Association of Convalescent Plasma Treatment With Clinical Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19 | Critical Care Medicine | JN Learning | AMA Ed Hub [Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

Association of Convalescent Plasma Treatment With Clinical Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Educational Objective
To identify the key insights or developments described in this article
1 Credit CME
Key Points

Question  Is treatment with convalescent plasma associated with improved clinical outcomes?

Findings  In a meta-analysis of 4 peer-reviewed and published randomized clinical trials including 1060 patients with COVID-19 treated with convalescent plasma vs control, the risk ratio for mortality was 0.93 and after the addition of 6 unpublished randomized clinical trials and 10 722 patients, the risk ratio for mortality was 1.02; neither finding was statistically significant. No significant associations with benefit were shown for hospital length of stay, mechanical ventilation use, clinical improvement, or clinical deterioration.

Meaning  Among patients with COVID-19, treatment with convalescent plasma compared with control was not associated with improved survival or other positive clinical outcomes.

Abstract

Importance  Convalescent plasma is a proposed treatment for COVID-19.

Objective  To assess clinical outcomes with convalescent plasma treatment vs placebo or standard of care in peer-reviewed and preprint publications or press releases of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

Data Sources  PubMed, the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, and the Living Overview of Evidence platform were searched until January 29, 2021.

Study Selection  The RCTs selected compared any type of convalescent plasma vs placebo or standard of care for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in any treatment setting.

Data Extraction and Synthesis  Two reviewers independently extracted data on relevant clinical outcomes, trial characteristics, and patient characteristics and used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. The primary analysis included peer-reviewed publications of RCTs only, whereas the secondary analysis included all publicly available RCT data (peer-reviewed publications, preprints, and press releases). Inverse variance–weighted meta-analyses were conducted to summarize the treatment effects. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.

Main Outcomes and Measures  All-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, mechanical ventilation use, and serious adverse events.

Results  A total of 1060 patients from 4 peer-reviewed RCTs and 10 722 patients from 6 other publicly available RCTs were included. The summary risk ratio (RR) for all-cause mortality with convalescent plasma in the 4 peer-reviewed RCTs was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.38), the absolute risk difference was −1.21% (95% CI, −5.29% to 2.88%), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision. Across all 10 RCTs, the summary RR was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.12) and there was moderate certainty of the evidence due to inclusion of unpublished data. Among the peer-reviewed RCTs, the summary hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.07 to 20.34) for length of hospital stay, the summary RR was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.20 to 2.87) for mechanical ventilation use (the absolute risk difference for mechanical ventilation use was −2.56% [95% CI, −13.16% to 8.05%]), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision for both outcomes. Limited data on clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, and serious adverse events showed no significant differences.

Conclusions and Relevance  Treatment with convalescent plasma compared with placebo or standard of care was not significantly associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality or with any benefit for other clinical outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate for all-cause mortality and low for other outcomes.

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 CME Credit™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC

Article Information

Corresponding Author: Lars G. Hemkens, MD, MPH, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 12, CH-4031 Basel, Switzerland (lars.hemkens@usb.ch).

Accepted for Publication: February 15, 2021.

Published Online: February 26, 2021. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.2747

Author Contributions: Drs Janiaud and Hemkens had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs Janiaud and Axfors contributed equally to this study.

Concept and design: Janiaud, Axfors, Smith, Khanna, Moher, Ioannidis, Hemkens.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Janiaud, Axfors, Schmitt, Gloy, Ebrahimi, Hepprich, Haber, Khanna, Moher, Goodman, Ioannidis, Hemkens.

Drafting of the manuscript: Janiaud, Axfors, Hepprich, Hemkens.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Janiaud, Hepprich, Haber, Moher, Ioannidis, Hemkens.

Obtained funding: Hemkens.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Janiaud, Axfors, Gloy, Ebrahimi, Hepprich, Smith.

Supervision: Ioannidis, Hemkens.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: The Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (Stanford University) is supported by a grant from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. Dr Axfors is supported by postdoctoral grants from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, Uppsala University, the Swedish Society of Medicine, the Blanceflor Foundation, and the Sweden-America Foundation. Dr Khanna is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation and the National Center of Competence in Research. Drs Janiaud and Hemkens are supported by grants from Swiss National Science Foundation.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders/sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

References
1.
Mair-Jenkins  J , Saavedra-Campos  M , Baillie  JK ,  et al; Convalescent Plasma Study Group.  The effectiveness of convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin for the treatment of severe acute respiratory infections of viral etiology: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis.   J Infect Dis. 2015;211(1):80-90. doi:10.1093/infdis/jiu396 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Joyner  MJ , Bruno  KA , Klassen  SA ,  et al.  Safety update: COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 20,000 hospitalized patients.   Mayo Clin Proc. 2020;95(9):1888-1897. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.06.028 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
US Food and Drug Administration. FDA issues Emergency Use Authorization for convalescent plasma as potential promising COVID-19 treatment, another achievement in administration’s fight against pandemic. Published August 24, 2020. Accessed January 27, 2021. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-issues-emergency-use-authorization-convalescent-plasma-potential-promising-covid-19-treatment
4.
RECOVERY Collaborative Group.  Dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with Covid-19—preliminary report.   N Engl J Med. Published online July 17, 2020. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2021436 Google Scholar
5.
Horby  P , Mafham  M , Linsell  L ,  et al; RECOVERY Collaborative Group.  Effect of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with Covid-19.   N Engl J Med. 2020;383(21):2030-2040. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2022926PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Horby  PW , Mafham  M , Bell  JL ,  et al.  Lopinavir–ritonavir in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial.   Lancet. 2020;396(10259):1345-1352. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32013-4 Google ScholarCrossref
7.
Horby  P , Lim  WS , Emberson  J ,  et al.  Effect of dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with COVID-19—preliminary report.   medRxiv. Published online June 22, 2020. doi:10.1101/2020.06.22.20137273 Google Scholar
8.
RECOVERY Trial. Press release: RECOVERY trial closes recruitment to convalescent plasma treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Published January 15, 2021. Accessed January 27, 2021. https://www.recoverytrial.net/news/statement-from-the-recovery-trial-chief-investigators-15-january-2021-recovery-trial-closes-recruitment-to-convalescent-plasma-treatment-for-patients-hospitalised-with-covid-19
9.
Page  M , McKenzie  J , Bossuyt  P ,  et al.  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.   MetaArXiv. Published online September 14, 2020. doi:10.31222/osf.io/v7gm2 Google Scholar
10.
McGowan  J , Sampson  M , Salzwedel  DM , Cogo  E , Foerster  V , Lefebvre  C .  PRESS: peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement.   J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40-46. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Sterne  JAC , Savović  J , Page  MJ ,  et al.  RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.   BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Guyatt  GH , Oxman  AD , Vist  GE ,  et al; GRADE Working Group.  GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.   BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924-926. doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Langan  D , Higgins  JPT , Simmonds  M .  Comparative performance of heterogeneity variance estimators in meta-analysis: a review of simulation studies.   Res Synth Methods. 2017;8(2):181-198. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1198 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
IntHout  J , Ioannidis  JP , Borm  GF .  The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method.   BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:25. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-25 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Higgins  JPT , Thompson  SG .  Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.   Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539-1558. doi:10.1002/sim.1186 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Libster  R , Pérez Marc  G , Wappner  D ,  et al; Fundación INFANT–COVID-19 Group.  Early high-titer plasma therapy to prevent severe Covid-19 in older adults.   N Engl J Med. Published online January 6, 2021. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2033700 PubMedGoogle Scholar
17.
Agarwal  A , Mukherjee  A , Kumar  G , Chatterjee  P , Bhatnagar  T , Malhotra  P ; PLACID Trial Collaborators.  Convalescent plasma in the management of moderate COVID-19 in adults in India: open label phase II multicentre randomised controlled trial (PLACID Trial).   BMJ. 2020;371:m3939. doi:10.1136/bmj.m3939 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Simonovich  VA , Burgos Pratx  LD , Scibona  P ,  et al; PlasmAr Study Group.  A randomized trial of convalescent plasma in Covid-19 severe pneumonia.   N Engl J Med. Published online November 24, 2020. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2031304 PubMedGoogle Scholar
19.
Li  L , Zhang  W , Hu  Y ,  et al.  Effect of convalescent plasma therapy on time to clinical improvement in patients with severe and life-threatening COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial.   JAMA. 2020;324(5):460-470. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.10044 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
AlQahtani  M , Abdulrahman  A , Almadani  A ,  et al.  Randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma therapy against standard therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 disease.   medRxiv. Published online November 4, 2020. doi:10.1101/2020.11.02.20224303 Google Scholar
21.
Bajpai  M , Kumar  S , Maheshwari  A ,  et al.  Efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy compared to fresh frozen plasma in severely ill COVID-19 patients: a pilot randomized controlled trial.   medRxiv. Published online October 27, 2020. doi:10.1101/2020.10.25.20219337 Google Scholar
22.
Gharbharan  A , Jordans  CCE , Geurtsvankessel  C ,  et al.  Convalescent plasma for COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial.   medRxiv. Published online July 3, 2020. doi:10.1101/2020.07.01.20139857 Google Scholar
23.
Avendaño-Solà  C , Ramos-Martinez  A , Muñez-Rubio  E ,  et al.  Convalescent plasma for COVID-19: a multicenter, randomized clinical trial.   medRxiv. Published online September 29, 2020. doi:10.1101/2020.08.26.20182444Google Scholar
24.
Ray  Y , Paul  SR , Bandopadhyay  P ,  et al.  Clinical and immunological benefits of convalescent plasma therapy in severe COVID-19: insights from a single center open label randomised control trial.   medRxiv. Published online November 29, 2020. doi:10.1101/2020.11.25.20237883 Google Scholar
25.
European Union Recover Project. Press release: REMAP-CAP: international trial of SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma pauses enrollment of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Published online January 11, 2021. Accessed February 1, 2021. https://www.recover-europe.eu/press-release-international-trial-of-sars-cov-2-convalescent-plasma-pauses-enrollment-of-critically-ill-covid-19-patients/
26.
RECOVERY Trial. Randomised evalution of COVID-19 therapy (RECOVERY protocol). Accessed January 27, 2021. https://www.recoverytrial.net/files/recovery-protocol-v12-1-2020-12-16.pdf
27.
Horby  PW , Roddick  A , Spata  E ,  et al.  Azithromycin in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial.   medRxiv. Published online December 14, 2020. doi:10.1101/2020.12.10.20245944 Google Scholar
28.
Zarin  DA , Rosenfeld  S .  Lack of harmonization of coronavirus disease ordinal scales.   Clin Trials. Published online December 15, 2020. doi:10.1177/1740774520972082 PubMedGoogle Scholar
29.
Marshall  JC , Murthy  S , Diaz  J ,  et al; WHO Working Group on the Clinical Characterisation and Management of COVID-19 Infection.  A minimal common outcome measure set for COVID-19 clinical research.   Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(8):e192-e197. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30483-7 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Petkova  E , Antman  EM , Troxel  AB .  Pooling data from individual clinical trials in the COVID-19 era.   JAMA. 2020;324(6):543-545. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.13042 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Janiaud  P , Axfors  C , Saccilotto  R , Hemkens  L , Schmitt  A . COVID-evidence: a living database of trials on interventions for COVID-19. Published online April 1, 2020. Last updated August 19, 2020. Accessed February 17, 2021. https://osf.io/gehfx
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_Multimedia_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
Close
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_Multimedia_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close

Name Your Search

Save Search
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
jn-learning_Modal_SaveSearch_NoAccess_Purchase
Close

Lookup An Activity

or

Close

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close