Selected article for: "convalescent hospital and hospital admission"

Author: Sostin, Oleg V.; Rajapakse, Pramuditha; Cruser, Brigid; Wakefield, Dorothy; Cruser, Daniel; Petrini, Joann
Title: A matched cohort study of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID‐19
  • Cord-id: 9byosa48
  • Document date: 2021_2_22
  • ID: 9byosa48
    Snippet: INTRODUCTION: COVID‐19, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), is a public health crisis. Prior studies demonstrated successful use of convalescent plasma therapy for treatment of other viral illnesses. Our primary objective was to evaluate treatment efficacy of convalescent plasma in patients with COVID‐19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective matched cohort study, we enrolled recipients of convalescent plasma collected from donors recovered from
    Document: INTRODUCTION: COVID‐19, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), is a public health crisis. Prior studies demonstrated successful use of convalescent plasma therapy for treatment of other viral illnesses. Our primary objective was to evaluate treatment efficacy of convalescent plasma in patients with COVID‐19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective matched cohort study, we enrolled recipients of convalescent plasma collected from donors recovered from laboratory‐confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection under the single patient eIND process. We individually matched 35 cases with 61 controls based on age, gender, supplemental oxygen requirements, and C‐reactive protein level at the time of hospital admission. We compared the outcomes of in‐hospital mortality and hospital length of stay between the groups. RESULTS: In‐hospital mortality was 20% among the cases and 24.6% among the controls (P = .61). A multivariable logistic regression model that included age, gender, duration of symptoms, need for mechanical ventilation, and pharmacologic interventions revealed no significant difference in mortality by study group (P = .71). The median length of stay was significantly greater among convalescent plasma recipients compared with controls, 10 (IQR, 6‐17) vs 7 (IQR, 4‐11) days, P < .01. The difference was not significant after controlling for covariates (P > .1). CONCLUSIONS: We did not find convalescent plasma reduced in‐hospital mortality in our sample, nor did it reduce length of stay. Further investigation is warranted to determine the efficacy of this treatment in patients with COVID‐19, particularly early in the disease process.

    Search related documents:
    Co phrase search for related documents
    • access program and logistic regression analysis: 1, 2
    • acute lung injury and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4
    • acute lung injury and logistic regression model: 1
    • acute lung injury and lopinavir ritonavir: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
    • acute lung injury and lopinavir ritonavir hydroxychloroquine: 1
    • acute lung injury and los hospital mortality: 1
    • additive effect and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
    • additive effect and logistic regression analysis: 1, 2
    • additive effect and logistic regression model: 1
    • additive effect and lopinavir ritonavir: 1
    • admission crp and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
    • admission crp and logistic regression analysis: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
    • admission crp and logistic regression model: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
    • admission crp and lopinavir ritonavir: 1, 2, 3
    • admission date and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    • admission date and logistic regression analysis: 1, 2, 3
    • admission date and logistic regression model: 1, 2
    • admission date and lopinavir ritonavir: 1, 2, 3
    • admission date and lopinavir ritonavir hydroxychloroquine: 1, 2