This article is a Preprint
Preprints are preliminary research reports that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Preprints posted online allow authors to receive rapid feedback and the entire scientific community can appraise the work for themselves and respond appropriately. Those comments are posted alongside the preprints for anyone to read them and serve as a post publication assessment.
COVID-19 convalescent plasma and randomized clinical trials: explaining conflicting outcomes and finding signals of efficacy (preprint)
medrxiv; 2021.
Preprint
in English
| medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2021.09.07.21263194
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 CP 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 uncertainty. 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. 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 30 available RCTs 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 likely therapeutic effects that become apparent despite the data noise. Despite the recent WHO guidelines discouraging CCP usage, the Omicron variant of concern is reminding us the superiority of polyclonal antibody therapies over monoclonal antibodies, and CCP from vaccinated convalescents is likely to be evaluated soon
Full text:
Available
Collection:
Preprints
Database:
medRxiv
Main subject:
Pneumonia
/
Convalescence
/
COVID-19
Language:
English
Year:
2021
Document Type:
Preprint
Similar
MEDLINE
...
LILACS
LIS