Trial reportBMJ open respiratory research2021
Efficacy of convalescent plasma for treatment of COVID-19 in Uganda.
Trial report in BMJ open respiratory research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Convalescent plasma and all-cause mortality of COVID-19 patients: systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Pooled it
- Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Convalescent Plasma Therapy for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Randomized Controlled Trials.Viruses · 2023Pooled it
- Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Clinical Practice Guidelines From the Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB): COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma.Annals of internal medicine · 2022Guideline
- Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Treatment Using Convalescent Plasma Transfusion: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- The efficiency of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Pooled it
- Prevalence of comorbid tuberculosis amongst COVID-19 patients: A rapid review and meta-analysis.International journal of clinical practice · 2021Pooled it
- Efficacy of COVID-19 Treatments: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Frontiers in public health · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- A phase 2 single center open label randomised control trial for convalescent plasma therapy in patients with severe COVID-19.Nature communications · 2022Trial
- Evaluation of a COVID-19 convalescent plasma program at a U.S. academic medical center.PloS one · 2022Trial
- Exploring Study Design Foibles in Randomized Controlled Trials on Convalescent Plasma in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Rates Among Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 Treated With Convalescent Plasma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2023Article
- Article
- Tracing Makerere University's 100 years' contribution to lung science/medicine.African health sciences · 2022Article
- COVID-19 convalescent plasma.Blood · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
30 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleConvalescent plasma (CCP) has been studied as a potential therapy for COVID-19, but data on its efficacy in Africa are limited.
objectiveIn this trial we set out to determine the efficacy of CCP for treatment of COVID-19 in Uganda. MEASUREMENTS: Patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR test irrespective of disease severity were hospitalised and randomised to receive either COVID-19 CCP plus standard of care (SOC) or SOC alone. The primary outcome was time to viral clearance, defined as having two consecutive RT-PCR-negative tests by day 28. Secondary outcomes included time to symptom resolution, clinical status on the modified WHO Ordinal Clinical Scale (≥1-point increase), progression to severe/critical condition (defined as oxygen saturation <93% or needing oxygen), mortality and safety. MAIN
resultsA total of 136 patients were randomised, 69 to CCP+SOC and 67 to SOC only. The median age was 50 years (IQR: 38.5-62.0), 71.3% were male and the median duration of symptom was 7 days (IQR=4-8). Time to viral clearance was not different between the CCP+SOC and SOC arms (median of 6 days (IQR=4-11) vs 4 (IQR=4-6), p=0.196). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes in CCP+SOC versus SOC: time to symptom resolution (median=7 (IQR=5-7) vs 7 (IQR=5-10) days, p=0.450), disease progression (9 (22.0%) vs 7 (24.0%) patients, p=0.830) and mortality (10 (14.5%) vs 8 (11.9%) deaths, p=0.476).
conclusionIn this African trial, CCP therapy did not result in beneficial virological or clinical improvements. Further trials are needed to determine subgroups of patients who may benefit from CCP in Africa.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.