Background: Passive immunotherapy with convalescent plasma (CP) is a potential treatment for COVID-19 for which evidence from controlled clinical trials is lacking.
Methods: We conducted a multi-center, randomized clinical trial in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. All patients received standard of care treatment, including off-label use of marketed medicines, and were randomized 1:1 to receive one dose (250-300 mL) of CP from donors with IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients in categories 5, 6 or 7 of the COVID-19 ordinal scale at day 15.
Results: The trial was stopped after first interim analysis due to the fall in recruitment related to pandemic control. With 81 patients randomized, there were no patients progressing to mechanical ventilation or death among the 38 patients assigned to receive plasma (0%) versus 6 out of 43 patients (14%) progressing in control arm. Mortality rates were 0% vs 9.3% at days 15 and 29 for the active and control groups, respectively. No significant differences were found in secondary endpoints. At inclusion, patients had a median time of 8 days (IQR, 6-9) of symptoms and 49,4% of them were positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies.
Conclusions: Convalescent plasma could be superior to standard of care in avoiding progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The strong dependence of results on a limited number of events in the control group prevents drawing firm conclusions about CP efficacy from this trial. (Funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III; NCT04345523).
Objective
Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) present coagulation abnormalities and thromboembolic events that resemble antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). This work has aimed to study the prevalence of APS‐related antigens, antibodies, and immune complexes in patients with COVID‐19 and their association with clinical events.
Methods
A prospective study was conducted on 474 adults with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection hospitalized in two Spanish university hospitals. Patients were evaluated for classic and extra‐criteria antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs), immunoglobulin G (IgG)/immunoglobulin M (IgM) anticardiolipin, IgG/IgM/immunoglobulin A (IgA) anti‐β2‐glicoprotein‐I (aβ2GPI), IgG/IgM antiphosphatidylserine/prothrombin (aPS/PT), the immune complex of IgA aβ2GPI (IgA‐aβ2GPI), bounded to β2‐glicoprotein‐1 (β2GPI) and β2GPI levels soon after COVID‐19 diagnosis and were followed‐up until medical discharge or death.
Results
Prevalence of aPLs in patients with COVID‐19 was as follows: classic aPLs, 5.8%; aPS/PT, 4.6%; IgA‐aβ2GPI, 15%; and any aPL, 21%. When patients were compared with individuals of a control group of a similar age, the only significant difference found was the higher prevalence of IgA‐aβ2GPI (odds ratio: 2.31; 95% confidence interval: 1.16‐4.09). No significant differences were observed in survival, thrombosis, or ventilatory failure in aPL‐positive versus aPL‐negative patients. β2GPI median levels were much lower in patients with COVID‐19 (15.9 mg/l) than in blood donors (168.8 mg/l; P < 0.001). Only 3.5% of patients with COVID‐19 had normal levels of β2GPI (>85 mg/l). Low levels of β2GPI were significantly associated with ventilatory failure (P = 0.026).
Conclusion
β2GPI levels were much lower in patients with COVID‐19 than in healthy people. Low β2GPI‐levels were associated with ventilatory failure. No differences were observed in the COVID‐19 evolution between aPL‐positive and aPL‐negative patients. Functional β2GPI deficiency could trigger a clinical process similar to that seen in APS but in the absence of aPLs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.