[DocSavage87]

Taking antibody rich plasma from patients who have recovered from COVID-19 looks to be a promising treatment for patients fighting the infection, and there is a long history of using convalescent plasma in other diseases.  Among Trump's endorsements, this is one of the less cockamamie.  However, enthusiasm for it seems to be outrunning the data, and Francis Collins Anthony Fauci have had to intervene to temper enthusiasm and make sure we get the data supporting its use before an EUA is granted.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/19/us/po...id-19.html

As an aside, I think the Mayo clinic is being irresponsible in pushing plasma to the degree it has without setting up a randomized, placebo controlled trial.  I know that it is complicated.  I know that there is good reason to be enthusiastic about plasma.  But to give it to 66,000 people and not conduct a high quality trial with it represents a colossal missed opportunity.  WIth even a fraction of those patients enrolled in a randomized, placebo controlled trial, we would have a clear answer of whether the drug works by now.

BC

I already had started a thread about convalescent plasma after my institution hosted Casadevall's talk.  He's one of the main initiators of the effort and wrote the WSJ op-ed on it back in March.  He showed some data and mentioned the backlash about the lack of well-controlled trial.  The data he presented I think was from the expanded access program and was not controlled.

From the NYTimes piece, it sounds like part of the problem is that people don't want to risk getting placebo because they feel strongly enough about the utility of it.  I agree that they need some hard data.  It's a problem though when some docs feel strongly enough about it (and would consider non-treatment to be unethical), *and* they have the means to do it outside the clinical trial.  So really it's the expanded access program that's at fault?

[DocSavage87]

Taking antibody rich plasma from patients who have recovered from COVID-19 looks to be a promising treatment for patients fighting the infection, and there is a long history of using convalescent plasma in other diseases.  Among Trump's endorsements, this is one of the less cockamamie.  However, enthusiasm for it seems to be outrunning the data, and Francis Collins Anthony Fauci have had to intervene to temper enthusiasm and make sure we get the data supporting its use before an EUA is granted.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/19/us/po...id-19.html

As an aside, I think the Mayo clinic is being irresponsible in pushing plasma to the degree it has without setting up a randomized, placebo controlled trial.  I know that it is complicated.  I know that there is good reason to be enthusiastic about plasma.  But to give it to 66,000 people and not conduct a high quality trial with it represents a colossal missed opportunity.  WIth even a fraction of those patients enrolled in a randomized, placebo controlled trial, we would have a clear answer of whether the drug works by now.

BC

I already had started a thread about convalescent plasma after my institution hosted Casadevall's talk.  He's one of the main initiators of the effort and wrote the WSJ op-ed on it back in March.  He showed some data and mentioned the backlash about the lack of well-controlled trial.  The data he presented I think was from the expanded access program and was not controlled.

From the NYTimes piece, it sounds like part of the problem is that people don't want to risk getting placebo because they feel strongly enough about the utility of it.  I agree that they need some hard data.  It's a problem though when some docs feel strongly enough about it (and would consider non-treatment to be unethical), *and* they have the means to do it outside the clinical trial.  So really it's the expanded access program that's at fault?