Objectives: The potential benefit of convalescent plasma (CP) therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is highest when administered early after symptom onset. Our objective was to determine... Show moreObjectives: The potential benefit of convalescent plasma (CP) therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is highest when administered early after symptom onset. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness of CP therapy in improving the disease course of COVID-19 among high-risk outpatients. Methods: A multicentre, double-blind randomized trial was conducted comparing 300 mL of CP with non-CP. Patients were >= 50 years, were symptomatic for <8 days, had confirmed RT-PCR or antigen test result for COVID-19 and had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19. The primary endpoint was the highest score on a 5-point ordinal scale ranging from fully recovered (score = 1) or not (score = 2) on day 7, over hospital admission (score = 3), intensive care unit admission (score = 4) and death (score = 5) in the 28 days following randomization. Secondary endpoints were hospital admission, symptom duration and viral RNA excretion. Results: After the enrolment of 421 patients and the transfusion in 416 patients, recruitment was dis-continued when the countrywide vaccination uptake in those aged >50 years was 80%. Patients had a median age of 60 years, symptoms for 5 days, and 207 of 416 patients received CP therapy. During the 28 day follow-up, 28 patients were hospitalized and two died. The OR for an improved disease severity score with CP was 0.86 (95% credible interval, 0.59-1.22). The OR was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.33-1.02) for patients with <5 days of symptoms. The hazard ratio for hospital admission was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.28-1.34). No difference was found in viral RNA excretion or in the duration of symptoms. Conclusions: In patients with early COVID-19, CP therapy did not improve the 5-point disease severity score. Arvind Gharbharan, Clin Microbiol Infect 2023;29:208 (c) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Show less
Recently, a petition was offered to the European Commission calling for an immediate ban on animal testing. Although a Europe-wide moratorium on the use of animals in science is not yet possible,... Show moreRecently, a petition was offered to the European Commission calling for an immediate ban on animal testing. Although a Europe-wide moratorium on the use of animals in science is not yet possible, there has been a push by the non-scientific community and politicians for a rapid transition to animal-free innovations. Although there are benefits for both animal welfare and researchers, advances on alternative methods have not progressed enough to be able to replace animal research in the foreseeable future. This trend has led first and foremost to a substantial increase in the administrative burden and hurdles required to make timely advances in research and treatments for human and animal diseases. The current COVID-19 pandemic clearly highlights how much we actually rely on animal research. COVID-19 affects several organs and systems, and the various animal-free alternatives currently available do not come close to this complexity. In this Essay, we therefore argue that the use of animals is essential for the advancement of human and veterinary health. Show less
