Trial reportmBio2022
Outcomes of Convalescent Plasma with Defined High versus Lower Neutralizing Antibody Titers against SARS-CoV-2 among Hospitalized Patients: CoronaVirus Inactivating Plasma (CoVIP) Study.
Trial report in mBio, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Timing, Titre, and Host Determinants of Convalescent Plasma Efficacy in COVID-19: A Systematic Review With Design-Stratified Narrative Synthesis.Reviews in medical virology · 2026Pooled it
- Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Evaluation of a COVID-19 convalescent plasma program at a U.S. academic medical center.PloS one · 2022Trial
- A Novel Adaptive Platform for Rapid, Simple Flow-Based Antibody Detection Devices Predicts NAb Levels to SARS-CoV-2.Pathogens & immunity · 2026Article
- High-level adenovirus-neutralizing antibodies plasma beneficial for adenovirus type 7 (Adv7) induced pediatric severe ARDS.Journal of virus eradication · 2025Article
- Biochemical rationale for transfusion of high titre COVID-19 convalescent plasma.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Exploring Study Design Foibles in Randomized Controlled Trials on Convalescent Plasma in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- COVID-19 point-of-care tests can identify low-antibody individuals: In-depth immunoanalysis of boosting benefits in a healthy cohort.Science advances · 2024Article
- Passive antibody therapy in emerging infectious diseases.Frontiers of medicine · 2023Review
- 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
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) was an early and widely adopted putative therapy for severe COVID-19. Results from randomized control trials and observational studies have failed to demonstrate a clear therapeutic role for CCP for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Underlying these inconclusive findings is a broad heterogeneity in the concentrations of neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) between different CCP donors. We conducted this study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of nAb titer-defined CCP in adults admitted to an academic referral hospital. Patients positive by a SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test and with symptoms for <10 days were eligible. Participants received either CCP with nAb titers of >1:640 (high-titer group) or ≥1:160 to 1:640 (standard-titer group) in addition to standard of care treatments. The primary clinical outcome was time to hospital discharge, with mortality and respiratory support evaluated as secondary outcomes. Adverse events were contrasted by CCP titer. Between 28 August and 4 December 2020, 316 participants were screened, and 55 received CCP, with 14 and 41 receiving high- versus standard-titer CCP, respectively. Time to hospital discharge was shorter among participants receiving high- versus standard-titer CCP, accounting for death as a competing event (hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 3.58; Gray's
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.