Nadia Ashraf was a doctoral student at Dr. Panjwani Centre for Molecular Medicine and Research at Karachi University.

She was unable to complete her PhD in the last 15 years and was reportedly harassed by her thesis supervisor Dr Iqbal Chaudhry. She was also suffering from psychological and family issues.

It has also been revealed that Dr Iqbal Chaudhry has appointed faculty member Dr Atiya Wahab to oversee Nadia which had upset her.

Nadia had revealed to her close friends that Chaudhry also tried to terminate her job when she joined another research organisation.

Nadia Ashraf rejoined Panjwani Center, submitted her dissertation with PhD extension but Iqbal Chaudhry asked her to take another six-month extension. Nadia eventually ended up taking her own life.

Centre rejects allegations

The International Centre for Chemical & Biological Sciences (ICCBS) at the University of Karachi has termed news and social media posts linking the suicide of Nadia Ashraf with her PhD at the Dr Panjwani Centre for Molecular Medicine & Drug Research (PCMD) as “baseless and unfounded”.

The spokesman said Nadia enrolled for her MPhil/PhD in 2007 under the supervision of Dr Ameen Suria but later went under the supervision of Dr Iqbal Chaudhary. The ICCBS said she was provided an opportunity to train in France with other students but was unable to focus on her research due to family issues and personal health.

The spokesman said she stopped coming to the centre for a few years and started working at private universities to support her family, adding that she occasionally visited the centre to meet with her colleagues and supervisor.

The statement claimed that she was severely depressed and frequently mentioned her serious family issues, including the unexplained disappearance of her father a long time ago, and was also concerned about her own health and her mother.

The spokesman said her supervisor and the institution offered maximum support to her on every occasion, adding that her application for an extension of registration was also favourably recommended to facilitate the completion of her PhD.

The statement said she was always appreciative of the support she received from Dr Chaudhary and respected him like her father, adding that Dr Chaudhary had supervised over 100 PhDs and was ranked among the top scientists of the country.

The PCMD management expressed deep sorrow on Nadia’s passing away, saying that if her life had ended due to suicide, it must have been over personal issues, over which the institution had no control.

Nadia Ashraf reportedly committed suicide after being unable to complete her PhD during the last 15 years under the supervision of Dr Iqbal Chaudhry who was allegedly harassing the doctoral student.

According to reports, the late doctoral student was also suffering from psychological as well as family issues a part from the harassment she faced from her supervisor who wouldn’t let her complete her PhD.

Students of Karachi University specifically the Dr. Panjwani Centre are now demanding an investigation into the suicide of their friend Nadia Ashraf asking for a probe into why she wasn’t able to finish her PhD during the last 15 years.

According to some reports, the doctoral student would tell her friends prior to her suicide that Dr. Iqbal Chaudhry would not allow her to have a PhD saying, “I don’t know what the doctor wants from me.”

However, the International Centre for Chemical and Biologocal Sciences (ICCBS) at the University of Karachi has denied the accusations of the story behind the suicide of Nadia Ashraf as “baseless and unfounded”.

A spokesman of the department said that Nadia Ashraf was enrolled for her M. Phil / PhD back in 2007 under the supervision of Dr Ameen Suria but later when under the supervision of Dr. Iqbal Chaudhry.

According to the spokesperson, Nadia just stopped coming to the Centre a few ago and started working at private universities to support her family occasionally visiting occasionally to meet her colleagues and supervisor.

The spokesman also said that Nadia Ashraf was severely depressed due to family issues especially after the disappearance of her father a long time ago and the Centre did its best to support her during this difficult time.

What really happened?

Nobody really knows the true story behind what happened but according to friends of Nadia Ashraf, the constant harassment she faced at the hands of Dr. Iqbal Chaudhry and not being allowed her PhD after years of hard work was the reason she committed suicide.

It had been hoped that people who’d had COVID-19 might develop long-term immunity to further infection. However, studies looking at the levels of IgG antibodies, the type of antibodies that contribute to immunity, suggest this may not be the case.

Researchers studied 1,500 people admitted to hospitals in China with confirmed COVID-19 infection. These patients had antibody tests at least 21 days after admission. Almost 1 in 10 had no detectable IgG antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus when tested. Another study of 37 people with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test but no symptoms, found that 40% had no detectable IgG antibodies two months after the infection.

The findings suggest that many people who recover from COVID-19 may still develop long-term immunity, but a few could remain vulnerable to future infection. Vaccines train the immune system to recognise the virus and are thought, potentially, to confer longer-lasting immunity. So, these data boosts the hunt for a safe and effective vaccine.

Where did the story come from?
The Daily Telegraph is one of a number of news outlets that reported on the two studies. One was published on a pre-print server, meaning it has not been accepted by a medical journal or peer-reviewed. The other is published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Medicine.

What is the basis for the claim?
The larger, pre-publication study included 1,470 people admitted to hospitals in Wuhan, China, with symptoms of COVID-19, and who tested positive for the virus. After 21 days they had blood tests for IgG antibodies. The vast majority (90%) had IgG antibodies.

The researchers then gave antibody tests to 3,832 healthcare staff from Wuhan who had not been tested for the virus, but where exposure to the virus was assumed. Only 4% demonstrated IgG antibodies, around the same as the general population, where infection levels were expected to be much lower levels. However, it is difficult to form certain conclusions from this as infection among healthcare workers was not confirmed.

The second study from China included 37 asymptomatic people who had tested positive for COVID-19 during contact tracing, and been admitted to hospital for isolation purposes. Around 80% tested positive for IgG antibodies three to four weeks later, the same as a comparison group of 37 people with symptomatic infection. However, a follow-up study around eight weeks later showed 40% of asymptomatic people had lost their IgG antibodies, compared with only 13% of those with symptomatic infection. This could suggest that people with symptomatic infection are more likely to gain longer immunity than those with absent or minimal symptoms. But these are small numbers on which to base firm conclusions.

What do trusted sources say?
In April, BBC News quoted technical lead Dr Maria van Kerkhove from the World Health Organisation who cautioned the value of antibody tests because it is unknown whether people who have contracted SARS-CoV-2 will be immune to further infection.

The CDC also stated that it is not yet known whether people who recover from COVID-19 can get infected again, and emphasise infection control and social distancing measures for all.

Citation
Liu, T et al. Prevalence of IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan – implications for the ability to produce long-lasting protective antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. medRxiv 2020.06.13.20130252; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.13.20130252 (Accessed 30 June 2020).
Long, Q et al. Clinical and immunological assessment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. Nat Med (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0965-6

Analysis by EIU Healthcare, supported by Reckitt Benckiser

Reading list
Centres for Disease Control. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Frequently Asked Questions.

It had been hoped that people who’d had COVID-19 might develop long-term immunity to further infection. However, studies looking at the levels of IgG antibodies, the type of antibodies that contribute to immunity, suggest this may not be the case.

Researchers studied 1,500 people admitted to hospitals in China with confirmed COVID-19 infection. These patients had antibody tests at least 21 days after admission. Almost 1 in 10 had no detectable IgG antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus when tested. Another study of 37 people with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test but no symptoms, found that 40% had no detectable IgG antibodies two months after the infection.

The findings suggest that many people who recover from COVID-19 may still develop long-term immunity, but a few could remain vulnerable to future infection. Vaccines train the immune system to recognise the virus and are thought, potentially, to confer longer-lasting immunity. So, these data boosts the hunt for a safe and effective vaccine.

Where did the story come from?
The Daily Telegraph is one of a number of news outlets that reported on the two studies. One was published on a pre-print server, meaning it has not been accepted by a medical journal or peer-reviewed. The other is published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Medicine.

What is the basis for the claim?
The larger, pre-publication study included 1,470 people admitted to hospitals in Wuhan, China, with symptoms of COVID-19, and who tested positive for the virus. After 21 days they had blood tests for IgG antibodies. The vast majority (90%) had IgG antibodies.

The researchers then gave antibody tests to 3,832 healthcare staff from Wuhan who had not been tested for the virus, but where exposure to the virus was assumed. Only 4% demonstrated IgG antibodies, around the same as the general population, where infection levels were expected to be much lower levels. However, it is difficult to form certain conclusions from this as infection among healthcare workers was not confirmed.

The second study from China included 37 asymptomatic people who had tested positive for COVID-19 during contact tracing, and been admitted to hospital for isolation purposes. Around 80% tested positive for IgG antibodies three to four weeks later, the same as a comparison group of 37 people with symptomatic infection. However, a follow-up study around eight weeks later showed 40% of asymptomatic people had lost their IgG antibodies, compared with only 13% of those with symptomatic infection. This could suggest that people with symptomatic infection are more likely to gain longer immunity than those with absent or minimal symptoms. But these are small numbers on which to base firm conclusions.

What do trusted sources say?
In April, BBC News quoted technical lead Dr Maria van Kerkhove from the World Health Organisation who cautioned the value of antibody tests because it is unknown whether people who have contracted SARS-CoV-2 will be immune to further infection.

The CDC also stated that it is not yet known whether people who recover from COVID-19 can get infected again, and emphasise infection control and social distancing measures for all.

Citation
Liu, T et al. Prevalence of IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan – implications for the ability to produce long-lasting protective antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. medRxiv 2020.06.13.20130252; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.13.20130252 (Accessed 30 June 2020).
Long, Q et al. Clinical and immunological assessment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. Nat Med (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0965-6

Analysis by EIU Healthcare, supported by Reckitt Benckiser

Reading list
Centres for Disease Control. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Frequently Asked Questions.

As countries begin to ease lockdown restrictions, new outbreaks of COVID-19 have raised concerns that we might be in for a ‘second wave’ of infections. What does that mean, and is it inevitable?
Expectations partly depend on what the wave ‘pattern’ means. There is no scientific definition of this wave of infection. It essentially implies that the first outbreak of infection was brought under control, but the infection rate has started to rise again and is continuing to rise. Patterns vary and in some countries such as Brazil, rates of coronavirus infection in the first wave are still increasing. In others such as South Korea, who were free of the virus, local infections have started to increase again after a period where COVID-19 was well-controlled. These patterns are better described as outbreaks.
Following recent localised outbreaks in UK cities and other countries, some believe that a second full wave of infection is inevitable as lockdown restrictions lift further. But it is possible to identify and suppress local outbreaks with local measures. Much will depend on continued public vigilance, an understanding of where outbreaks are occurring and what seeds them. Appropriate restrictions can be reinstated to bring the virus brought under control. By expecting and responding quickly to outbreaks there is hope that a wave can be avoided.
Where did the story come from?
BBC News is one of many media outlets who have reported on the possibility of a second wave. They reference a letter published in the British Medical Journal which calls for a review of the UK’s preparedness and warns politicians to prepare for a second wave.
The NewScientist is among sources to have reported on the COVID-19 ‘hotspots’ in the UK. They raise concerns from local public health officials that accurate information from the government is lacking because testing predominantly takes place in the hospital and doesn’t account for community rates.
What is the basis for the claim?
The BMJ letter states: “Several countries are now experiencing COVID-19 flare-ups. While the future shape of the pandemic in the UK is hard to predict, the available evidence indicates that local flare-ups are increasingly likely and a second wave a real risk.” Among UK policy areas that the authors consider need urgent review is coordination of public health and infectious disease control infrastructures, international collaboration, and addressing the disproportionate burden on ethnic communities.
A Situation Report from the World Health Organization showed that as of 29th June, a total of 10 million cases and 500,000 deaths from COVID-19 had been reported globally. There was a “recent record numbers of new cases, with several countries reporting their highest number of new cases in a 24-hour period.” The US, Brazil and India had all reported over 100,000 new cases in the 7 days preceding 29th June.
Local restrictions have been reintroduced in countries where rising infections have been detected, including the province around Beijing in China, Melbourne in Australia and Leicester in the UK. Meanwhile, the US has the world’s highest number of confirmed cases, a total of 2.5 million as of end June. Two months ago nearly all states had an R-rate below 1, but this is now above 1 for 33 states.
As lockdown restrictions are eased, these findings highlight the need to remain vigilant, follow hand washing and infection control measures, and maintain social distancing in line with government recommendations. Testing and tracing is an important part of this public health response.
What do trusted sources say?
The June Situation Report from WHO stated: “As some countries start to reopen their societies and economies, WHO strongly encourages individuals, communities, and nations to take measures to reduce transmission, extend testing and contact tracing, and provide optimal care for every case.”
Analysis by EIU Healthcare, supported by Reckitt Benckiser

Citation

1. Adebowale V et al. Covid-19: Call for a rapid forward looking review of the UK’s preparedness for a second wave—an open letter to the leaders of all UK political parties BMJ 2020; 369 :m2514 https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2514
   Reading list
2. James Gallagher, BBC News. Coronavirus: What is a second wave and is one coming? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53113785 (Accessed 1 July 2020).
3. World Health Organization. Covid-19 Situation Report 161, 29 June 2020. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200629-covid-19-sitrep-161.pdf?sfvrsn=74fde64e_2 (Accessed 1 July 2020).

News headlines have carried the alarming claim that COVID-19 has mutated into ‘a new more infectious strain’, just as some countries appear to have passed the peak of the pandemic and vaccine development is making headway.
This new finding follows research that has looked for genetic changes in SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) that appeared to be making it more successful at infecting people. The research identified a small change in the genetic makeup of the virus, called D614G, which alters the protein ‘spikes’ on its surface.
Global tracking showed that only about 10% of viral samples contained this change before the start of March, but this rose to 78% by mid-May. People infected with this form of the virus appear to have more virus in their nose and throat, and this might explain how this form of the virus came to be more common.
Reassuringly, this newer variant does not appear to cause more severe COVID-19 disease.
Where did the story come from?
The UK publication The Mirror was among sources to report on the study in question, which was conducted by researchers from Los Alamos National Laboratory and other institutions in the US as well as the University of Sheffield in the UK. It is being published in the journal Cell and has been peer reviewed but has not yet been published in its final format.
What is the basis for the claim?
The genetic sequence of coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV-2 is said to be usually quite stable, but sometimes changes (mutations) may arise. The viruses carrying these mutations may become prolific if the mutations help them to infect more people or ‘get round’ the human immune system.
Identifying this sort of change is important as it could impact how well a vaccine or new treatments might work. Therefore, researchers developed an “early warning” system to look for genetic changes in SARS-CoV-2 that are becoming more common over time.
On 29th May 2020, the researchers reviewed the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence database (GISAID) which has collected sequencing data along with geographic location and date of viral sampling since the start of the pandemic. They identified a change called D614G, which had rapidly become the more common one. This change affects the characteristic ‘spike’ proteins on the surface of coronavirus. These spike proteins help the coronavirus to get into our cells and are the target of most vaccines in development.
Before March only 10% of the viral samples demonstrated this change, but by the end of March, it had become the predominant variant across the globe (with a few exceptions such as Iceland). By mid-May, 78% of viral samples collected globally carried the D614G change.
Researchers in Sheffield looked at clinical data for around 1,000 patients with COVID-19 and which form of the virus they had. They found that people infected with virus carrying the D614G variant had more of the virus in their nose and throat swabs than those infected with the older forms of the virus.
Importantly, there was no difference in disease severity between people infected with the original form of the virus or this new variant. Also, researchers found that the antibodies produced by a small sample of 6 people who had COVID-19 were still able to “neutralise” virus carrying the newer D614G variant and stop it infecting cells in the laboratory.
Further study needs to look into the potential implications of this new variant, including that for vaccine development.
What do trusted sources say?
Understanding changes in the genetic sequence of the virus are important for researchers and healthcare professionals studying the virus and developing vaccines and treatments.
However, the findings do not change national and international guidance for the public regarding infection control measures such as handwashing, social distancing and use of face masks. SARS-Cov-2 is already recognised to be highly infective, regardless of a specific variant.
Analysis by EIU Healthcare, supported by Reckitt Benckiser

Citation

1. Korber B et al. Tracking changes in SARS-CoV-2 Spike: evidence that D614G increases infectivity of the COVID-19 virus. Cell. 2020 Jul 3.
   Reading list
2. Expert reaction to paper tracking mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 virus with possible implications for infectiousnessAvailable at: https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-paper-tracking-mutations-in-the-sars-cov-2-virus-with-possible-implications-for-infectiousness/ (Accessed 9th of June, 2020).

Last week there were numerous media reports that ‘the vaccine’ for COVID-19 works and produces an immune response. But things aren’t as simple as that – firstly there isn’t just one potential vaccine, and even with the Oxford vaccine in question, researchers still don’t have the ultimate evidence they need to show ‘it works’ to prevent disease.
The COVID-19 pandemic has seen vaccine research, development and production on an unprecedented scale. There are over 150 different vaccines currently in development worldwide, though only 26 are in clinical trials. One of the first to reach clinical trials was the University of Oxford vaccine. The research team used a vaccine technology they had previously developed for SARS, and their first trial in 1,000 people started in April. This showed promising signs that it was safe and that recipients were producing antibodies against the COVID virus. So, the vaccine moved onto larger (phase 3) trials, firstly in 10,000 people in the UK, then globally.
The announcement that has caused a media reaction was first published results showing people produce antibodies following vaccination. Evidence from the larger trials is needed to show if it prevents people getting COVID disease. As there are at least 5 other vaccines also in phase 3 trials, we will have to wait to see which vaccine, or vaccines, will be proven to prevent infection.

Where did the story come from?
The University of Oxford issued a press release last week following publication of their first trial results in the peer-reviewed journal, The Lancet.

What is the basis for the claim?
The University of Oxford vaccine (developed in collaboration with AstraZeneca) uses an adenovirus as a ‘vector’ to carry genetic material from SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus, into cells. Adenoviruses are very common viruses that cause mild respiratory or gastrointestinal illness. The adenovirus has had its replicating genes cut out (meaning it can’t cause infection itself) and genes that code for the characteristic spike protein on SARS-CoV-2 have been inserted. This should mean the person produces antibodies against this protein.
Their first clinical trial (phase 1) recruited 1,000 healthy adults (aged 18 to 55) and randomly allocated them to receive the vaccine or a comparator (a meningitis vaccine). The main aims of this trial were to see that the vaccine was safe and whether it may be able to produce an immune response. The preliminary findings were positive: vaccine recipients produced antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and laboratory tests have demonstrated that these antibodies can inactivate the virus. Side effects such as feeling feverish, headache and muscle aches were common among vaccine recipients, but there were no serious adverse effects.
With these promising results, the vaccine moved onto larger trials in May/June. The phase 3 recruited 10,000 healthy adults, while a phase 2 subpart has recruited small groups of adults over 55 and children. Since then other phase 3 trials using the vaccine have started in Brazil and South Africa. We need to await the results of these trials – comparing the infection rate in the vaccine vs the control group – to know whether the vaccine actually ‘works’ to prevent infection.
But the Oxford vaccine isn’t the only potential vaccine: at last five other vaccines from different developers/manufacturers also went into phase 3 trials in July. These are using different vaccine technologies: three use inactivated SARS-CoV-2 and two use lipid (fat) particles to transport the genetic material from the virus. Like the Oxford vaccine, all of these vaccines trials will need to look at whether the vaccine is safe and prevents infection. How long it takes to get this evidence will depend on the transmission rate in areas where it is tested.

What do trusted sources say?
In April 2020, the WHO issued a public statement signed by experts worldwide who were working towards developing vaccines against COVID-19. They stated ‘while a vaccine for general use takes time to develop, a vaccine may ultimately be instrumental in controlling this worldwide pandemic. In the interim, we applaud the implementation of community intervention measures that reduce the spread of the virus and protect people.’
The WHO also hosts a regularly updated landscape of the global vaccines and their current stage in development.
Analysis by EIU Healthcare, supported by Reckitt Benckiser
Citation

1. Folegatti PM, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2020 Jul 20. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31604-4/fulltext
2. University of Oxford. News & Events. New study reveals Oxford coronavirus vaccine produces strong immune response. (Accessed 31 July 2020) https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-07-20-new-study-reveals-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-produces-strong-immune-response

Reading list

1. Draft landscape of COVID-19 candidate vaccines. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/draft-landscape-of-covid-19-candidate-vaccines
2. Public statement for collaboration on COVID-19 vaccine development. 13 April 2020.

Trials are underway to see whether blood products from people who have recovered from COVID-19 can help boost the immune response of people with severe infection.

People who have recovered from COVID-19 will have produced specific antibodies that target the virus and mark it out for destruction by other immune cells. These antibodies remain in the clear blood fluid (plasma) after they recover. Doctors are carrying out trials to find out whether giving an infusion of this ‘convalescent plasma’ from a donor could help people who are seriously ill. Convalescent plasma has been used to treat other respiratory viruses, including SARS, in the past.

To date, only a few observational reports are available on its use in COVID-19, which cannot provide good evidence. However, 22 randomised controlled trials are now underway, which should give more reliable results on whether this investigational product is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19.

Where did the story come from?

Several media outlets (NBC and Mail Online) have reported on the use of convalescent plasma in hospitals. Healthcare services in the UK and US among other countries are asking people who have recovered from COVID-19 to register to donate their plasma. However, a Cochrane systematic review of studies completed so far said there was not yet enough evidence to say whether it works. Convalescent plasma is regulated as an investigational product, for use in trials currently.

What is the basis for the claim?

In late April, the Cochrane review searched for studies that reported using convalescent plasma to treat COVID-19. They identified eight observational studies, including 32 patients, most of whom needed respiratory support. Patients were followed up from between 3 and 37 days after transfusion.

None of the patients died during follow-up. Six studies reported seeing improvement in patient symptoms after transfusion. However, the quality of reporting was poor, and the researchers could not extract sufficient information about these improvements. Neither were the studies consistent in their reporting of admissions to intensive care, duration of stay, or discharges from hospital.

Therefore this provides very limited evidence on the effect of convalescent plasma. Because there was no comparison group of patients receiving standard or alternative care, we do not know whether any improvements were a direct result of the infusion. They might have been due to other treatment, or just reflected the natural course of the infection.

However, two patients in two studies experienced adverse reactions. One got a fever after having the infusion of convalescent plasma, while another had a serious allergic reaction. Therefore the risk-benefit balance also needs to be considered.

Encouragingly, the review identified 48 ongoing studies, 22 of which are randomised controlled trials. These should balance out any differences in patient characteristics and give more reliable information about whether convalescent plasma is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19.

What do trusted sources say?

Earlier this month, the UK Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (SaBTO) outlined the proposal to collect donated blood from individuals with 28 days of their recovery from COVID-19.  The optimal donors are expected to be those who have been hospitalised with severe infection, as they would have produced the highest antibody levels.

The proposal highlights the current restriction that people who have been transfused since 1980 are not currently able to donate blood due to risk of vCJD transmission. This would mean that people who receive convalescent plasma could not then donate themselves, potentially limiting future donor numbers. They provisionally propose that these individuals should be allowed to donate as the risk is low.

Analysis by EIU Healthcare, supported by Reckitt Benckiser

Citation

1. Valk SJ et al. Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a rapid review. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2020, Issue 5. Art. No.: CD013600. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013600.

Reading list

1. Editorial. The resurgence of convalescent plasma therapy. The Lancet Haematology 2020; 7, e353.
2. Department of Health and Social Care. Use of plasma donations to treat COVID-19: recommendations from SaBTO
3. US Food and Drug Administration. Recommendations for Investigational COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma