Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma and intravenous immunoglobulin in critically ill COVID-19 patients. A controlled clinical trial

JoséB. González, M. Gámez, Emmanuel Antonio Mendoza Enciso, Ramiro Maldonado, D. Palacios, S. Campos, Itzel Ovalle Robles, Mariana Jocelyn Macias Guzman et al.

medRxiv, 2021

162 participants · 20 citations

Abstract

Background The proportion of critically ill COVID 19 patients has collapsed hospital care worldwide. The need for alternative therapies for this group of patients is imperative. This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) compared with human immunoglobulin (IVIg) in patients requiring the administration of high oxygen levels or mechanical ventilation. Methods This is a controlled, randomized, open clinical trial of patients with pneumonia secondary to SARS CoV 2 infection, that fulfilled criteria for severe or critical disease. They were randomized in a 1:2 ratio; group 1 was administered IVIg at a dose of 0.3 grams per kilogram of ideal weight, in an 8 hour infusion every 24 hours, for 5 days. Group 2 was administered 200 ml of CP infused in 2 hours, for 2 days. The primary outcomes were duration of hospitalization and mortality at 28 days. Results: One hundred and ninety (190) patients were randomized; 130 to the CP group, and 60 to the IVIg group. Their average age was 58 years (IQR 47 to 72), and most were male (n= 119, 62.6 %). On inclusion, 85.2 % of patients (n=162) were on invasive mechanical ventilation therapy. Overall mortality in all included patients was 53 % (n= 102), with a median follow-up of 14 days (IQI 8 to 26). Mortality at 28 days was 45.2 % (n=86). In the intention to treat analysis, there was no difference between groups neither in mortality on follow up (53.8 vs. 53.3, p =1.0) nor at 28 days (46.2 vs 43 %, p=0.75,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 162 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free