Table 1.
Outcomes of studies with control group (n = 15).
| Author (year) | Viral etiology | CFR of intervention group (n) | CFR of control group (n) | Viral load | Antibody level | Length of Hospital Stay | Adverse event | Others |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soo et al. (2004) | SARS-CoV | 0% (0/19) | 23 8% (5/21) | Not known | Not known | 74% of patients were discharged by day 22, compared with 19% in the steroid group (p < 0.001) | No adverse events were observed with CP | Patients receiving CP after day 16 had a poor clinical response |
| Zhou et al. (2003) | SARS-CoV | 0% (0/1) | 7% (2/28) | Not known | Not known | Not known | No adverse events were observed with CP | The patient recovered within 21 days having a shorter disease course |
| Hung et al. (2011) | Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 | 20% (4/20) | 54 79% (40/73) | Viral loads measured on day 3, 5, and 7 after ICU admission were significantly lower in the treatment than in the control group (p = 0.001, p = 0.02, and p = 0.04, respectively) | Not known | Not known | No adverse events were observed with CP | The levels of IL-6, IL-10, and TNF-α were lower in the intervention group than the control group |
| Chan et al. (2010) | Influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 | 0 (0/3) | 33 33% (1/3) | Not known | Not known | All samples were discharged by day 31 (25–55) | No adverse effects were reported | NA |
| Yu et al. (2008) | Avian influenza A(H5N1) | 0% (0/2) | 70% (17/24) | Not known | Not known | Nonfatal cases were discharged at a median of 41 days (31.5–64.0) after illness onset | No adverse effects were reported | NA |
| Kahn et al. (1919) | Spanish influenza A(H1N1) | 48% (12/25) | 66 66% (12/18) | Not known | Not known | Not known | No adverse effects were reported | NA |
| Gould et al. (1918) | Spanish influenza A(H1N1) | 6 66% (2/30) | 28 27% (82/290) | Not known | Not known | Not known | Infrequently experienced a chill and temporary increase in temperature. 1 case of jaundice and phlebitis was related to transfusion | Early transfusion resulted in distinct improvement in clinical signs and symptoms, fever ended 1.83days after transfusion (shorter compared with controls) |
| O’Malley et al. (1919) | Spanish influenza A(H1N1) | 6% (3/46) | 25% (28/111) | Not known | Not known | Not known | 75% patients had a slight or frank chill with a temporary increase in temperature, transfusion may aggravated serious symptoms in terminally patients | NA |
| Stoll et al. (1919) | Spanish influenza A(H1N1) | 44.6% (25/56) | 53% (201/379) | Not known | Not known | Not known | 16%patients had a chill, shake and temporary increase temperature. Transfusion reaction possibly hasten death in 4 seriously patients | Early transfusions resulted in distinct improvement in clinical signs and symptoms |
| Ross et al. (1919) | Spanish influenza A(H1N1) | 21.4 (6/28) | 42.8 (9/21) | Not known | Not known | Not known | Chill, temporary increase temperature | Early transfusions resulted in distinct improvement in clinical signs and symptoms |
| McGulre et al. (1919) | Spanish influenza A(H1N1) | 4% (6/151) | 30% (120/400) | Not known | Not known | Not known | 10% patients had a mild chill reaction | Early transfusions resulted in distinct improvement in clinical signs and symptoms, fever ended in 1or2 days in treated survivors |
| Sahr et al. (2016) | Ebola | 27.9% (12/43) | 44% (11/25) | There was a significant difference between admission viral load and after the first 24 h of treatment with intervention group (p < 0.01) | Not known | Not known | No adverse events were observed with CP | Patients treated with convalescent whole blood took an average of 10.6 ± 3.4 days to recover while the control patients took an average of 12.23 ± 4.8 days to recover |
| Griensven et al. (2016) | Ebola | 31% (26/84) | 38% (158/418) | One day after the transfusion of CP, the median Ct value increased by 3.5 cycles | Not known | Not known | 8% patients had an adverse reaction during or early after the transfusion including increase in temperature itching or skin rash nausea | The mortality difference was reduced after adjustment for age and cycle-threshold value (adjusted risk difference, −3 percentage points; 95% CI, −13 to 8) |
| Beigel et al. (2017) | Severe Influenza | 2% (1/49) | 10% (5/49) | There was no significant difference in time when no virus is detected | Not known | There were fewer days in the hospital in intervention group (median 6 vs. 11, p = 0 13) | 9 (20%) had SAEs The most common SAEs were acute respiratory distress syndrome and stroke | Hospital readmissions (2 vs. 7, p = 0 096), fewer participants with ICU admissions (57% vs. 69%, p = 0 097), and fewer days on mechanical ventilation (median 0 vs. 3, p = 0 14). 67% participants randomized to receive plasma had resolution of tachypnea and hypoxia by day 28, compared to 53%of control participants (p = 0 069) |
| Duan et al. (2020) | SARS-CoV-2 | 0 (0/10) | 30% (3/10) | Virus RNA was positive in 7 patients before transfusion. Virus RNA was decreased to an undetectable level in 3 patients on day 2, 3 patients on day 3 and 1 patients on day 6 after intervention | After CP transfusion, the level of neutralizing antibody increased rapidly up to 1:640 in five cases, while that of the other four cases maintained at a high level (1:640) | 3 cases discharged, while 7 cases in much improved status and ready for discharge in CP group. No patient in control group were eligible to be discharged | No adverse events were observed with CP | The symptoms were significantly improved within 3 days. Several parameters tended to improve as compared to pre-transfusion, including increased lymphocyte counts (0.65 × 109 L−1 vs. 0.76 × 109 L−1) and decreased C-reactive protein (55.98 mg/L vs. 18.13 mg/L) |
NA: not applicable.