Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35150881›Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases2022

Evidence-based dosing of convalescent plasma for COVID-19 in future trials.

Bart J A Rijnders, Sammy Huygens, Oriol Mitjà

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Outpatient convalescent plasma therapy for high-risk patients with early COVID-19: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2023
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

3 authors.

Bart J A RijndersDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: b.rijnders@erasmusmc.nl.
Sammy HuygensDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Oriol MitjàHospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTwo years into the pandemic, convincing evidence in favour of convalescent plasma (ConvP) as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still lacking. This contrasts sharply with the efficacy of potent virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibodies. However, resistance of the Omicron variant against almost all licensed monoclonals turns back the clock, and we can expect that ConvP will regain interest. Indeed, the efficacy of virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibodies supports the premise that ConvP will work when used at the right time, at the right dose, and containing antibodies with the right affinity.

objectivesThis study aimed to review available evidence on dosing of ConvP for COVID-19 and provide guidance for future trials or patient care. SOURCES: Because no dose-finding human trials were ever performed, we reviewed COVID-19 animal model studies and human trials that provide (in)direct data on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ConvP. We also discuss the identification of appropriate ConvP donors in the context of emerging severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variants. CONTENT: Compared with dosing in animal studies, almost all human trials used substantially lower doses. Identifying donors with sufficiently high virus-neutralizing antibody titres is challenging, in particular when new variants escape immunity induced by ancestral variants. Ways to avoid underdosing are (a) use of ConvP from two different donors, (b) use only ConvP known to neutralize the variant with which the patient is infected, (c) use two ConvP units with a neutralizing antibody titre ≥1/1250 (when only one plasma unit is available, neutralizing antibody titre of ≥1/2500 is recommended), (d) use an antibody test that correlates well with virus neutralization (use of international units per ml (IU/ml) for virus neutralization is strongly encouraged), and (e) use of donors shortly after a third mRNA vaccination may simplify the donor selection process. IMPLICATIONS: In future trials on ConvP for COVID-19, more stringent donor selection criteria and/or higher volume transfusions should be used.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2AnimalsAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralCOVID-19 SerotherapyHumansImmunization, PassiveAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralConvalescent plasmaCOVID-19DosingPharmacodynamicsPharmacokineticsSARS-CoV-2TherapyTreatment

Identifiers

PMID35150881
PMCPMC8828382

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.