The efficacy of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Although most randomized controlled trials have shown negative results, uncontrolled studies have suggested that the antibody content could influence patient outcomes. We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma for adults with COVID-19 receiving oxygen within 12 d of respiratory symptom onset (NCT04348656). Patients were allocated 2:1 to 500 ml of convalescent plasma or standard of care. The composite primary outcome was intubation or death by 30 d. Exploratory analyses of the effect of convalescent plasma antibodies on the primary outcome was assessed by logistic regression. The trial was terminated at 78% of planned enrollment after meeting stopping criteria for futility. In total, 940 patients were randomized, and 921 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Intubation or death occurred in 199/614 (32.4%) patients in the convalescent plasma arm and 86/307 (28.0%) patients in the standard of care arm—relative risk (RR) = 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94–1.43, P = 0.18). Patients in the convalescent plasma arm had more serious adverse events (33.4% versus 26.4%; RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.02–1.57, P = 0.034). The antibody content significantly modulated the therapeutic effect of convalescent plasma. In multivariate analysis, each standardized log increase in neutralization or antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity independently reduced the potential harmful effect of plasma (odds ratio (OR) = 0.74, 95% CI 0.57–0.95 and OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.50–0.87, respectively), whereas IgG against the full transmembrane spike protein increased it (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.14–2.05). Convalescent plasma did not reduce the risk of intubation or death at 30 d in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Transfusion of convalescent plasma with unfavorable antibody profiles could be associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to standard care.

No abstract

Significant progress has been made in reducing the risk of pathogen transmission to transfusion recipients. Nonetheless, there remains a continuing risk of transmission of viruses, bacteria, protozoa, and prions to recipients. These include many of the viruses for which specific screening tests exist as well as pathogens for which testing is currently not being done, including various species of bacteria, babesiosis, variant Creutzfeld-Jacob disease, hepatitis A virus, human herpes virus 8, chikungunya virus, Chagas disease, and malaria. Pathogen inactivation (PI) technologies potentially provide an additional way to protect the blood supply from emerging agents and also provide additional protection against both known and as-yet-unidentified agents. However, the impact of PI on product quality and recipient safety remains to be determined. The purpose of this consensus conference was to bring together international experts in an effort to consider the following issues with respect to PI: implementation criteria; licensing requirements; blood service and clinical issues; risk management issues; cost-benefit impact; and research requirements. These proceedings are provided to make available to the transfusion medicine community the considerable amount of important information presented at this consensus conference.