Despite first studies showing no effect for Immunoadsorption in Long Covid (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10511006/) in clinical experience we saw a different picture.
Whilst at only a fraction of the efficiency and results of H.E.L.P. Apheresis as a first line treatment, the treatment definitely has a right to it's own.
Various studies about H.E.L.P. Apheresis have shown results of around 80% success rate (=significant improvement of the patient), reports from clinical experience of severalhint at a 10-30% success rate for Immunoadsorption. Unlike H.E.L.P. Apheresis results the Immunoadsorption results do not seem to be permanent for many patients though.
One potential reason could be that Immunoadsorption has only one mode of action (highly efficient removal of autoantibodies (AABs) whilst H.E.L.P. Apheresis does remove autoantibodies too (at a much lower rate though) but has several more modes of action (removal of inflammation, spike protein, pathogens, toxins, microclots, coagulation issues and others). Another potential reason could be the rather fast application (six treatments in 10-14 days) and the therefore high burden on the body.
From clinical experience however - just like IVIG, Partial Plasma Removal and mABs - Immunoadsorption has a certain potential to help patients restore immune homeostasis.
Further research will hopefully show how the success rate of immunoadsorption can be improved - new adsorbers could play a role, but also the combination with other treatments or different/new application schemes.
You will find extensive information on our blog post about different types of Apheresis and which type is suitable for which purpose HERE
*service supplied by Akamantis Health