Bennett-Guerrero Elliott, Romeiser Jamie L, Talbot Lillian R, Ahmed Tahmeena, Mamone Linda J, Singh Sunitha M, Hearing Janet C, Salman Huda, Holiprosad Dishaw D, Freedenberg Alex T, Carter Jason A, Browne Nicholas J, Cosgrove Megan E, Shevik Margaret E, Generale Laura M, Andrew Margaret A, Nachman Sharon, Fries Bettina C
Department of Anesthesiology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY.
MSTP, Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY.
Crit Care Med. 2021 Jul 1;49(7):1015-1025. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005066.
Four peer-reviewed publications have reported results from randomized controlled trials of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 infection; none were conducted in the United States nor used standard plasma as a comparator. To determine if administration of convalescent plasma to patients with coronavirus disease 2019 increases antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and improves outcome.
Double-blind randomized controlled trial.
Hospital in New York.
Patients with polymerase chain reaction documented coronavirus disease 2019 infection.
Patients were randomized (4:1) to receive 2 U of convalescent plasma versus standard plasma. Antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 were measured in plasma units and in trial recipients.
Enrollment was terminated after emergency use authorization was granted for convalescent plasma. Seventy-four patients were randomized. At baseline, mean (sd) Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (23.4 [5.6] and 22.5 [6.6]), percent of patients intubated (19% and 20%), and median (interquartile range) days from symptom onset to randomization of 9 (6-18) and 9 (6-15), were similar in the convalescent plasma versus standard plasma arms, respectively. Convalescent plasma had high neutralizing activity (median [interquartile range] titer 1:526 [1:359-1:786]) and its administration increased antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by 14.4%, whereas standard plasma administration led to an 8.6% decrease (p = 0.005). No difference was observed for ventilator-free days through 28 days (primary study endpoint): median (interquartile range) of 28 (2-28) versus 28 (0-28; p = 0.86) for the convalescent plasma and standard plasma groups, respectively. A greater than or equal to 2 point improvement in the World Health Organization scale was achieved by 20% of subjects in both arms (p = 0.99). All-cause mortality through 90 days was numerically lower in the convalescent plasma versus standard plasma groups (27% vs 33%; p = 0.63) but did not achieve statistical significance. A key prespecified subgroup analysis of time to death in patients who were intubated at baseline was statistically significant; however, sample size numbers were small.
Administration of convalescent plasma to hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection increased antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus disease 2 but was not associated with improved outcome.
四项经同行评审的出版物报告了针对2019冠状病毒病感染的恢复期血浆随机对照试验结果;均未在美国进行,也未使用标准血浆作为对照。以确定对2019冠状病毒病患者给予恢复期血浆是否会增加针对严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2的抗体并改善预后。
双盲随机对照试验。
纽约的一家医院。
经聚合酶链反应记录确诊为2019冠状病毒病感染的患者。
患者按4:1随机分组,分别接受2单位恢复期血浆与标准血浆。在血浆单位和试验受试者中测量针对严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2的抗体。
在恢复期血浆获得紧急使用授权后,研究终止。74例患者被随机分组。基线时,恢复期血浆组与标准血浆组的平均(标准差)急性生理与慢性健康状况评分II(分别为23.4[5.6]和22.5[6.6])、插管患者百分比(分别为19%和20%)以及从症状出现到随机分组的中位(四分位间距)天数(分别为9[6 - 18]天和9[6 - 15]天)相似。恢复期血浆具有高中和活性(中位[四分位间距]滴度1:526[1:359 - 1:786]),给予恢复期血浆使针对严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2的抗体增加了14.4%,而给予标准血浆导致抗体下降了8.6%(p = 0.005)。在28天内无呼吸机天数(主要研究终点)方面未观察到差异:恢复期血浆组与标准血浆组的中位(四分位间距)分别为28(2 - 28)天和28(0 - 28)天(p = 0.86)。两组中均有20%的受试者在世界卫生组织量表上有大于或等于2分的改善(p = 0.99)。90天内全因死亡率在数值上恢复期血浆组低于标准血浆组(27%对33%;p = 0.63),但未达到统计学显著性。对基线时插管患者的死亡时间进行的一项关键预设亚组分析具有统计学显著性;然而,样本量较小。
对住院的2019冠状病毒病感染患者给予恢复期血浆增加了针对严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2的抗体,但未改善预后。