SYSTEMATIC REVIEW


https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24023
Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine
Volume 25 | Issue 11 | Year 2021

Convalescent Plasma—A Light at the End of the Tunnel: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Soumya Sarkar1https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0497-9909, Puneet Khanna1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9243-9963, Akhil K Singh1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6662-9819

1–3Department of Anesthesia, Pain Medicine and Critical Care, AIIMS, Delhi, India

Corresponding Author: Puneet Khanna, Department of Anesthesia, Pain Medicine and Critical Care, AIIMS, Delhi, India, Phone: +91 9873106516, e-mail: k.punit@yahoo.com

How to cite this article: Sarkar S, Khanna P, Singh AK. Convalescent —Plasma—A Light at the End of the Tunnel: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(11):1292–1300.

Source of support: Nil

Conflict of interest: None

ABSTRACT

In the absence of a definitive therapy during this ongoing unprecedented crisis, coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, convalescent plasma transfusion (CPT) has shown some promising results. This review summarizes the existing evidence of the efficacy of CPT in COVID-19 patients based upon scientific publications to date.

We have included only the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through an extensive screening of electronic databases up to July 31, 2021.

In 19 RCTs, with a total of 16,476 COVID-19 patients we found low-quality evidence of significant reduction in mortality (odds ratio (OR) = 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66–0.96, I2 = 40%), better clinical outcome when applied <7 days (OR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.28–3.53, I2 = 0%), and improved viral clearance (OR = 2.6, 95% CI: 1.3–5.45, I2 = 74%). Meta-regression analysis found that as a covariate, intubation on admission (p = 0.007) had a significant impact. However, there was any significant reduction neither in duration for clinical improvement (MD = −0.79, 95% CI: −2.76–1.18, I2 = 98%), nor in total period of hospital stay (MD = 0.02, 95% CI: −0.75–0.78, I2 = 81%).

Early application of CPT is still relevant in reducing morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients and is too early to write it off as a potential therapeutic modality for COVID-19 patients.

Keywords: Convalescent plasma, Coronavirus disease 2019, Meta-analysis, Randomized controlled trial, SARS-CoV-2.

INTRODUCTION

In the absence of definitive therapy for the novel coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) in COVID-19 patients under the emergency investigational new drug category.1

Traditionally during epidemics, the CPT has been tried in patients whose critical condition is refractory to supportive care.2 The plasma is procured from a recently recovered person from a viral illness, which is supposed to have the maximum levels of polyclonal antibodies directed against the virus.3

The passive immune therapy has evolved from convalescent whole blood, convalescent plasma, pooled human immunoglobulin, and polyclonal or monoclonal antibodies, to the current practice of plasma collected by apheresis.4 The practice of using blood products from recovered patients as a therapeutic agent was way back in the late 1800s. CPT has been effectively used since the Spanish influenza pandemic in 1915–1917,5 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003,6 influenza A (H1N1) in 2009,7 avian influenza A (H5N1),8 and even in viral hemorrhagic fever-like Ebola.3

The CPT seems to be a promising option, with some early promising results on the improvement of clinical symptoms and reduction in mortality. However, the clinical evidence in this regard is still inconclusive and contradictory. Thus, the purpose of this review is to analyze the current evidence of the efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients. We have followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-P) guidelines.

METHODS

Search Strategy

The authors PK and SS independently searched the major electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase), Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com), and preprint platforms medRxiv (https://www.medrxiv.org) from January 1, 2020, to July 31, 2021, with the following keywords: “COVID-19” OR “SARS-CoV-2” AND “plasma” OR “convalescent plasma” AND “Randomized Controlled trials” OR “RCT.”

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The RCTs over CPT in COVID-19 patients published in the English language were included. Our primary outcome of interest was mortality and viral clearance was the secondary outcome (PRISMA flow diagram).

Controlled clinical trials, comparative cohort studies, and case–control studies—cross-sectional studies with a control group on convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19 patients were excluded.

Study Selection

Initially, SS and PK screened every available abstract separately after the removal of the duplications for excluding the irrelevant articles. After that, the full texts of the potential studies were examined. Disagreements were consulted with AKS.

Data Extraction

SS and PK extracted the data of the first author, year of publication, type of study, place, sample size, details of the intervention and control groups, mortality, clinical improvement, and viral clearance by using a preconceived data extraction sheet individually.

Risk of Bias Assessment

PK and SS assessed the potential bias in every selected study individually with the Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 tool after resolving the difference of opinion with the consultation of AKS.

Quality of the Evidence

PK and AKS evaluated the quality of evidence independently by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool.

Data Synthesis

We used the Review Manager version 5.4 for conducting this meta-analysis along with subgroup analyses based upon severity and administration time of CPT, and the comprehensive meta-analysis version 3 for conducting meta-regression analysis. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 >50%, indicating substantial heterogeneity. A funnel plot was used to assess publication bias.

RESULTS

Basic Characteristics

A total of 19 studies out of 1,337 identified publications were included after satisfying the inclusion criteria and 9 of them were preprints (Flowchart 1; Table 1).

Flowchart 1: PRISMA-2009 flow diagram

Table 1: Characteristics of the included studies
Sl. No. Studies, Year DOI, PMID Type of study, center Country Study population Dosage of CP Titer Initiation time Condition of the patients Outcome
1. Agarwal et al., 2020 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m3939, PMID: 33093056 Open-label RCT, MC India 464 Two doses of 200 mL of CP, 24 hours apart >1:80 6 days (IQR 3–11 days) Moderately ill CP was not beneficial for preventing the mortality
2. AlQahtani et al., 2020 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-89444-5, PMID: 33976287 Open-label RCT, SC Bahrain 40 200 mL over two successive days Not specified <3 (n = 6), >3(n = 7) Moderately ill Fewer patients required ventilation for a shorter duration
3. Bajpai et al., 2020 DOI: 10.1101/2020.10.25.20219337 Open-label RCT, SC India 29 500 mL plasma in two divided doses on consecutive days >1:80 3 Severely ill CP resulted in rapid improvement in respiratory parameters and shortened time to clinical recovery, without any significant reduction in mortality
4. Gharbharan et al., 2020 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-23469-2, PMID: 34045486 Open-label RCT, MC Netherlands 86 300 mL >1:80 10 days (IQR 6–15) Severely ill No statistically significant differences in mortality (or improvement in the day-15 disease severity was observed when the study was suspended
5. Libster et al., 2020 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2033700, PMID: 33406353 Open-label RCT, MC Argentina 160 250 mL >1:1,000 Within 72 hours Mild COVID-19 Early administration of high-titer convalescent plasma against SARS-CoV-2 to mildly ill-infected older adults reduced the progression of COVID-19
6. Li et al., 2020 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.10044, PMID: 32492084 Open label RCT, MC China 103 4–13 mL/kg >1:640 27 days (IQR, 22–39) Severely ill No significant improvement in time to clinical improvement within 28 days in severe or life-threatening COVID-19 patients until the early termination of the trial
7. Rasheed et al., 2020 PMID: 32920571 Open-label RCT, MC Iraq 49 400 mL Not specified 14.80 + 7.46 Critically ill CP lowered death rate from 28% in control group to 4.8%
8. Ray et al., 2020 DOI: 10.1101/2020.11.25.20237883 Open-label RCT, SC India 80 200 mL on two successive days Not specified 4.2 ± 2.21 Severely ill Significantly improved hypoxia, reduction in hospital stay in severe COVID-19 patients with ARDS
9. Simonovich et al., 2020 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2031304, PMID: 33232588 Open-label RCT, MC Argentina 333 500 mL (IQR, 415–600) 1:3,200 (IQR 1:800–1:3,200) 8 days (IQR, 5–10) Severely ill No significant difference in overall mortality between the patients treated with convalescent plasma
10. Sola et al., 2020 DOI: 10.1101/2020.08.26.20182444 Open-label RCT, MC Spain 81 250–300 mL 1:292 (IQR 238–451) 8 days Not specified Patients assigned to CP had a lower rate of worsening at 15 days than patients receiving standard care
11 Ali et al., 2021 DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100926, PMID: 34109306 Open-label RCT, SC Pakistan 50 (0.15, 0.20, 0.25, 0.30 gm/kg) Not specified 8.0 ± 3.0 Critically ill The hyperimmune anti-COVID-19 intravenous immunoglobulin derived from CP reduces mortality and morbidity in critically ill COVID-19 patients
12 CONCOR, 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.06.29.21259427 Open-label RCT, MC Canada, USA, Brazil 851 500 mL >1:160 8 (IQR, 5–10) Mild COVID-19 No significant difference in terms of mortality; frequency of intubation was found with CP in comparison with the hospitalized COVID-19 patients, received standard care
13 Gonzalez et al., 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.03.28.21254507 Open-label RCT, SC Mexico 165 200 mL over 2 hours, for 2 days Not specified Not specified Severely ill Both CP and IVIG had similar outcomes in terms of hospitalization duration or mortality in COVID-19 patients
14 Guerrero et al., 2021 DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005066, PMID: 33870923 Open-label RCT, SC USA 74 480 mL 1:526 (1:359–1:786) 9 (IQR, 6–18) Moderately ill The overall 90-day mortality was lower in CP group in comparison with standard plasma group (27 vs 33%; p = 0.63). The outcome is more significant in intubated patients at admission
15 Körper et al., 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.05.10.21256192 Open-label RCT, MC Germany 105 837 mL (IQR 738–872 mL) 1:160 (IQR 1:80–1:320) 7 days Critically ill The CPT-recipient COVID-19 patients had a median time of 26 days for clinical improvement and 31 days for discharge from hospital in comparison with the control group (66 days and 51 days, respectively). Significant benefit is noted in CP with higher neutralizing antibodies
16 O’Donnell et al., 2021 DOI: 10.1172/JCI150646, PMID: 33974559 Open-label RCT, MC USA, Brazil 223 250 mL 1:160 (IQR 1:80–1:320) 9 days Severely ill CP was associated with significantly reduced mortality (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22–0.91, p = 0.034)
17 Pouladazdeh et al., 2021 DOI: 10.1007/s11739-021-02734-8, PMID: 33837906 Open-label RCT, SC Iran 60 500 mL Not specified Not specified Critically ill CP posses immunomodulatory, antiviral role for avoiding the cytokine storm and improving the 8-point WHO severity score
18 Recovery Collaborative Group, 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.03.09.21252736 Open-label RCT, MC UK 11,558 550 mL ≥1:100 9 days Critically ill High-titer CP did not improve survival in COVID-19 patients
19 REMAP-CAP, 2021 DOI: 10.1101/2021.06.11.21258760 Open-label RCT, MC Australia, Canada, UK, USA 1,979 550 ± 150 mL ≥1:160 Not specified Severely ill The mortality was 37.3% in CP group, and 38.4% in control group
CP, convalescent plasma; SC, single center; MC, multicenter; RCT, randomized controlled trial; IQR, inter-quartile range; ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome; IVIG, intravenous immune globulin

Meta-analysis

Mortality

A significant reduction in mortality among COVID-19 patients with CPT (OR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.66–0.96, I2 = 40%) was found in 19 RCTs (n = 1,409 patients) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1: The efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy on mortality in COVID-19 patients

In subgroup analysis, though the impact of CPT on mortality among critically ill patients (OR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.52–0.88, I2 = 59%) was significant, the patients with mild (OR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.75–1.35, I2 = 0%) or moderate illness (OR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.27–1.83, I2 = 46%) showed no additional benefit.

Clinical Improvement

Thirteen RCTs with 13,320 patients indicated that no statistically significant clinical improvement (OR = 1.27, 95% CI 1–1.61, I2 = 45%) in CPT-recipient COVID-19 patients in comparison with patients who received standard care (Fig. 2A).

Figs 2A and B: (A) The impact of convalescent plasma therapy on clinical improvement in COVID-19 patients; (B) The effect of convalescent plasma therapy on viral clearance in COVID-19 patients

However, in a subgroup analysis of five studies (n = 369) where CPT was applied <7 days of symptoms, there are significantly higher odds for clinical improvement (OR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.28–3.53, I2 = 0%).

Viral Clearance

Viral clearance was assessed in four RCTs (n = 631). Significant clearance of viral shedding (OR = 2.66, 95% CI 1.3–5.45, I2 = 74%) was found in CPT-recipient COVID-19 patients. However, the result is highly heterogeneous (Fig. 2B).

Period for Clinical Improvement and Hospital Stay

The CPT recipients showed a significant reduction neither in duration for clinical improvement (MD = −0.79, 95% CI: −2.76–1.18, I2 = 98%; n = 354) (Fig. 2C) nor in overall period for hospital stay (MD = 0.02, 95% CI: −0.75–0.78, I2 = 81%; n = 1,208) (Fig. 2D).

Figs 2C and D: (C) The impact of convalescent plasma therapy on duration for clinical improvement in COVID-19 patients; (D) The impact of convalescent plasma therapy on the period of hospital stays in COVID-19 patients

Meta-regression

Meta-regression analysis found that the association between CPT and mortality in COVID-19 patients was influenced only by intubation status on admission (p = 0.007) (Fig. 2E), but not by volume (p = 0.676), titer (p = 0.464), concomitant use of steroid (p = 0.650), tocilizumab (p = 0.864), remdesivir (p = 0.524), presence of preexisting lung disease (p = 0.236), and diabetes (p = 0.151).

Fig. 2E: Meta-regression analysis showed that the association between convalescent plasma therapy and mortality was influenced by intubation status

Publication bias for the studies on COVID-19 mortality was assessed. The funnel plot indicates that a publication bias is likely as few smaller studies were associated with large effects (Supplemental Fig. 1).

Supplemental Figs 1A and B: (A) Funnel plot of the included studies for assessment of publication bias; (B) ROB-2 assessment for the included randomized controlled trials

DISCUSSION

We have identified low-quality evidence with variability that the lower odds of mortality along with better clearance of viral shedding in COVID-19 patients who received the convalescent plasma therapy. (Table 2)

Table 2: GRADE evidence profile of COVID-19 studies
  No. of participants  
Total no. Intervention Control Outcome Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Other considerations Quality of evidence (GRADE) Relative effect
Mortality 16,476 8,614 7,862 Yes No No No None Low ⊕⊕⊝⊝ OR 0.80 (95% CI 0.66–0.96)
Clinical improvement 13,320 6,777 6,543 Yes No No Yes None Very low ⊕⊝⊝⊝ OR 1.27 (95% CI 1–1.61)
Viral clearance 631 316 315 Yes No No No None Low ⊕⊕⊝⊝ OR 2.66 (95% CI 1.3–5.45)
Duration for clinical improvement 354 228 126 Yes No No Yes None Very low ⊕⊝⊝⊝ MD = −0.79 (95% CI: −2.76 to 1.18)
Period of hospital stay 1,208 718 490 Yes No No Yes None Very low ⊕⊝⊝⊝ MD = 0.02 (95% CI: −0.75 to 0.78)
CI, confidence interval; COVID-19, coronavirus disease-2019; GRADE, grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation; MD, mean difference; OR, odds ratio

Similarly, a recent systematic review also found a significant reduction of mortality (risk ratio (RR) = 0.57, 95% CI 0.44–0.74, I2 = 0%) in nine controlled studies with severely and critically ill COVID-19 patients.9

Previously, Sarkar et al.10 also found low-quality evidence of reduced mortality (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.25–0.77), and better clearance of viral shedding (OR, 11.29; 95% CI, 4.9–25.9) among CPT-recipient COVID-19 patients, in two RCTs and five matched cohort studies.

Another recent systematic review also reported a significant decrease in viral loads and improvement in clinical symptoms within 3–26 days post-CPT for the management of COVID-19.11

However, a living systematic review reported very low-quality evidence of no beneficial effect of CPT in reducing all-cause mortality at hospital discharge [RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61–1.31] in one RCT and three controlled non-randomized studies of interventions, respectively.12

Another meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma for severe COVID-19 based on evidence in other severe respiratory viral infections also found very low-quality noninformative results about complete recovery (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.69–1.64), the period of hospital stays (mean difference–1.62, 95% CI –3.82–0.58), and viral clearance on day 3 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.58–1.8) and day 7 (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.97–1.81).13

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis on severe acute respiratory infections of viral etiology reported that though the observational studies indicate a decline in mortality with CPT (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.23–0.56, p <0.00001), the RCTs have not found any significant benefit for reducing the mortality (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.57–1.19; p = 0.30).14

Rajendran et al.15 also could not provide any opinion regarding the efficacy of CPT in COVID-19 due to paucity in quantitative synthesis for their systemic review. Similarly, another recent meta-analysis of 10 RCTs also reported that in comparison with standard care, CPT did not reduce the all-cause mortality (RR: 1.02; 95% CI 0.92–1.12).16

We found an earlier administration of CPT is associated with better odds for favorable outcomes. Similarly, a number of recent studies17,18 also echoed that while early application of CPT is beneficial in critically ill COVID-19 patients, late CPT is futile. However, another recent RCT reported no significant reduction of mortality rate (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54–17.2, p = 0.25), and the requirement for mechanical ventilation (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54–17.2, p = 0.25) is associated with early administration of CPT in comparison with the deferred patients. But it has to be noted that only 43.3% of the patients of the deferred group received CPT.19

A decline in per capita CPT, since late 2020 following the publication of several negative RCTs and meta-analyses resulted in approximately 29,000–36,000 excess deaths in the USA. Apart from the reaffirmation of the FDA for the Emergency Use Authorization for early CP with the adequate amount of antibodies in hospitalized patients again in February 2021, the guidelines of American Association of Blood Banks and Brazil also emphasized the early use of CP with high content of specific antibody.20

Strengths and Limitations

Our study is a comprehensive review using only RCTs for assessing the efficacy of CPT in COVID-19 patients using data from the COVID-19 studies and may be considered at the moment as the prime evidence for decision-making.

Although in the present scenario, the efficacy of CPT in COVID-19 patients is debatable; this meta-analysis provides a signal of benefit in COVID-19 patients. However, the findings are heterogeneous and of low-quality evidence. A significant variation regarding methodology, the timing of initiation, optimal dosage, and neutralizing antibody titer, and concomitant therapy have been noted across the studies.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, as the COVID-19 pandemic progresses, there is a desperate need for definitive treatment. Till the development of an effective treatment or vaccine, CPT seems to be a safe and effective option and the current evidence regarding the use of CPT in COVID-19 patients is encouraging. It is too early to write it off as a potential therapeutic modality for COVID-19 patients.

ORCID

Soumya Sarkar https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0497-9909

Puneet Khanna https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9243-9963

Akhil K Singh https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6662-9819

REFERENCES

1. Investigational COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma – Emergency INDs [Internet]. U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2020. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/investigational-new-drug-ind-or-device-exemption-ide-process-cber/recommendations-investigational-covid-19-convalescent-plasma.

2. Casadevall A, Pirofski LA. The convalescent sera option for containing COVID-19. J Clin Invest 2020;130(4):1545–1548. DOI: 10.1172/JCI138003.

3. Use of convalescent whole blood or plasma collected from patients recovered from Ebola virus disease for transfusion, as an empirical treatment during outbreaks. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014. Available from: www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/ebola/convalescent-treatment/en [accessed February 16, 2021].

4. Marano G, Vaglio S, Pupella S, Facco G, Catalano L, Liumbruno GM, et al. Convalescent plasma: new evidence for an old therapeutic tool? Blood Transfus 2016;14(2):152–157. DOI: 10.2450/2015.0131-15.

5. Luke TC, Kilbane EM, Jackson JL, Hoffman SL. Meta-analysis: convalescent blood products for Spanish influenza pneumonia: a future H5N1 treatment? Ann Intern Med 2006;145(8):599–609. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-145-8-200610170-00139.

6. Soo YO, Cheng Y, Wong R, Hui DS, Lee CK, Tsang KK, et al. Retrospective comparison of convalescent plasma with continuing high-dose methylprednisolone treatment in SARS patients. Clin Microbiol Infect 2004;10(7):676–678. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2004.00956.x.

7. Hung IF, To KK, Lee CK, Lee KL, Chan K, Yan WW, et al. Convalescent plasma treatment reduced mortality in patients with severe pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 virus infection. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52(4):447–456. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciq106.

8. Zhou B, Zhong N, Guan Y. Treatment with convalescent plasma for influenza A (H5N1) infection. N Engl J Med 2007;357(14):1450. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc070359.

9. Mair-Jenkins J, Saavedra-Campos M, Baillie JK, Cleary P, Khaw FM, Lim WS, et al. 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.

10. Sarkar S, Soni KD, Khanna P. Convalescent plasma is a clutch at straws in COVID-19 management! A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Virol 2020:10.1002/jmv.26408. DOI: 10.1002/jmv.26408. PMID: 32776573; PMCID: PMC7436491.

11. Khadka S, Saleem M, Shrestha D, Budhathoki P. Safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy for the management of COVID-19: a systematic review. Aging 2020;13(1):1498–1509. DOI: 10.18632/aging.202195.

12. Piechotta V, Chai KL, Valk SJ, Doree C, Monsef I, Wood EM, et al. Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;7(7):CD013600. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013600.pub2. PMID: 32648959; PMCID: PMC7389743.

13. Devasenapathy N, Ye Z, Loeb M, Fang F, Najafabadi BT, Xiao Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma for severe COVID-19 based on evidence in other severe respiratory viral infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ 2020;192(27):E745. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.200642.

14. Shao S, Wang Y, Kang H, Tong Z. Effect of convalescent blood products for patients with severe acute respiratory infections of viral etiology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis 2020:S1201–9712(20)32159–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.09.1443. PMID: 33002611.

15. Rajendran K, Krishnasamy N, Rangarajan J, Rathinam J, Natarajan M, Ramachandran A. Convalescent plasma transfusion for the treatment of COVID‐19: Systematic review. J Med Virol 2020;92(9):1475–1483. DOI: 10.1002/jmv.25961.

16. Janiaud P, Axfors C, Schmitt AM, Gloy V, Ebrahimi F, Hepprich M, et al. Association of convalescent plasma treatment with clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2021;325(12):1185–1195. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.2747.

17. Briggs N, Gormally MV, Li F, Browning SL, Treggiari MM, Morrison A, et al. Early but not late convalescent plasma is associated with better survival in moderate-to-severe COVID-19. medRxiv 2021:2021.06.16.21258972. DOI: 10.1101/2021.06.16.21258972.

18. Fodor E, Müller V, Iványi Z, Berki T, Olga KP, Ambrus M, et al. Early transfusion of convalescent plasma improves the clinical outcome in severe SARS-CoV2 infection. medRxiv 2021:2021.05.25.21257770. DOI: 10.1101/2021.05.25.21257770.

19. Balcells ME, Rojas L, Le Corre N, Martínez-Valdebenito C, Ceballos ME, Ferrés M, et al. Early versus deferred anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in patients admitted for COVID-19: a randomized phase II clinical trial. PLoS Med 2021;18(3):e1003415. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003415.

20. Casadevall A, Dragotakes Q, Johnson PW, Senefeld JW, Klassen SA, Wright RS, et al. Convalescent plasma use in the United States was inversely correlated with COVID-19 mortality: did plasma hesitancy cost lives? medRxiv 2021:2021.04.07.21255089. DOI: 10.1101/2021.04.07.21255089.

________________________
© The Author(s). 2021 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and non-commercial reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.