Quality of life and cost-effectiveness of convalescent plasma compared to standard care for hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the CONCOR-1 trial.

BACKGROUND: The CONvalescent Plasma for Hospitalized Adults With COVID-19 Respiratory Illness (CONCOR-1) trial was a multicenter randomized controlled trial assessing convalescent plasma in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of convalescent plasma and its impact on quality-of-life to provide insight into its potential as an alternative treatment in resource-constrained settings. METHODS: Individual patient data on health outcomes and resource utilization from the CONCOR-1 trial were used to conduct the analysis from the Canadian public payer's perspective with a time horizon of 30 days post-randomization. Baseline and 30-day EQ-5D-5L were measured to calculate quality-adjusted survival. All costs are presented in 2021 Canadian dollars. The base case assessed the EQ-5D-5L scores of hospitalized inpatients reporting at both timepoints, and a utility score of 0 was assigned for patients who died within 30 days. Costs for all patients enrolled were used. The sensitivity analysis utilizes EQ-5D-5L scores from the same population but only uses costs from this population. RESULTS: 940 patients were randomized: 627 received CCP and 313 received standard care. The total costs were $28,716 (standard deviation, $25,380) and $24,258 ($22,939) for the convalescent plasma and standard care arms respectively. EQ-5D-5L scores were 0.61 in both arms (p = .85) at baseline. At 30 days, EQ-5D-5L scores were 0.63 and 0.64 for patients in the convalescent plasma and standard care arms, respectively (p = .46). The incremental cost was $4458 and the incremental quality-adjusted life day was -0.078. DISCUSSION: Convalescent plasma was less effective and more costly than standard care in treating hospitalized COVID-19.

Convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: an open-label, randomized controlled trial.

The efficacy of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Although most randomized controlled trials have shown negative results, uncontrolled studies have suggested that the antibody content could influence patient outcomes. We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma for adults with COVID-19 receiving oxygen within 12 d of respiratory symptom onset ( NCT04348656 ). Patients were allocated 2:1 to 500 ml of convalescent plasma or standard of care. The composite primary outcome was intubation or death by 30 d. Exploratory analyses of the effect of convalescent plasma antibodies on the primary outcome was assessed by logistic regression. The trial was terminated at 78% of planned enrollment after meeting stopping criteria for futility. In total, 940 patients were randomized, and 921 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Intubation or death occurred in 199/614 (32.4%) patients in the convalescent plasma arm and 86/307 (28.0%) patients in the standard of care arm-relative risk (RR) = 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.43, P = 0.18). Patients in the convalescent plasma arm had more serious adverse events (33.4% versus 26.4%; RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.02-1.57, P = 0.034). The antibody content significantly modulated the therapeutic effect of convalescent plasma. In multivariate analysis, each standardized log increase in neutralization or antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity independently reduced the potential harmful effect of plasma (odds ratio (OR) = 0.74, 95% CI 0.57-0.95 and OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.87, respectively), whereas IgG against the full transmembrane spike protein increased it (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.14-2.05). Convalescent plasma did not reduce the risk of intubation or death at 30 d in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Transfusion of convalescent plasma with unfavorable antibody profiles could be associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to standard care.

Convalescent plasma for adults with acute COVID-19 respiratory illness (CONCOR-1): study protocol for an international, multicentre, randomized, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been used for numerous viral diseases including influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome, Middle East respiratory syndrome and Ebola virus; however, evidence to support its use is weak. SARS-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus responsible for the 2019 global pandemic of COVID-19 community acquired pneumonia. We have undertaken a randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: CONCOR-1 is an open-label, multicentre, randomized trial. Inclusion criteria include the following: patients > 16 years, admitted to hospital with COVID-19 infection, receiving supplemental oxygen for respiratory complications of COVID-19, and availability of blood group compatible CCP. Exclusion criteria are : onset of respiratory symptoms more than 12 days prior to randomization, intubated or imminent plan for intubation, and previous severe reactions to plasma. Consenting patients are randomized 2:1 to receive either approximately 500 mL of CCP or standard of care. CCP is collected from donors who have recovered from COVID-19 and who have detectable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies quantified serologically. The primary outcome is intubation or death at day 30. Secondary outcomes include ventilator-free days, length of stay in intensive care or hospital, transfusion reactions, serious adverse events, and reduction in SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Exploratory analyses include patients who received CCP containing high titre antibodies. A sample size of 1200 patients gives 80% power to detect a 25% relative risk reduction assuming a 30% baseline risk of intubation or death at 30 days (two-sided test; α = 0.05). An interim analysis and sample size re-estimation will be done by an unblinded independent biostatistician after primary outcome data are available for 50% of the target recruitment (n = 600). DISCUSSION: This trial will determine whether CCP will reduce intubation or death non-intubated adults with COVID-19. The trial will also provide information on the role of and thresholds for SARS-CoV-2 antibody titres and neutralization assays for donor qualification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04348656 . Registered on 16 April 2020.

What matters most to patients about primary healthcare: mixed-methods patient priority setting exercises within the PREFeR (PRioritiEs For Research) project.

OBJECTIVES: To identify patient-generated priority topics for future primary care research in British Columbia (BC), Canada within a diverse patient population. DESIGN: Mixed-methods priority setting exercises framed by the dialogue model, using the nominal group technique (rank-ordered scoring) and province-wide online surveys capturing importance ratings of the top 10 primary healthcare topics from patients and primary care providers. SETTING: BC, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Topic identification was completed by 10 patient partners (7 female, 3 male) from the BC Primary Health Care Research Network Patient Advisory; online surveys were completed by 464 patients and 173 primary care providers. RESULTS: The 10 members recruited to the patient advisory provided over 80 experiences of what stood out for them in BC primary care, which were grouped thematically into 18 topics, 10 of which were retained in province-wide surveys. Top-rated survey topics for both patients (n=464) and providers (n=173) included being unable to find a regular family doctor/other primary healthcare provider, support for living with chronic conditions, mental health resources and information sharing, including electronic medical records. However, all 10 topics were rated important, on average, by both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The current project activities demonstrate the feasibility of including patients in priority setting exercises for primary healthcare in general, rather than focusing on a condition-specific population or disease area. There was considerable overlap between patient-generated topics and topics previously identified by other stakeholders, but patients identified two additional topics (mental health resources, improve and strengthen patient-provider communication). More similarities than differences in topic importance between patients and providers emerged in the online surveys. The project activities that follow (rapid literature reviews, multistakeholder dialogue) will highlight under-researched topics and inform the development of specific research questions.