No abstract

Objectives Test effects of an intervention that helps families manage distressful behaviors. Design Two-group randomized trial Setting In-home Participants 272 caregivers and dementia patients Intervention Up to 11 home/telephone contacts over 16-weeks by health professionals who identified potential triggers of patient behaviors including communication, environment, patient undiagnosed medical conditions (by obtaining blood/urine samples), and trained caregivers in strategies to modify triggers and reduce caregiver upset. Between 16–24 weeks, 3 telephone contacts reinforced strategy use. Measurements Primary outcomes included frequency of targeted problem behavior, and caregiver upset with and confidence managing it at 16-weeks. Secondary outcomes included caregiver well-being and management skills at 16 and 24 weeks, and caregiver perceived benefits. Prevalence of medical conditions for intervention patients were also examined. Results At 16 weeks, 67.5% of intervention caregivers reported patient improvement in targeted problem behavior compared to 45.8% of caregivers in a no-treatment control group (p=.002), reduced upset with (p=.028) and enhanced confidence managing (p=.011) the behavior. Additionally, compared to controls, intervention caregivers reported less upset with all problem behaviors (p=.001), negative communication (p=.017), burden (p=.051), and improved well-being (p=.001). Fewer intervention caregivers had depressive symptoms (53.0%) than control group caregivers (67.8%, p=.020). Similar caregiver outcomes occurred at 24-weeks. Compared to controls, intervention caregivers perceived more study benefits (p values <.05) including ability to keep patients home. Blood/urine samples of intervention patients showed 40 (34.1%) had undiagnosed illnesses requiring physician follow-up. Conclusion Targeting behaviors upsetting to caregivers and modifying potential triggers improves patient symptomatology and caregiver well-being and skills.

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.