Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33482025›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of haematology2021

Early mortality benefit with COVID-19 convalescent plasma: a matched control study.

Aarthi G Shenoy, Aaron Z Hettinger, Stephen J Fernandez, Joseph Blumenthal, Valentina Baez

Abstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of haematology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Lessons learned from the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 and specific considerations for immunocompromised patients.Transfusion and apheresis science : official journal of the World Apheresis Association : official journal of the European Society for Haemapheresis · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Severe COVID-19: Drugs and Clinical Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Plasma therapy: a passive resistance against the deadliest.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2022
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Aarthi G ShenoyMedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington Cancer Institute, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5018-8967
Aaron Z HettingerNational Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Health, Washington, DC, USA.
Stephen J FernandezMedStar Health Research Institute, MedStar Health, Hyattsville, MD, USA.
Joseph BlumenthalMedStar Health Research Institute, MedStar Health, Hyattsville, MD, USA.
Valentina BaezMedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington Cancer Institute, Washington, USA.

Funding

Mayo Clinic Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCaTS UL1 Supplement - Dr. Timothy Curry)UL1TR002377 · NCATS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI VESNA D GAROVIC · 2017 to 2026
$78.4M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002377
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Convalescent plasma can provide passive immunity during viral outbreaks, but the benefit is uncertain for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our goal is to assess the efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). In all, 526 hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 at an academic health system were analyzed. Among them, 263 patients received CCP and were compared to 263 matched controls with standard treatment. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality with a subanalysis at 7 and 14 days. No statistical difference in 28-day mortality was seen in CCP cases (25·5%) compared to controls (27%, P = 0·06). Seven-day mortality was statistically better for CCP cases (9·1%) than controls (19·8%, P < 0·001) and continued at 14 days (14·8% vs. 23·6%, P = 0·01). After 72 h, CCP transfusion resulted in transitioning from nasal cannula to room air (median 4 days vs. 1 day, P = 0·02). The length of stay was longer in CCP cases than controls (14·3 days vs. 11·4 days, P < 0·001). Patients with COVID-19 who received CCP had a decreased risk of death at 7 and 14 days, but not 28 days after transfusion. To date, this is the largest study demonstrating a mortality benefit for the use of CCP in patients with COVID-19 compared to matched controls.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCOVID-19COVID-19 SerotherapyDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansImmunization, PassiveMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSARS-CoV-2Survival RateTime Factorsconvalescent plasmaCOVID-19mortalityoxygenationtransfusion

Identifiers

PMID33482025
PMCPMC8014171

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.