Coronavirus

Convalescent Plasma Is Hardly A “Breakthrough”

On August 23, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization for convalescent plasma for the treatment of severe COVID-19. The Trump Administration hailed convalescent plasma as a “breakthrough” treatment for COVID-19. That is a bit of a stretch.

Convalescent plasma is the liquid portion of the blood of individuals who have recovered from COVID-19. In the plasma are hundreds of proteins, including the antibodies that are developed by the body after it has fought off the infection. It is assumed that the plasma of those who have recovered from COVID-19 will have antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The theory is that if we give the plasma of those who have recovered from COVID-19 to other people suffering from the disease, those antibodies will presumably help fight off the infection. Makes sense, right? The problem is, the studies conducted did not show that it worked.

The EUA was based on a number of studies, but there were only two of the gold standard: randomized, controlled trials. And those studies did not show a benefit for convalescent plasma.

In fact, in one study, there was a trend toward worse outcomes with plasma in patients with life-threatening COVID-19. I have spoken to colleagues who have seen that very outcome: their patients becoming worse — much worse — after getting plasma. Full disclosure, I have also had colleagues tell me that they have had patients get better with plasma as well.

And then there is the Mayo Clinic data. First of all, it is not even a controlled trial. And, if you read the fine print, the 7-day mortality rate was higher in those patients admitted to an intensive care unit vs not being in the ICU (10.5% vs 6.0%), and it was also higher in those patients on a ventilator compared to those not on a ventilator (12.1% vs 6.2%). So, how is this a “breakthrough”?

That’s why this move by the FDA — suddenly and curiously right before the Republican National Convention — is very concerning. They were right to be slow to authorize the emergency use of plasma because the data is not that great. This treatment can do some good, but it can also do a great deal of harm. We need better data, and I am very disappointed at the FDA for issuing this EUA. If they do this same move for an eventual COVID-19 vaccine, then count me out.

Dr. Hesham A. Hassaballa

Dr. Hesham A. Hassaballa is a NY Times featured Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine specialist in clinical practice for over 20 years. He is Board Certified in Internal Medicine, Pulmonary Medicine, Critical Care Medicine, and Sleep Medicine. He is a prolific writer, with dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles and medical blog posts. He is a Physician Leader and published author. His latest book is "Code Blue," a medical thriller.

Recent Posts

Rage Rooms: Do They Actually Help With Anger?

People often discover these businesses through online advertisements while they drive past shopping centers. The…

5 days ago

ETech-DrAtefehF

For more than three years, I have been working on a simple but powerful question:…

5 days ago

The Climate Tech Paradox: Innovation Surges, But Who Pays?

Climate tech stands at a defining crossroads of success. On one side are the innovators…

3 weeks ago

Climate-proofing: How a Coney Island hospital rebuilt after Superstorm Sandy

[This story was originally published by Healthbeat. Sign up for their public health newsletters at healthbeat.org/newsletters.]…

3 weeks ago

Care Beyond Borders: India Redefining the Future of Medical Tourism

The past few weeks have been tumultuous for India, from the implementation of US President…

3 weeks ago

AISAP Rural Health Breakthrough in Ghana is a Blueprint for Solving Cardiology Deserts

Access to cardiac care remains one of the most pressing, yet overlooked, crises in global…

3 weeks ago

This website uses cookies. Your continued use of the site is subject to the acceptance of these cookies. Please refer to our Privacy Policy for more information.

Read More