Safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma for COVID-19 in the pre-vaccine era, and implementation in a large healthcare system: A phase I/II randomized, multicentre clinical trial (PC-COVID)

A phase 2 trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) for patients admitted with COVID-19 in the pre-vaccine era. CP was compared to standard of care (SoC) in a randomized clinical trial in patients admitted with COVID-19 pneumonia and with either hypoxia and/or some underlying condition from April to December 2020 in 15 hospitals in Andalusia, Spain. The primary endpoints were adverse events and failure (all-cause death and need for mechanical ventilation during the first 21 days). The procedure for CP was developed and worked properly. Overall, 72 patients of 88 evaluated were recruited (37 and 35) assigned to CP and SoC. Median duration of COVID-19 related symptoms was 7 and 6 days, and median oxygen saturation at randomization was 93% and 92.5% in experimental and control arms, respectively. Overall, 8 (21.6%) patients in the experimental CP group (non related to CP) and 8 (22.9%) in the control group developed grade 3 adverse events (relative risk [RR] 0.94; 95% CI: 0.39–2.24); failure occurred in 3 (8.1%) and 4 (11.4%) patients, respectively ([RR] 0.94, CI: 0.14–6.35 for both events). No differences in secondary endpoints (change in inflammatory parameters, negativization of SARS-CoV-2 PCR or duration of hospital stay) were found. The results suggested that CP is safe for use in COVID-19 patients, although no significant efficacy signal could be observed. A successful regional system for CP administration was developed. Se llevó a cabo un ensayo de fase II para evaluar la seguridad y la eficacia del plasma de convalecientes (PC) en pacientes ingresados con COVID-19 en la era previa a la vacuna. Se desarrolló un procedimiento para la obtención, preparación, transporte y administración de PC en toda Andalucía. El PC se comparó con el tratamiento estándar (TE) en un ensayo clínico aleatorizado en pacientes ingresados con neumonía por COVID-19 y con hipoxia y/o alguna afección subyacente entre abril y diciembre de 2020 en 15 hospitales de Andalucía, España. Los criterios de valoración principales fueron los eventos adversos y el fracaso (muerte por cualquier causa y necesidad de ventilación mecánica durante los primeros 21 días). Se reclutaron 72 pacientes de los 88 evaluados (37 y 35 asignados a PC y TE). En total, 8 (21,6%) pacientes del grupo experimental de PC (no relacionados con la CP) y 8 (22,9%) del grupo de control desarrollaron eventos adversos de grado 3 (riesgo relativo [RR] 0,94; IC del 95%: 0,39-2,24); hubo fracaso en 3 (8,1%) y 4 (11,4%) pacientes, respectivamente (RR 0,94; IC del 95%: 0.14-6.35 para ambos fracasos). No se encontraron diferencias en los objetivos secundarios (cambio en los parámetros inflamatorios, negativización de la PCR del SARS-CoV-2 o duración de la estancia hospitalaria). Los resultados de este ensayo piloto sugirieron que el PC es seguro para su uso en pacientes con COVID-19, aunque no se pudo demonstrar eficacia significativa. Se desarrolló un sistema exitoso para la administración de PC a nivel autonómico.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica
Published
2026-03-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eimc.2026.503166
Primary Topic
SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma for COVID-19 in the pre-vaccine era, and implementation in a large healthcare system: A phase I/II randomized, multicentre clinical trial (PC-COVID)

Ignacio Márquez-Gómez, María del Mar Macías-Sánchez, Maria Giulia Caponcello, Blanca Quijano Ruiz et al.
Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica
SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
article

Safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma for COVID-19 in the pre-vaccine era, and implementation in a large healthcare system: A phase I/II randomized, multicentre clinical trial (PC-COVID)

Ignacio Márquez-Gómez, María del Mar Macías-Sánchez, Maria Giulia Caponcello, Blanca Quijano Ruiz, Alberto Romero-Palacios, Rosario Mata, Manuela Aguilar-Guisado, Salvador López Cárdenas, Pilar Retamar-Gentil, Francisco Javier Martínez-Marcos, Gloria Carmona-Sánchez, Juan Macías, Salvador Oyonarte, Jose Antonio Marrugal-Lorenzo, Jesús Rodríguez-Baño
article en

Abstract

A phase 2 trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) for patients admitted with COVID-19 in the pre-vaccine era. CP was compared to standard of care (SoC) in a randomized clinical trial in patients admitted with COVID-19 pneumonia and with either hypoxia and/or some underlying condition from April to December 2020 in 15 hospitals in Andalusia, Spain. The primary endpoints were adverse events and failure (all-cause death and need for mechanical ventilation during the first 21 days). The procedure for CP was developed and worked properly. Overall, 72 patients of 88 evaluated were recruited (37 and 35) assigned to CP and SoC. Median duration of COVID-19 related symptoms was 7 and 6 days, and median oxygen saturation at randomization was 93% and 92.5% in experimental and control arms, respectively. Overall, 8 (21.6%) patients in the experimental CP group (non related to CP) and 8 (22.9%) in the control group developed grade 3 adverse events (relative risk [RR] 0.94; 95% CI: 0.39–2.24); failure occurred in 3 (8.1%) and 4 (11.4%) patients, respectively ([RR] 0.94, CI: 0.14–6.35 for both events). No differences in secondary endpoints (change in inflammatory parameters, negativization of SARS-CoV-2 PCR or duration of hospital stay) were found. The results suggested that CP is safe for use in COVID-19 patients, although no significant efficacy signal could be observed. A successful regional system for CP administration was developed. Se llevó a cabo un ensayo de fase II para evaluar la seguridad y la eficacia del plasma de convalecientes (PC) en pacientes ingresados con COVID-19 en la era previa a la vacuna. Se desarrolló un procedimiento para la obtención, preparación, transporte y administración de PC en toda Andalucía. El PC se comparó con el tratamiento estándar (TE) en un ensayo clínico aleatorizado en pacientes ingresados con neumonía por COVID-19 y con hipoxia y/o alguna afección subyacente entre abril y diciembre de 2020 en 15 hospitales de Andalucía, España. Los criterios de valoración principales fueron los eventos adversos y el fracaso (muerte por cualquier causa y necesidad de ventilación mecánica durante los primeros 21 días). Se reclutaron 72 pacientes de los 88 evaluados (37 y 35 asignados a PC y TE). En total, 8 (21,6%) pacientes del grupo experimental de PC (no relacionados con la CP) y 8 (22,9%) del grupo de control desarrollaron eventos adversos de grado 3 (riesgo relativo [RR] 0,94; IC del 95%: 0,39-2,24); hubo fracaso en 3 (8,1%) y 4 (11,4%) pacientes, respectivamente (RR 0,94; IC del 95%: 0.14-6.35 para ambos fracasos). No se encontraron diferencias en los objetivos secundarios (cambio en los parámetros inflamatorios, negativización de la PCR del SARS-CoV-2 o duración de la estancia hospitalaria). Los resultados de este ensayo piloto sugirieron que el PC es seguro para su uso en pacientes con COVID-19, aunque no se pudo demonstrar eficacia significativa. Se desarrolló un sistema exitoso para la administración de PC a nivel autonómico.

Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología ClínicaVol. 44(6)
Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ES), Fundación Progreso y Salud (ES), Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena (ES), Fundación Pública Andaluza para la Gestión de la Investigación en Salud de Sevilla (ES), Biomedical Research and Innovation Institute of Cadiz (ES), Hospital Juan Ramón Jiménez (ES), Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla (ES), Hospital Universitario de Valme (ES), Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío (ES), Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga (ES), Universidad de Sevilla (ES)
Fundación Pública Andaluza Progreso y Salud
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.