OBJECTIVES: Four peer-reviewed publications have reported results from randomized controlled trials of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 infection; none were conducted in the United States nor used standard plasma as a comparator. To determine if administration of convalescent plasma to patients with coronavirus disease 2019 increases antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and improves outcome. DESIGN: Double-blind randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Hospital in New York. PATIENTS: Patients with polymerase chain reaction documented coronavirus disease 2019 infection. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized (4:1) to receive 2 U of convalescent plasma versus standard plasma. Antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 were measured in plasma units and in trial recipients. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Enrollment was terminated after emergency use authorization was granted for convalescent plasma. Seventy-four patients were randomized. At baseline, mean (sd) Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (23.4 [5.6] and 22.5 [6.6]), percent of patients intubated (19% and 20%), and median (interquartile range) days from symptom onset to randomization of 9 (6–18) and 9 (6–15), were similar in the convalescent plasma versus standard plasma arms, respectively. Convalescent plasma had high neutralizing activity (median [interquartile range] titer 1:526 [1:359–1:786]) and its administration increased antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by 14.4%, whereas standard plasma administration led to an 8.6% decrease (p = 0.005). No difference was observed for ventilator-free days through 28 days (primary study endpoint): median (interquartile range) of 28 (2–28) versus 28 (0–28; p = 0.86) for the convalescent plasma and standard plasma groups, respectively. A greater than or equal to 2 point improvement in the World Health Organization scale was achieved by 20% of subjects in both arms (p = 0.99). All-cause mortality through 90 days was numerically lower in the convalescent plasma versus standard plasma groups (27% vs 33%; p = 0.63) but did not achieve statistical significance. A key prespecified subgroup analysis of time to death in patients who were intubated at baseline was statistically significant; however, sample size numbers were small. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of convalescent plasma to hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection increased antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus disease 2 but was not associated with improved outcome.

Background Convalescent plasma is undergoing randomized trials as a potential therapeutic option for COVID‐19 infection. Little empirical evidence exists regarding the determination of donor eligibility and experiences with donor selection. Study Design and Methods This prospective study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in New York to select plasma donors for a randomized, double‐blind, controlled convalescent plasma trial. Clearance for donation required successful completion of an online questionnaire and an in‐person screening visit, which included (a) completion of a Donor Health Questionnaire (DHQ), (b) Immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody testing using an immunochromatographic anti‐ severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) test, (c) Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing if <28 days from symptom resolution, and (d) routine blood bank testing. Results After receiving 3093 online questionnaires, 521 individuals presented for in‐person screening visits, with 40.1% (n = 209) fully qualifying. Subjects (n = 312) failed to progress due to the following reasons: disqualifying answer from DHQ (n = 30, 9.6%), insufficient antibodies (n = 198, 63.5%), persistent positive PCR tests (n = 14, 4.5%), and blood donation testing labs (n = 70, 22.4%). Importantly, 24.6% and 11.1% of potential donors who reported having PCR‐diagnosed infection had low or undetectable SARS‐CoV‐2 antibody levels, respectively. Surprisingly, 62.9% (56/89) of subjects had positive PCR tests 14–27 days after symptom resolution, with 13 individuals continuing to be PCR positive after 27 days. Conclusion It is feasible for a single site to fully qualify a large number of convalescent plasma donors in a short period of time. Among otherwise qualified convalescent plasma donors, we found high rates of low or undetectable antibody levels and many individuals with persistently positive PCR tests.

This case study presents a patient with multiple myeloma whose serum specimen exhibits 2 distinct bands in serum protein electrophoresis but only one band in immunofixation electrophoresis. This latter, single band corresponds to the M-spike. An investigation is presented to determine the identity of this disappearing or phantom band. Furthermore, this case is used as a teaching point to explain the criteria used for staging multiple myeloma, how a cell can become a myeloma propagating cell, methods that can be used to identify unexpected bands in serum protein electrophoresis, possible explanations for bands in the beta region, the usual treatment regimens in multiple myeloma and finally specimen collecting and handling procedures for serum protein electrophoresis.

No abstract