Blood transfusions from Ebola survivors don’t help patients after all, study finds
At the height of the Ebola epidemic, one of the most promising — if unproven — therapies was blood transfusions from people who had survived the deadly virus. Their blood plasma was presumed to have Ebola antibodies that could go to work right away. And there was evidence that survivor blood helped patients recover from other infectious diseases like influenza and SARS.
With patients dying daily, some doctors went ahead and began administering so-called convalescent plasma when donors were available. At an Ebola treatment center run by Doctors Without Borders in Conakry, Guinea, researchers devised a way to assess whether the treatment actually worked.
Unfortunately, it did not. A study in Thursday’s edition of the New England Journal of Medicine found that patients who were treated with convalescent plasma were 12% less likely to die than were patients who didn’t get the transfusions. However, that difference was small enough that the researchers said it could well have been due to chance.
As it happened, doctors were able to procure plasma so quickly that there was no time to recruit this control group. So the researchers improvised a new control group consisting of 418 patients who were treated in the same clinic several months earlier.
In another surprise, the Ebola crisis waned before the researchers were able to give transfusions to 130 patients. So the trial ended early, with 84 patients included in the main analysis.
These patients received two transfusions of up to 200 to 250 milliliters of plasma from a donor with a compatible blood type. Each transfusion lasted about 20 minutes, with a 15-minute gap in between.
For comparison, 158 of the 418 patients in the control group died in the 16 days after they were diagnosed. That was a mortality rate of 38%, but the 7 percentage-point difference wasn’t large enough to be statistically significant.
Next the researchers adjusted their findings to take into account a rough measure of each patient’s viral load when they were diagnosed with Ebola, as well as their age. The treated patients still did better, but the gap shrank to 3 percentage points.
The patients in the treatment group were more likely to have trouble swallowing, while the patients in the control group were more likely to have a longer duration of symptoms. Both of these things were associated with a heightened risk of death. So the researchers controlled for these factors as well and still found the plasma transfusions had no significant effect.
In addition, the study results do not rule out the possibility that convalescent plasma can be a valuable treatment for Ebola patients. Some groups of patients, such as pregnant women and children under 5, did much better than expected after getting the transfusions. Much bigger trials are needed to see if those trends are real or merely a fluke, the researchers wrote.
Another open question is whether the transfusions would work better if doctors were sure that the plasma contained high amounts of Ebola antibodies. In this study, there was no way for the researchers to check the antibody levels in the donor blood, since that would have required a level 4 biosafety lab — something that Guinea didn’t have.
In the future, it might be possible to prepare stockpiles of convalescent plasma known to be enriched with Ebola antibodies, the researchers wrote.
MORE FROM SCIENCE
Get our free Coronavirus Today newsletter
Sign up for the latest news, best stories and what they mean for you, plus answers to your questions.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.