The Therapeutic Potential of Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Treating Critically-ill COVID-19 Patients Residing in Respiratory Care Units in Hospitals in Baghdad, Iraq
Phase: NA
Conditions: IMMUNOTHERAPY
Sponsor: Alkarkh Health Directorate-Baghdad

Cover page 
 
 
Alkarkh Health Directorate-Baghdad 
 
 
Title: The therapeutic potential of Convalescent plasma therapy on treating 
critically-ill COVID-19 patients residing in respiratory care units in hospitals in 
Baghdad, Iraq 
 
Brief title: Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Critically-ill COVID-19 Patients   
 
 
Document Date: June 1 2020 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Abstract 
Objectives: The current COVID-19 pandemic needs unconventional therapies to 
tackle the resulted high morbidity and mortality. Convalescent plasma is one of the 
therapeutic approaches that might be of benefit. Methods: Forty nine early-stage 
critically-ill COVID-19 patients residing in RCU of three hospitals in Baghdad, Iraq 
were included, 21 received convalescent plasma while 28 did not receive, namely 
control group. Recovery or death, length of stay in hospital, and improvement in the 
clinical course of the disease were monitored clinically along with laboratory 
monitoring through SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection via PCR, and SARS-CoV-2 IgG 
and IgM serological monitoring. Results: Patients received convalescent plasma 
showed reduced duration of infection in about 4 days, and showed less death rate, 
1/21 versus 8/28 in control group. In, addition, all of the patients received 
convalescent plasma showed high levels of SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM 3 days after 
plasma transfusion. Plasma from donors with high levels of SARS-CoV-2 IgG and 
donors with positive SRAS-CoV-2 IgM showed better therapeutic results than other 
donors. Conclusions: Convalescent plasma therapy is an effective mode of therapy if 
donors with high level of SARS-Cov2 antibodies are selected and if recipients were at 
their early stage of critical illness, being no more than 3 days in RCU.           
Keywords: Convalescent plasma, COVID-19, SARS-Cov2, Coronavirus, IgG 
antibodies, IgM antibodies. 
Introduction 
SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus from the family Coronavirdae that caused deadly 
pandemic, COVID-19 infection, all over the world starting from December 2019 till 
the time of writing this article, June 2020. Despite all of the trials for finding a 
suitable therapy for COVID-19, till now no single or cocktail therapy has proved to 
cure the infection [1]. Remdesivir has shown partial therapeutic efficacy while other 
drugs have not proved efficient so far and most of them are still under research [2].  
No memory immunity in humans can tackle the spread of SARS-CoV-2 towards the 
lower respiratory tract [3]. Mortality rate of COVID-19 ranges between 3.5-14% in 
different parts of the world. Hence, SARS-CoV-2 is 30 times more deadly than 
influenza virus [4]. Moreover, COVID-19 patients need elaborative hospital intensive 

care for long duration, up to 5 to 6 weeks. Admission of high numbers of critically-ill 
COVID-19 patients to hospitals in a short time can undermine any health system [5].  
Accordingly, any medicine or therapeutic approach has become desperately needed 
for decreasing morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay of COVID-19 patients. 
One of the therapeutic approaches that were recently highlighted is the convalescent 
plasma (CP). The CP is an old approach used during the Spanish flu pandemic and 
proved then to be a good mode of treatment [6]. The CP is taken from recovered 
COVID-19 patients for the sake to use their anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies laden 
plasma to fight the viral infection in critically-ill patients who their immune system 
can not eradicate infection efficiently by its own [6,7].      
In the current pandemic of COVID-19 with the absence of any cure, CP has become a 
new target for treating COVID-19 patients [7]. In Iraq, due to 30 years of the political 
and military unrest, the health system is of limited capacity and can not match high 
numbers of COVID-19 patients, especially the severe and critically ill cases that 
occupy RCU beds for several weeks. Therefore, it was mandatory to try whatever 
approach to treat COVID-19 patients and lower death rate and decrease the length of 
hospital stay to free as much as possible RCU beds for other patients. In the current 
study, we tested the effectiveness of the CP therapy on 21 early stage critically ill 
patients residing in COVID-19 RCU wards in Baghdad, Iraq hospitals. The Aim of 
the current clinical trial was to assess the safety of the convalescent plasma therapy 
and to assess the clinical and laboratory improvement after the CP therapy compared 
to age- and sex- matched control group.  
 
Patients and methods 
The current study started on April 3rd, 2020 and lasted till June 1st 2020 and was 
conducted in Baghdad, Iraq. All of the patients were voluntarily included in the study 
by a written consent from their relatives. The donors were voluntarily recruited in this 
study. The current study was started after obtaining the ethical and official approvals 
from the Baghdad-Alkharkh General Directorate of Health.     
Critically-ill COVID-19 patients and their Inclusion and exclusion criteria: 

Forty nine critically-ill COVID-19 patients were included in the current study. All of 
the patients were with pneumonia and residing in RCU; As a result of ABO 
compatibility and limited plasma, 21 of the patients were randomly chosen to take CP, 
while other age- and sex- matched 28 patients were under the conventional therapy as 
control group. The included patients, whether in CP or control group, were of age ≥ 
18 y with dyspnea and oxygen saturation less than 90% in resting state. All 50 
patients were at their first 3 days in RCU either receiving O2 therapy or on 
ventilators. We aimed at targeting critically-ill patients, either CP or control groups, at 
their early stages of admission to RCU before developing full-blown ARDS or 
respiratory and/or multiple organ failure. All of the patients were residing in 
infectious diseases wards before being transferred to RCU. The patients were residing 
in Alkarkh general and Alforat hospitals, while only one patient was in Alyarmug 
hospital.  
The exclusion criteria of the COVID-19 patients were: previous allergic history to 
plasma or its ingredients such as sodium citrate, and cases with serious general 
conditions, such as severe organ dysfunction, that are not suitable for transfusion or 
very late stage of the ARDS where CP has proved to be of low therapeutic benefit [7, 
8]. 
Inclusion criteria for the donors: 
The donors of CP were two weeks previously recovered patients from COVID-19. 
The donors should be younger than 50 years, healthy, non-pregnant females, with no 
comorbidities, and those who showed moderate COVID-19 infections. The donors' 
plasma was tested using SARS-CoV-2 IgG Antibody ELISA. The positive donors for 
COVID-19 IgG (SARS-CoV-2 IgG index >1) were preliminarily included. Then, only 
the donors with IgG index equal or more than 1.25 were selected; this ensured getting 
CP with the highest titers of antibodies. In addition, a rapid immunochromatographic 
test, COVID-19 IgG/IgM test was used to screen the donors and the recipients for the 
presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM antibodies. 
 
Screening and follow-up of the critically-ill COVID-19 patients      

The patients of the current study, CP or control groups, were evaluated by the 
following: 
- 
SARS-CoV-2 PCR at D2, D3, D5, more than D5: the days after of the first day 
(or D0) of inclusion to the study for the control group or the day of giving CP 
for the CP group. 
- 
SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibodies at D0 and D3, and for the donors at the 
day of taking CP. 
- 
Continuous medical evaluation of patients' signs and symptoms or any allergic 
reaction including fever, skin rash, anaphylactic shock, level of dyspnea, 
respiratory rate, O2 saturation, need for oxygen, need for ventilators, 
temperature. 
The end points of the current study 
The end points for the current study were:  
First, the safety of the CP therapy within the first 3 hours post-transfusion by mainly 
monitoring the allergic reaction to CP.  
Second, the duration, in days, for the patients to convert to SARS-CoV-2 RNA-
negative along with improvement in the signs and symptoms of the critical infection, 
namely relief of severe dyspnea, no need for ventilators or oxygen therapy, declining 
in fever if any, declining in respiratory rate to less than 30/min, and increased oxygen 
saturation to more than 93% at rest, so patients can be discharged from RCU to the 
infectious disease ward; this duration is named the recovery time from critical illness 
(RTCI).  
Third, the survival or death of the patients.   
PCR for SARS-CoV-2 RNA: 
The definitive diagnosis for COVID-19 was carried out by using real-time RT-PCR 
assay (QiaAmp RNA mini blood, Qiagen, Germany for RNA extraction and 2019 
nCov KogeneBiotech one step PCR kit R6900TD (South Korea) to detect SARS-
Cov2 RNA in nasopharyngeal swabs. The PCR instrument used was rotor-gene 6000 
cycler, Qiagen, Germany. The thermal cycling program was conducted according to 
the manufacturer guidelines.  

Detection and evaluation of anti-SARS-Cov2 antibodies: 
The SARS-CoV-2 IgG semi-quantitatively and SARS-CoV-2 IgM qualitatively were 
assessed in the serum of both the donors and recipients by using SARS-CoV-2 IgG 
Antibody ELISA kit DEIASL019 (Creative Diagnostics, USA) and rapid test 
COVID-19 IgG/IgM test (Biozek, Netherlands), respectively.  
For the estimation of SARS-CoV-2  IgG in donors and recipients, 100 ul of the serum 
were collected. For each 96 well microtiter plate, blank, negative, and positive 
controls were included. The procedure of ELSIA was conducted according to the 
guidelines of kit manufacturer SARS-CoV-2 IgG Antibody ELISA kit DEIASL019 
(Creative Diagnostics, USA). At the end, the colorimetric reaction was measured at 
450 nm wavelength. The positive results are expressed as IgG index which is 
calculated by dividing OD of the sample over the OD of the negative control. IgG 
index more than 1 is considered positive. The higher the IgG index is the higher titer 
of IgG in the serum. SARS-CoV-2 IgG index >1 is positive, 1-1.25 is weakly 
positive, 1.25-1.5 is moderately positive, and >1.5 is strongly positive.  
For the detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgM antibodies, a qualitative strip test was used 
giving just negative or positive results. 
Statistical analysis 
The death rate, length of stay in hospitals after inclusion in the study, the serum level 
of SARS-Cov-2 IgG are subjected to normality tests. Accordingly, parametric data 
were analyzed using pooled t-test and ANOVA. For nominal data, Chi-square with 
Fisher Exact's correction is used. The objectives of the statistical analysis is to 
compare the death rate, length of stay in hospitals (in days) between experimental arm 
(the convalescent plasma group) and the control group. In addition, estimate the role 
of the serum level of SARS-Cov-2 IgG in both donors and recipients to the length of 
stay in hospital after taking the interventional plasma.    
Results 
It is noteworthy to mention that the included patients in this study, CP and control 
group, showed, to some extent, a male predilection to more severe COVID-19 
infection as 75% of males and 53% of females were on ventilators (P=0.1), while 

there was no predilection of any parameter studied to certain blood group type 
(P>0.05).             
The safety of CP therapy 
All of the patients, who were given CP, were closely monitored for the first 3 hours 
after CP for detecting and treating early adverse effect especially allergic reactions. 
None, except one, of the 21 CP patients developed any allergic reaction. A single case 
developed mild skin redness and itching lasted for 1 hour after taking CP; 
intramuscular anti-histamine was injected and terminated the mild allergic reaction.  
Comparison between CP and control group: 
The CP group was compared to the age- and sex- matched control group in terms of 
recovery time from critical illness (RTCI), days of infection before inclusion to the 
study, and the whole duration of infection. It was found that the RTCI in CP group, 
4.52±2.3 days, was lower than that in control group, 8.45±1.8 days (P<0.01). Hence, 
CP accelerated the removal of viral infection and recovery in patients for about 4 
days. Accordingly, the whole duration of COVID-19 infection in CP group, 19.3±6.9, 
was lower than in control group, 23.42±6.4 days (P<0.05). On the other hand, there 
was no significant difference between CP and control groups in regard to age, sex,  
temperature at D0, and oxygen saturation at D0 (P>0.05), Table 1. 
There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients on ventilators, 81% 
in CP versus 57% in control groups (P>0.05). The level of SARS-CoV-2 IgG at D0 in 
CP and control groups were not different (P>0.05), while at D3, CP group showed 
much higher number of patients with positive and strongly positive IgG than in 
control group (P<0.05), Table 2 and figure1. For IgM at D0, both groups showed very 
similar percentage of positive SARS-CoV-2 IgM, 19% in CP versus 18% in control 
groups, (P>0.05). For IgM at D3, CP group showed much higher number of patients 
with positive IgM than in control group (P<0.05), Table 3, figure 2. Most importantly, 
the death rate in CP group was much lower than in control group. Only one 1/21 
(4.8%) patient in CP group died versus 8/28 (28.5%) in control group (P<0.05), table 
4, figure 3. 
 
The studied parameters in CP group and the effect of donors' plasma  

  
The parameters studied in the CP group are listed in table 5. The CP group consisted 
of 57.1% males and 42.86% females. Blood groups of CP patients and control patients 
were B+ 47.6%, O+ 23.8%, and each of A+ and O- 14.3%. 81% of them on ventilator 
while the rest on oxygen therapy. All of the CP patients were early admitted from 
infectious diseases ward to RCU (not more than 3 days).  
At the day of taking CP or D0, only 14.9% were weakly positive to SARS-CoV-2 IgG 
while the rest were negative; on the other hand, at D3, zero patients were negative to 
SARS-Cov2 IgG, 9.52% weakly positive, 38.1% moderately positive, and 52.38% 
strongly positive (P<0.05), . For IgM, only 19% were positive at D0 versus 100% 
positive at D3 (P<0.05).  
For the donors of CP, depending on the availability of donors, we tried as could as 
possible to select the highly positive plasmas for SARS-CoV-2 IgG. Up to 52% of 
donors were moderately positive and 48% of them were strongly positive for SARS-
CoV-2 IgG. In addition, up to 53% of the donors were shown to be positive to SARS-
CoV-2 IgM.  
Actually, only one case died in CP group; and this case had nothing peculiar in regard 
to the presenting temperature or the whole duration of infection (P>0.05). This patient 
died after 4 days of taking CP. However, this case was at the end stage of the disease 
with oxygen saturation at 60% and with severe comorbidity and immunosuppression 
due to cancer and chemotherapy.  
The SARS-CoV-2 IgG at D0 in recipients was shown to be associated with the RTCI 
(P<0.05). The mean RTCI of positive SARS-CoV-2 IgG recipients at D0, was only 
2.3±0.58 days, while the mean RTCI at D0 of negative SARS-CoV-2 IgG patients 
was 4.8±1.3 days after taking CP, figure 4. In addition, the positive IgG CP patients at 
D0 were those who were infected for longer time before taking CP, mean 22.6±7.9 
days compared to the D0 IgG negative, 13.5±6.5 days (P<0.05). Hence, the patients 
who took longer time of infection before being deteriorated and given CP developed 
some level of SARS-CoV-2 IgG at time of taking CP and were shown to be more 
responsive to CP therapy. 

Similarly, CP patients who developed stronger SARS-CoV-2 IgG at D3 were more 
prone to benefit from CP therapy. The mean RTCI were 6.3±2.3, 4±0.01, and 3.2±1.6 
days in CP patients who developed weakly positive, moderately positive, and strongly 
positive SARS-CoV-2 IgG at D3, respectively (P=0.009), figure 5. On the other hand, 
SARS-CoV-2 IgM at D0 or D3 in recipients of CP did not show any effect on the 
outcome of CP therapy (P>0.05). 
Interestingly, the donor plasma' level of SARS-CoV-2 IgG and the presence of SARS-
CoV-2 IgM were found to be of effect on the recovery of COVID-19 treated with CP. 
The mean RTCI was much lower, 3.18±1.4 days, in patients received CP from SARS-
CoV-2 IgM positive donors, than in recipients took CP from SARS-CoV-2 IgM 
negative donors, 6±2.3 days (P=0.003), figure 6. Alike, the mean RTCI was lower, 
3.6±1.9 days, in patients received CP from donors with strongly positive SARS-CoV-
2 IgG, than in recipients received CP from donors with moderately positive SARS-
CoV-2 IgG, 5.36±2.2 days (P=0.048), figure 7. Hence, the titer of SARS-CoV-2 IgG 
and the presence of SRAS-CoV-2 IgM antibodies in the convalescent plasma of 
donors seem to play important role for the success of CP therapy.           
 
Discussion 
CP was shown to be safe in the current study and lowered death rate from 28% in 
control group to only 4.8% in CP group. This is a remarkable lowering in mortality 
rate, which is about 23% less in patients received CP. In the current study, the 
observed effect of CP in reducing mortality rate might be attributed to two main 
factors. First, the target patients of this study were patients who were recently 
deteriorated and admitted to RCU, no more than 3 days in RCU. It is thought that if 
CP is given early to critically-ill patients, the effect of CP in treating the infection and 
preventing further lower respiratory tract damage would be noticeable. A previous 
study found that CP given to 6 critically-ill COVID-19 patients managed to eradicate 
virus 100% in 2-3 days after taking plasma, but only 1/6 of the patients was saved [7]. 
This was due to the fact that those 6 patients were given CP at advanced stage of the 
disease when ARDS became full-blown [7-9]. Therefore, the current study was 
designed to avoid targeting very advanced COVID-19 patients. The second possible 
factor for the good outcome observed in the current study, the level of SARS-CoV-2  
IgG and IgM in donors was monitored and only the plasma with highest levels of 

SARS-CoV-2 IgG were selected; in addition, only young and quite healthy donors 
were chosen. 
In addition to reducing the death rate, CP in the current study decreased the time 
needed for the critically-ill COVID-19 patients to recover. CP in the current study 
accelerated the recovery of patients in about 4 days. In fact, this is an important 
outcome as freeing RCU beds to other critically-ill patients is vital during COVID-19 
pandemic.  
It is noteworthy to mention that the positive SARS-CoV-2 IgG recipients of CP at D0, 
benefited more from the immune boosting effect of CP therapy than those who were 
negative at D0. This was shown by the less days needed to recover and convert to 
SARS-CoV-2 RNA negative in the recipients who were already positive in IgG 
antibodies. This actually can be one of the predictors for the success of CP therapy. 
Furthermore, the serum level of SARS-CoV-2 IgG 3 days after taking CP was shown 
to have a direct effect on the time needed to recover after CP. All these measured 
parameters highlights that CP is an efficient boosting therapy for the immune system 
of critically-ill patients and it is a useful mean to elevate anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies 
with enhanced rates of recovery and survival.  
In addition, the current study indicated that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 IgM in the 
plasma of donors reduced the time for recovery from 6 days to 3.6 days after taking 
CP. And for IgG in the donors, the strongly positive donors helped the recipients to 
recover earlier, 3.6 days instead of 5.3 days, after taking CP. Therefore, keen selection 
of donors for CP is vital for maximizing the therapeutic effect of this approach. 
Several studies reported that the titer of SARS-CoV-2 IgG in the plasma of donors is 
important in the outcome of CP therapy [7-11].  
Taken together, CP therapy proved to be a good therapeutic approach if the plasma of 
donors were rich with SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM. In addition, the recipients who 
have already started producing SARS-IgG and IgM are more prone to benefit from 
CP. Furthermore, maybe the most important factor, targeting critically-ill patients at 
early days in RCU and on ventilators seems vital for the success of CP therapy. Too 
late CP therapy might be good to eradicate the virus, if any, but it might not be 
enough to reverse the advanced inflammatory damage in the lung and/or other organs 
in COVID-19 patients. CP therapy proved in this study to lower mortality and 
morbidity and to accelerate recovery. Therefore, the observed outcome of CP therapy 
is encouraging to be trialed on higher number of patients.  

 
Conflict of interests 
The authors of the current study confirm that there is no conflict of interest among 
them or with the outcome of the current study. 
 
Acknowledgment 
This study was financed, approved and supported by the Karkh health directorate in 
Bghdad, Iraq and was conducted in three main hospitals, Alkarkh hospital, Alforat 
Hospital and Alyarmug Hospital. This study owes much to the patients and all of the 
medical and paramedical staff working in the above mentioned hospitals.   
                                     
 
References 
1.  Tay, M.Z., Poh, C.M., Rénia, L. et al. The trinity of COVID-19: immunity, 
inflammation and intervention. Nat Rev Immunol 20, 363–374 (2020). 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41577-020-0311-8. 
2. Beigel JH, Tomashek KM, Dodd LE, et al. Remdesivir for the Treatment of 
Covid-19 - Preliminary Report [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 
22]. N Engl J Med. 2020;10.1056/NEJMoa2007764. 
doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2007764 
3. Abdulamir AS, Hafidh RR. The Possible Immunological Pathways for the 
Variable Immunopathogenesis of COVID—19 Infections among Healthy 
Adults, Elderly and Children. Electron J Gen Med. 
2020;17(4):em202. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejgm/7850 
4. Palacios Cruz M, Santos E, Velázquez Cervantes MA, León Juárez M. 
COVID-19, a worldwide public health emergency [COVID-19, una 
emergencia de salud pública mundial] [published online ahead of print, 2020 
Apr 21]. Rev Clin Esp (Barc). 2020;doi:10.1016/j.rceng.2020.03.001 
5. Chen Y, Zhao M, Wu Y, Zang S. Epidemiological analysis of the early 38 
fatalities in Hubei, China, of the coronavirus disease 2019. J Glob Health. 
2020;10(1):011004. doi:10.7189/jogh-10-011004. 
6. Mair-Jenkins J, Saavedra-Campos M, Baillie JK, et al. The effectiveness of 
convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin for the treatment of 

severe acute respiratory infections of viral etiology: a systematic review and 
exploratory meta-analysis. J Infect Dis. 2015;211(1):80‐90. 
doi:10.1093/infdis/jiu396. 
7. Rajendran K, Krishnasamy N, Rangarajan J, Rathinam J, Natarajan M, 
Ramachandran A. Convalescent plasma transfusion for the treatment of 
COVID-19: Systematic review [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 
1]. J Med Virol. 2020;10.1002/jmv.25961. doi:10.1002/jmv.25961. 
8. Marissa Purdy, 2020. Convalescent Plasma as Treatment for COVID-19. 
Infectious Disease Advisor. 
https://www.infectiousdiseaseadvisor.com/home/topics/covid19/convalescent-
plasma-successfully-cleared-viral-load-in-patients-with-covid-19/ 
9. Qing-Lei Zeng, Zu-Jiang Yu, Jian-Jun Gou, Guang-Ming Li, Shu-Huan Ma, 
Guo-Fan Zhang, Jiang-Hai Xu, Wan-Bao Lin, Guang-Lin Cui, Min-Min 
Zhang, Cheng Li, Ze-Shuai Wang, Zhi-Hao Zhang, Zhang-Suo Liu, Effect of 
Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Viral Shedding and Survival in Patients 
With Coronavirus Disease 2019, The Journal of Infectious Diseases, , jiaa228, 
https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiaa228. 
10. Chen L, Xiong J, Bao L, Shi Y. Convalescent plasma as a potential therapy for 
COVID-19. Lancet Infect Dis 2020; 20:398–400. 
11. World Health Organization. Clinical management of severe acute respiratory 
infection. when novel coronavirus (nCoV) infection is suspected. 28 January 
2020. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/330893. Accessed 10 May 2020. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Table 1: Comparison between Convalescent plasma and control groups in terms 
of age, recovery time from critical illness, duration of infection before inclusion 
to the study, the whole duration of infection, presenting temperature and oxygen 
saturation. 
 
Convalescent_plasma_therapy 
N 
Mean 
Std. 
Deviation P value 
Recovery time from critical illness 
(day) 
No 
20 8.4500 
1.87715 <0.0001 
Yes 
21 4.5238 
2.35837 
 
Duration infected before inclusion 
in the study (day) 
No 
28 16.5714 
5.99647 0.36 
Yes 
21 14.8095 
7.46739 
 
Whole_duration_of_infection (day) No 
28 23.4286 
6.39113 0.037 
Yes 
21 19.3333 
6.90169 
 
Age (year) 
No 
28 47.8214 15.36483 
0.2 
Yes 
21 55.6667 17.83629 
 
Temperature at D0 (C) 
No 
28 37.2179 
1.05972 0.58 
Yes 
21 37.0476 
1.07127 
 
Oxygen_saturation at D0 (%) 
No 
28 75.2500 18.66195 0.47 
Yes 
21 71.7143 14.72801 
 
 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Table 2: Number (%) of seropositivity level of SARS-CoV-2 IgG 3 days after inclusion in the study 
for control group or 3 days after taking plasma in Convalescent plasma group  
P<0.0001 
 
 
D3_IgG_recepient 
Total 
 
 
 
Negativ
e 
Weakly 
positive 
moderately 
positive 
strongly 
positive 
Convalescent_
plasma therapy 
No 
Count 
21 
7 
0 
0 
28 
% within 
Convalescent_plasma
_therapy 
75.0% 
25.0% 
.0% 
.0% 100.0% 
% within 
D3_IgG_recepient 
100.0% 
77.8% 
.0% 
.0% 57.1% 
% of Total 
42.9% 
14.3% 
.0% 
.0% 57.1% 
Yes Count 
0 
2 
8 
11 
21 
% within 
Convalescent_plasma
_therapy 
.0% 
9.5% 
38.1% 
52.4% 100.0% 
% within 
D3_IgG_recepient 
.0% 
22.2% 
100.0% 
100.0% 42.9% 
% of Total 
.0% 
4.1% 
16.3% 
22.4% 42.9% 
Total 
Count 
21 
9 
8 
11 
49 
% within 
Convalescent_plasma
_therapy 
42.9% 
18.4% 
16.3% 
22.4% 100.0% 
% within 
D3_IgG_recepient 
100.0% 
100.0% 
100.0% 
100.0% 100.0% 
% of Total 
42.9% 
18.4% 
16.3% 
22.4% 100.0% 
 

 
Figure 1: Number of patients with negative, weakly positive, moderately positive, and 
strongly positive serum SARS-CoV-2 IgG after 3 days from inclusion in the study 
between Convalescent plasma versus control groups.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
             
  
 

Table 3: Number (%) of seropositivity level of SARS-CoV-2 IgM 3 days after 
inclusion in the study for control group or 3 days after taking plasma in Convalescent 
plasma group 
P<0.0001 
 
 
D3_IgM_recepient 
Total 
 
 
Negaivet Positive 
Convalescent_plasma
_therapy 
No 
Count 
20 
8 
28 
% within 
Convalescent_plasma_t
herapy 
71.4% 
28.6% 
100.0% 
% within 
D3_IgM_recepient 
100.0% 
27.6% 
57.1% 
% of Total 
40.8% 
16.3% 
57.1% 
Yes 
Count 
0 
21 
21 
% within 
Convalescent_plasma_t
herapy 
.0% 
100.0% 
100.0% 
% within 
D3_IgM_recepient 
.0% 
72.4% 
42.9% 
% of Total 
.0% 
42.9% 
42.9% 
Total 
Count 
20 
29 
49 
% within 
Convalescent_plasma_t
herapy 
40.8% 
59.2% 
100.0% 
% within 
D3_IgM_recepient 
100.0% 
100.0% 
100.0% 
% of Total 
40.8% 
59.2% 
100.0% 
 

 
Figure 2: Number of patients with negative and positive serum SARS-CoV-2 IgM 
after 3 days from inclusion in the study between Convalescent plasma versus control 
groups.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Table 4: Death rate in Convalscent plasma group versus control group 
 
P=0.03 
 
 
Death 
Total 
 
 
 
no death 
death 
Convalescent_plasma
_therapy 
No 
Count 
20 
8 
28 
% within 
Convalescent_plasma_t
herapy 
71.4% 
28.6% 
100.0% 
% within Death 
50.0% 
88.9% 
57.1% 
% of Total 
40.8% 
16.3% 
57.1% 
Yes 
Count 
20 
1 
21 
% within 
Convalescent_plasma_t
herapy 
95.2% 
4.8% 
100.0% 
% within Death 
50.0% 
11.1% 
42.9% 
% of Total 
40.8% 
2.0% 
42.9% 
Total 
Count 
40 
9 
49 
% within 
Convalescent_plasma_t
herapy 
81.6% 
18.4% 
100.0% 
% within Death 
100.0% 
100.0% 
100.0% 
% of Total 
81.6% 
18.4% 
100.0% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Figure 3: The count of death versus no death in Convalescent plasma and control 
groups 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Table 5: The studied parameters in the Convalescent plasma group of patients  
 
Parameters studied 
N Minimum Maximum Mean 
Std. 
Deviation 
Recovery time from critical 
illness (day) 
21 
2.00 
10.00 
4.5238 
2.35837 
Days_being_infected_before_
inclusion_in_study (day) 
21 
4.00 
28.00 14.8095 
7.46739 
Whole_duration_of_infection 
(day) 
21 
10.00 
30.00 19.3333 
6.90169 
Age (year) 
20 
20.00 
89.00 55.4000 
18.25665 
Temperatureat D0 (C) 
21 
36.00 
39.00 37.0476 
1.07127 
Oxygen saturation at D0 (%) 
21 
60.00 
90.00 71.7143 
14.72801 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Figure 4: The mean Recovery time from critical illness, in days, in Convalescent 
plasma recipients with negative versus weakly positive SARS-CoV-2 IgG at D0 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5: The mean Recovery time from critical illness, in days, among Convalescent 
plasma recipients with weakly, moderately, and strongly positive SARS-CoV-2 IgG at 
D3. 

 
Figure 6: The mean Recovery time from critical illness, in days, in recipients of 
Convalescent plasma from donors negative versus positive SARS-CoV-2 IgM 
  
 
 
 
Figure 7: The mean Recovery time from critical illness, in days, in recipients of 
Convalescent plasma from donors moderately positive versus strongly positive 
SARS-CoV-2 IgG