Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
JAMA. 2021 Mar 23;325(12):1185-1195. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.2747.
Convalescent plasma is a proposed treatment for COVID-19.
To assess clinical outcomes with convalescent plasma treatment vs placebo or standard of care in peer-reviewed and preprint publications or press releases of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
PubMed, the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, and the Living Overview of Evidence platform were searched until January 29, 2021.
The RCTs selected compared any type of convalescent plasma vs placebo or standard of care for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in any treatment setting.
Two reviewers independently extracted data on relevant clinical outcomes, trial characteristics, and patient characteristics and used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. The primary analysis included peer-reviewed publications of RCTs only, whereas the secondary analysis included all publicly available RCT data (peer-reviewed publications, preprints, and press releases). Inverse variance-weighted meta-analyses were conducted to summarize the treatment effects. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.
All-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, mechanical ventilation use, and serious adverse events.
A total of 1060 patients from 4 peer-reviewed RCTs and 10 722 patients from 6 other publicly available RCTs were included. The summary risk ratio (RR) for all-cause mortality with convalescent plasma in the 4 peer-reviewed RCTs was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.38), the absolute risk difference was -1.21% (95% CI, -5.29% to 2.88%), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision. Across all 10 RCTs, the summary RR was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.12) and there was moderate certainty of the evidence due to inclusion of unpublished data. Among the peer-reviewed RCTs, the summary hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.07 to 20.34) for length of hospital stay, the summary RR was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.20 to 2.87) for mechanical ventilation use (the absolute risk difference for mechanical ventilation use was -2.56% [95% CI, -13.16% to 8.05%]), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision for both outcomes. Limited data on clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, and serious adverse events showed no significant differences.
Treatment with convalescent plasma compared with placebo or standard of care was not significantly associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality or with any benefit for other clinical outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate for all-cause mortality and low for other outcomes.
恢复期血浆是一种治疗 COVID-19 的方法。
评估在同行评审和预印本出版物或随机临床试验(RCT)的新闻稿中,恢复期血浆治疗与安慰剂或标准治疗相比的临床结局。
PubMed、Cochrane COVID-19 试验注册处和 Living Overview of Evidence 平台检索至 2021 年 1 月 29 日。
入选的 RCT 比较了任何类型的恢复期血浆与安慰剂或标准治疗用于任何治疗环境中确诊或疑似 COVID-19 的患者。
两名审查员独立提取了相关临床结局、试验特征和患者特征的数据,并使用了 Cochrane 风险偏倚评估工具。主要分析仅包括同行评审出版物的 RCT,而次要分析包括所有公开可用的 RCT 数据(同行评审出版物、预印本和新闻稿)。采用方差倒数加权荟萃分析总结治疗效果。使用推荐评估、制定和评估(GRADE)评估证据的确定性。
所有原因死亡率、住院时间、临床改善、临床恶化、机械通气使用和严重不良事件。
共有来自 4 项同行评审 RCT 的 1060 名患者和来自 6 项其他公开可用 RCT 的 10722 名患者被纳入研究。在 4 项同行评审 RCT 中,恢复期血浆治疗的所有原因死亡率的汇总风险比(RR)为 0.93(95%CI,0.63 至 1.38),绝对风险差异为-1.21%(95%CI,-5.29%至 2.88%),证据确定性因不精确而较低。在所有 10 项 RCT 中,汇总 RR 为 1.02(95%CI,0.92 至 1.12),由于纳入了未发表的数据,证据确定性为中等。在同行评审 RCT 中,住院时间的汇总风险比为 1.17(95%CI,0.07 至 20.34),机械通气使用的汇总 RR 为 0.76(95%CI,0.20 至 2.87)(机械通气使用的绝对风险差异为-2.56%[95%CI,-13.16%至 8.05%]),由于不精确,这两个结局的证据确定性都较低。关于临床改善、临床恶化和严重不良事件的有限数据表明没有显著差异。
与安慰剂或标准治疗相比,恢复期血浆治疗与全因死亡率降低或其他临床结局改善均无显著相关性。全因死亡率的证据确定性为低至中等,其他结局的证据确定性为低。