CClinicalTrials.gg
TerminatedNCT04847141COVID-19Updated Dec 5, 2022Results posted

A Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of C19-IG 20% in SARS-CoV-2 Infected Asymptomatic Ambulatory Outpatients

A Phase 3 interventional study of C19-IG 20% and 0.9% Sodium chloride in COVID-19 and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection, sponsored by Grifols Therapeutics LLC. Terminated at 12 sites in Spain. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2022-12-05.

Sponsored by Grifols Therapeutics LLC · Phase 3, Interventional, and Treatment

Why this study was terminated
Study Stopped for Futility
Phase
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
465
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The purpose of the study is to compare the efficacy of anti-COVID-19 immune globulin (human) 20% (C19-IG 20%) (2 doses) versus placebo with regard to the percentage of asymptomatic participants who remain asymptomatic, i.e., who do not develop symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) through Day 14 as per the protocol defined criteria.

02

Conditions studied

  • COVID-19
  • Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection

Keywords

  • Coronavirus disease
  • Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
  • SARS-CoV-2
  • COVID-19
  • Asymptomatic
03

In context

Infections

6,688 studies on the registry are indexed under Infections; 807 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 465 is above the median of 120 across 4,201 interventional studies indexed under Infections.

Browse Infections studies →

Lead sponsor

Grifols Therapeutics LLC is the lead sponsor of 43 studies on the registry; 4 are open to participants now.

Of its 12 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 11 (92%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  1. Ambulatory male or female outpatients ≥ 18 years of age who have laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection as determined by qualitative PCR (reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR), or other commercial or public health assay approved by regulatory authorities as a diagnostic test for COVID-19 (inclusive of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing or other approved rapid testing platforms) in any specimen ≤ 5 days prior to randomized treatment.
  2. Asymptomatic with no constitutional COVID-19 illness (evident symptoms), specifically no fever, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, anorexia, vomiting/diarrhea, headache that is unrelated to pre-existing conditions (example, migraine), sore throat that is unrelated to other pre-existing medical conditions (example, allergies, gastroesophageal reflux disease), myalgias, olfactory disorders unrelated with previous medical condition, or evidence of pneumonia at Screening.
  3. Pulse oximetry peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) (oxygen saturation) on room air > 94% (i.e., 95% to 100%) at Screening.
  4. National Early Warning Score (NEWS) ≤ 2 points at Screening.
  5. Participant provides informed consent (ICF) prior to initiation of any study procedures.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Participants who are admitted to hospital or for whom hospital admission is being planned at the time of Screening.
  2. Participants requiring any form of oxygen supplementation at Screening.
  3. Concurrent or planned treatment with other agents with actual or possible direct antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 including remdesivir.
  4. Prior, concurrent or planned treatment with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against SARS-CoV-2
  5. Have participated in a previous SARS-CoV-2 vaccine study OR outside of a study have received any SARS-CoV-2 vaccine of any kind.
  6. Have a history of convalescent COVID-19 plasma treatment at Screening.
  7. Fever (temperature ≥38.0° C [≥100.4° F]), measured orally, requirement for antipyretics to reduce temperature (administered for fever), and/or respiratory symptoms (cough, dyspnea) at Screening.
  8. Clinical evidence of any significant acute or chronic disease that, in the opinion of the investigator, may place the participant at undue medical risk for study treatment.
  9. The participant has had a known (documented) history of serious anaphylactic reaction to blood, any blood-derived plasma product or commercial immunoglobulin, or has known selective immunoglobulin A (IgA) deficiency with anti-IgA antibodies.
  10. Decompensated congestive heart failure or renal failure with fluid overload. This includes currently uncontrolled congestive heart failure New York Heart Association Class III or IV stage heart failure.
  11. Participants for whom there is limitation of therapeutic effort such as "Do not resuscitate" status.
  12. Currently participating in another interventional clinical trial with investigational medical product or device.
  13. Participants with known (documented) thrombotic complications to polyclonal intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) therapy in the past.
  14. Participant has medical condition (other than COVID-19) that is projected to limit lifespan to ≤ 1 year.
  15. Participant has history of drug or alcohol abuse within the past 12 months.
  16. Participant is unwilling to commit to follow-up visits.
  17. Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if of childbearing potential, unwilling to practice a highly effective method of contraception (oral, injectable, or implanted hormonal methods of contraception, placement of an intrauterine device or intrauterine system, condom, or occlusive cap with spermicidal foam/gel/cream/suppository, male sterilization, or true abstinence) throughout the study.

    • True abstinence: When this is in line with the preferred and usual lifestyle of the participant. (Periodic abstinence [e.g., calendar, ovulation, symptothermal, post-ovulation methods], declaration of abstinence for the duration of a trial, and withdrawal are not acceptable methods of contraception).
    • Note: Women who are >55 years and with the absence of menses in the last 12 months are considered to be not of childbearing potential. Female participants of childbearing potential must have a negative test for pregnancy blood or urine human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG)-based assay at Screening/Baseline Visit.
05

Study design

Phase
Phase 3
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Quadruple (Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
465 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    C19-IG 20% 1 g

    Participants will receive 1 gram (g) of C19-IG 20% subcutaneous (SC) infusion containing one syringe of 5 milliliters (mL) C19-IG 20% plus one syringe of 5 mL sterile 0.9% sodium chloride (NaCl) on Day 1.

    Biological: C19-IG 20% · Drug: 0.9% Sodium chloride

  • Experimental
    C19-IG 20% 2 g

    Participants will receive 2 g of C19-IG 20% SC infusion containing two syringes 5 mL each of C19-IG 20% on Day 1.

    Biological: C19-IG 20%

  • Placebo comparator
    Placebo

    Participants will receive C19-IG 20% matching placebo as SC infusion containing two syringes of 5 mL each sterile 0.9% NaCl injection on Day 1.

    Drug: 0.9% Sodium chloride

Interventions

  • BiologicalC19-IG 20%

    Anti-COVID-19 Immune Globulin (Human) 20%

  • Drug0.9% Sodium chloride

    C19-IG 20% matching placebo

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Percentage of Asymptomatic Participants Who Remained Asymptomatic, i.e., Who Did Not Develop Symptomatic COVID-19 Through Day 14

    Participants were described as symptomatic if they a. experienced at least two of the following systemic symptoms: fever (≥38 ºC), chills, myalgia, headache, sore throat, cough, fatigue that interferes with activities of daily living, new olfactory/taste disorder(s), and vomiting/diarrhea, b. experienced at least one of the following respiratory signs/symptoms: new or worsening shortness of breath or difficulty breathing; c. experienced a peripheral oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry (SpO2) \<94% on room air; or d. had radiographical evidence of pneumonia. The percentage of participants who meet the primary endpoint within each treatment group was presented along with a two-sided exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval (CI).

    Time frame: Up to Day 14

Secondary outcomes

  1. Change From Baseline in SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load (log10 Copies/mL)

    Mean change from baseline (CFB) in log10 SARS-CoV-2 viral load at Days 7 and 14 was assessed.

    Time frame: Baseline to Day 7 and Day 14

  2. Percentage of Participants Who Remained in an Outpatient Setting and Maintained SpO2 ≥94% on Room Air on Day 3, Day 7, and Day 14

    An outpatient setting was defined as no hospitalization or intensive care unit (ICU) admission through Days 3, 7, and 14. The percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting and maintained SpO2 ≥94% on room air at each timepoint within each treatment group were presented along with a two-sided exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% CI. p-value and 95% CI were not estimable for C19-IG 20% 1 g vs placebo as all participants had remained in an outpatient setting and maintained SpO2 ≥94% on Room Air in C19-IG 20% 1 g and placebo arm on Day 3.

    Time frame: Day 3, Day 7, and Day 14

  3. Percentage of Participants Negative for SARS-CoV-2 by Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Test at Multiple Timepoints Through Day 14 and Through Day 29

    The percentage of participants with negative SARS-CoV-2 by PCR through Day 14 and Day 29 within each treatment group was presented along with a two-sided exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% CI.

    Time frame: Day 3, Day 7, Day 14, and Day 29

  4. Time to Negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR From Baseline Through Day 29

    The first negative test result was defined as the first PCR negative result after the first PCR positive result. Kaplan-Meier method was used for analysis. Participants who did not have any viral load data or had negative test results through the study were excluded from the KM analysis.

    Time frame: Baseline to Day 29

  5. Percentage of Participants Who Required Oxygen (O2) Supplementation on or Before Day 29

    The percentage of participants requiring oxygen supplementation through Day 29 within each treatment group was presented along with a two-sided exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% CI.

    Time frame: Up to Day 29

  6. Duration of Any Oxygen Use Through Day 29

    The duration (number of days) of any oxygen use from Day 1 through Day 29 was calculated based on the start/stop date of using oxygen supplementation.

    Time frame: Up to Day 29

  7. Absolute Value Score on a 7-point Ordinal Scale

    The ordinal scale is a 7-point scale ranging from 1 to 7 used to measure clinical status of a participant based on the following points: 1) death; 2) hospitalized, on invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); 3) hospitalized, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices; 4) hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen; 5) hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen; 6) not hospitalized, limitation on activities; and 7) not hospitalized, no limitations on activities. A higher score indicates less severity.

    Time frame: Baseline, Day 7, 14, and 29

  8. Mean Change From Baseline in the 7-point Ordinal Scale

    The ordinal scale is a 7-point scale ranging from 1 to 7 used to measure clinical status of a participant based on the following points: 1) death; 2) hospitalized, on invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO; 3) hospitalized, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices; 4) hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen; 5) hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen; 6) not hospitalized, limitation on activities; and 7) not hospitalized, no limitations on activities. A higher score indicates less severity. The analysis was performed by using a linear mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).

    Time frame: Baseline to Day 7, Day 14, and Day 29

  9. Percentage of Participants in Each Severity Category of the 7-point Ordinal Scale

    The ordinal scale is a 7-point scale ranging from 1 to 7 used to measure clinical status of a participant based on the following points: 1) death; 2) hospitalized, on invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO; 3) hospitalized, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices; 4) hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen; 5) hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen; 6) not hospitalized, limitation on activities; and 7) not hospitalized, no limitations on activities.

    Time frame: Days 1, 7, 14, and 29

  10. Change From Baseline in National Early Warning Score (NEWS)

    The NEWS has demonstrated an ability to classify participants at risk of poor outcomes. This score is based on 7 clinical parameters (respiration rate, oxygen saturation, any supplemental oxygen, temperature, systolic blood pressure (BP), heart rate, level of consciousness \[Alert, Voice, Pain, Unresponsive\]). A score of 0 to 3 was allocated to each parameter except supplemental oxygen use (score of 0 or 2) and level of consciousness (score of 0 \[alert, normal health condition\] or 3 \[altered mental state/confusion, worst health condition\]). All parameter scores were summed to get an aggregate NEWS assessment. Scoring for NEWS ranges from 0 to 20, with higher scores meaning more severity/higher clinical risk: low risk (score 1 to 4); medium risk (score 5 to 6); high risk (score 7 to 20). The analysis is performed by using a linear MMRM.

    Time frame: Baseline to Day 7, Day 14, and Day 29

  11. Percentage of Participants Who Required At Least One COVID-19 Related Medically Attended Visit (MAV) for Management/Treatment of COVID-19 Which May Have Occurred in Any Setting Through Day 29

    MAV for management/treatment of COVID-19 may have occurred in any setting e.g., emergency department, urgent care, outpatient clinic, or professional setting wherein direct in-person/telemedicine medical assessment and escalation of care for COVID-19 was provided by licensed healthcare personnel. The percentage of participants requiring at least one COVID-19-related MAV for management/treatment of COVID-19 (apart from routinely scheduled study-directed visits) within each treatment group was presented along with a two-sided exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% CI.

    Time frame: Up to Day 29

  12. Percentage of Participants Who Required Hospital Admission for Medical Care (Non-Quarantine Purposes) Through Day 29

    The percentage of participants requiring hospital admission through Day 29 within each treatment group was presented along with a two-sided exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% CI.

    Time frame: Up to Day 29

  13. Duration of Hospital Stay Through Day 29

    The duration (number of days) of hospitalization from post-randomization through Day 29 was calculated based on hospital admission and discharge dates recorded.

    Time frame: Up to Day 29

  14. Percentage of Participants Who Required Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Admission or Initiation of ICU Level Care Through Day 29

    The percentage of participants requiring ICU admission through Day 29 within each treatment group was presented along with a two-sided exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% CI. ICU level care is defined as the medical need for intensive or invasive monitoring; the immediate or impending need for the support of the airway, breathing, or circulation; and/or stabilization of acute severe, or life-threatening complications of COVID-19.

    Time frame: Up to Day 29

  15. Duration of ICU Stay Through Day 29

    The duration (number of days) of ICU stay from post-randomization through Day 29 was calculated based on ICU admission and discharge dates recorded.

    Time frame: Up to Day 29

  16. Percentage of Participants Requiring Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Through Day 29

    The percentage of participants requiring invasive mechanical ventilation through Day 29 within each treatment group was presented along with a two-sided exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% CI.

    Time frame: Up to Day 29

  17. Duration of Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Through Day 29

    The duration (number of days) on invasive mechanical ventilation from post randomization through Day 29 was calculated based on the start/stop dates of invasive mechanical ventilation.

    Time frame: Up to Day 29

  18. All-Cause Mortality Through Day 29

    All-cause mortality rate is the percentage of participants in each treatment group who experienced mortality up to Day 29.

    Time frame: Up to Day 29

  19. Percentage of Participants With Critical COVID-19 Illness

    Critical COVID-19 illness was defined as any one of the following: (a) requiring ICU admission or ICU level of care, (b) invasive mechanical ventilation, or (c) resulting in death by Day 29. The percentage of participants with critical COVID-19 illness defined above within each treatment group was presented along with a two-sided exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% CI.

    Time frame: Up to Day 29

  20. Length of Time to Clinical Progression to Critical COVID-19 Illness Through Day 29

    Length of time to clinical progression to critical COVID-19 illness was defined as the time to death, invasive mechanical ventilation, or ICU admission/requiring ICU level of care. ICU level care is defined as the medical need for intensive or invasive monitoring; the immediate or impending need for the support of the airway, breathing, or circulation; and/or stabilization of acute severe, or life-threatening complications of COVID-19. The time to clinical progression was estimated using the KM method.

    Time frame: Up to Day 29

  21. Time to COVID-19 Symptoms Through Day 14

    Participants were described as symptomatic if they a. experienced at least two of the following systemic symptoms: fever (≥38℃), chills, myalgia, headache, sore throat, cough, fatigue that interferes with activities of daily living, new olfactory/taste disorder(s), and vomiting/diarrhea, b. experienced at least one of the following respiratory signs/symptoms: new or worsening shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, c. experienced a peripheral oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry (SpO2) \<94% on room air, or d. had radiographical evidence of pneumonia. Time to COVID-19 symptoms was defined as the time from study drug administration to the first time point when any of the above elements was fulfilled through Day 14. The time to COVID-19 symptoms was estimated using the KM method.

    Time frame: Up to Day 14

07

Results

Posted Dec 5, 2022
Limitations and caveats
The study was terminated for futility.

Participant flow

Participants were enrolled in the study at 5 centers in Spain. The study was conducted from 28 April 2021 to 27 December 2021.

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneC19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlacebo
Started152153156
Completed142143145
Not completed101011
Withdrew: Adverse event101
Withdrew: Withdrawal by subject243
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up757
Withdrew: Reason not specified010

Outcome measures

PrimaryPercentage of Asymptomatic Participants Who Remained Asymptomatic, i.e., Who Did Not Develop Symptomatic COVID-19 Through Day 14

Participants were described as symptomatic if they a. experienced at least two of the following systemic symptoms: fever (≥38 ºC), chills, myalgia, headache, sore throat, cough, fatigue that interferes with activities of daily living, new olfactory/taste disorder(s), and vomiting/diarrhea, b. experienced at least one of the following respiratory signs/symptoms: new or worsening shortness of breath or difficulty breathing; c. experienced a peripheral oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry (SpO2) \<94% on room air; or d. had radiographical evidence of pneumonia. The percentage of participants who meet the primary endpoint within each treatment group was presented along with a two-sided exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval (CI).

Time frame:
Up to Day 14
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Asymptomatic Participants Who Remained Asymptomatic, i.e., Who Did Not Develop Symptomatic COVID-19 Through Day 14
percentage of participantsC19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlacebo
Percentage of Asymptomatic Participants Who Remained Asymptomatic, i.e., Who Did Not Develop Symptomatic COVID-19 Through Day 1459.9 (51.6 to 67.7)64.7 (56.6 to 72.3)63.5 (55.4 to 71.0)
Statistical analysis
  • C19-IG 20% 1 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.5167 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants meeting the primary efficacy endpoint between C19-IG 20% 1 g and placebo.) · Difference in percentage: -3.6 · 95% CI -14.6 to 7.495% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.8197 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants meeting the primary efficacy endpoint between C19-IG 20% 2 g and placebo.) · Difference in percentage: 1.2 · 95% CI -9.6 to 12.095% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load (log10 Copies/mL)

Mean change from baseline (CFB) in log10 SARS-CoV-2 viral load at Days 7 and 14 was assessed.

Time frame:
Baseline to Day 7 and Day 14
Reported as:
Least squares mean · log10 copies/mL
Change From Baseline in SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load (log10 Copies/mL)
log10 copies/mLC19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlacebo
Change from Baseline at Day 7-1.49 (-1.74 to -1.25)-1.76 (-2.01 to -1.51)-1.59 (-1.83 to -1.35)
Change from Baseline at Day 14-2.80 (-2.97 to -2.64)-3.02 (-3.19 to -2.85)-2.91 (-3.08 to -2.75)
Statistical analysis
  • C19-IG 20% 1 g vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.5756 · Least squares (ls) mean difference: 0.10 · 95% CI -0.24 to 0.4495% CI for the difference in LS Mean between 1 g C19-IG 20% dose group \& placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including CFB value as dependent variable; treatment group as fixed effect; \& baseline viral load value, age, \& gender as covariates.
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.3289 · Ls mean difference: -0.17 · 95% CI -0.52 to 0.1795% CI for the difference in LS Mean between 2 g C19-IG 20% dose group \& placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including CFB value as dependent variable; treatment group as fixed effect; \& baseline viral load value, age, \& gender as covariates.
  • C19-IG 20% 1 g vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.3418 · Ls mean difference: 0.11 · 95% CI -0.12 to 0.3495% CI for the difference in LS Mean between 1 g C19-IG 20% dose group \& placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including CFB value as dependent variable; treatment group as fixed effect; \& baseline viral load value, age, \& gender as covariates.
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.3688 · Ls mean difference: -0.11 · 95% CI -0.34 to 0.1395% CI for the difference in LS Mean between 2 g C19-IG 20% dose group \& placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including CFB value as dependent variable; treatment group as fixed effect; \& baseline viral load value, age, \& gender as covariates.
SecondaryPercentage of Participants Who Remained in an Outpatient Setting and Maintained SpO2 ≥94% on Room Air on Day 3, Day 7, and Day 14

An outpatient setting was defined as no hospitalization or intensive care unit (ICU) admission through Days 3, 7, and 14. The percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting and maintained SpO2 ≥94% on room air at each timepoint within each treatment group were presented along with a two-sided exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% CI. p-value and 95% CI were not estimable for C19-IG 20% 1 g vs placebo as all participants had remained in an outpatient setting and maintained SpO2 ≥94% on Room Air in C19-IG 20% 1 g and placebo arm on Day 3.

Time frame:
Day 3, Day 7, and Day 14
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants Who Remained in an Outpatient Setting and Maintained SpO2 ≥94% on Room Air on Day 3, Day 7, and Day 14
percentage of participantsC19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlacebo
Day 3100 (97.6 to 100)98.7 (95.3 to 99.8)100 (97.7 to 100)
Day 7100 (97.6 to 100)96.7 (92.4 to 98.9)98.7 (95.5 to 99.8)
Day 1495.3 (90.5 to 98.1)94.0 (88.8 to 97.2)96.1 (91.7 to 98.6)
Statistical analysis
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.1506 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 2 g \& placebo.) · Difference in percentage: -1.3 · 95% CI -4.7 to 1.295% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
  • C19-IG 20% 1 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.1655 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 1 g \& placebo.) · Difference in percentage: 1.3 · 95% CI -1.3 to 4.695% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.2337 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 2 g \& placebo.) · Difference in percentage: -2.0 · 95% CI -6.5 to 1.795% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
  • C19-IG 20% 1 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.7212 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 1 g \& placebo.) · Difference in percentage: -0.8 · 95% CI -6.1 to 4.295% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.3897 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 2 g \& placebo.) · Difference in percentage: -2.1 · 95% CI -7.8 to 3.195% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
SecondaryPercentage of Participants Negative for SARS-CoV-2 by Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Test at Multiple Timepoints Through Day 14 and Through Day 29

The percentage of participants with negative SARS-CoV-2 by PCR through Day 14 and Day 29 within each treatment group was presented along with a two-sided exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% CI.

Time frame:
Day 3, Day 7, Day 14, and Day 29
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants Negative for SARS-CoV-2 by Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Test at Multiple Timepoints Through Day 14 and Through Day 29
percentage of participantsC19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlacebo
Day 329.1 (21.9 to 37.1)30.4 (23.1 to 38.5)26.0 (19.3 to 33.7)
Day 737.8 (29.8 to 46.3)44.0 (35.6 to 52.6)36.1 (28.3 to 44.4)
Day 1465.2 (56.5 to 73.2)74.1 (65.8 to 81.2)67.2 (58.6 to 74.9)
Day 2992.0 (85.8 to 96.1)89.0 (82.2 to 93.8)87.1 (79.9 to 92.4)
Statistical analysis
  • C19-IG 20% 1 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.5489 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.) · Difference in percentage: 3.1 · 95% CI -7.1 to 13.395% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.3920 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.) · Difference in percentage: 4.4 · 95% CI -5.8 to 14.795% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
  • C19-IG 20% 1 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.7632 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.) · Difference in percentage: 1.7 · 95% CI -9.5 to 12.995% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.1702 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.) · Difference in percentage: 7.9 · 95% CI -3.6 to 19.295% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
  • C19-IG 20% 1 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.7316 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.) · Difference in percentage: -2.0 · 95% CI -13.3 to 9.495% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.2104 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.) · Difference in percentage: 6.9 · 95% CI -4.2 to 18.095% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
  • C19-IG 20% 1 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.2059 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.) · Difference in percentage: 4.9 · 95% CI -2.9 to 13.295% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.6463 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.) · Difference in percentage: 1.9 · 95% CI -6.5 to 10.395% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
SecondaryTime to Negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR From Baseline Through Day 29

The first negative test result was defined as the first PCR negative result after the first PCR positive result. Kaplan-Meier method was used for analysis. Participants who did not have any viral load data or had negative test results through the study were excluded from the KM analysis.

Time frame:
Baseline to Day 29
Reported as:
Median · days
Time to Negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR From Baseline Through Day 29
daysC19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlacebo
Time to Negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR From Baseline Through Day 2914 (14 to 15)14 (14 to 15)14 (14 to 15)
Statistical analysis
  • C19-IG 20% 1 g vs Placebo · Log Rank · p = 0.9033
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · Log Rank · p = 0.5456
SecondaryPercentage of Participants Who Required Oxygen (O2) Supplementation on or Before Day 29

The percentage of participants requiring oxygen supplementation through Day 29 within each treatment group was presented along with a two-sided exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% CI.

Time frame:
Up to Day 29
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants Who Required Oxygen (O2) Supplementation on or Before Day 29
percentage of participantsC19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlacebo
Percentage of Participants Who Required Oxygen (O2) Supplementation on or Before Day 292.0 (0.4 to 5.7)3.9 (1.5 to 8.3)1.3 (0.2 to 4.6)
Statistical analysis
  • C19-IG 20% 1 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.6311 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required oxygen supplementation between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.) · Difference in percentage: 0.79 · 95% CI -2.9 to 4.695% CI for percentage difference between each of 1 g C19-IG 20% dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.1441 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required oxygen supplementation between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.) · Difference in percentage: 2.6 · 95% CI -1.2 to 7.395% CI for percentage difference between each of 2 g C19-IG 20% dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
SecondaryDuration of Any Oxygen Use Through Day 29

The duration (number of days) of any oxygen use from Day 1 through Day 29 was calculated based on the start/stop date of using oxygen supplementation.

Time frame:
Up to Day 29
Reported as:
Median · days
Duration of Any Oxygen Use Through Day 29
daysC19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlacebo
Duration of Any Oxygen Use Through Day 297.0 (6 to 9)7.0 (2 to 8)9.5 (4 to 15)
Statistical analysis
  • C19-IG 20% 1 g vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.8555 · Ls mean (lsm) difference: 0.02 · 95% CI -0.23 to 0.2795% CI for difference in LSM between 1 g C19-IG 20% \& placebo was calculated using an ANCOVA model,with number of days on oxygen as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect,adjusting for baseline characteristics(including age \& gender).
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.8108 · Ls mean difference: 0.03 · 95% CI -0.22 to 0.2895% CI for difference in LSM between 2 g C19-IG 20% \& placebo was calculated using an ANCOVA model,with number of days on oxygen as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect,adjusting for baseline characteristics(including age \& gender).
SecondaryAbsolute Value Score on a 7-point Ordinal Scale

The ordinal scale is a 7-point scale ranging from 1 to 7 used to measure clinical status of a participant based on the following points: 1) death; 2) hospitalized, on invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); 3) hospitalized, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices; 4) hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen; 5) hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen; 6) not hospitalized, limitation on activities; and 7) not hospitalized, no limitations on activities. A higher score indicates less severity.

Time frame:
Baseline, Day 7, 14, and 29
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Absolute Value Score on a 7-point Ordinal Scale
score on a scaleC19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlacebo
Baseline7.0 ± 0.007.0 ± 0.087.0 ± 0.08
Day 77.0 ± 0.087.0 ± 0.167.0 ± 0.19
Day 147.0 ± 0.326.9 ± 0.487.0 ± 0.08
Day 297.0 ± 0.207.0 ± 0.147.0 ± 0.08
SecondaryMean Change From Baseline in the 7-point Ordinal Scale

The ordinal scale is a 7-point scale ranging from 1 to 7 used to measure clinical status of a participant based on the following points: 1) death; 2) hospitalized, on invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO; 3) hospitalized, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices; 4) hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen; 5) hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen; 6) not hospitalized, limitation on activities; and 7) not hospitalized, no limitations on activities. A higher score indicates less severity. The analysis was performed by using a linear mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).

Time frame:
Baseline to Day 7, Day 14, and Day 29
Reported as:
Least squares mean · score on a scale
Mean Change From Baseline in the 7-point Ordinal Scale
score on a scaleC19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlacebo
Change from Baseline at Day 7-0.00 (-0.03 to 0.02)-0.02 (-0.05 to 0.00)-0.04 (-0.06 to -0.01)
Change from Baseline at Day 14-0.05 (-0.11 to 0.00)-0.07 (-0.12 to -0.01)-0.00 (-0.06 to 0.05)
Change from Baseline at Day 29-0.04 (-0.06 to -0.01)-0.02 (-0.04 to 0.01)-0.00 (-0.03 to 0.02)
Statistical analysis
  • C19-IG 20% 1 g vs Placebo · Kenward-Roger · p = 0.0692 (p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.) · Ls mean difference: 0.03 · 95% CI -0.00 to 0.0795% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · Kenward-Roger · p = 0.4956 (p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.) · Ls mean difference: 0.01 · 95% CI -0.02 to 0.0595% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.
  • C19-IG 20% 1 g vs Placebo · Kenward-Roger · p = 0.2200 (p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.) · Ls mean difference: -0.05 · 95% CI -0.13 to 0.0395% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · Kenward-Roger · p = 0.0906 (p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.) · Ls mean difference: -0.07 · 95% CI -0.14 to 0.0195% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.
  • C19-IG 20% 1 g vs Placebo · Kenward-Roger · p = 0.0439 (p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.) · Ls mean difference: -0.04 · 95% CI -0.07 to -0.0095% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · Kenward-Roger · p = 0.4128 (p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.) · Ls mean difference: -0.01 · 95% CI -0.05 to 0.0295% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.
SecondaryPercentage of Participants in Each Severity Category of the 7-point Ordinal Scale

The ordinal scale is a 7-point scale ranging from 1 to 7 used to measure clinical status of a participant based on the following points: 1) death; 2) hospitalized, on invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO; 3) hospitalized, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices; 4) hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen; 5) hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen; 6) not hospitalized, limitation on activities; and 7) not hospitalized, no limitations on activities.

Time frame:
Days 1, 7, 14, and 29
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants in Each Severity Category of the 7-point Ordinal Scale
percentage of participantsC19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlacebo
Day 1: Death0.00.00.0
Day 1: Hospitalized, on invasive mechanical ventilation/ ECMO0.00.00.0
Day 1: Hospitalized, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices0.00.00.0
Day 1: Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen0.00.00.0
Day 1: Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen0.00.00.0
Day 1: Not hospitalized, limitation on activities0.00.70.6
Day 1: Not hospitalized, no limitations on activities10099.399.4
Day 7: Death0.00.00.0
Day 7: Hospitalized, on invasive mechanical ventilation/ ECMO0.00.00.0
Day 7: Hospitalized, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices0.00.00.0
Day 7: Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen0.00.00.0
Day 7: Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen0.00.00.0
Day 7: Not hospitalized, limitation on activities0.72.73.9
Day 7: Not hospitalized, no limitations on activities99.397.396.1
Day 14: Death0.00.00.0
Day 14: Hospitalized, on invasive mechanical ventilation/ ECMO0.00.00.0
Day 14: Hospitalized, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices0.01.40.0
Day 14: Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen0.70.00.0
Day 14: Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen0.70.00.0
Day 14: Not hospitalized, limitation on activities1.42.00.7
Day 14: Not hospitalized, no limitations on activities97.396.699.3
Day 29: Death0.00.00.0
Day 29: Hospitalized, on invasive mechanical ventilation/ ECMO0.00.00.0
Day 29: Hospitalized, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices0.00.00.0
Day 29: Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen0.00.00.0
Day 29: Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen0.00.00.0
Day 29: Not hospitalized, limitation on activities4.22.10.7
Day 29: Not hospitalized, no limitations on activities95.897.999.3
SecondaryChange From Baseline in National Early Warning Score (NEWS)

The NEWS has demonstrated an ability to classify participants at risk of poor outcomes. This score is based on 7 clinical parameters (respiration rate, oxygen saturation, any supplemental oxygen, temperature, systolic blood pressure (BP), heart rate, level of consciousness \[Alert, Voice, Pain, Unresponsive\]). A score of 0 to 3 was allocated to each parameter except supplemental oxygen use (score of 0 or 2) and level of consciousness (score of 0 \[alert, normal health condition\] or 3 \[altered mental state/confusion, worst health condition\]). All parameter scores were summed to get an aggregate NEWS assessment. Scoring for NEWS ranges from 0 to 20, with higher scores meaning more severity/higher clinical risk: low risk (score 1 to 4); medium risk (score 5 to 6); high risk (score 7 to 20). The analysis is performed by using a linear MMRM.

Time frame:
Baseline to Day 7, Day 14, and Day 29
Reported as:
Least squares mean · score on a scale
Change From Baseline in National Early Warning Score (NEWS)
score on a scaleC19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlacebo
Change from Baseline at Day 70.70 (0.50 to 0.90)0.78 (0.58 to 0.98)0.70 (0.51 to 0.90)
Change from Baseline at Day 140.68 (0.49 to 0.87)0.65 (0.46 to 0.84)0.67 (0.48 to 0.86)
Change from Baseline at Day 290.61 (0.43 to 0.79)0.59 (0.40 to 0.77)0.46 (0.27 to 0.64)
Statistical analysis
  • C19-IG 20% 1 g vs Placebo · Kenward-Roger · p = 0.9713 (p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.) · Ls mean difference: -0.01 · 95% CI -0.28 to 0.2795% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · Kenward-Roger · p = 0.5985 (p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.) · Ls mean difference: 0.07 · 95% CI -0.20 to 0.3595% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.
  • C19-IG 20% 1 g vs Placebo · Kenward-Roger · p = 0.9209 (p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.) · Ls mean difference: 0.01 · 95% CI -0.25 to 0.2895% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · Kenward-Roger · p = 0.9181 (p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.) · Ls mean difference: -0.01 · 95% CI -0.28 to 0.2595% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.
  • C19-IG 20% 1 g vs Placebo · Kenward-Roger · p = 0.2443 (p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.) · Ls mean difference: 0.15 · 95% CI -0.11 to 0.4195% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · Kenward-Roger · p = 0.3233 (p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.) · Ls mean difference: 0.13 · 95% CI -0.13 to 0.3995% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.
SecondaryPercentage of Participants Who Required At Least One COVID-19 Related Medically Attended Visit (MAV) for Management/Treatment of COVID-19 Which May Have Occurred in Any Setting Through Day 29

MAV for management/treatment of COVID-19 may have occurred in any setting e.g., emergency department, urgent care, outpatient clinic, or professional setting wherein direct in-person/telemedicine medical assessment and escalation of care for COVID-19 was provided by licensed healthcare personnel. The percentage of participants requiring at least one COVID-19-related MAV for management/treatment of COVID-19 (apart from routinely scheduled study-directed visits) within each treatment group was presented along with a two-sided exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% CI.

Time frame:
Up to Day 29
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants Who Required At Least One COVID-19 Related Medically Attended Visit (MAV) for Management/Treatment of COVID-19 Which May Have Occurred in Any Setting Through Day 29
percentage of participantsC19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlacebo
Percentage of Participants Who Required At Least One COVID-19 Related Medically Attended Visit (MAV) for Management/Treatment of COVID-19 Which May Have Occurred in Any Setting Through Day 2917.1 (11.5 to 24.0)19.0 (13.1 to 26.1)14.1 (9.1 to 20.6)
Statistical analysis
  • C19-IG 20% 1 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.4676 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required at least 1 COVID-19 related MAV between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.) · Difference in percentage: 3.0 · 95% CI -5.3 to 11.595% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.2507 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required at least 1 COVID-19 related MAV between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.) · Difference in percentage: 4.9 · 95% CI -3.6 to 13.495% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
SecondaryPercentage of Participants Who Required Hospital Admission for Medical Care (Non-Quarantine Purposes) Through Day 29

The percentage of participants requiring hospital admission through Day 29 within each treatment group was presented along with a two-sided exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% CI.

Time frame:
Up to Day 29
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants Who Required Hospital Admission for Medical Care (Non-Quarantine Purposes) Through Day 29
percentage of participantsC19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlacebo
Percentage of Participants Who Required Hospital Admission for Medical Care (Non-Quarantine Purposes) Through Day 292.0 (0.4 to 5.7)4.6 (1.9 to 9.2)1.9 (0.4 to 5.5)
Statistical analysis
  • C19-IG 20% 1 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.9744 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required hospital admission between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.) · Difference in percentage: 0.1 · 95% CI -3.8 to 4.095% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.1878 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required hospital admission between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.) · Difference in percentage: 2.7 · 95% CI -1.6 to 7.595% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
SecondaryDuration of Hospital Stay Through Day 29

The duration (number of days) of hospitalization from post-randomization through Day 29 was calculated based on hospital admission and discharge dates recorded.

Time frame:
Up to Day 29
Reported as:
Median · days
Duration of Hospital Stay Through Day 29
daysC19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlacebo
Duration of Hospital Stay Through Day 299.0 (6 to 18)10.0 (3 to 15)9.0 (8 to 15)
Statistical analysis
  • C19-IG 20% 1 g vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.9485 · Ls mean difference: 0.01 · 95% CI -0.38 to 0.4095% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including length of hospital stay as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect, adjusting for baseline.
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.4734 · Ls mean difference: 0.14 · 95% CI -0.25 to 0.5495% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including length of hospital stay as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect, adjusting for baseline.
SecondaryPercentage of Participants Who Required Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Admission or Initiation of ICU Level Care Through Day 29

The percentage of participants requiring ICU admission through Day 29 within each treatment group was presented along with a two-sided exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% CI. ICU level care is defined as the medical need for intensive or invasive monitoring; the immediate or impending need for the support of the airway, breathing, or circulation; and/or stabilization of acute severe, or life-threatening complications of COVID-19.

Time frame:
Up to Day 29
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants Who Required Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Admission or Initiation of ICU Level Care Through Day 29
percentage of participantsC19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlacebo
Percentage of Participants Who Required Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Admission or Initiation of ICU Level Care Through Day 290.66 (0.02 to 3.61)0.65 (0.02 to 3.59)0.64 (0.02 to 3.52)
Statistical analysis
  • C19-IG 20% 1 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.9853 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required ICU admission between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.) · Difference in percentage: 0.02 · 95% CI -3.05 to 3.1295% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.9890 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required ICU admission between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.) · Difference in percentage: 0.01 · 95% CI -2.99 to 3.0795% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
SecondaryDuration of ICU Stay Through Day 29

The duration (number of days) of ICU stay from post-randomization through Day 29 was calculated based on ICU admission and discharge dates recorded.

Time frame:
Up to Day 29
Reported as:
Median · days
Duration of ICU Stay Through Day 29
daysC19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlacebo
Duration of ICU Stay Through Day 297.0 (7 to 7)5.0 (5 to 5)3.0 (3 to 3)
Statistical analysis
  • C19-IG 20% 1 g vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.5780 · Ls mean difference: 0.03 · 95% CI -0.07 to 0.1295% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including length of hospital stay as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect, adjusting for baseline.
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · ANCOVA · p = 0.9065 · Ls mean difference: 0.01 · 95% CI -0.09 to 0.1095% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including length of hospital stay as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect, adjusting for baseline.
SecondaryPercentage of Participants Requiring Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Through Day 29

The percentage of participants requiring invasive mechanical ventilation through Day 29 within each treatment group was presented along with a two-sided exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% CI.

Time frame:
Up to Day 29
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants Requiring Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Through Day 29
percentage of participantsC19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlacebo
Percentage of Participants Requiring Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Through Day 290.00.00.0
SecondaryDuration of Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Through Day 29

The duration (number of days) on invasive mechanical ventilation from post randomization through Day 29 was calculated based on the start/stop dates of invasive mechanical ventilation.

Time frame:
Up to Day 29

No measurements were reported for this outcome.

SecondaryAll-Cause Mortality Through Day 29

All-cause mortality rate is the percentage of participants in each treatment group who experienced mortality up to Day 29.

Time frame:
Up to Day 29
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
All-Cause Mortality Through Day 29
ParticipantsC19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlacebo
All-Cause Mortality Through Day 29000
SecondaryPercentage of Participants With Critical COVID-19 Illness

Critical COVID-19 illness was defined as any one of the following: (a) requiring ICU admission or ICU level of care, (b) invasive mechanical ventilation, or (c) resulting in death by Day 29. The percentage of participants with critical COVID-19 illness defined above within each treatment group was presented along with a two-sided exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% CI.

Time frame:
Up to Day 29
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants With Critical COVID-19 Illness
percentage of participantsC19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlacebo
Percentage of Participants With Critical COVID-19 Illness0.66 (0.02 to 3.61)0.65 (0.02 to 3.59)0.64 (0.02 to 3.52)
Statistical analysis
  • C19-IG 20% 1 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.9853 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants with critical COVID-19 illness between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.) · Difference in percentage: 0.02 · 95% CI -3.05 to 3.1295% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
  • C19-IG 20% 2 g vs Placebo · Chi-squared · p = 0.9890 (p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants with critical COVID-19 illness between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.) · Difference in percentage: 0.01 · 95% CI -2.99 to 3.0795% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.
SecondaryLength of Time to Clinical Progression to Critical COVID-19 Illness Through Day 29

Length of time to clinical progression to critical COVID-19 illness was defined as the time to death, invasive mechanical ventilation, or ICU admission/requiring ICU level of care. ICU level care is defined as the medical need for intensive or invasive monitoring; the immediate or impending need for the support of the airway, breathing, or circulation; and/or stabilization of acute severe, or life-threatening complications of COVID-19. The time to clinical progression was estimated using the KM method.

Time frame:
Up to Day 29
Reported as:
Median · days
Length of Time to Clinical Progression to Critical COVID-19 Illness Through Day 29
daysC19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlacebo
Length of Time to Clinical Progression to Critical COVID-19 Illness Through Day 29NA (NA to NA)NA (NA to NA)NA (NA to NA)
SecondaryTime to COVID-19 Symptoms Through Day 14

Participants were described as symptomatic if they a. experienced at least two of the following systemic symptoms: fever (≥38℃), chills, myalgia, headache, sore throat, cough, fatigue that interferes with activities of daily living, new olfactory/taste disorder(s), and vomiting/diarrhea, b. experienced at least one of the following respiratory signs/symptoms: new or worsening shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, c. experienced a peripheral oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry (SpO2) \<94% on room air, or d. had radiographical evidence of pneumonia. Time to COVID-19 symptoms was defined as the time from study drug administration to the first time point when any of the above elements was fulfilled through Day 14. The time to COVID-19 symptoms was estimated using the KM method.

Time frame:
Up to Day 14
Reported as:
Median · days
Time to COVID-19 Symptoms Through Day 14
daysC19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlacebo
Time to COVID-19 Symptoms Through Day 14NA (NA to NA)NA (NA to NA)NA (NA to NA)

Adverse events

Collected over From start of the study up to end of study (up to Day 60). Non-serious events are listed at a 5% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
C19-IG 20% 1 g0/152 (0%)3/152 (2%)10/152 (6.6%)
C19-IG 20% 2 g0/153 (0%)7/153 (4.6%)8/153 (5.2%)
Placebo0/156 (0%)3/156 (1.9%)5/156 (3.2%)
Most frequent serious events
Most frequent serious events
EventC19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlacebo
COVID-19 pneumoniaInfections and infestations3/1527/1531/156
PneumoniaInfections and infestations0/1520/1532/156
Most frequent other events
Most frequent other events
EventC19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlacebo
Alanine aminotransferase increasedInvestigations10/1528/1535/156

Baseline characteristics

Intent-to-treat (ITT) population included all participants who were randomized. Modified ITT (mITT) population included the subset of ITT participants who were also dosed.

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)C19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlaceboTotal
Mean38.8 ± 12.7641.1 ± 12.4038.8 ± 13.3339.6 ± 12.86
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)C19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlaceboTotal
Female666269197
Male869187264
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants)C19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlaceboTotal
Hispanic or Latino403245117
Not Hispanic or Latino112121111344
Unknown or Not Reported0000
Race (NIH/OMB)
Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants)C19-IG 20% 1 gC19-IG 20% 2 gPlaceboTotal
American Indian or Alaska Native0000
Asian1034
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander0101
Black or African American46313
White138140140418
More than one race0011
Unknown or Not Reported96924
08

Study locations

12 sites
  • CAP Gornal
    L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona 08902, Spain
  • CAP Navàs
    Navàs, Barcelona 08670, Spain
  • CAP Sant Fèlix
    Sabadell, Barcelona 08024, Spain
  • Centro de Salud Nuestra Señora del Pilar
    Alcalá de Henares, Madrid 28801, Spain
  • Centro de Salud Presentación Sabio
    Móstoles, Madrid 28933, Spain
  • CAP Manso
    Barcelona, 08015, Spain
  • CAP Maluquer Salvador
    Girona, 17002, Spain
  • Centro de Salud San Andrés
    Madrid, 28021, Spain
  • Centro de Salud Fuentelarreina
    Madrid, 28035, Spain
  • Centro de Salud Hacienda de Pavones Sureste
    Madrid, 28108, Spain
  • Centro de Salud Isla de Oza Noroeste
    Madrid, 28108, Spain
  • Hospital Sant Pau i Santa Tecla
    Tarragona, 43003, Spain
09

References and documents

Study documents

  • Study protocol · Oct 13, 2021
  • Statistical analysis plan · Dec 6, 2021

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Dec 5, 2022, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04847141
Lead sponsor
Grifols Therapeutics LLC
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Apr 19, 2021
Start date
Apr 28, 2021
Primary completion
Nov 10, 2021
Completion
Dec 27, 2021
Results posted
Dec 5, 2022
Last update
Dec 5, 2022

Study contacts

Oriol Mitjà, MD
principal investigator · omitja@lluita.org, +3493 4978339

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
Yes
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is terminated, as verified in Nov 2022. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion