4.2 Article

Early experience with convalescent plasma as immunotherapy for COVID-19 in China: Knowns and unknowns

Journal

VOX SANGUINIS
Volume 115, Issue 6, Pages 507-514

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/vox.12968

Keywords

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP); therapy; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and objectives In the absence of a vaccine or specific drug treatment options for coronavirus disease (COVID-19), attention has been shifted in China to the possible therapeutic use of convalescent plasma. COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is currently under investigation. We summarized clinical studies and other research data available as of 5 May 2020 on CCP therapy according to theClinical Treatment Guideline of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasmain China, as well as clinical experience at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, as part of a comprehensive anti-epidemic strategy. Materials and methods As of 5 May 2020, when the epidemic was well-controlled in China, healthcare databases and sources of English literature relating to convalescent plasma were searched and reviewed. Sources of clinical and methodological heterogeneity were identified. Results As of 5 May 2020, up to 2000 samples of CCP had been collected across China and administered to 700 COVID-19 patients. From donors, 200-400 ml of plasma was collected at each donation, with antibody titres > 1:160. We identified three clinical studies for COVID-19 in China. Analyses showed a statistically significant improvement in clinical outcomes compared with untreated cases (P < 0.001). No adverse effects were reported. Conclusion From initial studies, convalescent plasma therapy appears effective and safe for COVID-19. However, there is clearly a need for well-designed RCTs (randomized controlled trials) or other formal studies to further evaluate the efficacy and any potential adverse effects of CCP.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available