A Randomized Controlled Study Assessing Convalescent Immunoglobulins vs Convalescent Plasma for Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus 2019.
COVID-19
immunoglobulins
plasma
Journal
Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
ISSN: 1537-6591
Titre abrégé: Clin Infect Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9203213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 10 2023
05 10 2023
Historique:
received:
24
02
2023
medline:
23
10
2023
pubmed:
24
5
2023
entrez:
23
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
It is unknown whether convalescent immunoglobulins (cIgGs) are better than convalescent plasma (CP) for patients with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). In this randomized controlled trial, we assigned high risk COVID-19 patients with ≤10 days of symptoms, to receive cIgGs or CP. The primary endpoint was improvement on day 14 according to the World Health Organization scale. Secondary endpoints were survival on day 14, and improvement, survival, and percent of ventilated patients on day 28, and treatment response in unvaccinated and vaccinated patients. A total of 319 patients were included: 166 received cIgGs and 153 CP. Median age was 64 to 66 years. A total of 112 patients (67.5%) in the cIgG group and 103 patients (67.3%) in the CP group reached the primary endpoint. Difference between groups was 0.1 (95% confidence interval, -10.1 to 10.4; P = .026), failing to reach noninferiority. More patients receiving cIgG improved by day 28 (136 patients [81.9%] and 108 patients [70.6%], respectively; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-20.7; P < .001; for superiority P = .018). Seventeen patients in the cIgG group (10.2%) and 25 patients (16.3%) in the CP group required mechanical ventilation (P = .136). Sixteen (9.6%) and 23 (15%) patients, respectively, died (P = .172). More unvaccinated patients improved by day 28 in the cIgG group (84.1% vs 66.1%; P = .024), and survival was better in the cIgG group (89.9% vs 77.4%; P = .066). cIgGs failed to reach the primary noninferiority endpoint on day 14 but was superior to CP on day 28. Survival and improvement by day 28 in unvaccinated patients treated with cIgGs were better. In the face of new variants, cIgGs are a viable option for treating COVID-19. My Trials MOH_2021-01-14_009667.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
It is unknown whether convalescent immunoglobulins (cIgGs) are better than convalescent plasma (CP) for patients with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19).
METHODS
In this randomized controlled trial, we assigned high risk COVID-19 patients with ≤10 days of symptoms, to receive cIgGs or CP. The primary endpoint was improvement on day 14 according to the World Health Organization scale. Secondary endpoints were survival on day 14, and improvement, survival, and percent of ventilated patients on day 28, and treatment response in unvaccinated and vaccinated patients.
RESULTS
A total of 319 patients were included: 166 received cIgGs and 153 CP. Median age was 64 to 66 years. A total of 112 patients (67.5%) in the cIgG group and 103 patients (67.3%) in the CP group reached the primary endpoint. Difference between groups was 0.1 (95% confidence interval, -10.1 to 10.4; P = .026), failing to reach noninferiority. More patients receiving cIgG improved by day 28 (136 patients [81.9%] and 108 patients [70.6%], respectively; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-20.7; P < .001; for superiority P = .018). Seventeen patients in the cIgG group (10.2%) and 25 patients (16.3%) in the CP group required mechanical ventilation (P = .136). Sixteen (9.6%) and 23 (15%) patients, respectively, died (P = .172). More unvaccinated patients improved by day 28 in the cIgG group (84.1% vs 66.1%; P = .024), and survival was better in the cIgG group (89.9% vs 77.4%; P = .066).
CONCLUSIONS
cIgGs failed to reach the primary noninferiority endpoint on day 14 but was superior to CP on day 28. Survival and improvement by day 28 in unvaccinated patients treated with cIgGs were better. In the face of new variants, cIgGs are a viable option for treating COVID-19.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
My Trials MOH_2021-01-14_009667.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37220751
pii: 7176226
doi: 10.1093/cid/ciad305
pmc: PMC10552585
doi:
Substances chimiques
Immunoglobulins
0
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
964-971Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Potential conflicts of interest . Y. M. was a primary investigator on a grant received from KAMADA supporting this study. She also received honoraria for participation in advisory boards from KAMADA and MSD and received honoraria for lectures or writing services from MSD, Pfizer, Medison, and Maccabi health services (paid to author); travel grants from Pfizer (paid to institution); unpaid roles on Israeli Ministry of Health's epidemic preparedness committee and infectious disease and vaccine committee, and as Treasurer to Society for Research and Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Diseases. T. B. N. reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca and MSD; honoraria for participation in advisory boards from AstraZeneca and MSD; and honoraria for lectures and travel grants from AstraZeneca, MSD, and Medison. N. A. is an employee of Kamada and holds Kamada stock options. S. C. is an employee of Kamada and holds Kamada stock options. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2021 Nov 18;385(21):1951-1960
pubmed: 34407339
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2022 Sep 21;35(3):e0020021
pubmed: 35262370
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Jan 26;1:CD015167
pubmed: 36700518
Sci Rep. 2022 Nov 16;12(1):19658
pubmed: 36385627
Nat Commun. 2023 Feb 14;14(1):824
pubmed: 36788246
N Engl J Med. 2021 Mar 18;384(11):1015-1027
pubmed: 33523609
Clin Chim Acta. 2020 Nov;510:687-690
pubmed: 32910980
Chest. 2022 Nov;162(5):982-994
pubmed: 35780813
Vaccines (Basel). 2022 Jul 18;10(7):
pubmed: 35891307
Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Mar 25;21(7):
pubmed: 32218340
Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):497-506
pubmed: 31986264
EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Sep;26:100525
pubmed: 32923991
EBioMedicine. 2020 May;55:102768
pubmed: 32344202
N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 18;384(7):619-629
pubmed: 33232588
N Engl J Med. 2021 Feb 18;384(7):610-618
pubmed: 33406353
EClinicalMedicine. 2021 Jun;36:100926
pubmed: 34109306
N Engl J Med. 2022 May 5;386(18):1753-1754
pubmed: 35507487
JAMA. 2020 Jul 14;324(2):131-132
pubmed: 32539093
J Clin Virol. 2020 Aug;129:104539
pubmed: 32679298
Lancet Respir Med. 2022 Oct;10(10):985-996
pubmed: 35688164
JAMA. 2022 Feb 1;327(5):432-441
pubmed: 35029629
Nat Microbiol. 2022 Nov;7(11):1906-1917
pubmed: 36289399
Vox Sang. 2022 Feb;117(2):185-192
pubmed: 34125976
Nat Med. 2021 Nov;27(11):2012-2024
pubmed: 34504336