We conducted a prospective single-arm open-label phase II clinical trial assessing the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Convalescent plasma with sufficient IgG titer (1:320) obtained from recovered donors was administered to adult patients with either severe or critical COVID-19 illness. Primary outcomes were adverse events in association with plasma administration, and hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included disease progression, recovery, length of stay, and hospital discharge. Of the 38 patients included in the analysis, 24 (63%) recovered and were discharged, and 14 (37%) died. Patients who received convalescent plasma early in the disease course (severe illness group) as compared to the patients that received convalescent plasma later in disease progression (critical illness group) had significantly lower hospital mortality 13% vs 55% (p<0.02) and shorter mean hospital length of stay 15.4 vs 33 days (p<0.01). One patient experienced a transient transfusion reaction. No other adverse effects of convalescent plasma infusion were observed. Our results suggest that convalescent plasma is safe and has the potential for positive impact on clinical outcomes including recovery and survival if given to patients early in the course of COVID-19 disease.

Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral respiratory syndrome caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This novel virus was discovered in Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China, in December 2019. As of September 6, 2020, confirmed cases have risen to more than 27,000,000 worldwide and more than 885,000 people have died. Currently, no cure or standard treatment for COVID-19 exists. We conducted a prospective single-arm open-label phase II clinical trial assessing the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods: Convalescent plasma with sufficient total anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titer (1:320) obtained from recovered donors was administered to adult patients with either severe or critical COVID-19 illness. Primary outcomes were adverse events in association with plasma administration, and hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included disease progression, recovery, length of stay, and hospital discharge. Results: Of the 38 patients included in the analysis, 24 (63%) recovered and were discharged, and 14 (37%) died. Patients who received convalescent plasma early in the disease course (severe illness group) as compared to the patients that received convalescent plasma later in the disease progression (critical illness group) had significantly lower hospital mortality 13% vs 55% (p \ 0.02) and shorter mean hospital length of stay 15.4 vs 33 days (p \ 0.01). One patient experienced a transient transfusion reaction. No other adverse effects of convalescent plasma infusion were observed. Conclusions: Our results suggest that convalescent plasma with adequate anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titer is safe and has the potential for positive impact on clinical outcomes including recovery and survival if given to patients early in the course of COVID-19 disease. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier, NCT04343261, IND #19805.

SARS-CoV-2 has infected millions worldwide. The virus is novel, and currently there is no approved treatment. Convalescent plasma may offer a treatment option. We evaluated trends of IgM/IgG antibodies/plasma viral load in donors and recipients of convalescent plasma. 114/139 (82 %) donors had positive IgG antibodies. 46/114 donors tested positive a second time by NP swab. Among those retested, the median IgG declined (p < 0.01) between tests. 25/139 donors with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 were negative for IgG antibodies. This suggests that having had the infection does not necessarily convey immunity, or there is a short duration of immunity associated with a decline in antibodies. Plasma viral load obtained on 35/39 plasma recipients showed 22 (62.9 %) had non-detectable levels on average 14.5 days from positive test versus 6.2 days in those with detectable levels (p < 0.01). There was a relationship between IgG and viral load. IgG was higher in those with non-detectable viral loads. There was no relationship between viral load and blood type (p = 0.87) or death (0.80). Recipients with detectable viral load had lower IgG levels; there was no relationship between viral load, blood type or death.

No abstract

No abstract