Pathogen reduction with methylene blue does not have an impact on the clinical effectiveness of COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a concern about a possible deleterious effect of pathogen reduction (PR) with methylene blue (MB) on the function of immunoglobulins of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). We have evaluated whether MB-treated CCP is associated with a poorer clinical response compared to other inactivation systems at the ConPlas-19 clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an ad hoc sub-study of the ConPlas-19 clinical trial comparing the proportion of patients transfused with MB-treated CCP who had a worsening of respiration versus those treated with amotosalen (AM) or riboflavin (RB). RESULTS: One-hundred and seventy-five inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were transfused with a single CCP unit. The inactivation system of the CCP units transfused was MB in 90 patients (51.4%), RB in 60 (34.3%) and AM in 25 (14.3%). Five out of 90 patients (5.6%) transfused with MB-treated CCP had worsening respiration compared to 9 out of 85 patients (10.6%) treated with alternative PR methods (p = 0.220). Of note, MB showed a trend towards a lower rate of respiratory progressions at 28 days (risk ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-1.50). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that MB-treated CCP does not provide a worse clinical outcome compared to the other PR methods for the treatment of COVID-19.

A multicenter randomized open-label clinical trial for convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia.

BACKGROUNDPassive immunotherapy with convalescent plasma (CP) is a potential treatment for COVID-19. Evidence from controlled clinical trials is inconclusive.METHODSWe conducted a randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trial at 27 hospitals in Spain. Patients had to be admitted for COVID-19 pneumonia within 7 days from symptom onset and not on mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen devices. Patients were randomized 1:1 to treatment with CP in addition to standard of care (SOC) or to the control arm receiving only SOC. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients in categories 5 (noninvasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen), 6 (invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), or 7 (death) at 14 days. Primary analysis was performed in the intention-to-treat population.RESULTSBetween April 4, 2020, and February 5, 2021, 350 patients were randomly assigned to either CP (n = 179) or SOC (n = 171). At 14 days, proportion of patients in categories 5, 6, or 7 was 11.7% in the CP group versus 16.4% in the control group (P = 0.205). The difference was greater at 28 days, with 8.4% of patients in categories 5-7 in the CP group versus 17.0% in the control group (P = 0.021). The difference in overall survival did not reach statistical significance (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19-1.14, log-rank P = 0.087).CONCLUSIONCP showed a significant benefit in preventing progression to noninvasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen, invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO, or death at 28 days. The effect on the predefined primary endpoint at 14 days and the effect on overall survival were not statistically significant.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicaltrials.gov, NCT04345523.FUNDINGGovernment of Spain, Instituto de Salud Carlos III.