Abstract
Introduction Randomised trials are generally performed from a frequentist perspective reporting point estimates and 95% confidence intervals. This approach can confuse “evidence of no effect” with “no evidence of an effect” and does not allow for contextual knowledge. The RECOVERY trial evaluated convalescent plasma for patients hospitalised with COVID-19, the interaction test for the primary outcome was not statistically significant, and the trial concluded no evidence of an effect. From the clinical immunology perspective, there is strong justification to expect differential responses to convalescent plasma in patients who already have their own antibodies to SARS-CoV2 (seropositive) versus those who do not (seronegative).
Methods Outcome data was extracted from the RECOVERY trial both overall and for seronegative participants. A Bayesian re-analysis with a wide variety of priors (vague, optimistic, skeptical and pessimistic) was performed calculating the posterior probability for both any benefit or a modest benefit (number needed to treat of 100).
Results Across all patients, when analysed with a vague prior the likelihood of any benefit or a modest benefit was estimated to be 64% and 18% respectively. In contrast, in the seronegative subgroup, the likelihood of any benefit or a modest benefit was estimated to be 90% and 74%. Results were broadly consistent across all prior distributions.
Conclusion Performing clinical trials during a pandemic is challenging, and RECOVERY has provided high quality evidence for numerous therapies. However, the use of frequentist hypothesis testing in this trial has led to the trialists and governing bodies to conclude a strong evidence of no effect. Based on this trial, and other prior knowledge there remains a strong probability that convalescent plasma provides at least a modest benefit in seronegative patients.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
FH's time was funded by the Wellcome Doctoral GW4 scheme. No formal funding was required for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This is a re-analysis of published data; therefore no IRB approval required.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All code is available in the appendix. All raw data is available in the RECOVERY pre-print
