Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this multicenter, double-blind trial of convalescent plasma for early, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, 1225 patients were randomly assigned to receive convalescent plasma or control plasma within 9 days after the onset of symptoms. Significantly fewer recipients of convalescent plasma had progression of Covid-19–associated illness leading to hospitalization.

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. 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. 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). In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

BACKGROUNDCOVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been considered a treatment option for COVID-19. This trial assessed the efficacy of a neutralizing antibody containing high-dose CCP in hospitalized adults with COVID-19 requiring respiratory support or intensive care treatment.METHODSPatients (n = 105) were randomized 1:1 to either receive standard treatment and 3 units of CCP or standard treatment alone. Control group patients with progress on day 14 could cross over to the CCP group. The primary outcome was a dichotomous composite outcome of survival and no longer fulfilling criteria for severe COVID-19 on day 21.ResultsThe primary outcome occurred in 43.4% of patients in the CCP group and 32.7% in the control group (P = 0.32). The median time to clinical improvement was 26 days in the CCP group and 66 days in the control group (P = 0.27). The median time to discharge from the hospital was 31 days in the CCP group and 51 days in the control group (P = 0.24). In the subgroup that received a higher cumulative amount of neutralizing antibodies, the primary outcome occurred in 56.0% of the patients (vs. 32.1%), with significantly shorter intervals to clinical improvement (20 vs. 66 days, P < 0.05) and to hospital discharge (21 vs. 51 days, P = 0.03) and better survival (day-60 probability of survival 91.6% vs. 68.1%, P = 0.02) in comparison with the control group.ConclusionCCP added to standard treatment was not associated with a significant improvement in the primary and secondary outcomes. A predefined subgroup analysis showed a significant benefit of CCP among patients who received a larger amount of neutralizing antibodies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04433910.FundingBundesministerium für Gesundheit (German Federal Ministry of Health): ZMVI1-2520COR802.

The United States (US) Expanded Access Program (EAP) to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma was initiated in response to the rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of COVID-19. While randomized clinical trials were in various stages of development and enrollment, there was an urgent need for widespread access to potential therapeutic agents. The objective of this study is to report on the demographic, geographical, and chronological characteristics of patients in the EAP, and key safety metrics following transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma. Mayo Clinic served as the central institutional review board for all participating facilities, and any US physician could participate as a local physician-principal investigator. Eligible patients were hospitalized, were aged 18 years or older, and had-or were at risk of progression to-severe or life-threatening COVID-19; eligible patients were enrolled through the EAP central website. Blood collection facilities rapidly implemented programs to collect convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Demographic and clinical characteristics of all enrolled patients in the EAP were summarized. Temporal patterns in access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma were investigated by comparing daily and weekly changes in EAP enrollment in response to changes in infection rate at the state level. Geographical analyses on access to convalescent plasma included assessing EAP enrollment in all national hospital referral regions, as well as assessing enrollment in metropolitan areas and less populated areas that did not have access to COVID-19 clinical trials. From April 3 to August 23, 2020, 105,717 hospitalized patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19 were enrolled in the EAP. The majority of patients were 60 years of age or older (57.8%), were male (58.4%), and had overweight or obesity (83.8%). There was substantial inclusion of minorities and underserved populations: 46.4% of patients were of a race other than white, and 37.2% of patients were of Hispanic ethnicity. Chronologically and geographically, increases in the number of both enrollments and transfusions in the EAP closely followed confirmed infections across all 50 states. Nearly all national hospital referral regions enrolled and transfused patients in the EAP, including both in metropolitan and in less populated areas. The incidence of serious adverse events was objectively low (<1%), and the overall crude 30-day mortality rate was 25.2% (95% CI, 25.0% to 25.5%). This registry study was limited by the observational and pragmatic study design that did not include a control or comparator group; thus, the data should not be used to infer definitive treatment effects. These results suggest that the EAP provided widespread access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma in all 50 states, including for underserved racial and ethnic minority populations. The study design of the EAP may serve as a model for future efforts when broad access to a treatment is needed in response to an emerging infectious disease. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT#: NCT04338360.

Convalescent plasma (CP), despite limited evidence on its efficacy, is being widely used as a compassionate therapy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early CP therapy in COVID-19 progression. The study was an open-label, single-center randomized clinical trial performed in an academic medical center in Santiago, Chile, from May 10, 2020, to July 18, 2020, with final follow-up until August 17, 2020. The trial included patients hospitalized within the first 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset, presenting risk factors for illness progression and not on mechanical ventilation. The intervention consisted of immediate CP (early plasma group) versus no CP unless developing prespecified criteria of deterioration (deferred plasma group). Additional standard treatment was allowed in both arms. The primary outcome was a composite of mechanical ventilation, hospitalization for >14 days, or death. The key secondary outcomes included time to respiratory failure, days of mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, mortality at 30 days, and SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR clearance rate. Of 58 randomized patients (mean age, 65.8 years; 50% male), 57 (98.3%) completed the trial. A total of 13 (43.3%) participants from the deferred group received plasma based on clinical aggravation. We failed to find benefit in the primary outcome (32.1% versus 33.3%, odds ratio [OR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.32-2.84, p > 0.999) in the early versus deferred CP group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 17.9% versus 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54-17.17 p = 0.246), mechanical ventilation 17.9% versus 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54-17.17, p = 0.246), and prolonged hospitalization 21.4% versus 30.0% (OR 0.64, 95% CI, 0.19-2.10, p = 0.554) in the early versus deferred CP group, respectively. The viral clearance rate on day 3 (26% versus 8%, p = 0.204) and day 7 (38% versus 19%, p = 0.374) did not differ between groups. Two patients experienced serious adverse events within 6 hours after plasma transfusion. The main limitation of this study is the lack of statistical power to detect a smaller but clinically relevant therapeutic effect of CP, as well as not having confirmed neutralizing antibodies in donor before plasma infusion. In the present study, we failed to find evidence of benefit in mortality, length of hospitalization, or mechanical ventilation requirement by immediate addition of CP therapy in the early stages of COVID-19 compared to its use only in case of patient deterioration. NCT04375098.

BackgroundAntibody-based strategies for COVID-19 have shown promise in prevention and treatment of early disease. COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been widely used but results from randomized trials supporting its benefit in hospitalized patients with pneumonia are limited. Here, we assess the efficacy of CCP in severely ill, hospitalized adults with COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsWe performed a randomized control trial (PennCCP2), with 80 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia, comparing up to 2 units of locally sourced CCP plus standard care versus standard care alone. The primary efficacy endpoint was comparison of a clinical severity score. Key secondary outcomes include 14- and 28-day mortality, 14- and 28-day maximum 8-point WHO ordinal score (WHO8) score, duration of supplemental oxygenation or mechanical ventilation, respiratory SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.ResultsEighty hospitalized adults with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia were enrolled at median day 6 of symptoms and day 1 of hospitalization; 60% were anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody seronegative. Participants had a median of 3 comorbidities, including risk factors for severe COVID-19 and immunosuppression. CCP treatment was safe and conferred significant benefit by clinical severity score (median [MED] and interquartile range [IQR] 10 [5.5-30] vs. 7 [2.75-12.25], P = 0.037) and 28-day mortality (n = 10, 26% vs. n = 2, 5%; P = 0.013). All other prespecified outcome measures showed weak evidence toward benefit of CCP.ConclusionTwo units of locally sourced CCP administered early in hospitalization to majority seronegative participants conferred a significant benefit in clinical severity score and 28-day mortality. Results suggest CCP may benefit select populations, especially those with comorbidities who are treated early.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04397757.FundingUniversity of Pennsylvania.

Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) is a severe respiratory illness with an overall mortality of 35%. There is no licensed or proven treatment. Passive immunotherapy approaches are being developed to prevent and treat several human medical conditions where alternative therapeutic options are absent. We report the safety of a fully human polyclonal IgG antibody (SAB-301) produced from the hyperimmune plasma of transchromosomic cattle immunised with a MERS coronavirus vaccine. We did a phase 1 double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose escalation trial at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center. We recruited healthy participants aged 18–60 years who had normal laboratory parameters at enrolment, a body-mass index of 19–32 kg/m2, and a creatinine clearance of 70 mL/min or more, and who did not have any chronic medical problems that required daily oral medications, a positive rheumatoid factor (≥15 IU/mL), IgA deficiency (<7 mg/dL), or history of allergy to intravenous immunoglobulin or human blood products. Participants were randomly assigned by a computer-generated table, made by a masked pharmacist, to one of six cohorts (containing between three and ten participants each). Cohorts 1 and 2 had three participants, randomly assigned 2:1 to receive active drug SAB-301 versus normal saline placebo; cohorts 3 and 4 had six participants randomised 2:1; and cohorts 5 and 6 had ten participants, randomised 4:1. Participants received 1 mg/kg, 2·5 mg/kg, 5 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg, 20 mg/kg, or 50 mg/kg of SAB-301, or equivalent volume placebo (saline control), on day 0, and were followed up by clinical, laboratory, and pharmacokinetic assessments on days 1, 3, 7, 21, 42, and 90. The primary outcome was safety, and immunogenicity was a secondary outcome. We analysed the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02788188. Between June 2, 2016, and Jan 4, 2017, we screened 43 participants, of whom 38 were eligible and randomly assigned to receive SAB-301 (n=28) or placebo (n=10). 97 adverse events were reported: 64 adverse events occurred in 23 (82%) of 28 participants receiving SAB-301 (mean 2·3 adverse events per participant). 33 adverse events occurred in all ten participants receiving placebo (mean 3·3 adverse events per participant). The most common adverse events were headache (n=6 [21%] in participants who received SAB-301 and n=2 [20%] in those receiving placebo), albuminuria (n=5 [18%] vs n=2 [20%]), myalgia (n=3 [11%] vs n=1 [10%]), increased creatine kinase (n=3 [11%] vs 1 [10%]), and common cold (n=3 [11%] vs n=2 [20%]). There was one serious adverse event (hospital admission for suicide attempt) in one participant who received 50 mg/kg of SAB-301. The area under the concentration–time curve (AUC) in the 50 mg/kg dose (27 498 μg × days per mL) is comparable to the AUC that was associated with efficacy in a preclinical model. Single infusions of SAB-301 up to 50 mg/kg appear to be safe and well tolerated in healthy participants. Human immunoglobulin derived from transchromosomic cattle could offer a new platform technology to produce fully human polyclonal IgG antibodies for other medical conditions. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.

Background Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a treatment option for osteoarthritis of the knee. After undergoing TKA, patients can be treated with continuous passive motion (CPM); however, inconsistent results have been reported on the effectiveness of CPM as part of a rehabilitation strategy. This discrepancy may be due to the difference between the set-arc of CPM and real arcs of knee motion. In this randomized controlled trial, we compared the efficacy of the sitting-type CPM, which can apply a more fitted arc of motion, to that of the conventional CPM. Methods We performed a prospective, multicenter, single-blind, three-arm, randomized controlled trial. Patients who underwent unilateral TKA were recruited and randomly allocated to three groups (151 participants; Group 1, conventional type; Group 2, mixed; and Group 3, sitting type). All participants underwent 10 days of CPM management. Passive and active ranges of motion (ROMs), pain, lower-extremity edema, patient-reported outcomes, and functional assessments were evaluated at four time points. Results Passive and active ROMs and pain significantly improved during and after the intervention in all groups; however, no significant differences were noted between the groups. Compared with the conventional type, the sitting-type CPM devices were rated higher in participant’s satisfaction questionnaires. Conclusion The sitting-type CPM had equivalent efficacy to that of the conventional-type CPM but provided higher satisfaction to patients after TKA. Therefore, the sitting-type CPM may be a useful tool in post-TKA rehabilitation. Clinical trial registration This clincial trial was registed with the Clinical Research Information Service of Republic of Korea, KCT0005520, Registered on 21 October 2020, date of first enrollment at 10/11/2020 https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do/21750 .

Flexor tendon injuries in zone II of the hand pose serious clinical complications due to the high risk of adhesion formation and suboptimal clinical outcomes, although controlled active motion (CAM) and early passive mobilization (EPM) are standard protocols used during rehabilitation. This randomized trial compared functional outcomes between CAM and EPM systems after zone II flexor tendon repair. Forty patients with entire zone II flexor digitorum profundus and superficialis tears were randomly assigned to either the CAM or EPM protocol for 12 weeks’ rehabilitation. Total active motion (TAM), grip strength, and disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) scores were assessed in the 6th and 12th week after the repair. Two-way mixed ANOVA was used to determine the effect of the treatment regarding the type of protocol and time within and between groups, as well as, Cohen’s d was used to calculate the effect size. There was a significant improvement over time in both groups for all measured outcomes (p < 0.001). However, CAM showed superior results than EPM across all time points (6th and 12th week); for TAM (p < 0.05, Cohen's d =11.8 and 9.9), grip strength (p < 0.05, Cohen's d = 7.97 and 9.7), and DASH score (p < 0.05, Cohen's d = 5.8 and 5.5). By 12 weeks, 80% of CAM patients achieved an \"excellent\" rating according to the Strickland formula of the TAM grading compared with 55% for the EPM group. While both CAM and EPM protocols improve functional status after zone II flexor tendon repair, CAM confers a distinct early advantage in a digital range of motion and manual function compared with EPM. These data support the preferred adoption of the CAM rehabilitation approach after area II flexor tendon surgical repair. •The CAM and EPM protocols improved the outcomes in flexor tendon injuries rehabilitation in zone II.•The CAM had a superior effect during the first few weeks in the rehabilitation.•Early addition of the wrist tenodesis exercises showed better outcomes.

In this study, in a high-risk population of patients admitted for COVID-19, we found an earlier time to hospital discharge among participants receiving CCP with nAb titers of >1:640 compared with participants receiving CCP with a lower nAb titer and no CCP-related AEs. The significance of our research is in identifying a dose response of CCP and clinical outcomes based on nAb titer. COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) was an early and widely adopted putative therapy for severe COVID-19. Results from randomized control trials and observational studies have failed to demonstrate a clear therapeutic role for CCP for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Underlying these inconclusive findings is a broad heterogeneity in the concentrations of neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) between different CCP donors. We conducted this study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of nAb titer-defined CCP in adults admitted to an academic referral hospital. Patients positive by a SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test and with symptoms for <10 days were eligible. Participants received either CCP with nAb titers of >1:640 (high-titer group) or ≥1:160 to 1:640 (standard-titer group) in addition to standard of care treatments. The primary clinical outcome was time to hospital discharge, with mortality and respiratory support evaluated as secondary outcomes. Adverse events were contrasted by CCP titer. Between 28 August and 4 December 2020, 316 participants were screened, and 55 received CCP, with 14 and 41 receiving high- versus standard-titer CCP, respectively. Time to hospital discharge was shorter among participants receiving high- versus standard-titer CCP, accounting for death as a competing event (hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 3.58; Gray’s P = 0.02). Severe adverse events (SAEs) (≥grade 3) occurred in 4 (29%) and 23 (56%) of participants receiving the high versus standard titer, respectively, by day 28 (risk ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.21 to 1.22; Fisher’s P = 0.12). There were no observed treatment-related AEs. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT04524507). IMPORTANCE In this study, in a high-risk population of patients admitted for COVID-19, we found an earlier time to hospital discharge among participants receiving CCP with nAb titers of >1:640 compared with participants receiving CCP with a lower nAb titer and no CCP-related AEs. The significance of our research is in identifying a dose response of CCP and clinical outcomes based on nAb titer. Although limited by a small study size, these findings support further study of high-nAb-titer CCP defined as >1:640 in the treatment of COVID-19.