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.

Correction to: Evaluating the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in severely ill adults with COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill adults with COVID-19 in New York City: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 30,000 patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) have been hospitalized in New York City as of April 14th, 2020. Data on the epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 in this setting are needed. METHODS: We prospectively collected clinical, biomarker, and treatment data on critically ill adults with laboratory-confirmed-COVID-19 admitted to two hospitals in northern Manhattan between March 2nd and April 1st, 2020. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included frequency and duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, frequency of vasopressor use and renal-replacement-therapy, and time to clinical deterioration following hospital admission. The relationship between clinical risk factors, biomarkers, and in-hospital mortality was modeled using Cox-proportional-hazards regression. Each patient had at least 14 days of observation. RESULTS: Of 1,150 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 during the study period, 257 (22%) were critically ill. The median age was 62 years (interquartile range [IQR] 51-72); 170 (66%) were male. Two-hundred twelve (82%) had at least one chronic illness, the most common of which were hypertension (63%; 162/257) and diabetes mellitus (36%; 92/257). One-hundred-thirty-eight patients (54%) were obese, and 13 (5%) were healthcare workers. As of April 14th, 2020, in-hospital mortality was 33% (86/257); 47% (122/257) of patients remained hospitalized. Two-hundred-one (79%) patients received invasive mechanical ventilation (median 13 days [IQR 9-17]), and 54% (138/257) and 29% (75/257) required vasopressors and renal-replacement-therapy, respectively. The median time to clinical deterioration following hospital admission was 3 days (IQR 1-6). Older age, hypertension, chronic lung disease, and higher concentrations of interleukin-6 and d-dimer at admission were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Critical illness among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in New York City is common and associated with a high frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation, extra-pulmonary organ dysfunction, and substantial in-hospital mortality.

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in severely ill adults with COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in hospitalized adults with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a prospective, single-center, phase 2, randomized, controlled trial that is blinded to participants and clinical outcome assessor. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants include adults (≥ 18 years) with evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR test of nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab within 14 days of randomization, evidence of infiltrates on chest radiography, peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≤ 94% on room air, and/or need for supplemental oxygen, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation, who are willing and able to provide written informed consent prior to performing study procedures or who have a legally authorized representative available to do so. Exclusion criteria include participation in another clinical trial of anti-viral agent(s)* for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), receipt of any anti-viral agent(s)* with possible activity against SARS-CoV-2 <24 hours prior to plasma infusion, mechanical ventilation (including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]) for ≥ 5 days, severe multi-organ failure, history of allergic reactions to transfused blood products per NHSN/CDC criteria, known IgA deficiency, and pregnancy. Included participants will be hospitalized at the time of randomization and plasma infusion. *Use of remdesivir as treatment for COVID-19 is permitted. The study will be undertaken at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, USA. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The investigational treatment is anti-SARS-CoV-2 human convalescent plasma. To procure the investigational treatment, volunteers who recovered from COVID-19 will undergo testing to confirm the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody to the spike trimer at a 1:400 dilution. Donors will also be screened for transfusion-transmitted infections (e.g. HIV, HBV, HCV, WNV, HTLV-I/II, T. cruzi, ZIKV). If donors have experienced COVID-19 symptoms within 28 days, they will be screened with a nasopharyngeal swab to confirm they are SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative. Plasma will be collected using standard apheresis technology by the New York Blood Center. Study participants will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive one unit (200 - 250 mL) of anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma versus one unit (200 - 250 mL) of the earliest available control plasma. The control plasma cannot be tested for presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody prior to the transfusion, but will be tested for anti- SARS-CoV-2 antibody after the transfusion to allow for a retrospective per-protocol analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint is time to clinical improvement. This is defined as time from randomization to either discharge from the hospital or improvement by one point on the following seven-point ordinal scale, whichever occurs first. 1. Not hospitalized with resumption of normal activities 2. Not hospitalized, but unable to resume normal activities 3. Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen 4. Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen 5. Hospitalized, requiring high-flow oxygen therapy or non-invasive mechanical ventilation 6. Hospitalized, requiring ECMO, invasive mechanical ventilation, or both 7. Death This scale, designed to assess clinical status over time, was based on that recommended by the World Health Organization for use in determining efficacy end-points in clinical trials in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. A recent clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of lopinavir- ritonavir for patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 used a similar ordinal scale, as have recent clinical trials of novel therapeutics for severe influenza, including a post-hoc analysis of a trial evaluating immune plasma. The primary safety endpoints are cumulative incidence of grade 3 and 4 adverse events and cumulative incidence of serious adverse events during the study period. RANDOMIZATION: Study participants will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma versus control plasma using a web-based randomization platform. Treatment assignments will be generated using randomly permuted blocks of different sizes to minimize imbalance while also minimizing predictability. BLINDING (MASKING): The study participants and the clinicians who will evaluate post-treatment outcomes will be blinded to group assignment. The blood bank and the clinical research team will not be blinded to group assignment. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMIZED (SAMPLE SIZE): We plan to enroll 129 participants, with 86 in the anti-SARS-CoV-2 arm, and 43 in the control arm. Among the participants, we expect ~70% or n = 72 will achieve clinical improvement. This will yield an 80% power for a one-sided Wald test at 0.15 level of significance under the proportional hazards model with a hazard ratio of 1.5. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol AAAS9924, Version 17APR2020, 4/17/2020 Start of recruitment: April 20, 2020 Recruitment is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04359810 Date of trial registration: April 24, 2020 Retrospectively registered FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Correction to: Evaluating the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in severely ill adults with COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill adults with COVID-19 in New York City: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Over 40 000 patients with COVID-19 have been hospitalised in New York City (NY, USA) as of April 28, 2020. Data on the epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 in this setting are needed. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study took place at two NewYork-Presbyterian hospitals affiliated with Columbia University Irving Medical Center in northern Manhattan. We prospectively identified adult patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to both hospitals from March 2 to April 1, 2020, who were diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and were critically ill with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, and collected clinical, biomarker, and treatment data. The primary outcome was the rate of in-hospital death. Secondary outcomes included frequency and duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, frequency of vasopressor use and renal replacement therapy, and time to in-hospital clinical deterioration following admission. The relation between clinical risk factors, biomarkers, and in-hospital mortality was modelled using Cox proportional hazards regression. Follow-up time was right-censored on April 28, 2020 so that each patient had at least 28 days of observation. FINDINGS: Between March 2 and April 1, 2020, 1150 adults were admitted to both hospitals with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, of which 257 (22%) were critically ill. The median age of patients was 62 years (IQR 51-72), 171 (67%) were men. 212 (82%) patients had at least one chronic illness, the most common of which were hypertension (162 [63%]) and diabetes (92 [36%]). 119 (46%) patients had obesity. As of April 28, 2020, 101 (39%) patients had died and 94 (37%) remained hospitalised. 203 (79%) patients received invasive mechanical ventilation for a median of 18 days (IQR 9-28), 170 (66%) of 257 patients received vasopressors and 79 (31%) received renal replacement therapy. The median time to in-hospital deterioration was 3 days (IQR 1-6). In the multivariable Cox model, older age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1·31 [1·09-1·57] per 10-year increase), chronic cardiac disease (aHR 1·76 [1·08-2·86]), chronic pulmonary disease (aHR 2·94 [1·48-5·84]), higher concentrations of interleukin-6 (aHR 1·11 [95%CI 1·02-1·20] per decile increase), and higher concentrations of D-dimer (aHR 1·10 [1·01-1·19] per decile increase) were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. INTERPRETATION: Critical illness among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in New York City is common and associated with a high frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation, extrapulmonary organ dysfunction, and substantial in-hospital mortality. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, and the Columbia University Irving Institute for Clinical and Translational Research.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Major Blunt Trauma.

This review assesses the appropriateness of various imaging studies for adult major blunt trauma or polytrauma in the acute setting. Trauma is the leading cause of mortality for people in the United States <45 years of age, and the fourth leading cause of death overall. Imaging, in particular CT, plays a critical role in the management of these patients, and a number of indications are discussed in this publication, including patients who are hemodynamically stable or unstable; patients with additional injuries to the face, extremities, chest, bowel, or urinary system; and pregnant patients. Excluded from consideration in this review are penetrating traumatic injuries, burns, and injuries to pediatric patients. Patients with suspected injury to the head and spine are also discussed more specifically in other appropriateness criteria documents. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® First Trimester Vaginal Bleeding.

Vaginal bleeding is not uncommon in the first trimester of pregnancy. The majority of such patients will have a normal intrauterine pregnancy (IUP), a nonviable IUP, or an ectopic pregnancy. Ultrasound (US) is the primary imaging modality in evaluation of these patients. US, along with clinical observations and serum human chorionic gonadotropin levels, can usually distinguish these causes. Although it is important to diagnose ectopic pregnancies and nonviable IUPs, one should also guard against injury to normal pregnancies due to inappropriate treatment with methotrexate or surgical intervention. Less common causes of first trimester vaginal bleeding include gestational trophoblastic disease and arteriovenous malformations. Pulsed methods of Doppler US should generally be avoided in the first trimester when there is a normal, or a potentially normal, IUP. Once a normal IUP has been excluded, Doppler US may be useful when other diagnoses such as retained products of conception or arteriovenous malformations are suspected. MRI may occasionally be helpful as a problem-solving tool. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria Assessment of Fetal Well-Being.

Although there is limited evidence that antepartum testing decreases the risk for fetal death in low-risk pregnancies, women with high-risk factors for stillbirth should undergo antenatal fetal surveillance. The strongest evidence supporting antepartum testing pertains to pregnancies complicated by intrauterine fetal growth restriction secondary to uteroplacental insufficiency. The main ultrasound-based modalities to determine fetal health are the biophysical profile, modified biophysical profile, and duplex Doppler velocimetry. In patients at risk for cardiovascular compromise, fetal echocardiography may also be indicated to ensure fetal well-being. Although no single antenatal test has been shown to be superior, all have high negative predictive values. Weekly or twice-weekly fetal testing has become the standard practice in high-risk pregnancies. The timing for the initiation of assessments of fetal well-being should be tailored on the basis of the risk for stillbirth and the likelihood of survival with intervention. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Acute Pelvic Pain in the Reproductive Age Group.

Acute pelvic pain in premenopausal women frequently poses a diagnostic dilemma. These patients may exhibit nonspecific signs and symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and leukocytosis. The cause of pelvic pain includes a myriad of diagnostic possibilities such as obstetric, gynecologic, urologic, gastrointestinal, and vascular etiologies. The choice of the imaging modality is usually determined by a suspected clinical differential diagnosis. Thus the patient should undergo careful evaluation and the suspected differential diagnosis should be narrowed before an optimal imaging modality is chosen. Transvaginal and transabdominal pelvic sonography is the modality of choice, to assess for pelvic pain, when an obstetric or gynecologic etiology is suspected and computed tomography is often more useful when gastrointestinal or genitourinary pathology is thought to be more likely. Magnetic resonance imaging, when available in the acute setting, is favored over computed tomography for assessing pregnant patients for nongynecologic etiologies owing to its lack of ionizing radiation.The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria® are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every three years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.