Search

Multiple randomized, controlled clinical trials have yielded discordant results regarding the efficacy of convalescent plasma in outpatients, with some showing an approximately 2-fold reduction in risk and others showing no effect. We quantified binding and neutralizing antibody levels in 492 of the 511 participants from the Clinical Trial of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Outpatients (C3PO) of a single unit of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) versus saline infusion. In a subset of 70 participants, peripheral blood mononuclear cells were obtained to define the evolution of B and T cell responses through day 30. Binding and neutralizing antibody responses were approximately 2-fold higher 1 hour after infusion in recipients of CCP compared with saline plus multivitamin, but levels achieved by the native immune system by day 15 were almost 10-fold higher than those seen immediately after CCP administration. Infusion of CCP did not block generation of the host antibody response or skew B or T cell phenotype or maturation. Activated CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were associated with more severe disease outcome. These data show that CCP leads to a measurable boost in anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies but that the boost is modest and may not be sufficient to alter disease course.

BackgroundEarly administration of convalescent plasma obtained from blood donors who have recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) may prevent disease progression in acutely ill, high-risk patients with Covid-19.MethodsIn this randomized, multicenter, single-blind trial, we assigned patients who were being treated in an emergency department for Covid-19 symptoms to receive either one unit of convalescent plasma with a high titer of antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or placebo. All the patients were either 50 years of age or older or had one or more risk factors for disease progression. In addition, all the patients presented to the emergency department within 7 days after symptom onset and were in stable condition for outpatient management. The primary outcome was disease progression within 15 days after randomization, which was a composite of hospital admission for any reason, seeking emergency or urgent care, or death without hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included the worst severity of illness on an 8-category ordinal scale, hospital-free days within 30 days after randomization, and death from any cause.ResultsA total of 511 patients were enrolled in the trial (257 in the convalescent-plasma group and 254 in the placebo group). The median age of the patients was 54 years; the median symptom duration was 4 days. In the donor plasma samples, the median titer of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies was 1:641. Disease progression occurred in 77 patients (30.0%) in the convalescent-plasma group and in 81 patients (31.9%) in the placebo group (risk difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% credible interval, -6.0 to 9.8; posterior probability of superiority of convalescent plasma, 0.68). Five patients in the plasma group and 1 patient in the placebo group died. Outcomes regarding worst illness severity and hospital-free days were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsThe administration of Covid-19 convalescent plasma to high-risk outpatients within 1 week after the onset of symptoms of Covid-19 did not prevent disease progression. (SIREN-C3PO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04355767.).

ObjectivesIn patients with acute recurrent pancreatitis (ARP), pancreas divisum, and no other etiologic factors, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with minor papilla endoscopic sphincterotomy (miES) is often performed to enlarge the minor papillary orifice, based on limited data. The aims of this study are to describe the rationale and methodology of a sham-controlled clinical trial designed to test the hypothesis that miES reduces the risk of acute pancreatitis.MethodsThe SpHincterotomy for Acute Recurrent Pancreatitis (SHARP) trial is a multicenter, international, sham-controlled, randomized trial comparing endoscopic ultrasound + ERCP with miES versus endoscopic ultrasound + sham for the management of ARP. A total of 234 consented patients having 2 or more discrete episodes of acute pancreatitis, pancreas divisum confirmed by magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, and no other clear etiology for acute pancreatitis will be randomized. Both cohorts will be followed for a minimum of 6 months and a maximum of 48 months.ResultsThe trial is powered to detect a 33% risk reduction of acute pancreatitis frequency.ConclusionsThe SHARP trial will determine whether ERCP with miES benefits patients with idiopathic ARP and pancreas divisum. Trial planning has informed the importance of blinded outcome assessors and long-term follow-up.

ObjectiveTo examine the effectiveness of intramuscular (IM) midazolam versus intravenous (IV) lorazepam for the treatment of pediatric patients with status epilepticus (SE) in the prehospital care setting.MethodsThis multicenter clinical trial randomized patients diagnosed with SE to receive either IM midazolam or IV lorazepam administered by paramedics in the prehospital care setting. Included in this secondary analysis were only patients younger than 18 years of age. Evaluated were the associations of the treatment group (IM vs. IV) with the primary outcome, defined as seizure cessation prior to emergency department (ED) arrival, and with patient characteristics, time to important events, and adverse events. Descriptive statistics and 99% confidence intervals (CIs) were used for the analysis.ResultsOf 893 primary study subjects, 120 met criteria for this study (60 in each treatment group). There were no differences in important baseline characteristics or seizure etiologies between groups. The primary outcome was met in 41 (68.3%) and 43 (71.7%) of subjects in the IM and IV groups, respectively (risk difference [RD] -3.3%, 99% CI -24.9% to 18.2%). Similar results were noted for those younger than 11 years (RD -1.3%, 99% CI -25.7% to 23.1%). Time from initiating the treatment protocol was shorter for children who received IM midazolam, mainly due to the shorter time to administer the active treatment. Safety profiles were similar.SignificanceIM midazolam can be rapidly administered and appears to be safe and effective for the management of children with SE treated in the prehospital setting. The results must be interpreted in the context of the secondary analysis design and sample size of the study.

Background: The etiology of acute liver failure (ALF) remains one of the most important factors in determining prognosis and predicting outcomes. In a significant proportion of ALF cases, however, the etiology remains unknown and is categorized as indeterminate ALF (IND‐ALF). In this study, we summarize findings from patients with IND‐ALF from 32 transplant centers across the United States, and we compare laboratory, prognostic, and outcome data for patients with IND‐ALF. Methods: Between 1998 and 2019, 3364 adult patients with ALF or acute liver injury (ALI) from 32 liver transplant centers were enrolled in the ALFSG registry. The primary clinical outcome of interest was 21‐day transplant‐free survival (TFS). Results: Of the 3364 patients enrolled in the ALFSG registry, 3.4 % (n = 114) were adjudicated as true indeterminate. On multivariate analysis, patients with a lower bilirubin, lower INR, lack of use of mechanical ventilation and no clinical features of coma at baseline had a higher odds ratio of transplant free survival. The number of deaths were similar between patients with true‐IND ALF versus patients with indeterminable ALF (29.8% vs. 27.2%), with almost half of the patients requiring liver transplant (42.1% vs. 45.7%). Conclusion: We illustrate the poor prognoses that true‐IND‐ALF and indeterminable ALF carry and the need for emergency liver transplantation in most cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Outpatient monoclonal antibodies are no longer effective and antiviral treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease remain largely unavailable in many countries worldwide. Although treatment with COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is promising, clinical trials among outpatients have shown mixed results. Methods We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis from outpatient trials to assess the overall risk reduction for all-cause hospitalizations by day 28 in transfused participants. Relevant trials were identified by searching Medline, Embase, medRxiv, World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from January 2020 to September 2022. Results Five included studies from 4 countries enrolled and transfused 2620 adult patients. Comorbidities were present in 1795 (69%). The virus neutralizing antibody dilutional titer levels ranged from 8 to 14 580 in diverse assays. One hundred sixty of 1315 (12.2%) control patients were hospitalized, versus 111 of 1305 (8.5%) CCP-treated patients, yielding a 3.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3%–6.0%; P =.001) absolute risk reduction and 30.1% relative risk reduction for all-cause hospitalization. The hospitalization reduction was greatest in those with both early transfusion and high titer with a 7.6% absolute risk reduction (95% CI, 4.0%–11.1%; P =.0001) accompanied by at 51.4% relative risk reduction. No significant reduction in hospitalization was seen with treatment >5 days after symptom onset or in those receiving CCP with antibody titers below the median titer. Conclusions Among outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with CCP reduced the rate of all-cause hospitalization and may be most effective when given within 5 days of symptom onset and when antibody titer is higher. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using the ongoing NIDDK-funded multicenter randomized clinical trial, Sphincterotomy for Acute Recurrent Pancreatitis (SHARP) as an example, this article discusses the rationale and key aspects of study design that need to be considered when conducting a clinical trial of endoscopic therapy in acute pancreatitis. SHARP, the first trial using a sham ERCP in the placebo group, is designed to address a decades long controversy in clinical pancreatology, i.e. whether minor papilla sphincterotomy benefits patients with idiopathic acute recurrent pancreatitis who also have pancreas divisum. Although the trial has already enrolled and randomized over 5 times the number of subjects enrolled in the only randomized trial in this area published in 1992 (107 vs. 19), recruitment has been challenging and we are at ∼46% of target recruitment. The review discusses the challenges in the execution of the trial and strategies the SHARP team has used to address these, which investigators planning or considering treatment trials in pancreatitis may find helpful. It will also inform the general gastroenterologists the importance of discussing and referring potentially eligible subjects to centers participating in clinical trials. Developing evidence-based treatment will provide a solid scientific basis for physicians to recommend evidence-based treatments for pancreatitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical trial design and analysis often assume study population homogeneity, although patient baseline profile and standard of care may evolve over time, especially in trials with long recruitment periods. The time-trend phenomenon can affect the treatment estimation and the operating characteristics of trials with Bayesian response adaptive randomization (BRAR). The mechanism of time-trend impact on BRAR is increasingly being studied but some aspects remain unclear. The goal of this research is to quantify the bias in treatment effect estimation due to the use of BRAR in the presence of time-trend. In addition, simulations are conducted to compare the performance of three commonly used BRAR algorithms under different time-trend patterns with and without early stopping rules. The results demonstrate that using these BRAR methods in a two-arm trial with time-trend may cause type I error inflation and treatment effect estimation bias. The magnitude and direction of the bias are affected by the parameters of the BRAR algorithm and the time-trend pattern. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Hyperglycemia during acute ischemic stroke is common and is associated with worse outcomes. The efficacy of intensive treatment of hyperglycemia in this setting remains unknown.Objectives: To determine the efficacy of intensive treatment of hyperglycemia during acute ischemic stroke.Design, Setting, and Participants: The Stroke Hyperglycemia Insulin Network Effort (SHINE) randomized clinical trial included adult patients with hyperglycemia (glucose concentration of >110 mg/dL if had diabetes or ≥150 mg/dL if did not have diabetes) and acute ischemic stroke who were enrolled within 12 hours from stroke onset at 63 US sites between April 2012 and August 2018; follow-up ended in November 2018. The trial included 1151 patients who met eligibility criteria.Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive continuous intravenous insulin using a computerized decision support tool (target blood glucose concentration of 80-130 mg/dL [4.4-7.2 mmol/L]; intensive treatment group: n = 581) or insulin on a sliding scale that was administered subcutaneously (target blood glucose concentration of 80-179 mg/dL [4.4-9.9 mmol/L]; standard treatment group: n = 570) for up to 72 hours.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients with a favorable outcome based on the 90-day modified Rankin Scale score (a global stroke disability scale ranging from 0 [no symptoms or completely recovered] to 6 [death]) that was adjusted for baseline stroke severity.Results: Among 1151 patients who were randomized (mean age, 66 years [SD, 13.1 years]; 529 [46%] women, 920 [80%] with diabetes), 1118 (97%) completed the trial. Enrollment was stopped for futility based on prespecified interim analysis criteria. During treatment, the mean blood glucose level was 118 mg/dL (6.6 mmol/L) in the intensive treatment group and 179 mg/dL (9.9 mmol/L) in the standard treatment group. A favorable outcome occurred in 119 of 581 patients (20.5%) in the intensive treatment group and in 123 of 570 patients (21.6%) in the standard treatment group (adjusted relative risk, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.08], P = .55; unadjusted risk difference, -0.83% [95% CI, -5.72% to 4.06%]). Treatment was stopped early for hypoglycemia or other adverse events in 65 of 581 patients (11.2%) in the intensive treatment group and in 18 of 570 patients (3.2%) in the standard treatment group. Severe hypoglycemia occurred only among patients in the intensive treatment group (15/581 [2.6%]; risk difference, 2.58% [95% CI, 1.29% to 3.87%]).Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute ischemic stroke and hyperglycemia, treatment with intensive vs standard glucose control for up to 72 hours did not result in a significant difference in favorable functional outcome at 90 days. These findings do not support using intensive glucose control in this setting.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01369069. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]