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

Guns, Race, and Profit: The Pain of America’s Other Epidemic

BOGALUSA, La. — Less than a mile from a century-old mill that sustained generations in…

2 weeks ago

Mental Health Secrets Are Being Unraveled, and Inflammation Is the Culprit

Our body’s immune system creates surprising effects on mental health, which people need to understand.…

2 weeks ago

If Our Children’s Fear Doesn’t Move Us to Act, What Will?

Twenty-five months ago, I wrote for Medika Life after yet another school shooting shook the…

2 weeks ago

The Missing Piece in America’s AI Strategy: Brain Capital

Co-Authored by Kelly O’Brien, MPA (left) and Harris Eyre, MD, PhD (right); Kelly O’Brien, MPA…

3 weeks ago

The Height Problem No One Wants to Talk About

As you enter a job interview you discover through instinct that the interviewer has already…

3 weeks ago

Thought with Purpose: The Human Advantage in an Age of Anti-Intelligence

We often talk about intelligence as if it’s one thing, a bit like a dial…

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