ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2021
Experience of Treating COVID-19 With Remdesivir and Convalescent Plasma in a Resource-Limited Setting: A Prospective, Observational Study.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- The efficacy and safety of remdesivir alone and in combination with other drugs for the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Pooled 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
- Safety and Efficacy of Convalescent Plasma Combined with Other Pharmaceutical Agents for Treatment of COVID-19 in Hospitalized Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Article
- Rates Among Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 Treated With Convalescent Plasma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2023Article
- Early administration of remdesivir plus convalescent plasma therapy is effective to treat COVID-19 pneumonia in B-cell depleted patients with hematological malignancies.Annals of hematology · 2022Article
- Pentosan Polysulfate Inhibits Attachment and Infection by SARS-CoV-2 In Vitro: Insights into Structural Requirements for Binding.Thrombosis and haemostasis · 2022Article
- Neurogenesis and Viral Infection.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConvalescent plasma therapy (CPT) and remdesivir (REM) have been approved for investigational use to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Nepal.
methodsIn this prospective, multicentered study, we evaluated the safety and outcomes of treatment with CPT and/or REM in 1315 hospitalized COVID-19 patients over 18 years in 31 hospitals across Nepal. REM was administered to patients with moderate, severe, or life-threatening infection. CPT was administered to patients with severe to life-threatening infections who were at high risk for progression or clinical worsening despite REM. Clinical findings and outcomes were recorded until discharge or death.
resultsPatients were classified as having moderate (24.2%), severe (64%), or life-threatening (11.7%) COVID-19 infection. The majority of CPT and CPT + REM recipients had severe to life-threatening infections (CPT 98.3%; CPT + REM 92.1%) and were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU; CPT 91.8%; CPT + REM 94.6%) compared with those who received REM alone (73.3% and 57.5%, respectively). Of 1083 patients with reported outcomes, 78.4% were discharged and 21.6% died. The discharge rate was 84% for REM (n = 910), 39% for CPT (n = 59), and 54.4% for CPT + REM (n = 114) recipients. In a logistic model comparing death vs discharge and adjusted for age, gender, steroid use, and severity, the predicted margin for discharge was higher for recipients of remdesivir alone (0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.84) compared with CPT (0.58; 95% CI, 0.47-0.70) and CPT + REM (0.67; 95% CI, 0.60-0.74) recipients. Adverse events of remdesivir and CPT were reported in <5% of patients.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates a safe rollout of CPT and REM in a resource-limited setting. Remdesivir recipients had less severe infection and better outcomes.
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.