Yongpei Yu

Importance: Convalescent plasma is a potential therapeutic option for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but further data from randomized clinical trials are needed. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of convalescent plasma therapy for patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed in 7 medical centers in Wuhan, China, from February 14, 2020, to April 1, 2020, with final follow-up April 28, 2020. The trial included 103 participants with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 that was severe (respiratory distress and/or hypoxemia) or life-threatening (shock, organ failure, or requiring mechanical ventilation). The trial was terminated early after 103 of a planned 200 patients were enrolled. Intervention: Convalescent plasma in addition to standard treatment (n = 52) vs standard treatment alone (control) (n = 51), stratified by disease severity. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was time to clinical improvement within 28 days, defined as patient discharged alive or reduction of 2 points on a 6-point disease severity scale (ranging from 1 [discharge] to 6 [death]). Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, time to discharge, and the rate of viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results turned from positive at baseline to negative at up to 72 hours. Results: Of 103 patients who were randomized (median age, 70 years; 60 [58.3%] male), 101 (98.1%) completed the trial. Clinical improvement occurred within 28 days in 51.9% (27/52) of the convalescent plasma group vs 43.1% (22/51) in the control group (difference, 8.8% [95% CI, -10.4% to 28.0%]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [95% CI, 0.79-2.49]; P = .26). Among those with severe disease, the primary outcome occurred in 91.3% (21/23) of the convalescent plasma group vs 68.2% (15/22) of the control group (HR, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.07-4.32]; P = .03); among those with life-threatening disease the primary outcome occurred in 20.7% (6/29) of the convalescent plasma group vs 24.1% (7/29) of the control group (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.30-2.63]; P = .83) (P for interaction = .17). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (15.7% vs 24.0%; OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.22-1.59]; P = .30) or time from randomization to discharge (51.0% vs 36.0% discharged by day 28; HR, 1.61 [95% CI, 0.88-2.95]; P = .12). Convalescent plasma treatment was associated with a negative conversion rate of viral PCR at 72 hours in 87.2% of the convalescent plasma group vs 37.5% of the control group (OR, 11.39 [95% CI, 3.91-33.18]; P < .001). Two patients in the convalescent plasma group experienced adverse events within hours after transfusion that improved with supportive care. Conclusion and Relevance: Among patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, convalescent plasma therapy added to standard treatment, compared with standard treatment alone, did not result in a statistically significant improvement in time to clinical improvement within 28 days. Interpretation is limited by early termination of the trial, which may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000029757.

Abstract Treatment of severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is challenging. We performed a phase 2 trial to assess the efficacy and safety of human umbilical cord-mesenchymal stem cells (UC-MSCs) to treat severe COVID-19 patients with lung damage, based on our phase 1 data. In this randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled trial, we recruited 101 severe COVID-19 patients with lung damage. They were randomly assigned at a 2:1 ratio to receive either UC-MSCs (4 × 10 7 cells per infusion) or placebo on day 0, 3, and 6. The primary endpoint was an altered proportion of whole lung lesion volumes from baseline to day 28. Other imaging outcomes, 6-minute walk test (6-MWT), maximum vital capacity, diffusing capacity, and adverse events were recorded and analyzed. In all, 100 COVID-19 patients were finally received either UC-MSCs ( n = 65) or placebo ( n = 35). UC-MSCs administration exerted numerical improvement in whole lung lesion volume from baseline to day 28 compared with the placebo (the median difference was −13.31%, 95% CI −29.14%, 2.13%, P = 0.080). UC-MSCs significantly reduced the proportions of solid component lesion volume compared with the placebo (median difference: −15.45%; 95% CI −30.82%, −0.39%; P = 0.043). The 6-MWT showed an increased distance in patients treated with UC-MSCs (difference: 27.00 m; 95% CI 0.00, 57.00; P = 0.057). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. These results suggest that UC-MSCs treatment is a safe and potentially effective therapeutic approach for COVID-19 patients with lung damage. A phase 3 trial is required to evaluate effects on reducing mortality and preventing long-term pulmonary disability. (Funded by The National Key R&amp;D Program of China and others. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04288102.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a next-generation, all-suture anchor in patients undergoing arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears, compared with that of an established solid suture anchor. METHODS: Between April 2019 and January 2021, a prospective, comparative, randomized controlled noninferiority study conducted on people with Chinese ethnicity at 3 tertiary hospitals enrolled patients (18-75 years) requiring arthroscopic treatment for rotator cuff tears. Patients were randomized into 2 cohorts receiving either all-suture anchor or solid suture anchor and followed for 12 months. The primary outcome was the Constant-Murley score at the 12-month follow-up. Magnetic resonance imaging assessments determined the rate of retear of rotator cuff repair (defined as Sugaya classification 4 and 5). Safety evaluation was performed at all follow-up points to determine the adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: In total, 120 patients with rotator cuff tears (mean age, 58.3 years; 62.5% female; 60 receiving all-suture anchor) underwent treatment. Five patients were lost to follow-up. Both cohorts showed significant improvement in Constant-Murley scores between baseline and 6 months (P < .001) and between 6 and 12 months (P < .001). There were no significant differences in Constant-Murley scores between the 2 cohorts at 12 months (P = .122) after operation. The retear rate at 12 months was 5.7% and 1.9% in the all-suture and solid suture anchor cohorts, respectively (P = .618). There were 2 cases of intraoperative anchor pullout, both of which were successfully resolved. No cases of postoperative reoperation or other anchor-related AEs were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The all-suture anchor offered equivalent clinical performance to an established solid suture anchor at the 12-month follow-up in patients undergoing arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears. The retear rate was not statistically significantly different between the 2 cohorts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, randomized controlled trial.