Author:
Klassen Stephen A.,Senefeld Jonathon W.,Senese Katherine A.,Johnson Patrick W.,Wiggins Chad C.,Baker Sarah E.,van Helmond Noud,Bruno Katelyn A.,Pirofski Liise-anne,Shoham Shmuel,Grossman Brenda J.,Henderson Jeffrey P.,Wright R. Scott,Fairweather DeLisa,Paneth Nigel S.,Carter Rickey E.,Casadevall Arturo,Joyner Michael J.
Abstract
Convalescent plasma has been used worldwide to treat patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and prevent disease progression. Despite global usage, uncertainty remains regarding plasma efficacy, as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have provided divergent evidence regarding the survival benefit of convalescent plasma. Here, we argue that during a global health emergency, the mosaic of evidence originating from multiple levels of the epistemic hierarchy should inform contemporary policy and healthcare decisions. Indeed, worldwide matched-control studies have generally found convalescent plasma to improve COVID-19 patient survival, and RCTs have demonstrated a survival benefit when transfused early in the disease course but limited or no benefit later in the disease course when patients required greater supportive therapies. RCTs have also revealed that convalescent plasma transfusion contributes to improved symptomatology and viral clearance. To further investigate the effect of convalescent plasma on patient mortality, we performed a meta-analytical approach to pool daily survival data from all controlled studies that reported Kaplan–Meier survival plots. Qualitative inspection of all available Kaplan–Meier survival data and an aggregate Kaplan–Meier survival plot revealed a directionally consistent pattern among studies arising from multiple levels of the epistemic hierarchy, whereby convalescent plasma transfusion was generally associated with greater patient survival. Given that convalescent plasma has a similar safety profile as standard plasma, convalescent plasma should be implemented within weeks of the onset of future infectious disease outbreaks.
Funder
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
National Institutes of Health
Cited by
53 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献