Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

COVID-19 convalescent plasma and randomized clinical trials: rebuilding confidence by explaining failures and finding signals of efficacy

View ORCID ProfileDaniele Focosi, View ORCID ProfileMassimo Franchini, View ORCID ProfileLiise-anne Pirofski, View ORCID ProfileThierry Burnouf, View ORCID ProfileNigel Paneth, View ORCID ProfileMichael J. Joyner, View ORCID ProfileArturo Casadevall
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.07.21263194
Daniele Focosi
1North-Western Tuscany Blood Bank, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Daniele Focosi
  • For correspondence: daniele.focosi@gmail.com
Massimo Franchini
2Division of Transfusion Medicine, Carlo Poma Hospital, 46100 Mantua, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Massimo Franchini
  • For correspondence: massimo.franchini@asst-mantova.it
Liise-anne Pirofski
3Division of Infectious Diseases, Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, New York, NY 10467, USA;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Liise-anne Pirofski
  • For correspondence: l.pirofski@einsteinmed.org
Thierry Burnouf
4Graduate Institute of Biomedical Materials and Tissue Engineering & International PhD Program in Biomedical Engineering, College of Biomedical Engineering, Taipei Medical University, Taiwan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Thierry Burnouf
  • For correspondence: thburnouf@gmail.com
Nigel Paneth
5Departments of Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Pediatrics & Human Development, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nigel Paneth
  • For correspondence: paneth@msu.edu
Michael J. Joyner
6Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Michael J. Joyner
  • For correspondence: joyner.michael@mayo.edu
Arturo Casadevall
7Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Arturo Casadevall
  • For correspondence: acasade1@jhu.edu
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Convalescent plasma (CP) recurs as a frontline treatment in epidemics because it is available as soon as there are survivors. The COVID-19 pandemic represented the first large-scale opportunity to shed light into mechanisms of action, safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma using modern evidence-based medicine approaches. Studies ranging from observational case series to randomized controlled trials (RCT) have reported highly variable efficacy results for COVID-19 CP (CCP), resulting in more doubt than certainty. Reasons for CCP success and failure may be hidden in study details, which are usually difficult to explain to physicians and the public but provide fertile ground for designing next-generation studies. In this paper we analyzed variables associated with efficacy such as clinical settings, disease severity, CCP SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels and function, dose, timing of administration (variously defined as time from onset of symptoms, molecular diagnosis, diagnosis of pneumonia, or hospitalization, or by serostatus), outcomes (defined as hospitalization, requirement for ventilation, clinical improvement or mortality), CCP provenance and time for collection, and criteria for efficacy. Focusing only on the results from the 23 available RCT we noted that these were more likely to show signals of efficacy, including reductions in mortality, if the plasma neutralizing titer was ≥ 160 and the time to randomization was ≤ 9 days, consistent with passive antibody therapy efficacy requiring dosing with sufficient antibody. The fact that most studies revealed signals of efficacy despite variability in CCP and its use suggest robust therapeutic effects that become apparent despite the data noise.

Introduction

In the first 21 years of the 21st century humanity has experienced six major epidemics. The agents involved were SARS-CoV, MERS, influenza A(H1N1), Ebola, Zika and SARS-CoV-2 viruses. For five of these outbreaks the response included the use of convalescent plasma (CP) (reviewed in (1, 2)) and it was considered for the sixth (Zika virus). The attraction of CP is that it is readily available as soon as there are convalescing survivors, that unlike drugs or monoclonal antibodies it needs no development, and it is polyclonal, cheap and deployable even in resource poor countries. CP has been proposed as a first line response to new pandemics (3) and was deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 in countries that experienced the early waves of disease such as China (4, 5) and Italy (6).

While in early 2020 most clinical use was reported in case series or small phase II clinical trials (7), beginning in late March 2020 the US expanded access program (EAP) generated a large and robust treatment dataset, with insights on safety and optimal use. This database provided the first clear evidence that CP is safe, which was important given that early in the pandemic there were significant concerns about antibody-dependent enhancement (8). Later, an analysis of the first 3082 patents within the EAP database provided evidence that associated early administration of high titer CCP to non-ventilated hospitalized patients with reduced mortality (9). Before the FDA granted emergency use authorization (EUA), the US EAP provided CCP to as many as 94,287 patients. During the past year, many studies employing either randomized controls (RCT) or propensity score-matched (PSM) controls have been published. RCTs and PSM studies reported so far have had largely opposite outcomes, with most but not all RCTs finding little overall effect on mortality while the PSM and many smaller trials reporting mortality benefits. Several RCTs did not have mortality as a primary endpoint or it was part of a composite endpoint (5, 10-12). These disparate results have led to confusion for both the public and the clinicians, leading to reduced enthusiasm for the use of CP, in part because RCT data is more influential in affecting the opinion of many physicians, specialty societies and government regulators.

As with any other medical treatment, several key factors should be taken into account when evaluating a trial, including the indication (which can be estimated by timing or clinical severity), the therapeutic dose and the intended outcomes. The choices made by the trial designers determine whether the trial will demonstrate or conceal clinical benefit. While much attention is appropriately focused on the performance features of clinical trials (sample size, fidelity to randomization, appropriate analysis), the biological rationale for the hypothesis being tested is critically important but not always taken into account.

Methods

On September 7, 2021, we searched PubMed (which is also indexing the medrXiv prepublishing server) for clinical trials of CCP in COVID19, focusing on RCTs and PSM studies only. Each study was analyzed for the following variables: NCT identifier, recruitment, randomization strategy, type of control arm, baseline patient status, median neutralizing antibody (nAb) titer in both recipients (before CCP transfusion) and CCP units, type of viral neutralization test (VNT), primary endpoint, signals of efficacy, and reasons for failure

At the same date, the ClinicalTrials.gov database was searched for CCP RCTs worldwide having as status “completed”, “active, not yet recruiting” or “recruiting”.

Results

PubMed search retrieved 23 RCTs and 12 PSM studies about CCP, whose main variables are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. The characteristics of the VNTs used are summarized in Table 1. The variables were reconciled in 4 major topics, discussed in the following sections: the indication, the therapeutic doses, the relevance of CCP to the viral variant, and the intended outcome.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Details of viral neutralization tests (VNT) employed in CCP RCTs. Information was retrieved from original article (including Supplementary Appendix). Whenever not reported, the corresponding author was contacted (marked with *). If the details could not be retrieved the field is labelled “n.a.” (not available). IC: inhibitory concentration. NT: neutralization titer. PFU: plaque-forming unit.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) reported to date. nAb: neutralizing antibodies. BSC: best supportive care. FFP: fresh frozen (nonconvalescent) plasma. n.a.: not assessed (i.e. antivirus antibodies were assessed only using high-throughput serology). IQR: interquartile range.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3

Propensity score-matched (PSM) CCP studies reported to date. DPH: days post-hospitalization. None of these studies titered nAbs in either donor or recipient using NT.

ClinicalTrials.gov search retrieved 8 CCP RCTs completed but not yet prepublished or published, 7 active but not yet recruiting RCTs, and 10 RCTs which are still recruiting (summarized in Table 4).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4

Summary of completed but not yet reported or ongoing RCTs of CCP, as registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as of August 26, 2021. BSC: best supportive care; FFP: fresh frozen plasma. Several studies were withdrawn (NCT04377568).

The indication

While it would be desirable to have a single drug that works at any disease stage, it was not reasonable to expect a silver bullet effect from neutralizing antibody-based treatments such as CCP in later stages of disease. COVID-19 is now well-defined as a disease with two stages, an initial viral phase characterized by flu-like and upper and lower respiratory symptoms, followed, in severe cases, by an inflammatory phase that is characterized by inflammation-driven damage to multiple organ systems, including the lungs that can impair gas exchange and cause life-threatening hypoxia and damage to multiple organs, including the brain and blood vessels (13). Specific intact antibodies in CCP are expected to neutralize SARS-CoV-2 in the intravascular system and, in some patients, prevent progression from early to severe and life-threatening disease (as seen in animal models (14)), but this antiviral therapy cannot be expected to reverse the inflammatory phase of the disease, nor neutralize infectious viruses invading the extravascular system. Thus, COVID-19 is similar to influenza, a disease in which antivirals are effective early in disease but have no effect in later stages when the symptomatology stems largely from the inflammatory response. The rationale for administering CCP as early as possible in the course of COVID-19 stems from the neutralization stoichiometry itself: the larger the number of actively replicating virions in the body, the higher the nAb dose needed for neutralization (15). Some uncontrolled studies have reported a lack of association between early intervention and outcomes (16, 17), but in these studies the level of neutralizing antibody (nAb) or the overall anti-Spike antibody level in the infused CCP was unknown, leaving room for alternative explanations.

At the beginning of the pandemic, some investigators and opinion leaders, riding the wave of CCP successes in anecdotal reports in the media and small case series, introduced CCP to the general public as a panacea for any patient with COVID-19, including life-threatening cases, leading to confusing messaging: after reports of failure in severely ill patients emerged, opinions became polarized and the debate became everything but scientific (18). In clinical trials, the indication (i.e., the baseline clinical setting) has been variously defined by patient status (outpatient vs. presenting to the emergency room vs. hospitalized vs. ICU-admitted), disease severity (using 5-category COVID-19 Outpatient Ordinal Outcome Scale (19), a 6-category ordinal scale (12), a 7-category COVID-19 severity scale (20), the WHO 8- (21) or 11-category (22) ordinal scales, or pneumological scores such as SOFA), the time elapsed before recruitment (also variably defined as from molecular diagnosis, from onset of hospitalization, from diagnosis of pneumonia, or from onset of symptoms), or by serological status (presence of antibodies or the ability to neutralize SARS-CoV-2). This variability in inclusion criteria for studies has resulted in marked heterogeneity in recruited patients.

An additional complexity in recruitment to CCP trials is time to treatment. Clinical trials involve administrative requirements and consent procedures, and recruitment to a RCT further requires randomization, which may produce delays in treatment. CCP therapy requires matching on blood type, ordering the CCP, which may or may not be available on site, and setting up the transfusion. This inherent delay from randomization to infusion means that RCTs may build in a disadvantage for the CCP study arm, where controls may have received treatment earlier in the disease course (as, for example, in the CP3O trial (23). ABO-compatible CCP units may be not readily available at the local blood bank and recruited patients may have to wait for a compatible unit of CCP. These almost inevitable delays from randomization mean that CCP may be provided later in the illness than is ideal, and even if the trial intends to treat early, in practice it may not be possible.

During a pandemic, moreover, delays in treatment are magnified. The accrual of severely ill patients in emergency departments and the overwhelmed or even collapsed health care systems can create long delays from arrival in the emergency room to treatment. In the absence of quick (antigenic or molecular) tests for SARS-CoV-2, the turnaround time for final confirmation of diagnosis with PCR, which must often be run in batches, can take several hours. All of these factors are likely to impact the efficacy of CCP treatment. To shorten such time, fully screened CCP collected from eligible donors (24) could be safely administered within emergency departments shortly after admission and even before the patient reaches the ward.

The therapeutic dose

Determining the effective dose of CCP is difficult in a pandemic because the antibody assays and other tests needed to assess the potency of any antibody product take time to be developed. In practice, the effective dose is the product of multiple factors, none of which is fully standardized. The first factor is the concentration of the nAbs as measured by a VNT. At the beginning of the pandemic, only a few BSL3 (or higher)-equipped virology laboratories could run VNT using authentic live SARS-CoV-2 virus: the procedure was time-consuming (3-5 days) and the reports were operator-dependent. Nowadays, the availability of Spike-pseudotyped viruses which can be managed under the more widely available BSL-2 laboratories, or cell-free ACE-2 competition assays, combined with automated (e.g., luminescence-based) readings, have standardized outcomes and shortened turnaround times (25): however, harmonization between different assays is still a work in progress (26). The VNT differs according to the type of replication-competent cell line, the viral isolate used for the challenge (which is critically important when the virus is mutating rapidly as has been the case with emergence of variants of concern), the multiplicity of infection (i.e., the ratio between the viral inoculum - referred with different measuring units – and the number of replication-competent cells within each well), the detection system (optic microscopy for cytopathic effect, immunostaining, quantitative PCR, or luminometer for engineered pseudoviruses), and finally the threshold of neutralization (50% or 90%). The DAWN-plasma RCT provides a clear example of such heterogeneity, with 4 different VNTs used in at different participating laboratories. It was not until August 2020, when many trials were already underway, that the FDA Emergency Use Authorization 26382 defined high-titer CCP on the basis of correlation with a reference standard, the Broad Institute the live-virus, 5-dilution VNT as a 50% inhibitory dilution (ID50) of 1:250 or more (https://www.fda.gov/media/141481/download), and exclusive use of high-titer CCP was formally recommended by the FDA only on March 9, 2021.

Table 1 summarizes the key variables in VNT employed to date in CCP RCTs. Published trials have varied greatly in their approaches to antibody quantification whether in measured transfused CCP units or in recipients. Many trials have relied on high-throughput semi-quantitative or qualitative assays with a poor-to-moderate relationship with nAb titers. Although most trials performed a correlation analysis between VNT and high-throughput serological assays, in many cases the CCP units were tested only with the latter without validation, as was the case with 66% of the patients in the PlasmAR trial (12). This procedure risks an incorrect evaluation of the neutralizing CCP activity. Another cause for discrepancies in outcomes could be that although IgM, IgG, and IgA are all capable of mediating neutralization, VNT titers correlate better with binding levels of IgM and IgA1 than they do with IgG (27). Yet it is IgG that is routinely measured in high-throughput serological assays, and these assays include non-neutralizing IgGs, the role of which in activity against SARS-CoV-2 has not been established. Trials should preferentially use VNTs to assess serostatus of transfused units and not rely on high-throughput serology.

As for any other medicinal product, CCP exhibits a dose-response relationship, which is also evident when using high-throughput assays. In the subgroup analysis of the EAP, a gradient of mortality was seen in relation to IgG antibody levels in the transfused CCP. In the subgroup of patients who were not receiving mechanical ventilation, death within 30 days after CCP transfusion occurred in 81 of 365 patients (22.2%; 95% CI, 18.2 to 26.7) in the low titer group, 251 of 1297 patients (19.4%; 95% CI, to 21.6) in the medium-titer group, and 50 of 352 patients (14.2%; 95% CI, 10.9 to 18.2) in the high-titer group. Depending on the statistical model, the RR for 30-day mortality in high-titer CCP compared to low-titer CCP recipients ranged from 0.64 – 0.67, with an upper 95% confidence bound of 0.91 (8). Similarly, the large retrospective PSM study from HCA reported a 0.2% decreased risk of mortality for every 1 unit of S/Co serology level (28).

The nAb titer (or total IgG levels as measured by surrogate assays) only describes one factor involved in defining the real therapeutic dose in that it represents the concentration of just one (likely the main) active ingredient. But CCP contains additional antibodies that mediate antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC), complement activation and phagocytosis of viral particles, functions that can each contribute to its antiviral effects (29). At this time the relative importance of nAbs vs. the other antibody activities is not understood, but, hopefully, retrospective analyses that correlate CCP efficacy with these activities will reveal additional variables that need to be considered in choosing optimal CCP units.

Despite these uncertainties, we can make estimates of likely effective doses based on the available clinical experience thus far. The therapeutic dose of nAb is a product of its concentration in the infused CP multiplied by the overall infused CP volume, adjusted to the recipient body weight to take account of dilution into the blood volume and tissues. RCTs have varied in the provision of volume per unit (200-300 ml), and most importantly in cumulative volume per patient (1-4 units) and in extent of exposure to diverse antibodies from various CCP donors, and no published trials have adjusted levels of nAbs by recipient body weight (or, when attempts have been performed, they referred to the old-fashioned 10-15 ml/kg dose inferred from treatment of hemorrhagic coagulopathies (30)). A failure of CCP to improve outcomes when 200-ml of 1:160 nAb-titer CCP is provided to a patient who weighs 120 kg represents quite a different scenario from failure of a 600-ml transfusion of 1:640 nAb-titer CCP to produce improvement in a 60-kg patient. But these central issues in dosage have not been considered in the RCTs published so far.

Several RCTs performed nAb titration, but with highly heterogenous methods which makes comparability of doses across studies difficult. Table 1 attempts to reconcile doses across those trials, showing that they actually differed more than was apparent by inspection of raw titers. The lack of utility from low-titer (1:40) CCP in moderate COVID-19 was confirmed by the PLACID trial (10). As long as a clear therapeutic dose is not identified, it seems prudent to transfuse units containing nAb titers at least 10-fold higher than the nAb titer measured before transfusion in recipient serum. Similarly, the ConCOVID RCT showed that CCP units having nAb titers similar to those of the recipients (1:160) did not confer a clinical benefit (31). CCP units with an adequate nAb titer (nowadays estimated at >1:160) are more easily found among older males who recovered from a previous symptomatic COVID-19 requiring hospitalization (32, 33): unfortunately, such donors were poorly represented in the first donation waves, which tended to obtain CCP from younger donors will mild disease, and, presumably lower nAb titers (10).

Relevance of CCP to the viral variant

Albeit not formally demonstrated, CCP manufactured by pooling ABO-matched transfusion from many different donors (e.g., in PlasmAr (12)) theoretically have greater polyclonality of nAbs than repeated CCP doses from a single-donor (e.g. CAPSID (34)) and should grant higher efficacy against viral variants. Nevertheless, pooling typically occurs among donors attending the same blood bank, making donor exposure to different viral variants unlikely.

An analysis of potential variables associated with CCP efficacy associated near-sourcing with reduced mortality, with the efficacy of CCP in reducing mortality falling sharply when the CCP source was more than 150 miles from where it was used (35). This finding suggests that SARS-CoV-2 viruses vary enough in their antigenic composition in different geographic locations to create antibody responses that differ by locale (36). Even though CCP is often standardized for nAb titer to the Spike protein, the VNT could use a nonrelevant viral strain, or miss major functional differences for the antibody response (29). This finding has implication for RCTs that use nationally sourced (centralized) CCP, since the attempt to standardize the therapeutic units centrally could inadvertently reduce CCP efficacy if hospitals use CCP obtained from distant loci. For example, in the C3PO RCT, which was conducted in 21 USA states, 95% of the donor CCP was collected in either Chicago or Denver: since only 4 of the 48 centers were in Illinois or Colorado, most CCP usage had to be from remote sources (23). By contrast, the NCT04359810 RCT in New York and Brazil used CCP locally sourced in New York, whose efficacy against P.1 was tested to ensure efficacy at the other recruiting center in Brazil (11).

Although also not formally demonstrated during clinical trials, it is also reasonable to assume that CCP collected during early pandemic waves could be less effective against currently circulating variants of concern (37). RCTs whose recruitment was protracted across multiple pandemic waves (e.g., ConPlas-19) and which relied on CCP collected and banked months earlier could have inadvertently used CCP with reduced activity against the SARS-CoV-2 strains circulating the community when the therapy was administered. Hence, both geography and time of collection of the CCP are important variables when considering the efficacy of the treatment.

The intended outcomes

Most trials (CONTAIN, COMPILE, and PassItOn being exceptions) have used composite endpoints or specialty scores (e.g., SOFA) rather than progression in the simple WHO ordinal scale or mortality, and many were stopped because of apparent futility at a time when they may have been underpowered to detect significant benefit. As represented in Figure 1, several studies have reported overall negative results (panel A) despite the presence of positive signals of efficacy just barely missing statistical significance (panels B and C). The significance level (i.e., p= 0.05) is largely a socially constructed convention for rejecting the null hypotheses, but it has often been misinterpreted as a measure of reality by many individuals not familiar with the nuances of statistics. For example, some CCP studies have concluded that a difference that did not achieve a p value < 0.05 was an absence of difference, even when mortality in the CCP arm was ∼20-40% lower than in controls. This reasoning played a central role in the polarized views of CCP efficacy and prevented subsequent studies to drill down on positive effects that were observed. The dogged pursuit of statistical significance, viewed as a measure of reality instead of the actual reality demonstrated by the data, during a public health emergency dealt a serious blow to studies of CCP and created significant confusion for clinicians. It is also important to understand that RCTs are powered to be less tolerant of Type I error than Type II error, which are conventionally set at .05 and .20, meaning that a Type II error is expected four times as often as a Type 1 error. This statistical convention can contribute to the absence of significance in studies that were set up early in the pandemic when there was little information on expected effects for the various patient populations studied and the patients were very heterogenous such that only subgroups may have responded. Many studies were originally designed to enroll patients at any disease stage, and it should be no surprise that subgroup analyses on the groups that were later demonstrated more likely to benefit from CCP (e.g., early treated, seronegative patients, those receiving high nAb titre) were underpowered to reach statistical significance, as shown by orange color predominance in panel C of Figure 2. Nevertheless, favorable trends are a shared feature across such trials. Lastly, rigid adherence to primary outcomes that were often fixed in the early days of the pandemic when information about disease stage and quality of CCP associated with efficacy were not understood. When these outcomes were not met, trials were considered failures even though there were often signals of efficacy in the data that were not considered as valuable since these had not been pre-specified, even when they made biological sense. For example, in the New York-Brazil RCT cited above, CCP did not lower the primary end-point of clinical status on an ordinal scale, but the statistically significant halving of mortality was acknowledged in the abstract. Would it have made sense to ignore the strong effect of CCP on mortality in this trial just because mortality was not selected as a primary outcome? Although we agree that subgroup analysis carries the risk of ‘cherry picking’ data, such analyses are often important for hypothesis generation and critically important during the emergency of a pandemic where neither viral pathogenesis nor therapeutic variables are well understood. When sub-group analyses are based on firm biological principles, such as focusing on those treated early in disease or lacking their own serological response, the exercise is not cherry picking. To emphasize this point, Christopher Columbus missed the pre-specified primary endpoint of his mission - reaching India - but no one considers his discovery of the New World to be a failure! Turning to the clinical arena, most trials of anticoagulants in myocardial infarction found reductions in mortality of about 20-25%, which was generally not significant in these underpowered trials that declared the findings to be null, even though such a mortality reduction would clearly be of value (38).

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 1

Simplified graphical representation of CCP RCTs reported to date, plotted according to earliness of intervention and nAb titers in CCP. In panel A, green text indicates trials which met the primary endpoint with statistical significance; orange text indicates trials which failed to meet the primary endpoint but showed statistically nonsignificant trends in favor of CCP; red text indicates trials which failed to show and benefit from CCP in the primary endpoint. In panel B, green text indicates trials which showed overall mortality benefit from CCP; orange text indicates trials which showed mortality benefit from CCP in the subgroup of early arrivals or higher nAb titers; red text indicates trials which failed to show any mortality benefit from CCP. In panel C, green text indicates trials which showed statistically significant mortality benefit from CCP (overall or in the subgroup of early arrivals or higher nAb titers); orange text indicates trials which showed statistical trends towards mortality benefit from CCP (overall or in the subgroup of early arrivals); red text indicates trials which failed to show any mortality benefit trend from CCP in any subgroup. Underlined text indicates large trials which were not RCT and for which nAb levels was inferred from high-throughput serology, but are nevertheless reported as reference studies. Numbers in parenthesis indicate cumulative number of patients enrolled.

Another misunderstood endpoint is viral clearance, defined as the conversion of nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) from positive to negative for PCR evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in CCP-treated patients. While there was early and robust evidence for this effect from CCP (4, 10), some RCTs failed to find differences between arms just because they sampled NPS too late after CCP treatment, when the endogenous immune response had also mounted in the control arm, and differences vanished.

Analyzing failures in individual RCTs

We use the word ‘failures’ with care and considerable nuance, since negative trials can be very important in teaching us about populations that do not benefit from CCP or variables that affect its efficacy. Keeping the factors discussed above in mind, we have analyzed individual RCTs in detail. At the very beginning, many historically or internally controlled observational studies showed clinical benefit from CCP and this led the FDA to issue an EAP in March 2020 that was converted into an emergency use authorization (EUA) in August 23, 2020. The largest observational study is the US open-label EAP (NCT04338360) led from Joyner et al, which enrolled 105,717 hospitalized patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19 from April 3 to August 23, 2020 (39). In an analysis of the effect of antibody in CCP performed independently of the results cited above (8) and using a nAb titer in an overlapping but non-identical group of EAP patients, the FDA showed that the 7-day mortality in non-intubated patients who were younger than 80 years of age and were treated within 72 hours after diagnosis was 6.3% in those receiving high-titer CCP and 11.3% in those receiving low-titer CCP (https://www.fda.gov/media/142386/download).

In a later analysis of a larger (N = 35,322) subset of EAP patients, (including 52.3% in the intensive care unit (ICU) and 27.5% receiving mechanical ventilation), the 7-day mortality rate was 8.7% in patients transfused within 3 days of diagnosis but 11.9% in patients transfused ≥ 4 days after diagnosis. Similar findings again from the US EAP were observed in 30-day mortality (21.6% vs. 26.7%) (40). The major criticism of these results is that controls were neither randomized nor PSM: hence a difference in the treatment outcome between treated and untreated groups may be caused by a factor that predicts treatment rather than by the treatment itself. However, importantly, nAb titer analysis was retrospectively done, both patients and physicians were unaware of the nAb content in the CCP units used, the results are what would have been expected from the experience with antibody therapy, and multivariate models were used to adjust for potential confounders (1). Additionally, given the outline of an optimal use case with this data and the earlier underpowered RCT by Li et al (5), it is unfortunate that due to (a) lack of awareness and (b) logistical burden associated with protocol adjustments, involving repowering and new patients’ recruitment criteria, later treatment RCTs either continued or initiated without modifications to include newly available evidence.

The highest level of scientific evidence in primary clinical research stems from prospective PSM and RCTs. PSM studies (Table 3) balance treatment and control groups on a large number of covariates without losing a large number of observations. Unfortunately, no PSM study to date has investigated nAb titers by VNT, and all times have been reported since hospitalization (excluding outpatients). Nevertheless, in 2 retrospective PSM studies from 2 different hospitals in New York, trends for improved outcomes in non-intubated and those treated within 7 days since hospitalization (HR 0.33) were observed (41, 42). These findings were later confirmed in a prospective PSM study from Houston (43, 44). Of interest, a retrospective PSM study from Providence did not show any benefit, but patients were treated at a median of 7 days after onset of symptoms (45). Another PSM study from Yale associated CCP with a 35% reduction in mortality (46). That study is notable in that it included patients on mechanical ventilation who would not normally be expected to benefit from CCP and the percentage of individuals receiving corticosteroids was very low since the study was conducted in the early days of the pandemic in the USA. Another PSM from the Washington DC area found a reduction in mortality with CCP use at both days 14 and 28, which reached statistical significance at the earlier date (47). Finally, a very large study from 176 community hospitals affiliated with Healthcare Corporation of America confirmed substantial mortality reduction in hospitalized patients receiving CCP within 3 days from admission (48).

Since PSM only accounts for observed (and observable) covariates, and not latent characteristics, RCT remains the gold standard for highest-level evidence (Table 2). In the PlasmAr RCT, the small number of early arrivals (less than 72 hours) showed superior primary and secondary outcomes in theCCP arm (n= 28) compared to the placebo arm (n=11), but the minimal contribution of this group to the overall cohort (228 CCP and 105 placebo) made the advantage disappear in the final outcomes at day 30 (12). In another Argentinean RCT on 160 outpatients older than 65 years of age with mild COVID-19 who were treated with CCP within 72 hours, progression to severe COVID-19 halved at day 30 (49). An RCT from India reported that patients younger than 67 treated at a median of 4 days after hospital admission manifested superior mitigation of hypoxia and survival in the CCP arm (50). Another RCT in Spain enrolling patients at less than 7 days of hospitalization showed four deaths in the control arm, none in the CCP arm (51). Given that conventional peer-review slows down during a pandemic, pre-publishing RCT results by the preprint mechanism should be encouraged to accelerate sharing of potentially life-saving therapeutic approaches and to provide pre-publication review that could improve the quality of the final published study.

Figure 1 graphically places the outcomes of RCTs and PSM studies on a Cartesian plot having timeliness and nAbs dose as variables (if values are disclosed in the reports): this makes immediately clear that the few successes at reaching the primary endpoints have gathered into the lower right corner (high nAb dose and early intervention), while the many “failures” have been scattered all around (panel A), reflecting lower antibody levels infused or late treatment, or both, with the latter being the commoner problem. Nevertheless, when we focus on mortality irrespective of statistical significance (panel B) or focusing on statistical significance (panel C), many more RCTs showed clear benefits.

We will focus here on “failures” as identified by title, abstract and/or press recognition. Narratively, we could group so-called “failures”, with failure implying inability to demonstrate a favorable outcome to CCP use, into 4 categories, according to the main reasons:

  1. Trials that transfused insufficient therapeutic doses of CCP due to either low total IgG levels or low nAb levels (e.g., PLACID)

  2. Trials that transfused appropriate doses of CCP but too late, but which nevertheless reported signals of efficacy (e.g., RECOVERY, CAPSID, NCT04359810 and TSUNAMI)

  3. Trials that were stopped too early to observe benefit or with inherent design flaws, and/or were underpowered such that likelihood of success was reduced (e.g., C3PO)

  4. Trial in which CCP was used to treat a condition not amenable to antibody intervention, such as hypoxia that is caused by pulmonary inflammation

Stopping trials for futility is an occurrence that deserves special attention, because it represents wasted resources during a pandemic. Six RCTs so far have been halted for futility, namely RECOVERY, REMAP-CAP, CONCOR-1, C3PO, and NCT04361253, with the first one being to date the strongest evidence for futility (30), with its massive recruitment affecting the outcomes of systematic reviews (52). Instead of stopping trials for futility based on pre-set endpoints it makes more sense that DSMBs facing a high likelihood of lack of statistical significance provide advice on trial modifications that are likely to amplify the significance of signals of efficacy evident in these studies. This would seem a more responsible action than trial cessation given the paucity of therapeutic alternatives in the pandemic emergency. Indeed, a Bayesian re-analysis of RECOVERY data with a wide variety of priors (vague, optimistic, skeptical and pessimistic) calculated the posterior probability for both any benefit or a modest benefit (number needed to treat of 100). Across all patients, when analyzed 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% (53). This finding of benefit accruing to specific sub-groups, who were not determined post-hoc but because they were likely to benefit based on understanding of principles of CP treatment is found in nearly every trial whose overall finding is negative.

The inadequacy of meta-analyses

With all the heterogeneity in key drivers discussed in the former paragraphs, it becomes clear that secondary research (ranging from umbrella reviews to meta-analyses to systematic reviews), whereby each study is considered at the same level, invariably ends up with biased and divergent conclusions. This adds confusion to the already complex field of individual trial outcomes. Amazingly, as of August 24, 2021, PubMed has indexed 25 meta-analyses on CCP efficacy, more than the RCTs reported at the same date. Until the beginning of 2021, meta-analyses (variably including observational studies) were generally in favor of CCP (54), but began to be biased towards failure after publication of the large RECOVERY trial (30), which, by enrolling as many as 11,448 patients, diluted all the other divergent RCTs. Clear examples of this phenomenon come from a widely cited metanalysis from Janiaud et al in JAMA (52) which included press release data from RECOVERY and from the living systematic review by the Cochrane Group (55). This paper was surely unprecedented in the tradition of meta-analysis, not only because it included a study based only on a news release (which proved to differ in some important respects from the published paper), but because it allowed these data from a news release to dominate the entire analysis. Several groups attempted to dissect the RECOVERY trial and others by running subgroup analyses in their systematic reviews (53, 56, 57), but these reviews were unable to restore confidence in CCP efficacy in the clinical community that had been lost because of the publication of the overall negative findings of RECOVERY and PlasmAr (58). A metanalysis of 22,591 patients (enrolled in 10 RCTs and 15 observational studies) showed that early CCP significantly reduced mortality (RR 0.72, p<0.00001), but only in patients who were not suffering severe or critical disease (59). On the other hand, another metanalysis of 18 peer-review clinical trials, 3 preprints, and 26 observational studies actually found that CCP use was associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality in severe or critical COVID-19 patients (60). A recent umbrella review of 29 metanalyses and systematic reviews found evidences for improvement in the CCP arms for some outcomes (overall mortality, viral clearance at day 3,) but not for others (clinical improvement, length of hospital stay (61).

Rather than pooling published RCTs, the Continuous Monitoring of Pooled International Trials of Convalescent Plasma for COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients (COMPILE) study pooled individual patient data from ongoing RCTs at two-week intervals. Unfortunately, with the single exception of CONTAIN, participating RCTs largely shared late usage (DAWN-plasma, PLACID, ConCOVID, ConPlas-19, NCT04421404, NCT04397757, and the Brasília Covid-19 Convalescent Plasma (BCCP)) (62).

Conclusions

While CCP contains a plethora of biologically active molecules (63), we now have very strong evidence that appropriately vetted CCP from eligible convalescent donors is safe for patients (64, 65), with no evidence of increased risks of transfusion-transmitted acute lung injury, antibody-mediated enhancement concerns feared in the early days of the pandemic (66) nor is there evidence that CCP induces accelerated SARS-CoV-2 evolution (11). Polyclonal antibodies such as CCP, or CCP-derived hyperimmune globulins made from large donor pools, are likely to offer better protection against onset of variants than monoclonal antibodies. Outcomes in immunocompromised patients treated with CCP have been successful in the long-term, with minimal evidence for immune escape (67). There is evidence that vaccinated convalescents may have even higher nAb titers than unvaccinated convalescents offering the promise of expanded success in using CCP (68).

We have also learned that CCP is less likely to benefit patients requiring oxygen (i.e., from level 4 and up on the 11-point WHO ordinal scale), and hence, ideally, the focus should be on outpatients and in identifying that subset of patients who seek hospital care and are still sufficiently early in the course of disease such that they can benefit from CCP. This finding parallels the finding with hyperimmune serum and anti-Spike monoclonal antibodies, which at first failed in hospitalized patients (69, 70), but later succeeded for ambulatory patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 (71) and were approved for emergency use. However, at this moment clinical use in the US is restricted by the FDA to inpatients.

CCP usage per admission peaked after issuance of the EUA, with more than 40% of inpatients estimated to have received CCP between late September and early November 2020. However, following reports of RCTs that failed to show clear benefit from CCP, usage per admissions declined steadily to a nadir of less than 10% in March 2021. A strong inverse correlation (Pearson correlation coefficient of -0.5176 with P = 0.00242) was found between CCP usage/hospital admission and deaths occurring 2 weeks after admission, and this finding was robust to examination of deaths taking place 1, 2 or 3 weeks after admission. Changes in the number of hospital admissions, prevalence of variants, and age of patients could not explain these findings. The authors estimated that the retreat from CCP usage, a phenomenon they termed “plasma hesitancy”, might have resulted in 29,000 to 36,000 excess deaths in the period from mid-November 2020 to February 2021 (72). The same analysis estimated that USA had avoided 96,000 excess deaths from August 2020 to March 2021 by its liberal deployment of CCP.

Several lines of evidence, ranging from the EAP to clinical trials employing RCT or PSM controls are now indicating how CCP should be used in immunocompetent patients (73). The evidence supports the initiation of CCP treatment as early as 44-72 hours within onset of symptoms (which largely pertains to outpatients) and using CCP with a nAb titer > 1:160. Benefit within 1 week from onset of symptoms (including in hospitalized patients) is less well understood, although a benefit from higher therapeutic doses cannot be ruled out at this stage. Clinical benefit seems absent when administered after 1 week from onset of symptoms or in patients requiring ventilation, or in those who receive CCP with a low nAb titer. Nevertheless, chronically immunosuppressed patients benefit from CCP even at later stages (67, 74, 75) : the best evidence for this scenario comes from a prospective PSM showing a halving of mortality in ICU-admitted oncohematological COVID-19 patients who received CCP (76). We note that while there have been concerns that use in immuncompromised can promote the emergence of antibody-resistant variants, such variants have emerged from massive replication in susceptible populations and not from treated patients, who in any case are isolated in hospitals where mitigation efforts to reduce transmission are employed, and are thus very unlikely to transmit their viruses further (77). Such simple concepts have been poorly communicated to the general public and the clinical community, who should be better informed of the state of current evidence that support CCP efficacy.

The future of CCP

CCP remains a relatively inexpensive therapy that is available throughout the world even in resource poor areas that cannot afford expensive antiviral drugs or monoclonal antibody therapies. Much has been learned about the variables that affect CCP efficacy even though, as recounted here, the clinical efficacy data is mixed. Table 4 lists the RCTs whose outcomes have still to be reported after completion or which are still recruiting patients. Unfortunately, little new can be expected given that most of these RCTs were designed to enroll patients having symptoms for more than 7 days. Given the heterogeneity of the product and the complex variables that contribute to efficacy it is remarkable that many studies have reported reductions in mortality. This suggests a robust therapeutic effect that allow signals of efficacy to break through all the noise imposed by variability in the product and its clinical use. The positive evidence for CCP efficacy cannot be dismissed while negative results can be explained. In the absence of good therapeutic options for COVID-19, CCP is likely to find a niche in the early treatment of disease. Instead of looking for unlikely superiority outcomes, noninferiority RCTs comparing monoclonal antibody versus CCP in early arrivals should be initiated. Such an RCT is very unlikely to be sponsored by vendor companies, so public institutions should be sensitized to funding it.

Given the experience accumulated with COVID-19, it is almost certain that CP will again be deployed for the next epidemic and we are hopeful that lessons learned in this pandemic are heeded such that use and trials focus on the very early use with high-titer CP.

We declare we have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Data Availability

All data are available via request to the corresponding author

Footnotes

  • Updated datas from several RCTs

Abbreviations

BSC
best supportive care
CP
convalescent plasma
CCP
COVID-19 convalescent plasma
nAbs
neutralizing antibodies
VNT
viral neutralization test

References

  1. 1.↵
    Casadevall A, Pirofski LA, Joyner MJ. 2021. The Principles of Antibody Therapy for Infectious Diseases with Relevance for COVID-19. mBio 12:e03372–20.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    Casadevall A, Pirofski L-a. 2020. The convalescent sera option for containing COVID-19. The Journal of Clinical Investigation 130.
  3. 3.↵
    Luke TC, Casadevall A, Watowich SJ, Hoffman SL, Beigel JH, Burgess TH. 2010. Hark back: passive immunotherapy for influenza and other serious infections. Crit Care Med 38:e66–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    Duan K, Liu B, Li C, Zhang H, Yu T, Qu J, Zhou M, Chen L, Meng S, Hu Y, Peng C, Yuan M, Huang J, Wang Z, Yu J, Gao X, Wang D, Yu X, Li L, Zhang J, Wu X, Li B, Xu Y, Chen W, Peng Y, Hu Y, Lin L, Liu X, Huang S, Zhou Z, Zhang L, Wang Y, Zhang Z, Deng K, Xia Z, Gong Q, Zhang W, Zheng X, Liu Y, Yang H, Zhou D, Yu D, Hou J, Shi Z, Chen S, Chen Z, Zhang X, Yang X. 2020. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma therapy in severe COVID-19 patients. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences doi:10.1073/pnas.2004168117:202004168.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. 5.↵
    Li L, Zhang W, Hu Y, Tong X, Zheng S, Yang J, Kong Y, Ren L, Wei Q, Mei H, Hu C, Tao C, Yang R, Wang J, Yu Y, Guo Y, Wu X, Xu Z, Zeng L, Xiong N, Chen L, Wang J, Man N, Liu Y, Xu H, Deng E, Zhang X, Li C, Wang C, Su S, Zhang L, Wang J, Wu Y, Liu Z. 2020. Effect of Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Time to Clinical Improvement in Patients With Severe and Life-threatening COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 324:460–470.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Perotti C, Baldanti F, Bruno R, Delfante C, Seminari E, Casari S, Percivalle E, Glingani C, Musella V, Belliato M, Garuti M, Meloni F, Frigato M, Di Sabatino A, Klersy C, De Donno G, Franchini M. 2020. Mortality reduction in 46 severe Covid-19 patients treated with hyperimmune plasma. A proof of concept single arm multicenter interventional trial. Haematologica 105:2834–2840.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    Focosi D, Anderson AO, Tang JW, Tuccori M. 2020. Convalescent Plasma Therapy for COVID-19: State of the Art. Clin Microbiol Rev 33:e00072–20.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    Joyner MJ, Wright RS, Fairweather D, Senefeld JW, Bruno KA, Klassen SA, Carter RE, Klompas AM, Wiggins CC, Shepherd JR, Rea RF, Whelan ER, Clayburn AJ, Spiegel MR, Johnson PW, Lesser ER, Baker SE, Larson KF, Ripoll JG, Andersen KJ, Hodge DO, Kunze KL, Buras MR, Vogt MN, Herasevich V, Dennis JJ, Regimbal RJ, Bauer PR, Blair JE, van Buskirk CM, Winters JL, Stubbs JR, Paneth NS, Verdun NC, Marks P, Casadevall A. 2020. Early safety indicators of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 5,000 patients. J Clin Invest doi:10.1172/jci140200.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    Joyner MJ, Carter RE, Senefeld JW, Klassen SA, Mills JR, Johnson PW, Theel ES, Wiggins CC, Bruno KA, Klompas AM, Lesser ER, Kunze KL, Sexton MA, Diaz Soto JC, Baker SE, Shepherd JRA, van Helmond N, Verdun NC, Marks P, van Buskirk CM, Winters JL, Stubbs JR, Rea RF, Hodge DO, Herasevich V, Whelan ER, Clayburn AJ, Larson KF, Ripoll JG, Andersen KJ, Buras MR, Vogt MNP, Dennis JJ, Regimbal RJ, Bauer PR, Blair JE, Paneth NS, Fairweather D, Wright RS, Casadevall A. 2021. Convalescent Plasma Antibody Levels and the Risk of Death from Covid-19. N Engl J Med 384:1015–1027.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Agarwal A, Mukherjee A, Kumar G, Chatterjee P, Bhatnagar T, Malhotra P, Latha B, Bundas S, Kumar V, Dosi R, Khambholja JK, de Souza R, Mesipogu RR, Srivastava S, Dube S, Chaudhary K SS,, Mattuvar K SA, Rajendran V, Sundararajaperumal A, Balamanikandan P, Maheswari RSU, Jayanthi R, Ragunanthanan S, Bhandari S, Singh A, Pal A, Handa A, Rankawat G, Kargirwar K, Regi J, Rathod D, Pathrose E, Bhutaka N, Patel MH, Verma RJ, Malukani K, Patel S, Thakur A, Joshi S, Kulkarni R, Suthar NN, Shah NM, Purohit HM, Shah CK, Patel MN, Shah S, Shah SH, Memon T, Beriwala VR, et al. 2020. Convalescent plasma in the management of moderate COVID-19 in India: open-label parallel-arm phase II multicentre randomized controlled trial (PLACID Trial). BMJ 371:m3939.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    O’Donnell MR, Grinsztejn B, Cummings MJ, Justman J, Lamb MR, Eckhardt CM, Philip NM, Cheung YK, Gupta V, João E, Pilotto JH, Diniz MP, Cardoso SW, Abrams D, Rajagopalan K, Borden S, Wolf A, Sidi LC, Vizzoni A, Veloso VG, Bitan ZC, Scotto DE, Meyer BJ, Jacobson SD, Kantor A, Mishra N, Chauhan LV, Stone E, Dei Zotti F, La Carpia F, Hudson KE, Ferrera SA, Schwartz J, Stotler B, Lin W-H, Wontakal S, Shaz B, Briese T, Hod EA, Spitalnik SL, Eisenberger A, Lipkin WI. 2021. A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of convalescent plasma in adults with severe COVID-19. J Clin Invest doi:10.1172/JCI150646:150646.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. 12.↵
    Simonovich VA, Burgos Pratx LD, Scibona P, Beruto MV, Vallone MG, Vázquez C, Savoy N, Giunta DH, Pérez LG, Sánchez MdL, Gamarnik AV, Ojeda DS, Santoro DM, Camino PJ, Antelo S, Rainero K, Vidiella GP, Miyazaki EA, Cornistein W, Trabadelo OA, Ross FM, Spotti M, Funtowicz G, Scordo WE, Losso MH, Ferniot I, Pardo PE, Rodriguez E, Rucci P, Pasquali J, Fuentes NA, Esperatti M, Speroni GA, Nannini EC, Matteaccio A, Michelangelo HG, Follmann D, Lane HC, Belloso WH. 2020. A Randomized Trial of Convalescent Plasma in Covid-19 Severe Pneumonia. N Engl J Med 384:619–629.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    Pirofski LA, Casadevall A. 2020. Pathogenesis of COVID-19 from the Perspective of the Damage-Response Framework. mBio 11.
  14. 14.↵
    Van Rompay KKA, Olstad KJ, Sammak RL, Dutra J, Watanabe JK, Usachenko JL, Immareddy R, Roh JW, Verma A, Lakshmanappa YS, Schmidt BA, Germanio CD, Rizvi N, Stone M, Simmons G, Dumont LJ, Allen AM, Lockwood S, Pollard RE, de Assis RR, Yee JL, Nham PB, Ardeshir A, Deere JD, Patterson J, Jain A, Felgner PL, Iyer SS, Hartigan-O’Connor DJ, Busch MP, Reader JR. 2021. Early post-infection treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infected macaques with human convalescent plasma with high neutralizing activity reduces lung inflammation. doi:10.1101/2021.09.01.458520 %J bioRxiv:2021.09.01.458520.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    Focosi D, Maggi F, Franchini M, Aguzzi A, Lanza M, Mazzoni A, Menichetti F. 2021. Patient-blood management for COVID19 convalescent plasma therapy: relevance of affinity and donor-recipient differences in concentration of neutralizing antibodies. Clin Microbiol Infect doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2021.04.003.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. 16.↵
    Alamgir J, Abid R, Garibaldi BT, Munir N, Setoguchi S, Hong SS, Chen X, Kocis PT, Yajima M, Alexander GC, Mehta HB, Madhira V, Ergas R, O’Brien TR, Bozzette S. 2021. Lack of association between convalescent plasma administration and length of hospital stay: a hospital-day stratified multi-center retrospective cohort study. medRxiv [Preprint] doi:10.1101/2021.05.04.21256627 %J medRxiv:2021.05.04.21256627.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    Kocayiğit H, Demir G, Karacan A, Süner K, Tomak Y, Yaylacı S, Dheir H, Kalpakci Y, Erdem AF. 2021. Effects on mortality of early vs late administration of convalescent plasma in the treatment of Covid-19. Transfus Apher Sci doi:10.1016/j.transci.2021.103148:103148.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    Focosi D, Navarro D, Maggi F, Roilides E, Antonelli G. 2021. COVID-19 infodemics: the role of mainstream and social media. Clin Microbiol Infect doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2021.08.003.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.↵
    Harrell F, Lindsell C. 2021. Statistical Design and Analysis Plan for Sequential Parallel-Group RCT for COVID-19.
  20. 20.↵
    Borobia AM, Carcas AJ, Pérez-Olmeda M, Castaño L, Bertran MJ, García-Pérez J, Campins M, Portolés A, González-Pérez M, García Morales MT, Arana-Arri E, Aldea M, Díez-Fuertes F, Fuentes I, Ascaso A, Lora D, Imaz-Ayo N, Barón-Mira LE, Agustí A, Pérez-Ingidua C, Gómez de la Cámara A, Arribas JR, Ochando J, Alcamí J, Belda-Iniesta C, Frías J. 2021. Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 booster in ChAdOx1-S-primed participants (CombiVacS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet 398:121–130.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. 21.↵
    WHO. 2020. R & D Blueprint - novel Coronavirus COVID19 Therapeutic Trial Synopsis. https://www.who.int/blueprint/priority-diseases/key-action/COVID-19_Treatment_Trial_Design_Master_Protocol_synopsis_Final_18022020.pdf?ua=1. Accessed October 1.
  22. 22.↵
    Anonymous. 2020. A minimal common outcome measure set for COVID-19 clinical research. Lancet Infect Dis 20:e192–e197.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    Korley FK, Durkalski-Mauldin V, Yeatts SD, Schulman K, Davenport RD, Dumont LJ, El Kassar N, Foster LD, Hah JM, Jaiswal S, Kaplan A, Lowell E, McDyer JF, Quinn J, Triulzi DJ, Van Huysen C, Stevenson VLW, Yadav K, Jones CW, Kea B, Burnett A, Reynolds JC, Greineder CF, Haas NL, Beiser DG, Silbergleit R, Barsan W, Callaway CW. 2021. Early Convalescent Plasma for High-Risk Outpatients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2103784.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    Epstein J, Burnouf T. 2020. Points to consider in the preparation and transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma. Vox Sang 115:485–487.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    Focosi D, Mazzetti P, Pistello M, Maggi F. 2020. Viral infection neutralization tests: a focus on SARS-CoV-2 with implications for convalescent plasma therapy. Rev Med Virol doi:10.1002/rmv.2170:e2170.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. 26.↵
    Nguyen D, Simmonds P, Steenhuis M, Wouters E, Desmecht D, Garigliany M, Romano M, Barbezange C, Maes P, Van Holm B, Mendoza J, Oyonarte S, Fomsgaard A, Lassaunière R, Zusinaite E, Resman Rus K, Avšič-Županc T, Reimerink JH, Brouwer F, Hoogerwerf M, Reusken CB, Grodeland G, Le Cam S, Gallian P, Amroun A, Brisbarre N, Martinaud C, Leparc Goffart I, Schrezenmeier H, Feys HB, van der Schoot CE, Harvala H. 2021. SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibody testing in Europe: towards harmonisation of neutralising antibody titres for better use of convalescent plasma and comparability of trial data. Euro Surveill 26.
  27. 27.↵
    Klingler J, Weiss S, Itri V, Liu X, Oguntuyo KY, Stevens C, Ikegame S, Hung C-T, Enyindah-Asonye G, Amanat F, Baine I, Arinsburg S, Bandres JC, Kojic EM, Stoever J, Jurczyszak D, Bermudez-Gonzalez M, Simon V, Nádas A, Liu S, Lee B, Krammer F, Zolla-Pazner S, Hioe CE. 2020. Role of IgM and IgA Antibodies in the Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2. medRxiv [Preprint] doi:10.1101/2020.08.18.20177303 %J medRxiv:2020.08.18.20177303.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    Egloff SAA, Junglen A, Restivo JSA, Wongskhaluang M, Martin C, Doshi P, Schlauch D, Fromell G, Sears LE, Correll M, Burris HA, LeMaistre CF. 2021. Convalescent plasma associates with reduced mortality and improved clinical trajectory in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. J Clin Invest doi:10.1172/JCI151788.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. 29.↵
    Natarajan H, Crowley AR, Butler SE, Xu S, Weiner JA, Bloch EM, Littlefield K, Wieland-Alter W, Connor RI, Wright PF, Benner SE, Bonny TS, Laeyendecker O, Sullivan D, Shoham S, Quinn TC, Larman HB, Casadevall A, Pekosz A, Redd AD, Tobian AAR, Ackerman ME. 2021. Markers of Polyfunctional SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in Convalescent Plasma. mBio 12.
  30. 30.↵
    Horby PW, Estcourt L, Peto L, Emberson JR, Staplin N, Spata E, Pessoa-Amorim G, Campbell M, Roddick A, Brunskill NE, George T, Zehnder D, Tiberi S, Aung NN, Uriel A, Widdrington J, Koshy G, Brown T, Scott S, Baillie JK, Buch MH, Chappell LC, Day JN, Faust SN, Jaki T, Jeffery K, Juszczak E, Lim WS, Montgomery A, Mumford A, Rowan K, Thwaites G, Mafham M, Roberts D, Haynes R, Landray MJ. 2021. Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial. Lancet 397:2049–2059.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    Gharbharan A, Jordans CCE, GeurtsvanKessel C, den Hollander JG, Karim F, Mollema FPN, Stalenhoef JE, Dofferhoff A, Ludwig I, Koster A, Hassing R-J, Bos JC, van Pottelberge GR, Vlasveld IN, Ammerlaan HSM, Segarceanu E, Miedema J, van der Eerden M, Papageorgiou G, te Broekhorst P, Swaneveld FH, Katsikis PD, Mueller Y, Okba NMA, Koopmans MPG, Haagmans BL, Rokx C, Rijnders B. 2021. Effects of potent neutralizing antibodies from convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nat Comm 12:3189.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    Del Fante C, Franchini M, Baldanti F, Percivalle E, Glingani C, Marano G, Mengoli C, Mortellaro C, Viarengo G, Perotti C, Liumbruno GM. 2020. A retrospective study assessing the characteristics of COVID-19 convalescent plasma donors and donations. Transfusion 61:830–838.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    Mehew J, Johnson R, Roberts D, Harvala H. 2020. Convalescent plasma for COVID-19: male gender, older age and hospitalisation associated with high neutralising antibody levels, England, 22 April to 12 May 2020. Euro Surveill 25:2001754.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.↵
    Koerper S, Weiss M, Zickler D, Wiesmann T, Zacharowski K, Corman VM, Gruener B, Ernst L, Spieth P, Lepper PM, Bentz M, Zinn S, Paul G, Kalbhenn J, Dollinger M, Rosenberger P, Kirschning T, Thiele T, Appl T, Mayer B, Schmidt M, Drosten C, Wulf H, Kruse JM, Jungwirth B, Seifried E, Schrezenmeier H. 2021. Results of the CAPSID randomized trial for high-dose convalescent plasma in severe COVID-19 patients. J Clin Invest doi:10.1172/JCI152264:2021.05.10.21256192.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. 35.↵
    Kunze KL, Johnson PW, van Helmond N, Senefeld JW, Petersen MM, Klassen SA, Wiggins CC, Klompas AM, Bruno KA, Mills JR, Theel ES, Buras MR, Golafshar MA, Sexton MA, Diaz Soto JC, Baker SE, Shepherd JRA, Verdun NC, Marks P, Paneth NS, Fairweather D, Wright RS, van Buskirk CM, Winters JL, Stubbs JR, Senese KA, Pletsch MC, Buchholtz ZA, Rea RF, Herasevich V, Whelan ER, Clayburn AJ, Larson KF, Ripoll JG, Andersen KJ, Lesser ER, Vogt MNP, Dennis JJ, Regimbal RJ, Bauer PR, Blair JE, Casadevall A, Carter RE, Joyner MJ. 2021. Mortality in individuals treated with COVID-19 convalescent plasma varies with the geographic provenance of donors. Nat Commun 12:4864.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    Rochman ND, Wolf YI, Faure G, Mutz P, Zhang F, Koonin EV. 2021. Ongoing global and regional adaptive evolution of SARS-CoV-2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 118.
  37. 37.↵
    Junker D, Dulovic A, Becker M, Wagner TR, Kaiser PD, Traenkle B, Rothbauer U, Kienzle K, Bunk S, Strümper C, Häberle H, Schmauder K, Malek N, Althaus K, Koeppen M, Bitzer M, Göpel S, Schneiderhan-Marra N. 2021. Reduced serum neutralization capacity against SARS-CoV-2 variants in a multiplex ACE2 RBD competition assay. medRxiv [Preprint] doi:10.1101/2021.08.20.21262328 %J medRxiv:2021.08.20.21262328.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    Chalmers TC, Matta RJ, Smith H, Jr.., Kunzler AM. 1977. Evidence favoring the use of anticoagulants in the hospital phase of acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 297:1091–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  39. 39.↵
    Senefeld JW, Johnson PW, Kunze KL, van Helmond N, Klassen SA, Wiggins CC, Bruno KA, Golafshar MA, Petersen MM, Buras MR, Klompas AM, Sexton MA, Diaz Soto JC, Baker SE, Shepherd JRA, Verdun NC, Marks P, van Buskirk CM, Winters JL, Stubbs JR, Rea RF, Herasevich V, Whelan ER, Clayburn AJ, Larson KF, Ripoll JG, Andersen KJ, Vogt MNP, Dennis JJ, Regimbal RJ, Bauer PR, Blair JE, Wright K, Greenshields JT, Paneth NS, Fairweather D, Wright RS, Casadevall A, Carter RE, Joyner MJ. 2021. Program and patient characteristics for the United States Expanded Access Program to COVID-19 convalescent plasma. medRxiv [Preprint] doi:10.1101/2021.04.08.21255115 %J medRxiv:2021.04.08.21255115.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    Joyner MJ, Senefeld JW, Klassen SA, Mills JR, Johnson PW, Theel ES, Wiggins CC, Bruno KA, Klompas AM, Lesser ER, Kunze KL, Sexton MA, Diaz Soto JC, Baker SE, Shepherd JRA, van Helmond N, van Buskirk CM, Winters JL, Stubbs JR, Rea RF, Hodge DO, Herasevich V, Whelan ER, Clayburn AJ, Larson KF, Ripoll JG, Andersen KJ, Buras MR, Vogt MNP, Dennis JJ, Regimbal RJ, Bauer PR, Blair JE, Paneth NS, Fairweather D, Wright RS, Carter RE, Casadevall A. 2020. Effect of Convalescent Plasma on Mortality among Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Initial Three-Month Experience. medRxiv [Preprint] doi:10.1101/2020.08.12.20169359 %J medRxiv:2020.08.12.20169359.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    Yoon Ha, Bartash R, Gendlina I, Rivera J, Nakouzi A, Bortz RH, Wirchnianski AS, Paroder M, Fehn K, Serrano-Rahman L, Babb R, Sarwar UN, Haslwanter D, Laudermilch E, Florez C, Dieterle ME, Jangra RK, Fels JM, Tong K, Mariano MC, Vergnolle O, Georgiev GI, Herrera NG, Malonis RJ, Quiroz JA, Morano NC, Krause GJ, Sweeney JM, Cowman K, Allen S, Annam J, Applebaum A, Barboto D, Khokhar A, Lally BJ, Lee A, Lee M, Malaviya A, Sample R, Yang XA, Li Y, Ruiz R, Thota R, Barnhill J, Goldstein DY, Uehlinger J, Garforth SJ, Almo SC, Lai JR, Gil MR, et al. 2021. Treatment of Severe COVID-19 with Convalescent Plasma in the Bronx, NYC. JCI Insight doi:10.1172/jci.insight.142270:142270.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    Liu STH, Lin H-M, Baine I, Wajnberg A, Gumprecht JP, Rahman F, Rodriguez D, Tandon P, Bassily-Marcus A, Bander J, Sanky C, Dupper A, Zheng A, Nguyen FT, Amanat F, Stadlbauer D, Altman DR, Chen BK, Krammer F, Mendu DR, Firpo-Betancourt A, Levin MA, Bagiella E, Casadevall A, Cordon-Cardo C, Jhang JS, Arinsburg SA, Reich DL, Aberg JA, Bouvier NM. 2020. Convalescent plasma treatment of severe COVID-19: a propensity score–matched control study. Nature Medicine 26:1708–1713.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    Salazar E, Christensen PA, Graviss EA, Nguyen DT, Castillo B, Chen J, Lopez BV, Eagar TN, Yi X, Zhao P, Rogers J, Shehabeldin A, Joseph D, Leveque C, Olsen RJ, Bernard DW, Gollihar J, Musser JM. 2020. Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients with Convalescent Plasma Reveals a Signal of Significantly Decreased Mortality. Am J Pathol 190:2290–2303.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    Salazar E, Christensen PA, Graviss EA, Nguyen DT, Castillo B, Chen J, Lopez BV, Eagar TN, Yi X, Zhao P, Rogers J, Shehabeldin A, Joseph D, Masud F, Leveque C, Olsen RJ, Bernard DW, Gollihar J, Musser JM. 2021. Significantly Decreased Mortality in a Large Cohort of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Patients Transfused Early with Convalescent Plasma Containing High-Titer Anti-Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Spike Protein IgG. Am J Pathol 191:90–107.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    Rogers R, Shehadeh F, Mylona EK, Rich J, Neill M, Touzard-Romo F, Geffert S, Larkin J, Bailey JA, Lu S, Sweeney J, Mylonakis E. 2020. Convalescent plasma for patients with severe COVID-19: a matched cohort study. Clin Infect Dis ciaa1548:Epub ahead of print.
  46. 46.↵
    Briggs N, Gormally MV, Li F, Browning SL, Treggiari MM, Morrison A, Laurent-Rolle M, Deng Y, Hendrickson JE, Tormey CA, Desruisseaux MS. 2021. Early but not late convalescent plasma is associated with better survival in moderate-to-severe COVID-19. PLoS One 16:e0254453.
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.↵
    Shenoy AG, Hettinger AZ, Fernandez SJ, Blumenthal J, Baez V. 2021. Early mortality benefit with COVID-19 convalescent plasma: a matched control study. Br J Haematol doi:10.1111/bjh.17272.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. 48.↵
    Arnold Egloff SA, Junglen A, Restivo JSA, Wongskhauluang M, Martin C, Doshi P, Schlauch D, Fromell G, Sears LE, Correll M, Burris HA, LeMaistre CF. 2021. Association of Convalescent Plasma Treatment with Reduced Mortality and Improved Clinical Trajectory in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 in the Community Setting. doi:10.1101/2021.06.02.21258190 %J medRxiv:2021.06.02.21258190.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    Libster R, Pérez Marc G, Wappner D, Coviello S, Bianchi A, Braem V, Esteban I, Caballero MT, Wood C, Berrueta M, Rondan A, Lescano G, Cruz P, Ritou Y, Fernández Viña V, Álvarez Paggi D, Esperante S, Ferreti A, Ofman G, Ciganda Á, Rodriguez R, Lantos J, Valentini R, Itcovici N, Hintze A, Oyarvide ML, Etchegaray C, Neira A, Name I, Alfonso J, López Castelo R, Caruso G, Rapelius S, Alvez F, Etchenique F, Dimase F, Alvarez D, Aranda SS, Sánchez Yanotti C, De Luca J, Jares Baglivo S, Laudanno S, Nowogrodzki F, Larrea R, Silveyra M, Leberzstein G, Debonis A, Molinos J, González M, Perez E, et al. 2021. Early High-Titer Plasma Therapy to Prevent Severe Covid-19 in Older Adults. N Engl J Med 384:610–618.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    Ray Y, Paul SR, Bandopadhyay P, D’Rozario R, Sarif J, Lahiri A, Bhowmik D, Vasudevan JS, Maurya R, Kanakan A, Sharma S, Kumar M, Singh P, Roy R, Chaudhury K, Maiti R, Bagchi S, Maiti A, Perwez MM, Mondal A, Tewari A, Mandal S, Roy A, Saha M, Biswas D, Maiti C, Chakraborty S, Sarkar BS, Haldar A, Saha B, Sengupta S, Pandey R, Chatterjee S, Bhattacharya P, Paul S, Ganguly D. 2020. Clinical and immunological benefits of convalescent plasma therapy in severe COVID-19: insights from a single center open label randomised control trial. medRxiv [Preprint] doi:10.1101/2020.11.25.20237883 %J medRxiv:2020.11.25.20237883.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. 51.↵
    Avendano-Sola C, Ramos-Martinez A, Munez-Rubio E, Ruiz-Antoran B, Malo de Molina R, Torres F, Fernandez-Cruz A, Callejas-Diaz A, Calderon J, Payares-Herrera C, Salcedo I, Romera I, Lora-Tamayo J, Mancheno-Losa M, Paciello ML, Villegas C, Estrada V, Saez-Serrano I, Porras-Leal ML, Jarilla-Fernandez MdC, Pano-Pardo JR, Moreno-Chulilla JA, Arrieta-Aldea I, Bosch A, Belhassen-Garcia M, Lopez-Villar O, Ramos-Garrido A, Blanco L, Madrigal ME, Contreras E, Muniz-Diaz E, Domingo-Morera JM, Casas-Flecha I, Perez-Olmeda M, Garcia-Perez J, Alcami J, Bueno JL, Duarte RF. 2021. A multicenter randomized open-label clinical trial for convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. J Clin Invest doi:10.1172/JCI152740:152740.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. 52.↵
    Janiaud P, Axfors C, Schmitt AM, Gloy V, Ebrahimi F, Hepprich M, Smith ER, Haber NA, Khanna N, Moher D, Goodman SN, Ioannidis JPA, Hemkens LG. 2021. Association of Convalescent Plasma Treatment With Clinical Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA 325:1185–1195.
    OpenUrl
  53. 53.↵
    Hamilton FW, Lee TC, Arnold DT, Lilford RJ, Hemming K. 2021. Is convalescent plasma futile in COVID-19? A Bayesian re-analysis of the RECOVERY randomised controlled trial. Int J Infect Dis S1201-9712:00523-3.
  54. 54.↵
    Klassen SA, Senefeld JW, Johnson PW, Carter RE, Wiggins CC, Shoham S, Grossman BJ, Henderson JP, Musser J, Salazar E, Hartman WR, Bouvier NM, Liu STH, Pirofski LA, Baker SE, van Helmond N, Wright RS, Fairweather D, Bruno KA, Wang Z, Paneth NS, Casadevall A, Joyner MJ. 2021. The Effect of Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Mortality Among Patients With COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Mayo Clin Proc 96:1262–1275.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  55. 55.↵
    Piechotta V, Iannizzi C, Chai KL, Valk SJ, Kimber C, Dorando E, Monsef I, Wood EM, Lamikanra AA, Roberts DJ, McQuilten Z, So-Osman C, Estcourt LJ, Skoetz N. 2021. Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 5:Cd013600.
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.↵
    Cruciani M, Bongiovanni G, Franchini M. 2021. High-titer convalescent plasma therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 and mortality. Transfusion 61:1988–1990.
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.↵
    Klassen SA, Senefeld JW, Senese KA, Johnson PW, Wiggins CC, Baker SE, van Helmond N, Bruno KA, Pirofski LA, Shoham S, Grossman BJ, Henderson JP, Wright RS, Fairweather D, Paneth NS, Carter RE, Casadevall A, Joyner MJ. 2021. Convalescent Plasma Therapy for COVID-19: A Graphical Mosaic of the Worldwide Evidence. Front Med (Lausanne) 8:684151.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  58. 58.↵
    Casadevall A, Grossman BJ, Henderson JP, Joyner MJ, Paneth NS, Pirofski LA, Shoham S. 2021. Please Reevaluate the Data on Convalescent Plasma for COVID-19. https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/94256?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2021-08-30&eun=g1783322d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Headlines%20Top%20Cat%20HeC%20%202021-08-30&utm_term=NL_Daily_DHE_dual-gmail-definition. Accessed August 31, 2021.
  59. 59.↵
    de Candia P, Prattichizzo F, Garavelli S, La Grotta R, De Rosa A, Pontarelli A, Parrella R, Ceriello A, Matarese G. 2021. Effect of time and titer in convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19. iScience doi:10.1016/j.isci.2021.102898:102898.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. 60.↵
    Kloypan C, Saesong M, Sangsuemoon J, Chantharit P, Mongkhon P. 2021. Convalescent Plasma for COVID-19: A Meta-analysis of Clinical Trials and Real-World Evidence. Eur J Clin Invest doi:10.1111/eci.13663:e13663.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  61. 61.↵
    Franchini M, Focosi D, Corsini F, Cruciani M. 2021. Safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in COVID-19: an overview of systematic reviews. Diagnostics.
  62. 62.↵
    Anonymous. 2021. Continuous Monitoring of Pooled International Trials of Convalescent Plasma for COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients. https://med.nyu.edu/departments-institutes/population-health/divisions-sections-centers/biostatistics/research/continuous-monitoring-pooled-international-trials-convalescent-plasma-covid19-hospitalized-patients. Accessed August 31, 2021.
  63. 63.↵
    Focosi D, Franchini M, Pirofski L-a, Burnouf T, Fairweather D, Joyner MJ, Casadevall A. 2021. COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Is More than Neutralizing Antibodies: A Narrative Review of Potential Beneficial and Detrimental Co-Factors. Viruses 13:1594.
    OpenUrl
  64. 64.↵
    Franchini M, Cruciani M. 2021. How Safe Is COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma? Mayo Clin Proc 96:2279–2281.
    OpenUrl
  65. 65.↵
    Joyner MJ, Bruno KA, Klassen SA, Kunze KL, Johnson PW, Lesser ER, Wiggins CC, Senefeld JW, Klompas AM, Hodge DO, Shepherd JR, Rea RF, Whelan ER, Clayburn AJ, Spiegel MR, Baker SE, Larson KF, Ripoll JG, Andersen KJ, Buras MR, Vogt MN, Herasevich V, Dennis JJ, Regimbal RJ, Bauer PR, Blair JE, van buskirk CM, Winters JL, Stubbs JR, van Helmond N, Butterfield BP, Sexton M, Diaz Soto J, Paneth NS, Verdun NC, Marks P, Casadevall A, Fairweather D, Carter RE, Wright RS. 2020. Safety Update: COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in 20,000 Hospitalized Patients. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 95:1888–95.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    Lee WS, Wheatley AK, Kent SJ, DeKosky BJ. 2020. Antibody-dependent enhancement and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies. Nature Microbiology 5:1185–1191.
    OpenUrl
  67. 67.↵
    Focosi D, Franchini M. 2021. Potential use of convalescent plasma for SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis and treatment in immunocompromised and vulnerable populations. Expert Rev Vaccines doi:10.1080/14760584.2021.1932475:1-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  68. 68.↵
    Vickers MA, Sariol A, Leon J, Ehlers A, Locher AV, Dubay KA, Collins L, Voss D, Odle AE, Holida M, Merrill AE, Perlman S, Knudson CM. 2021. Exponential increase in neutralizing and spike specific antibodies following vaccination of COVID-19 convalescent plasma donors. Transfusion doi:10.1111/trf.16401.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    Anonymous. 2021. CoVIg-19 Plasma Alliance Announces Topline Results from NIH-Sponsored Clinical Trial of Investigational COVID-19 Hyperimmune Globulin Medicine. https://www.takeda.com/newsroom/newsreleases/2021/covig-19-plasma-alliance-announces-topline-results-from-nih-sponsored-clinical-trial-of-investigational-covid-19-hyperimmune-globulin-medicine/. Accessed April 2, 2021.
  70. 70.↵
    Anonymous. 2020. ACTIV-3/TICO LY-CoV555 Study Group. A Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody for Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med 384:905–914.
    OpenUrl
  71. 71.↵
    Dougan M, Nirula A, Azizad M, Mocherla B, Gottlieb RL, Chen P, Hebert C, Perry R, Boscia J, Heller B, Morris J, Crystal C, Igbinadolor A, Huhn G, Cardona J, Shawa I, Kumar P, Adams AC, Van Naarden J, Custer KL, Durante M, Oakley G, Schade AE, Holzer TR, Ebert PJ, Higgs RE, Kallewaard NL, Sabo J, Patel DR, Dabora MC, Klekotka P, Shen L, Skovronsky DM. 2021. Bamlanivimab plus Etesevimab in Mild or Moderate Covid-19. NEJM doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2102685.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. 72.↵
    Casadevall A, Dragotakes Q, Johnson PW, Senefeld JW, Klassen SS, Wright SR, Joyner MJ, Paneth N, Carter R. 2021. Convalescent Plasma Use in the United States was inversely correlated with COVID-19 Mortality: Did Convalescent Plasma Hesitancy cost lives? Elife 4:e69866.
    OpenUrl
  73. 73.↵
    Focosi D, Franchini M. 2021. COVID-19 convalescent plasma therapy: hit fast, hit hard!. Vox Sang.
  74. 74.↵
    Focosi D, Franchini M. 2021. COVID-19 neutralizing antibody-based therapies in humoral immune deficiencies: A narrative review. Transfus Apher Sci doi:10.1016/j.transci.2021.103071:103071.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  75. 75.↵
    Senefeld JW, Klassen SA, Ford SK, Senese KA, Wiggins CC, Bostrom BC, Thompson MA, Baker SE, Nicholson WT, Johnson PW, Carter RE, Henderson JP, Hartman WR, Pirofski LA, Wright RS, Fairweather L, Bruno KA, Paneth NS, Casadevall A, Joyner MJ. 2021. Use of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients with immunosuppression. Transfusion 61:2503–2511.
    OpenUrl
  76. 76.↵
    Thompson MA, Henderson JP, Shah PK, Rubinstein SM, Joyner MJ, Choueiri TK, Flora DB, Griffiths EA, Gulati AP, Hwang C, Koshkin VS, Papadopoulos EB, Robilotti EV, Su CT, Wulff-Burchfield EM, Xie Z, Yu PP, Mishra S, Senefeld JW, Shah DP, Warner JL. 2021. Association of Convalescent Plasma Therapy With Survival in Patients With Hematologic Cancers and COVID-19. JAMA Oncol doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.1799.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  77. 77.↵
    Casadevall A, Henderson J, Joyner M, Pirofski L-a. 2021. SARS-Cov2 variants and convalescent plasma: reality, fallacies, and opportunities. The Journal of Clinical Investigation doi:10.1172/JCI148832.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  78. 78.
    Moscato G, Mazzetti P, Lucenteforte E, Rosellini A, Cara A, Quaranta P, Mainardi V, Villa P, Focosi D, Lanza M, Bianco I, Mazzoni A, Falcone M, Menichetti F, Maggi F, Lai M, Freer G, Pistello M. 2021. Assessment of automated high-throughput serological assays for prediction of high-titer SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody. Journal of Clinical Virology Plus 1:100016.
    OpenUrl
  79. 79.
    Jahrsdörfer B, Kroschel J, Ludwig C, Corman VM, Schwarz T, Körper S, Rojewski M, Lotfi R, Weinstock C, Drosten C, Seifried E, Stamminger T, Groß HJ, Schrezenmeier H. 2021. Independent Side-by-Side Validation and Comparison of 4 Serological Platforms for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Testing. J Infect Dis 223:796–801.
    OpenUrl
  80. 80.
    Di Germanio C, Simmons G, Kelly K, Martinelli R, Darst O, Azimpouran M, Stone M, Hazegh K, Grebe E, Zhang S, Ma P, Orzechowski M, Gomez JE, Livny J, Hung DT, Vassallo R, Busch MP, Dumont LJ. 2021. SARS-CoV-2 Antibody persistence in COVID-19 convalescent plasma donors: Dependency on assay format and applicability to serosurveillance. Transfusion doi:10.1111/trf.16555:2021.03.24.21254260.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  81. 81.
    Bégin P, Callum J, Jamula E, Cook R, Heddle NM, Tinmouth A, Zeller MP, Beaudoin-Bussières G, Amorim L, Bazin R, Loftsgard KC, Carl R, Chassé M, Cushing MM, Daneman N, Devine DV, Dumaresq J, Fergusson DA, Gabe C, Glesby MJ, Li N, Liu Y, McGeer A, Robitaille N, Sachais BS, Scales DC, Schwartz L, Shehata N, Turgeon AF, Wood H, Zarychanski R, Finzi A, Marceau D, Huang A, Carr H, Lin Y, Lall R, Graham C, Arsenault C, Sales V, Sidhu D, Semret M, Hamm C, Arhanchiague E, Solh Z, Srour N, Soliman K, Yee C, Laroche V, Nahirniak S, et al. 2021. Convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: an open-label, randomized controlled trial. Nature Medicine doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01488-2.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  82. 82.
    Misset B, Hoste E, Donneau A-F, Grimaldi D, Meyfroidt G, Moutschen M, Compernolle V, Gothot A, Desmecht D, Garigliany M, Najdovski T, Laterre P-F. 2020. A multicenter randomized trial to assess the efficacy of CONvalescent plasma therapy in patients with Invasive COVID-19 and acute respiratory failure treated with mechanical ventilation: the CONFIDENT trial protocol. BMC Pulmonary Medicine 20:317.
    OpenUrl
  83. 83.
    Mariën J, Ceulemans A, Michiels J, Heyndrickx L, Kerkhof K, Foque N, Widdowson MA, Mortgat L, Duysburgh E, Desombere I, Jansens H, Van Esbroeck M, Ariën KK. 2021. Evaluating SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid proteins as targets for antibody detection in severe and mild COVID-19 cases using a Luminex bead-based assay. J Virol Methods 288:114025.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  84. 84.
    Betrains A, Godinas L, Woei AJF, Rosseels W, Van Herck Y, Lorent N, Dierickx D, Compernolle V, Meyfroidt G, Vanderbeke L, Vergote V, Lagrou K, Verhamme P, Wauters J, Vermeersch P, Devos T, Maes P, Vanderschueren S. 2021. Convalescent plasma treatment of persistent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in patients with lymphoma with impaired humoral immunity and lack of neutralising antibodies. Br J Haematol 192:1100–1105.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  85. 85.
    Okba NMA, Müller MA, Li W, Wang C, GeurtsvanKessel CH, Corman VM, Lamers MM, Sikkema RS, de Bruin E, Chandler FD, Yazdanpanah Y, Le Hingrat Q, Descamps D, Houhou-Fidouh N, Reusken C, Bosch BJ, Drosten C, Koopmans MPG, Haagmans BL. 2020. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2-Specific Antibody Responses in Coronavirus Disease Patients. Emerg Infect Dis 26:1478–1488.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  86. 86.
    Amanat F, White KM, Miorin L, Strohmeier S, McMahon M, Meade P, Liu W-C, Albrecht RA, Simon V, Martinez-Sobrido L, Moran T, García-Sastre A, Krammer F. 2020. An In Vitro Microneutralization Assay for SARS-CoV-2 Serology and Drug Screening. 58:e108.
    OpenUrl
  87. 87.
    Oguntuyo KY, Stevens CS, Hung C-T, Ikegame S, Acklin JA, Kowdle SS, Carmichael JC, Chiu H-p, Azarm KD, Haas GD, Amanat F, Klingler J, Baine I, Arinsburg S, Bandres JC, Siddiquey MN, Schilke RM, Woolard MD, Zhang H, Duty AJ, Kraus TA, Moran TM, Tortorella D, Lim JK, Gamarnik AV, Hioe CE, Zolla-Pazner S, Ivanov SS, Kamil JP, Krammer F, Lee B. 2020. Quantifying absolute neutralization titers against SARS-CoV-2 by a standardized virus neutralization assay allows for cross-cohort comparisons of COVID-19 sera. mBio 12.
  88. 88.
    Anonymous. Wu Fan, and Wang, Aojie and Liu, Mei and Wang, Qimin and Chen, Jun and Xia, Shuai and Ling, Yun and Zhang, Yuling and Xun, Jingna and Lu, Lu and Jiang, Shibo and Lu Hongzhou, and Wen, Yumei and Huang, Jinghe, Neutralizing Antibody Responses to SARS-CoV-2 in a COVID-19 Recovered Patient Cohort and Their Implications (3/28/2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3566211 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3566211.
  89. 89.
    Beltrán-Pavez C, Riquelme-Barrios S, Oyarzún-Arrau A, Gaete-Argel A, González-Stegmaier R, Cereceda-Solis K, Aguirre A, Travisany D, Palma-Vejares R, Barriga GP, Gaggero A, Martínez-Valdebenito C, Corre NL, Ferrés M, Balcells ME, Fernandez J, Ramírez E, Villarroel F, Valiente-Echeverría F, Soto-Rifo R. 2021. Insights into neutralizing antibody responses in individuals exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in Chile. 7:eabe6855.
    OpenUrl
  90. 90.
    Bennett-Guerrero E, Romeiser JL, Talbot LR, Ahmed T, Mamone LJ, Singh SM, Hearing JC, Salman H, Holiprosad DD, Freedenberg AT, Carter JA, Browne NJ, Cosgrove ME, Shevik ME, Generale LM, Andrew MA, Nachman S, Fries BC. 2021. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Convalescent Plasma Versus Standard Plasma in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infected Hospitalized Patients in New York: A Double-Blind Randomized Trial. Crit Care Med doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000005066.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  91. 91.
    Rasheed AM, Fatak DF, Hashim HA, Maulood MF, Kabah KK, Almusawi YA, Abdulamir AS. 2020. The therapeutic potential of convalescent plasma therapy on treating critically-ill COVID-19 patients residing in respiratory care units in hospitals in Baghdad, Iraq. Infez Med 28:357–366.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  92. 92.
    Balcells ME, Rojas L, Le Corre N, Martínez-Valdebenito C, Ceballos ME, Ferrés M, Chang M, Vizcaya C, Mondaca S, Huete Á, Castro R, Sarmiento M, Villarroel L, Pizarro A, Ross P, Santander J, Lara B, Ferrada M, Vargas-Salas S, Beltrán-Pavez C, Soto-Rifo R, Valiente-Echeverría F, Caglevic C, Mahave M, Selman C, Gazitúa R, Briones JL, Villarroel-Espindola F, Balmaceda C, Espinoza MA, Pereira J, Nervi B. 2020. Early Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Convalescent Plasma in Patients Admitted for COVID-19: A Randomized Phase II Clinical Trial. PLoS Medicine doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003415.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  93. 93.
    AlQahtani M, Abdulrahman A, Almadani A, Alali SY, Al Zamrooni AM, Hejab AH, Conroy RM, Wasif P, Atkin SL, Otoom S, Abduljalil M. 2020. Randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma therapy against standard therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 disease. Sci Rep 11:9927.
    OpenUrl
  94. 94.
    Bajpai M, Kumar S, Maheshwari A, Chhabra K, kale P, Gupta A, Narayanan A, Gupta E, Trehanpati N, Bihari C, Agarwal R, Gupta K, Gupta Uk, Bhardwaj A, Kumar G, Islam M, Singh R, Yadav P, Maiwall R, Sarin SK. 2020. Efficacy of Convalescent Plasma Therapy compared to Fresh Frozen Plasma in Severely ill COVID-19 Patients: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. medRxiv [Preprint] doi:10.1101/2020.10.25.20219337 %J medRxiv:2020.10.25.20219337.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  95. 95.
    Angus DC, Berry S, Lewis RJ, Al-Beidh F, Arabi Y, van Bentum-Puijk W, Bhimani Z, Bonten M, Broglio K, Brunkhorst F, Cheng AC, Chiche JD, De Jong M, Detry M, Goossens H, Gordon A, Green C, Higgins AM, Hullegie SJ, Kruger P, Lamontagne F, Litton E, Marshall J, McGlothlin A, McGuinness S, Mouncey P, Murthy S, Nichol A, O’Neill GK, Parke R, Parker J, Rohde G, Rowan K, Turner A, Young P, Derde L, McArthur C, Webb SA. 2020. The REMAP-CAP (Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community-acquired Pneumonia) Study. Rationale and Design. Ann Am Thorac Soc 17:879–891.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  96. 96.
    Estcourt LJ. 2021. Convalescent Plasma in Critically ill Patients with COVID-19. medRxiv [Preprint] doi:10.1101/2021.06.11.21258760 %J medRxiv:2021.06.11.21258760.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  97. 97.
    Anonymous. National COVID19 Convalescent Plasma Project. Commentary from the COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Project (CCPP19) Leadership Group on “Early Convalescent Plasma for High-Risk Outpatients with Covid-19”. Accessed online at https://ccpp19.org/news/review%20of%20NEJM%20US%20outpatient%20CP%20trial%208-23.docx on August 25, 2021.
  98. 98.
    Anonymous. March 2, 2021. NIH halts trial of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in emergency department patients with mild symptoms. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-halts-trial-covid-19-convalescent-plasma-emergency-department-patients-mild-symptoms. Accessed
  99. 99.
    Beltran Gonzalez JL, Gonzalez Gamez M, Mendoza Enciso EA, Esparza Maldonado RJ, Hernandez Palacios D, Duenas Campos S, Ovalle Robles I, Macias Guzman MJ, Garcia Diaz AL, Gutierrez Pena CM, Reza Escalera AL, Tiscareno Gutierrez MT, Galvan Guerra E, Dorantes Morales MdR, Martinez Medina L, Monroy Colin VA, Arreola Guerra JM. 2021. Efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma and intravenous immunoglobulin in critically ill COVID-19 patients. A controlled clinical trial. medRxiv [Preprint] doi:10.1101/2021.03.28.21254507 %J medRxiv:2021.03.28.21254507.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  100. 100.
    Sekine L, Arns B, Fabro BR, Cipolatt MM, Machado RRG, Durigon EL, Parolo E, Pellegrini JAS, Viana MV, Schwarz P, Lisboa TC, Dora JMS, Balsan AM, Schirmer FD, Franz JPM, da-Silveira LM, Breunig RC, Petersen V, Sosnoski M, Mesquita NF, Volpato FCZ, Sganzerla D, Falavigna M, Rosa RG, Zavascki AP. 2021. Convalescent plasma for COVID-19 in hospitalised patients: an open-label, randomised clinical trial. Eur Respir J doi:10.1183/13993003.01471-2021.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  101. 101.
    Devos T, Van Thillo Q, Compernolle V, Najdovski T, Romano M, Dauby N, Jadot L, Leys M, Maillart E, Loof S, Seyler L, Moonen M, Moutschen M, Van Regenmortel N, Ariën KK, Barbezange C, Betrains A, Garigliany M, Engelen MM, Gyselinck I, Maes P, Schauwvlieghe A, Liesenborghs L, Belmans A, Verhamme P, Meyfroidt G. 2021. Early high antibody-titre convalescent plasma for hospitalised COVID-19 patients: DAWn-plasma. Eur Respir J doi:10.1183/13993003.01724-2021.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  102. 102.
    Devos T, Geukens T, Schauwvlieghe A, Ariën KK, Barbezange C, Cleeren M, Compernolle V, Dauby N, Desmecht D, Grimaldi D, Lambrecht BN, Luyten A, Maes P, Moutschen M, Romano M, Seyler L, Nevessignsky MT, Vandenberghe K, van Griensven J, Verbeke G, Vlieghe E, Yombi JC, Liesenborghs L, Verhamme P, Meyfroidt G. 2020. A randomized, multicentre, open-label phase II proof-of-concept trial investigating the clinical efficacy and safety of the addition of convalescent plasma to the standard of care in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: the Donated Antibodies Working against nCoV (DAWn-Plasma) trial. Trials 21:981.
    OpenUrl
  103. 103.
    Menichetti F, Popoli P, Puopolo M, Spila Alegiani S, Tiseo G, Bartoloni A, De Socio G, Luchi S, Blanc P, Puoti M, De Donno G, Toschi E, Massari M, Palmisano L, Marano G, Chiamenti M, Martinelli L, Franchi S, Pallotto C, Suardi L, Luciani Pasqua B, Merli M, Fabiani P, Bertolucci L, Borchi B, Modica S, Moneta S, Marchetti G, d’Arminio Monforte A, Stoppini L, Ferracchiato N, Piconi S, Fabbri C, Beccastrini E, Saccardi R, Giacometti A, Esperti S, Pierotti P, Bernini l, Bianco C, Benedetti S, Lanzi A, Bonfanti P, Massari M, Sani S, Saracino A, Castagna A, Trabace l, Lanza M, Focosi D, et al. 2021. Effect of High-Titer Convalescent Plasma on Progression to Severe Respiratory Failure or Death in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Submitted.
  104. 104.
    Jiang W, Li W, Xiong L, Wu Q, Wu J, He B, Shen J, Pang R, Luo T, Guo Y, Yang Y, Han Y, Dai W, Zhu P, Xia X. 2020. Clinical efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy on treating COVID-19 patients: Evidence from matched study and a meta-analysis. Clin Transl Med 10:e259.
    OpenUrl
  105. 105.
    Pappa V, Bouchla A, Terpos E, Thomopoulos TP, Rosati M, Stellas D, Antoniadou A, Mentis A, Papageorgiou SG, Politou M, Kotanidou A, Kalomenidis I, Poulakou G, Jahaj E, Korompoki E, Grigoropoulou S, Hu X, Bear J, Karaliota S, Burns R, Pagoni M, Trontzas I, Grouzi E, Labropoulou S, Stamoulis K, Bamias A, Tsiodras S, Felber BK, Pavlakis GN, Dimopoulos MA. 2021. A Phase II Study on the Use of Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Severe COVID-19-A Propensity Score-Matched Control Analysis. Microorganisms 9:806.
    OpenUrl
  106. 106.
    Salazar E, Kuchipudi SV, Christensen PA, Eagar TN, Yi X, Zhao P, Jin Z, Long SW, Olsen RJ, Chen J, Castillo B, Leveque C, Towers DM, Lavinder J, Gollihar JD, Cardona J, Ippolito GC, Nissly RH, Bird IM, Greenawalt D, Rossi RM, Gontu A, Srinivasan S, Poojary IB, Cattadori IM, Hudson PJ, Joselyn N, Prugar L, Huie K, Herbert A, Bernard DW, Dye J, Kapur V, Musser JM. 2020. Convalescent plasma anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein ectodomain and receptor-binding domain IgG correlate with virus neutralization. J Clin Invest 130:6728–6738.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. 107.
    Tworek A, Jaroń K, Uszyńska-Kałuża B, Rydzewski A, Gil R, Deptała A, Franek E, Wójtowicz R, Życińska K, Walecka I, Cicha M, Wierzba W, Zaczyński A, Król ZJ, Rydzewska G. 2021. Convalescent plasma treatment is associated with lower mortality and better outcomes in high risk COVID-19 patients - propensity score matched case-control study. Int J Infect Dis 105:209–215.
    OpenUrl
  108. 108.
    Chauhan L, Pattee J, Ford J, Thomas C, Lesteberg K, Richards E, Loi M, Dumont LJ, Annen K, Berg M, Zirbes M, Miller A, Jenkins TC, Bennett TD, Monkowski D, Boxer RS, Beckham JD. 2021. A Multi-center, Prospective, Observational-cohort controlled study of Clinical Outcomes following COVID-19 Convalescent plasma therapy in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. medRxiv [Preprint] doi:10.1101/2021.06.14.21258910 %J medRxiv:2021.06.14.21258910.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted September 17, 2021.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
COVID-19 convalescent plasma and randomized clinical trials: rebuilding confidence by explaining failures and finding signals of efficacy
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
COVID-19 convalescent plasma and randomized clinical trials: rebuilding confidence by explaining failures and finding signals of efficacy
Daniele Focosi, Massimo Franchini, Liise-anne Pirofski, Thierry Burnouf, Nigel Paneth, Michael J. Joyner, Arturo Casadevall
medRxiv 2021.09.07.21263194; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.07.21263194
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
COVID-19 convalescent plasma and randomized clinical trials: rebuilding confidence by explaining failures and finding signals of efficacy
Daniele Focosi, Massimo Franchini, Liise-anne Pirofski, Thierry Burnouf, Nigel Paneth, Michael J. Joyner, Arturo Casadevall
medRxiv 2021.09.07.21263194; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.07.21263194

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS)
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (161)
  • Allergy and Immunology (414)
  • Anesthesia (90)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (857)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (159)
  • Dermatology (97)
  • Emergency Medicine (248)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (393)
  • Epidemiology (8557)
  • Forensic Medicine (4)
  • Gastroenterology (383)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (1749)
  • Geriatric Medicine (167)
  • Health Economics (372)
  • Health Informatics (1239)
  • Health Policy (620)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (467)
  • Hematology (196)
  • HIV/AIDS (372)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (10292)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (553)
  • Medical Education (192)
  • Medical Ethics (51)
  • Nephrology (211)
  • Neurology (1676)
  • Nursing (97)
  • Nutrition (249)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (326)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (450)
  • Oncology (928)
  • Ophthalmology (263)
  • Orthopedics (101)
  • Otolaryngology (172)
  • Pain Medicine (112)
  • Palliative Medicine (40)
  • Pathology (252)
  • Pediatrics (534)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (248)
  • Primary Care Research (207)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (1765)
  • Public and Global Health (3835)
  • Radiology and Imaging (623)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (320)
  • Respiratory Medicine (520)
  • Rheumatology (208)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (166)
  • Sports Medicine (158)
  • Surgery (190)
  • Toxicology (36)
  • Transplantation (101)
  • Urology (76)