What was once touted as an experimental therapy by the World Health Organization (WHO) turned out to be a dud, at least for this new study.
European researchers who studied convalescent plasma therapy in Guinea revealed on Wednesday in New England Journal of Medicine that the method wasn't really effective.
Convalescent therapy isn't entirely new. Back in 1918, during the height of Spanish influenza that wiped out almost 5% of the world's population, plasma transfusion was used. The therapy is also applied in other viral diseases like yellow fever and measles since the 1930s and H1N1 outbreak in 2009.
However, it was rarely applied in Ebola, except for a 2000 report that suggested at least eight Ebola patients in Democratic Republic of the Congo received convalescent blood from five patients.
In November 2014, WHO recommended the use of convalescent blood as part of "experimental therapy" to curb the Ebola outbreak, which has so far killed more than 8,000 people in West African nations like Guinea, Sierra Leona, and Liberia.
Under the therapy, plasma from previously infected patients was then transfused to existing ones based on the principle that the fluid contained the much-needed antibodies to fight off the virus.
Dr Kent Brantly, a missionary doctor who was one of the first Ebola patients to be sent to America for treatment, donated his plasma to three US Ebola patients, ABC News reported.
The new study by Dr. Johan van Griensven and colleagues, however, suggested at the survival of 84 patients who received the transfusion wasn't any better from those who didn't. For example, their risk of death on day 3 to 16 was 31%, not too far from that of the control group, which was 38%.
Nevertheless, the researchers admitted the limitations of the study and that it's possible it could be effective if the plasma contains high amounts of antibodies. They also mentioned that the method has shown some benefit among certain groups like pregnant women and children.
