The development of a patient-centered approach to medicine is gradually allowing more patients to be involved in their own medical decisions. However, this change is not happening at the same rate in clinical research, where research generally continues to be carried out on patients, but not with patients. This work describes the why, when, and how of more active patient participation in the research process. Specific measures are proposed to improve patient involvement in 1) setting priorities, 2) study leadership and design, 3) improved access to clinical trials, 4) preparation and oversight of the information provided to participants, 5) post-study evaluation of the patient experience, and 6) the dissemination and application of results. In order to achieve these aims, the relative emphases on the ethical principles underlying research need to be changed. The current model based on the principle of beneficence must be left behind, and one that upholds the ethical principles of autonomy and non maleficence should be embraced. There is a need to improve the level of information that patients and society as a whole have on research objectives and processes; the goal is to promote the gradual emergence of the expert patient.

Background: Passive immunotherapy with convalescent plasma (CP) is a potential treatment for COVID-19 for which evidence from controlled clinical trials is lacking. Methods: We conducted a multi-center, randomized clinical trial in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. All patients received standard of care treatment, including off-label use of marketed medicines, and were randomized 1:1 to receive one dose (250-300 mL) of CP from donors with IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients in categories 5, 6 or 7 of the COVID-19 ordinal scale at day 15. Results: The trial was stopped after first interim analysis due to the fall in recruitment related to pandemic control. With 81 patients randomized, there were no patients progressing to mechanical ventilation or death among the 38 patients assigned to receive plasma (0%) versus 6 out of 43 patients (14%) progressing in control arm. Mortality rates were 0% vs 9.3% at days 15 and 29 for the active and control groups, respectively. No significant differences were found in secondary endpoints. At inclusion, patients had a median time of 8 days (IQR, 6-9) of symptoms and 49,4% of them were positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. Conclusions: Convalescent plasma could be superior to standard of care in avoiding progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The strong dependence of results on a limited number of events in the control group prevents drawing firm conclusions about CP efficacy from this trial. (Funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III; NCT04345523).

Background: Evidence to support the use of steroids in COVID-19 pneumonia is lacking. We aim to determine the impact of steroid use in COVID-19 pneumonia in-hospital mortality. Patients and Methods: We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study in a University hospital in Madrid, Spain, during March 2020. To determine the role of steroids in in-hospital mortality, patients admitted with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and treated with steroids were compared to patients not treated with steroids, adjusting by a propensity-score for steroid treatment. Survival times were compared using log-rank test. Different steroid regimens were compared, and adjusted with a second propensity score. Results: During the study period, 463 out of 848 hospitalized patients with COVID19 pneumonia fulfilled inclusion criteria. Among them, 396 (46.7%) patients were treated with steroids and 67 patients were not. Global mortality was 15.1%. Median time to steroid treatment from symptom onset was 10 days (IQR 8-13). In-hospital mortality was lower in patients treated with steroids than in controls (13.9% [55/396] versus 23.9% [16/67], HR 0.51 [0.27-0.96], p= 0.044). Steroid treatment reduced mortality by 41.8% relative to no steroid treatment (RRR 0,42 [0.048- 0.65). Initial treatment with 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone versus steroid pulses was not associated with in-hospital mortality (13.5% [42/310] versus 15.1% [13/86], OR 0.880 [0.449-1.726], p=0.710). Conclusions: Our results show that survival of patients with SARS-CoV2 pneumonia is higher in patients treated with glucocorticoids than in those not treated. In-hospital mortality was not different between initial regimens of 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone and glucocorticoid pulses.

for the ConPlas-19 Study Group* *Complete list of the ConPlas-19 study group provided in the Supplement.

IMPORTANCEThe optimal transfusion strategy in patients with acute myocardial infarction and anemia is unclear.OBJECTIVE To determine whether a restrictive transfusion strategy would be clinically noninferior to a liberal strategy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSOpen-label, noninferiority, randomized trial conducted in 35 hospitals in France and Spain including 668 patients with myocardial infarction and hemoglobin level between 7 and 10 g/dL. Enrollment could be considered at any time during the index admission for myocardial infarction. The first participant was enrolled in March 2016 and the last was enrolled in September 2019. The final 30-day follow-up was accrued in November 2019.INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned to undergo a restrictive (transfusion triggered by hemoglobin Յ8; n = 342) or a liberal (transfusion triggered by hemoglobin Յ10 g/dL; n = 324) transfusion strategy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary clinical outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; composite of all-cause death, stroke, recurrent myocardial infarction, or emergency revascularization prompted by ischemia) at 30 days. Noninferiority required that the upper bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the relative risk of the primary outcome be less than 1.25. The secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome. RESULTS Among 668 patients who were randomized, 666 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 77 [69-84] years; 281 [42.2%] women) completed the 30-day follow-up, including 342 in the restrictive transfusion group (122 [35.7%] received transfusion; 342 total units of packed red blood cells transfused) and 324 in the liberal transfusion group (323 [99.7%] received transfusion; 758 total units transfused). At 30 days, MACE occurred in 36 patients (11.0% [95% CI, 7.5%-14.6%]) in the restrictive group and in 45 patients (14.0% [95% CI, 10.0%-17.9%]) in the liberal group (difference, −3.0% [95% CI, −8.4% to 2.4%]). The relative risk of the primary outcome was 0.79 (1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.00-1.19), meeting the prespecified noninferiority criterion. In the restrictive vs liberal group, all-cause death occurred in 5.6% vs 7.7% of patients, recurrent myocardial infarction occurred in 2.1% vs 3.1%, emergency revascularization prompted by ischemia occurred in 1.5% vs 1.9%, and nonfatal ischemic stroke occurred in 0.6% of patients in both groups.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with acute myocardial infarction and anemia, a restrictive compared with a liberal transfusion strategy resulted in a noninferior rate of MACE after 30 days. However, the CI included what may be a clinically important harm.