Back

Efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma and intravenous immunoglobulin in critically ill COVID-19 patients. A controlled clinical trial.

Beltran Gonzalez, J. L.; Gonzalez Gamez, M.; Mendoza Enciso, E. A.; Esparza Maldonado, R. J.; Hernandez Palacios, D.; Duenas Campos, S.; Ovalle Robles, I.; Macias Guzman, M. J.; Garcia Diaz, A. L.; Gutierrez Pena, C. M.; Reza Escalera, A. L.; Tiscareno Gutierrez, M. T.; Galvan Guerra, E.; Dorantes Morales, M. d. R.; Martinez Medina, L.; Monroy Colin, V. A.; Arreola Guerra, J. M.

2021-03-31 infectious diseases
10.1101/2021.03.28.21254507 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe proportion of critically ill COVID-19 patients has collapsed hospital care worldwide. The need for alternative therapies for this group of patients is imperative. This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) compared with human immunoglobulin (IVIg) in patients requiring the administration of high oxygen levels or mechanical ventilation. MethodsThis is a controlled, randomized, open clinical trial of patients with pneumonia secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection, that fulfilled criteria for severe or critical disease. They were randomized in a 1:2 ratio; group 1 was administered IVIg at a dose of 0.3 grams per kilogram of ideal weight, in an 8-hour infusion every 24 hours, for 5 days. Group 2 was administered 200 ml of CP infused in 2 hours, for 2 days. The primary outcomes were duration of hospitalization and mortality at 28 days. ResultsOne hundred and ninety (190) patients were randomized; 130 to the CP group, and 60 to the IVIg group. Their average age was 58 years (IQR 47 - 72), and most were male (n= 119, 62.6 %). On inclusion, 85.2 % of patients (n=162) were on invasive mechanical ventilation therapy. Overall mortality in all included patients was 53 % (n= 102), with a median follow-up of 14 days (IQI 8 - 26). Mortality at 28 days was 45.2 % (n=86). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between groups neither in mortality on follow-up (53.8 vs. 53.3, p =1.0) nor at 28 days (46.2 vs 43 %, p=0.75, Log Rank p = 0.83). Per-protocol analysis between treatment groups revealed no difference in mortality throughout hospitalization (51.5 vs 51.4 %, p=1.0) nor after 28 days (42.1 vs 42.87 %, p=0.92 Log Rank p = 0.54). Only 23 patients in the CP group received plasma with detectable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. ConclusionsIn critically ill patients or on invasive mechanical ventilation for treatment of Covid-19, the use of CP is not superior to IVIg in terms of hospitalization duration or mortality. The use of CP is based on complex logistics and requires an assured level of antibodies if used therapeutically. IVIg does not appear to be useful in this group of patients. clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04381858.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.6%
2
Infectious Diseases and Therapy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.2%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 18%
10.2%
4
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
6.4%
5
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.6%
6
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.5%
7
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
8
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
9
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
10
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
50% of probability mass above
11
Infection
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
12
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.7%
13
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
39 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
14
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
15
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
16
Critical Care Explorations
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
17
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
18
ERJ Open Research
44 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
19
JCI Insight
241 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
20
Journal of Clinical Investigation
164 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
21
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 64%
1.3%
22
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
23
Critical Care
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
24
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
25
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
26
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
27
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 58%
1.0%
28
Journal of Internal Medicine
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
29
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
30
New England Journal of Medicine
50 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%