A randomized double-blind controlled trial of convalescent plasma in adults with severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUNDAlthough convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), data from randomized controlled trials that support its efficacy are limited.METHODSWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial among adults hospitalized with severe and critical COVID-19 at 5 sites in New York City (USA) and Rio de Janeiro (Brazil). Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive a single transfusion of either convalescent plasma or normal control plasma. The primary outcome was clinical status at 28 days following randomization, measured using an ordinal scale and analyzed using a proportional odds model in the intention-to-treat population.RESULTSOf 223 participants enrolled, 150 were randomized to receive convalescent plasma and 73 to receive normal control plasma. At 28 days, no significant improvement in the clinical scale was observed in participants randomized to convalescent plasma (OR 1.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-2.68, P = 0.180). However, 28-day mortality was significantly lower in participants randomized to convalescent plasma versus control plasma (19/150 [12.6%] versus 18/73 [24.6%], OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22-0.91, P = 0.034). The median titer of anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody in infused convalescent plasma units was 1:160 (IQR 1:80-1:320). In a subset of nasopharyngeal swab samples from Brazil that underwent genomic sequencing, no evidence of neutralization-escape mutants was detected.CONCLUSIONIn adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19, use of convalescent plasma was not associated with significant improvement in day 28 clinical status. However, convalescent plasma was associated with significantly improved survival. A possible explanation is that survivors remained hospitalized at their baseline clinical status.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04359810.FUNDINGAmazon Foundation, Skoll Foundation.

N-of-1 Randomized Intervention Trials in Health Psychology: A Systematic Review and Methodology Critique.

Background: Single-patient, multiple cross-over designs (N-of-1 or single-case randomized clinical trials) with systematic data collection on treatment effects may be useful for increasing the precision of treatments in health psychology. Purposes: To assess the quality of the methods and statistics, describe interventions and outcomes, and explore the heterogeneity of treatment effect of health psychology N-of-1 trials. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of N-of-1 trials from electronic database inception through June 1, 2015. Potentially relevant articles were identified by searching the biomedical electronic databases Ovid, MEDLINE, EMBASE, all six databases in the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, and conference proceedings, dissertations, ongoing studies, Open Grey, and the New York Academy's Grey Literature Report. Studies were included if they had health behavior or psychological outcomes and the order of interventions was randomized. We abstracted study characteristics and analytic methods and used the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension for reporting N-of-1 trials as a quality checklist. Results: Fifty-four N-of-1 trial publications composed of 1,193 participants were included. Less than half of these (36%) reported adequate information to calculate the heterogeneity of treatment effect. Nearly all (90%) provided some quantitative information to determine the superior treatment; 79% used an a priori statistical cutoff, 12% used a graph, and 10% used a combination. Conclusions: N-of-1 randomized trials could be the next major advance in health psychology for precision therapeutics. However, they must be conducted with more methodologic and statistical rigor and must be transparently and fully reported.