ArticleTransfusion2025
SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in COVID-19 convalescent plasma and conventional plasma units.
Article in Transfusion, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies guidelines recommend the use of high-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) for patients with SARS-CoV-2 at high risk of disease progression, including those who are immunocompromised. We hypothesized that conventional plasma units have comparable neutralizing antibody levels to CCP. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsConventional plasma and CCP units were obtained from blood suppliers. Quantitatively measured antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 were assessed using the MesoScale Discovery multiplex electrochemiluminescence immunoassay. Binding antibody distributions were compared with Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies were analyzed using the GeneScript ELISA-based neutralization assay. The proportion of conventional and CCP units with a percent signal inhibition of ≥80% (as defined by the United States Food and Drug Administration for CCP in 2021) and exact binomial confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
resultsAmong 218 conventional plasma units and 74 CCP units collected between September 2023 and July 2024, the distribution of total antibody binding levels largely overlapped between conventional plasma and CCP, though statistically significant differences in median nucleocapsid and spike Omicron variant concentrations were observed. Median percent signal neutralization was 97.5% (range 3.4%-98.6%) among conventional plasma units and 97.7% (range 95.4%-98.6%) among CCP units. For conventional plasma, 95.0% (95% CI = 91.2%-97.5%) met the neutralization antibody threshold for high-titer CCP. For CCP, 100% (95% CI = 95.1%-100.0%) met the neutralization threshold for high-titer CCP.
conclusionConventional plasma units demonstrate similar median antibody concentration to CCP units. In countries or regions where licensed CCP is unavailable and titers are unknown, transfusion of multiple conventional plasma units may be of clinical utility.
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.