Alkalinization
Analgesics..
Antiandrogens..
Bromhexine
Budesonide
Cannabidiol
Colchicine
Conv. Plasma
Curcumin
Ensovibep
Famotidine
Favipiravir
Fluvoxamine
Hydroxychlor..
Iota-carragee..
Ivermectin
Lactoferrin
Lifestyle..
Melatonin
Metformin
Molnupiravir
Monoclonals..
Nigella Sativa
Nitazoxanide
Nitric Oxide
Paxlovid
Peg.. Lambda
Povidone-Iod..
Quercetin
Remdesivir
Vitamins..
Zinc

Other
Feedback
Home
Home   COVID-19 treatment studies for Convalescent Plasma  COVID-19 treatment studies for Conv. Plasma  C19 studies: Conv. Plasma  Conv. Plasma   Select treatmentSelect treatmentTreatmentsTreatments
Alkalinization Meta Lactoferrin Meta
Melatonin Meta
Bromhexine Meta Metformin Meta
Budesonide Meta Molnupiravir Meta
Cannabidiol Meta
Colchicine Meta Nigella Sativa Meta
Conv. Plasma Meta Nitazoxanide Meta
Curcumin Meta Nitric Oxide Meta
Ensovibep Meta Paxlovid Meta
Famotidine Meta Peg.. Lambda Meta
Favipiravir Meta Povidone-Iod.. Meta
Fluvoxamine Meta Quercetin Meta
Hydroxychlor.. Meta Remdesivir Meta
Iota-carragee.. Meta
Ivermectin Meta Zinc Meta

Other Treatments Global Adoption
All Studies   All Outcomes   Recent:  
0 0.5 1 1.5 2+ Mortality, day 90 19% Improvement Relative Risk Mortality, day 28 11% Improvement 0% c19early.org/cp Bennett-Guerrero et al. NCT04344535 Conv. Plasma RCT LATE Is late treatment with convalescent plasma beneficial for COVID-19? Double-blind RCT 74 patients in the USA Trial underpowered for serious outcomes Bennett-Guerrero et al., Critical Care Medicine, doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000005066 Favors conv. plasma Favors control
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Convalescent Plasma Versus Standard Plasma in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infected Hospitalized Patients in New York
Bennett-Guerrero et al., Critical Care Medicine, doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000005066, NCT04344535 (history)
Bennett-Guerrero et al., Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Convalescent Plasma Versus Standard Plasma in Coronavirus.., Critical Care Medicine, doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000005066, NCT04344535
Apr 2021   Source   PDF  
  Twitter
  Facebook
Share
  All Studies   Meta
RCT 74 hospitalized patients in the USA, showing no significant difference with convalescent plasma treatment.
risk of death, 18.6% lower, RR 0.81, p = 0.75, treatment 16 of 59 (27.1%), control 5 of 15 (33.3%), NNT 16, day 90.
risk of death, 11.0% lower, RR 0.89, p = 1.00, treatment 14 of 59 (23.7%), control 4 of 15 (26.7%), NNT 34, day 28.
risk of no improvement, 0.4% lower, RR 1.00, p = 1.00, treatment 47 of 59 (79.7%), control 12 of 15 (80.0%), NNT 295.
Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules prioritizing more serious outcomes. Submit updates
Bennett-Guerrero et al., 16 Apr 2021, Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial, USA, peer-reviewed, 18 authors, trial NCT04344535 (history).
All Studies   All Outcomes   Submit Updates or Corrections
This PaperConv. PlasmaAll
Abstract: FEATURE ARTICLES Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Convalescent Plasma Versus Standard Plasma in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infected Hospitalized Patients in New York: A Double-Blind Randomized Trial* OBJECTIVES: Four peer-reviewed publications have reported results from randomized controlled trials of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 infection; none were conducted in the United States nor used standard plasma as a comparator. To determine if administration of convalescent plasma to patients with coronavirus disease 2019 increases antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and improves outcome. DESIGN: Double-blind randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Hospital in New York. PATIENTS: Patients with polymerase chain reaction documented coronavirus disease 2019 infection. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized (4:1) to receive 2 U of convalescent plasma versus standard plasma. Antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 were measured in plasma units and in trial recipients. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Enrollment was terminated after emergency use authorization was granted for convalescent plasma. Seventy-four patients were randomized. At baseline, mean (sd) Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (23.4 [5.6] and 22.5 [6.6]), percent of patients intubated (19% and 20%), and median (interquartile range) days from symptom onset to randomization of 9 (6–18) and 9 (6–15), were similar in the convalescent plasma versus standard plasma arms, respectively. Convalescent plasma had high neutralizing activity (median [interquartile range] titer 1:526 [1:359–1:786]) and its administration increased antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by 14.4%, whereas standard plasma administration led to an 8.6% decrease (p = 0.005). No difference was observed for ventilator-free days through 28 days (primary study endpoint): median (interquartile range) of 28 (2–28) versus 28 (0–28; p = 0.86) for the convalescent plasma and standard plasma groups, respectively. A greater than or equal to 2 point improvement in the World Health Organization scale was achieved by 20% of subjects in both arms (p = 0.99). All-cause mortality through 90 days was numerically lower in the convalescent plasma versus standard plasma groups (27% vs 33%; p = 0.63) but did not achieve statistical significance. A key prespecified subgroup analysis of time to death in patients who were intubated at baseline was statistically significant; however, sample size numbers were small. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of convalescent plasma to hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection increased antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus disease 2 but was not associated with improved outcome. KEY WORDS: convalescent plasma; coronavirus disease 2019; infection; randomized Critical Care Medicine Elliott Bennett-Guerrero, MD1 Jamie L. Romeiser, PhD1 Lillian R. Talbot, BS2 Tahmeena Ahmed, MD3 Linda J. Mamone, MD3 Sunitha M. Singh, MD4 Janet C. Hearing, PhD5 Huda Salman, MD, PHD6 Dishaw D. Holiprosad, BS7 Alex T. Freedenberg, BS7 Jason A. Carter, PhD2 Nicholas J. Browne, BS7 Megan E. Cosgrove, PhD7 Margaret E. Shevik, BS2 Laura M. Generale, BS7 Margaret A. Andrew, BSN8 Sharon Nachman, MD9 Bettina C. Fries, MD10 for the Stony Brook Medicine COVID Plasma Trial Group *See also p. 1182. Copyright © 2021 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health,..
Late treatment
is less effective
Please send us corrections, updates, or comments. Vaccines and treatments are complementary. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used based on risk/benefit analysis. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. We do not provide medical advice. Before taking any medication, consult a qualified physician who can provide personalized advice and details of risks and benefits based on your medical history and situation. FLCCC and WCH provide treatment protocols.
  or use drag and drop   
Submit