2020 and 0.65 (95% CrI, 0.41 to 1.02; P[cOR<1] = 97%) for those not receiving remdesivir and not receiving corticosteroids at randomization. Median CCP SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titer used in April to June 2020 was 1:175 (IQR, 76-379). Any adverse events (excluding transfusion reactions) were reported for 39 (8.2%) placebo recipients and 44 (9.4%) CCP recipients (P = .57). Transfusion reactions occurred in 2 (0.4) placebo recipients and 8 (1.7) CCP recipients (P = .06). In this trial, CCP did not meet the prespecified primary and secondary outcomes for CCP efficacy. However, high-titer CCP may have benefited participants early in the pandemic when remdesivir and corticosteroids were not in use. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364737

Age–sex differences in the global burden of lower respiratory infections and risk factors, 1990–2019: results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Summary Background The global burden of lower respiratory infections (LRIs) and corresponding risk factors in children older than 5 years and adults has not been studied as comprehensively as it has been in children younger than 5 years. We assessed the burden and trends of LRIs and risk factors across all age groups by sex, for 204 countries and territories. Methods In this analysis of data for the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019, we used clinician-diagnosed pneumonia or bronchiolitis as our case definition for LRIs. We included International Classification of Diseases 9th edition codes 079.6, 466–469, 470.0, 480–482.8, 483.0–483.9, 484.1–484.2, 484.6–484.7, and 487–489 and International Classification of Diseases 10th edition codes A48.1, A70, B97.4–B97.6, J09–J15.8, J16–J16.9, J20–J21.9, J91.0, P23.0–P23.4, and U04–U04.9. We used the Cause of Death Ensemble modelling strategy to analyse 23 109 site-years of vital registration data, 825 site-years of sample vital registration data, 1766 site-years of verbal autopsy data, and 681 site-years of mortality surveillance data. We used DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, to analyse age–sex-specific incidence and prevalence data identified via systematic reviews of the literature, population-based survey data, and claims and inpatient data. Additionally, we estimated age–sex-specific LRI mortality that is attributable to the independent effects of 14 risk factors. Findings Globally, in 2019, we estimated that there were 257 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 240–275) LRI incident episodes in males and 232 million (217–248) in females. In the same year, LRIs accounted for 1·30 million (95% UI 1·18–1·42) male deaths and 1·20 million (1·07–1·33) female deaths. Age-standardised incidence and mortality rates were 1·17 times (95% UI 1·16–1·18) and 1·31 times (95% UI 1·23–1·41) greater in males than in females in 2019. Between 1990 and 2019, LRI incidence and mortality rates declined at different rates across age groups and an increase in LRI episodes and deaths was estimated among all adult age groups, with males aged 70 years and older having the highest increase in LRI episodes (126·0% [95% UI 121·4–131·1]) and deaths (100·0% [83·4–115·9]). During the same period, LRI episodes and deaths in children younger than 15 years were estimated to have decreased, and the greatest decline was observed for LRI deaths in males younger than 5 years (–70·7% [–77·2 to –61·8]). The leading risk factors for LRI mortality varied across age groups and sex. More than half of global LRI deaths in children younger than 5 years were attributable to child wasting (population attributable fraction [PAF] 53·0% [95% UI 37·7–61·8] in males and 56·4% [40·7–65·1] in females), and more than a quarter of LRI deaths among those aged 5–14 years were attributable to household air pollution (PAF 26·0% [95% UI 16·6–35·5] for males and PAF 25·8% [16·3–35·4] for females). PAFs of male LRI deaths attributed to smoking were 20·4% (95% UI 15·4–25·2) in those aged 15–49 years, 30·5% (24·1–36·9) in those aged 50–69 years, and 21·9% (16·8–27·3) in those aged 70 years and older. PAFs of female LRI deaths attributed to household air pollution were 21·1% (95% UI 14·5–27·9) in those aged 15–49 years and 18·2% (12·5–24·5) in those aged 50–69 years. For females aged 70 years and older, the leading risk factor, ambient particulate matter, was responsible for 11·7% (95% UI 8·2–15·8) of LRI deaths. Interpretation The patterns and progress in reducing the burden of LRIs and key risk factors for mortality varied across age groups and sexes. The progress seen in children younger than 5 years was clearly a result of targeted interventions, such as vaccination and reduction of exposure to risk factors. Similar interventions for other age groups could contribute to the achievement of multiple Sustainable Development Goals targets, including promoting wellbeing at all ages and reducing health inequalities. Interventions, including addressing risk factors such as child wasting, smoking, ambient particulate matter pollution, and household air pollution, would prevent deaths and reduce health disparities

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used