Convalescent Plasma Antibody Levels and the Risk of Death from Covid-19

COVID-19: Variants, Immunity, and Therapeutics for Non-Hospitalized Patients

The continuing transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains a world-wide 21st-century public health emergency of concern. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused greater than 600 million cases of COVID-19 and over 6 million deaths globally. COVID-19 continues to be a highly transmissible disease despite efforts by public health officials and healthcare providers to manage and control the disease. Variants identified in selected worldwide epicenters add to the complexity of vaccine efficacy, overage, and antibody titer maintenance and bioactivity. The identification of the SARS-CoV-2 variants is described with respect to evading protective efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines and breakthrough infections. Vaccines and other therapeutics have prevented millions of SARS-CoV-2 infections and thousands of deaths in the United States. We explore aspects of the immune response in a condensed discussion to understand B and T cell lymphocyte regulatory mechanisms and antibody effectiveness and senescence. Finally, COVID-19 therapies including Paxlovid, Remdisivir, Molnupiravir and convalescent plasma in non-hospitalized patients are presented with limitations for identification, collection, and distribution to infected patients.

Use of convalescent plasma to treat COVID-19: case studies

There have been several efforts to minimize the effects caused by the COVID-19 virus around the world. Vaccines were developed in record time and alternative therapies were studied and applied in several countries, such as the use of plasma from recovered patients. Identifying, systematically evaluating and summarizing the best available scientific evidence on the efficacy and safety of using plasma from recovered COVID-19 patients remains the objective of this study. The studies carried out showed that the application of convalescent plasma contributes to the reduction of mortality, viral load and length of hospital stay. However, the effectiveness of the therapy still raises doubts due to the number of patients evaluated in clinical studies, in addition to its high cost and limitations in terms of availability and implementation, with the drug being authorized only for hospital use.

Exercise and Experiments of Nature

In this article, we highlight the contributions of passive experiments that address important exercise-related questions in integrative physiology and medicine. Passive experiments differ from active experiments in that passive experiments involve limited or no active intervention to generate observations and test hypotheses. Experiments of nature and natural experiments are two types of passive experiments. Experiments of nature include research participants with rare genetic or acquired conditions that facilitate exploration of specific physiological mechanisms. In this way, experiments of nature are parallel to classical "knockout" animal models among human research participants. Natural experiments are gleaned from data sets that allow population-based questions to be addressed. An advantage of both types of passive experiments is that more extreme and/or prolonged exposures to physiological and behavioral stimuli are possible in humans. In this article, we discuss a number of key passive experiments that have generated foundational medical knowledge or mechanistic physiological insights related to exercise. Both natural experiments and experiments of nature will be essential to generate and test hypotheses about the limits of human adaptability to stressors like exercise. © 2023 American Physiological Society. Compr Physiol 13:4879-4907, 2023.

Multivalent bicyclic peptides are an effective antiviral modality that can potently inhibit SARS-CoV-2

COVID-19 has stimulated the rapid development of new antibody and small molecule therapeutics to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here we describe a third antiviral modality that combines the drug-like advantages of both. Bicycles are entropically constrained peptides stabilized by a central chemical scaffold into a bi-cyclic structure. Rapid screening of diverse bacteriophage libraries against SARS-CoV-2 Spike yielded unique Bicycle binders across the entire protein. Exploiting Bicycles' inherent chemical combinability, we converted early micromolar hits into nanomolar viral inhibitors through simple multimerization. We also show how combining Bicycles against different epitopes into a single biparatopic agent allows Spike from diverse variants of concern (VoC) to be targeted (Alpha, Beta, Delta and Omicron). Finally, we demonstrate in both male hACE2-transgenic mice and Syrian golden hamsters that both multimerized and biparatopic Bicycles reduce viraemia and prevent host inflammation. These results introduce Bicycles as a potential antiviral modality to tackle new and rapidly evolving viruses.

Correlation between Clinical Characteristics and Antibody Levels in COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Donor Candidates

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) with high neutralizing antibodies has been suggested in preventing disease progression in COVID-19. In this study, we investigated the relationship between clinical donor characteristics and neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in CCP donors. COVID-19 convalescent plasma donors were included into the study. Clinical parameters were recorded and anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels (Spike Trimer, Receptor Binding Domain (RBD), S1, S2 and nucleocapsid protein) as well as ACE2 binding inhibition were measured. An ACE2 binding inhibition < 20% was defined as an inadequate neutralization capacity. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to detect the predictors of inadequate neutralization capacity. Ninety-one CCP donors (56 female; 61%) were analyzed. A robust correlation between all SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies and ACE2 binding inhibition, as well as a positive correlation between donor age, body mass index, and a negative correlation between time since symptom onset and antibody levels were found. We identified time since symptom onset, normal body mass index (BMI), and the absence of high fever as independent predictors of inadequate neutralization capacity. Gender, duration of symptoms, and number of symptoms were not associated with SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels or neutralization. Neutralizing capacity was correlated with SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies and associated with time since symptom onset, BMI, and fever. These clinical parameters can be easily incorporated into the preselection of CCP donors.

Guidance on the Use of Convalescent Plasma to Treat Immunocompromised Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19 in immunocompromised (IC) patients. IC patients have a higher risk of persistent infection, severe disease, and death from COVID-19. Despite the continued clinical use of CCP to treat IC patients, the optimal dose, frequency/schedule, and duration of CCP treatment has yet to be determined, and related best practices guidelines are lacking. A group of individuals with expertise spanning infectious diseases, virology and transfusion medicine was assembled to render an expert opinion statement pertaining to the use of CCP for IC patients. For optimal effect, CCP should be recently and locally collected to match circulating variant. CCP should be considered for the treatment of IC patients with acute and protracted COVID-19; dosage depends on clinical setting (acute vs protracted COVID-19). CCP containing high-titer severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies, retains activity against circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants, which have otherwise rendered monoclonal antibodies ineffective.

Understanding the challenges to COVID-19 vaccines and treatment options, herd immunity and probability of reinfection

Unlike pandemics in the past, the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which rapidly spread worldwide, was met with a different approach to control and measures implemented across affected countries. The lack of understanding of the fundamental nature of the outbreak continues to make COVID-19 challenging to manage for both healthcare practitioners and the scientific community. Challenges to vaccine development and evaluation, current therapeutic options, convalescent plasma therapy, herd immunity, and the emergence of reinfection and new variants remain the major obstacles to combating COVID-19. This review discusses these challenges in the management of COVID-19 at length and highlights the mechanisms needed to provide better understanding of this pandemic.

Results from Expanded Access Programs: A Review of Academic Literature

BACKGROUND

Although expanded access is an increasingly used pathway for patients to access investigational medicine, little is known on the magnitude and content of published scientific research collected via expanded access.

METHODS

We performed a review of all peer-reviewed expanded access publications between January 1, 2000 and January 1, 2022. We analyzed the publications for drugs, diseases, disease area, patient numbers, time, geographical location, subject, and research methodology (single center/multicenter, international/national, prospective/retrospective). We additionally analyzed endpoints reported in all COVID-19-related expanded access publications.

RESULTS

We screened 3810 articles and included 1231, describing 523 drugs for 354 diseases for 507,481 patients. The number of publications significantly increased over time ([Formula: see text]). Large geographical disparities existed as Europe and the Americas accounted for 87.4% of all publications, whereas Africa only accounted for 0.6%. Oncology and hematology accounted for 53% of all publications. Twenty-nine percent of all expanded access patients (N = 197,187) reported on in 2020 and 2021 were treated in the context of COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

By summarizing characteristics of patients, diseases, and research methods described in all scientific literature published on expanded access, we provide a unique dataset for future research. We show that published scientific research on expanded access has surged over the past decades, partly due to COVID-19. However, international collaboration and equity in geographic access remain an issue of concern. Lastly, we stress the need for harmonization of research legislation and guidance on the value of expanded access data within real-world data frameworks to improve equity in patient access and streamline future expanded access research.

Antiphospholipid antibodies in convalescent plasma of donors recovered from mild COVID-19 infection

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Passive immunization by the infusion of convalescent plasma (CP) obtained from patients who have recently recovered from COVID-19, thus having antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, is a potential strategy to reduce the severity of illness. A high prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies (APLA) in patients with COVID-19 has been reported during the pandemic, raising a concern whether the use of CP could increase the risk of thrombosis in transfused patients. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of APLA in COVID-19 CP (CCP) in order to assess the potential prothrombotic influence of transfused CCP to COVID-19 patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We studied the prevalence of APLA in 122 CCP samples collected from healthy donors who recovered from mild-COVID-19 at two time periods: September 2020-January 2021 (defined as 'early period' samples) and April-May 2021 (defined as 'late period' samples). Thirty-four healthy subjects unexposed to COVID-19 were used as controls.

RESULTS

APLA were present in 7 of 122 (6%) CCP samples. One donor had anti-β2-glycoprotein 1(anti-β2GP1) IgG, one had anti-β2GP1 IgM and five had lupus anticoagulant (LAC) using silica clotting time (SCT), all in 'late period' donors. In the control group, one subject had anti-β2GP1 IgG, two had LAC using dilute Russell viper venom time (dRVVT) and four had LAC SCT (both LAC SCT and LAC dRVVT in one subject).

CONCLUSION

The low prevalence of APLA in CCP donors reassures the safety of CCP administration to patients with severe COVID-19.

Efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19 in Japan: An open-label, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma is a potential therapeutic option for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Despite its use for treating several viral infections, we lack comprehensive data on its efficacy against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma therapy with high neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 in high-risk patients within five days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. The primary endpoint was the time-weighted average change in the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs from days 0-5.

RESULTS

Between February 24, 2021, and November 30, 2021, 25 patients were randomly assigned to either convalescent plasma (n = 14) or standard of care (n = 11) groups. Four patients discontinued their allocated convalescent plasma, and 21 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The median interval between the symptom onset and plasma administration was 4.5 days (interquartile range, 3-5 days). The primary outcome of the time-weighted average change in the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs did not significantly differ between days 0-5 (1.2 log₁₀ copies/mL in the convalescent plasma vs. 1.2 log₁₀ copies/mL in the standard of care (effect estimate, 0.0 [95% confidence interval, -0.8-0.7]; P = 0.94)). No deaths were observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

The early administration of convalescent plasma with high neutralizing activity did not contribute to a decrease in the viral load within five days compared with the standard of care alone.

Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have very-low to low certainty evidence for most primary outcomes and moderate certainty for hospital admission or death. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19: Unravelling the data using the principles of antibody therapy

INTRODUCTION

When the COVID-19 pandemic struck no specific therapies were available and many turned to COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP), a form of antibody therapy. The literature provides mixed evidence for CCP efficacy.

AREAS COVERED

PubMed was searched using the words COVID-19 and convalescent plasma and individual study designs were evaluated for adherence to the three principles of antibody therapy, i.e. that plasma 1) contain specific antibody; 2) have enough specific antibody to mediate a biological effect; and 3) be administered early in the course of disease. Using this approach, a diverse and seemingly contradictory collection of clinical findings was distilled into a consistent picture whereby CCP was effective when used according to the above principles of antibody therapy. In addition, CCP therapy in immunocompromised patients is useful at any time in the course of disease.

EXPERT OPINION

CCP is safe and effective when used appropriately. Today, most of humanity has some immunity to SARS-CoV-2 from vaccines and infection, which has lessened the need for CCP in the general population. However, COVID-19 in immunocompromised patients is a major therapeutic challenge, and with the deauthorization of all SARS-CoV-2-spike protein-directed monoclonal antibodies, CCP is the only antibody therapy available for this population.

Convalescent Plasma Therapy in Late-State, Severe COVID-19 Infection

OBJECTIVES

Current evidence favors plasma to be effective against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in critically ill patients in the early stages of infection. We investigated the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in specifically late-stage (designated as after 2 weeks of hospital admission) severe COVID-19 infection. We also conducted a literature review on the late-stage use of plasma in COVID-19.

METHODS

This case series examined eight COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) who met criteria for severe or life-threatening complications. Each patient received one dose (200 mL) of plasma. Clinical information was gathered in intervals of 1 day pretransfusion and 1 hour, 3 days, and 7 days posttransfusion. The primary outcome was effectiveness of plasma transfusion, measured by clinical improvement, laboratory parameters, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Eight ICU patients received plasma late in the course of COVID-19 infection, on average at 16.13 days postadmission. On the day before transfusion, the averaged initial Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, PaO₂:FiO₂ ratio, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), and lymphocyte count were 6.5, 228.03, 8.63, and 1.19, respectively. Three days after plasma treatment, the group averages for the SOFA score (4.86), PaO₂:FiO₂ ratio (302.73), GCS (9.29), and lymphocyte count (1.75) improved. Although the mean GCS improved to 10.14 by posttransfusion day 7, the other means marginally worsened with an SOFA score of 5.43, a PaO₂:FiO₂ ratio of 280.44, and a lymphocyte count of 1.71. Clinical improvement was noted in six patients who were discharged from the ICU.

CONCLUSIONS

This case series provides evidence that convalescent plasma may be safe and effective in late-stage, severe COVID-19 infection. Results showed clinical improvement posttransfusion as well as decreased all-cause mortality in comparison to pretransfusion predicted mortality. Randomized controlled trials are needed to conclusively determine benefits, dosage, and timing of treatment.

Early, very high-titre convalescent plasma therapy in clinically vulnerable individuals with mild COVID-19 (COVIC-19): protocol for a randomised, open-label trial

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is a possible treatment option for COVID-19. A comprehensive number of clinical trials on CCP efficacy have already been conducted. However, many aspects of CCP treatment still require investigations: in particular (1) Optimisation of the CCP product, (2) Identification of the patient population in need and most likely to benefit from this treatment approach, (3) Timing of administration and (4) CCP efficacy across viral variants in vivo. We aimed to test whether high-titre CCP, administered early, is efficacious in preventing hospitalisation or death in high-risk patients.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

COVIC-19 is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, adaptive superiority phase III trial comparing CCP with very high neutralising antibody titre administered within 7 days of symptom onset plus standard of care versus standard of care alone. We will enrol patients in two cohorts of vulnerable patients [(1) elderly 70+ years, or younger with comorbidities; (2) immunocompromised patients]. Up to 1020 participants will be enrolled in each cohort (at least 340 with a sample size re-estimation after reaching 102 patients). The primary endpoint is the proportion of participants with (1) Hospitalisation due to progressive COVID-19, or (2) Who died by day 28 after randomisation. Principal analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been granted by the University of Ulm ethics committee (#41/22) (lead ethics committee for Germany), Comité de protection des personnes Sud-Est I (CPP Sud-Est I) (#2022-A01307-36) (ethics committee for France), and ErasmusMC ethics committee (#MEC-2022-0365) (ethics committee for the Netherlands). Signed informed consent will be obtained from all included patients. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant stakeholder conferences and meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials.gov (NCT05271929), EudraCT (2021-006621-22).

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of convalescents boosts neutralization capacity against Omicron subvariants BA.1, BA.2 and BA.5 and can be predicted by anti-S antibody concentrations in serological assays

Background

Recent data on immune evasion of new SARS-CoV-2 variants raise concerns about the efficacy of antibody-based COVID-19 therapies. Therefore, in this study the in-vitro neutralization capacity against SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1 and the Omicron subvariants BA.1, BA.2 and BA.5 of sera from convalescent individuals with and without boost by vaccination was assessed.

Methods and findings

The study included 313 serum samples from 155 individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, divided into subgroups without (n=25) and with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (n=130). We measured anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations by serological assays (anti-SARS-CoV-2-QuantiVac-ELISA (IgG) and Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S) and neutralizing titers against B.1, BA.1, BA.2 and BA.5 in a pseudovirus neutralization assay. Sera of the majority of unvaccinated convalescents did not effectively neutralize Omicron sublineages BA.1, BA.2 and BA.5 (51.7%, 24.1% and 51.7%, resp.). In contrast, 99.3% of the sera of superimmunized individuals (vaccinated convalescents) neutralized the Omicron subvariants BA.1 and BA.5 and 99.6% neutralized BA.2. Neutralizing titers against B.1, BA.1, BA.2 and BA.5 were significantly higher in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated convalescents (p<0.0001) with 52.7-, 210.7-, 141.3- and 105.4-fold higher geometric mean of 50% neutralizing titers (NT50) in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated convalescents. 91.4% of the superimmunized individuals showed neutralization of BA.1, 97.2% of BA.2 and 91.5% of BA.5 with a titer ≥ 640. The increase in neutralizing titers was already achieved by one vaccination dose. Neutralizing titers were highest in the first 3 months after the last immunization event. Concentrations of anti-S antibodies in the anti-SARS-CoV-2-QuantiVac-ELISA (IgG) and Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assays predicted neutralization capacity against B.1 and Omicron subvariants BA.1, BA.2 and BA.5.

Conclusions

These findings confirm substantial immune evasion of the Omicron sublineages, which can be overcome by vaccination of convalescents. This informs strategies for choosing of plasma donors in COVID-19 convalescent plasma programs that shall select specifically vaccinated convalescents with very high titers of anti-S antibodies.

COVID-19 Management Strategies in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

Solid organ transplant recipients are at high risk of severe coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). If left untreated, it results in high rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission and death. Early diagnosis of COVID-19 is essential to ensure the early administration of therapeutics. Treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 with remdesivir, ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, or an anti-spike neutralizing monoclonal antibody may prevent progression to severe and critical COVID-19. Among patients with severe and critical COVID-19, treatment with intravenous remdesivir and immunomodulation is recommended. This review article discusses strategies in the management of solid organ transplant recipients with COVID-19.

High-titer post-vaccine COVID-19 convalescent plasma for immunocompromised patients during the first omicron surge

BACKGROUND

Transplant and hematologic malignancy patients have high Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality and impaired vaccination responses. Omicron variant evades several monoclonal antibodies previously used in immunocompromised patients. Polyclonal COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) may provide broader neutralizing capacity against new variants at high titers. Vaccination increases severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) titer in convalescent donors.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of hospitalized immunocompromised patients with COVID-19 who received high-titer CCP during the first omicron surge, collected from vaccinated donors within 6 months of pre-omicron COVID-19. Data on safety and outcomes were extracted.

RESULTS

A total of 44 immunocompromised patients were included, 59.1% with solid organ transplant, 22.7% with hematopoietic cell transplant, 11.4% with hematologic malignancy, and 6.8% with autoimmune disease. Overall, 95% of CCP units transfused were from recently recovered and vaccinated donors and had SARS-CoV-2 antibody results 8- to 37-fold higher than the Food and Drug Administration's cutoff for high-titer CCP. There were two mild transfusion reactions. A total of 30-day mortality was 4.5%. There were no differences in 100-day mortality by underlying diagnosis, levels of immunosuppression, and timing of CCP administration. Patients with higher immunosuppression had significantly higher mean World Health Organization clinical progression scores at 30-day post-CCP compared to those with lower immunosuppression.

CONCLUSIONS

CCP is a safe, globally available treatment for immunocompromised patients with COVID-19. Mortality was lower in our cohort than that of COVID-19 patients with similar immunocompromising conditions. Post-vaccine CCP with very high titers should be prioritized for study in immunocompromised patients. Post-vaccine CCP has the potential to keep pace with new variants by overcoming mutations at sufficiently high titer.

Treating COVID-19: Targeting the Host Response, Not the Virus

In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), inexpensive generic drugs like statins, ACE inhibitors, and ARBs, especially if used in combination, might be the only practical way to save the lives of patients with severe COVID-19. These drugs will already be available in all countries on the first pandemic day. Because they target the host response to infection instead of the virus, they could be used to save lives during any pandemic. Observational studies show that inpatient statin treatment reduces 28–30-day mortality but randomized controlled trials have failed to show this benefit. Combination treatment has been tested for antivirals and dexamethasone but, with the exception of one observational study in Belgium, not for inexpensive generic drugs. Future pandemic research must include testing combination generic drug treatments that could be used in LMICs.

Assessment of the impact of pathogen reduction technologies on the neutralizing activity of COVID-19 convalescent plasma

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) could improve the clinical outcome of COVID-19 patients when high-titer CCP is administered in early stages of disease. However, CCP donors have a risk profile like first-time donors, pathogen reduction treatment (PRT) may mitigate such risk but should not impact CCP quality. The current study aims to assess the impact of PRT-technologies available in Saudi Arabia on the neutralizing activity of CCP. STUDY DESIGN: and Methods: CCP was collected from eligible donors by plasmapheresis. The neutralization titer was determined with an in-house microneutralization assay (MNA) using a local SARS-CoV-2 clinical isolate. Selected units were split and subject to PRT with amotosalen/UVA (AS) or Riboflavin/UVB (RB) (pairwise side-by-side comparison) followed by a second MNA analysis. 51 CCP units were collected, 27 were included in the analysis reaching the minimum MNA titer of 1:40 (4 reached high titer (≥1:250)). 27 CCP units were treated with AS and 14 with RB, the median MNA pre-treatment titer was 1:80 (1:40-640). The impact of AS and RB PRT on CCP neutralizing activity was not significantly different, nor in the total analysis neither in the pairwise comparison (94.6 vs 96.4 % retention, p > 0.05). No correlation of titer and blood group was observed, but a trend for increasing MNA titer with donor age, choosing donors with an age > 45 years would increase the number of high-titer CCP donors. The difference in impact of AS and RB on CCP MNA titer was below the limit of detection of the assay (0.5-fold).

[Value of convalescent plasma in the therapy of COVID-19]

Convalescent plasma was discussed as a therapeutic option early in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, until the onset of the pandemic, only the results of mostly small single-arm studies in other infectious diseases were available, which did not prove efficacy. In the meantime, the results of more than 30 randomized trials of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) for treatment of COVID-19 are available 1. Despite the heterogeneity of the results, conclusions for an optimal use are possible.

Reduced Mortality among COVID-19 ICU Patients after Treatment with HemoClear Convalescent Plasma in Suriname

Convalescent plasma is a promising therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its efficacy in intensive care unit (ICU) patients in low- and middle-income country settings such as Suriname is unknown. Bedside plasma separation using the HemoClear device made convalescent plasma therapy accessible as a treatment option in Suriname. Two hundred patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring intensive care were recruited. Fifty eight patients (29%) received COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) treatment in addition to standard of care (SOC). The CCP treatment and SOC groups were matched by age, sex, and disease severity scores. Mortality in the CCP treatment group was significantly lower than that in the SOC group (21% versus 39%; Fisher's exact test P = 0.0133). Multivariate analysis using ICU days showed that CCP treatment reduced mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.66; P = 0.001), while complication of acute renal failure (creatinine levels, >110 mol/L; HR, 4.45; 95% CI, 2.54 to 7.80; P < 0.0001) was independently associated with death. Decrease in chest X-ray score in the CCP treatment group (median -3 points, interquartile range [IQR] -4 to -1) was significantly greater than that in the SOC group (median -1 point, IQR -3 to 1, Mann-Whitney test P = 0.0004). Improvement in the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio was also significantly greater in the CCP treatment group (median 83, IQR 8 to 140) than in the SOC group (median 35, IQR -3 to 92, Mann-Whitney P = 0.0234). Further research is needed for HemoClear-produced CCP as a therapy for SARS-CoV-2 infection together with adequately powered, randomized controlled trials. IMPORTANCE This study compares mortality and other endpoints between intensive care unit COVID-19 patients treated with convalescent plasma plus standard of care (CCP), and a control group of patients hospitalized in the same medical ICU facility treated with standard of care alone (SOC) in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC) setting using bedside donor whole blood separation by gravity (HemoClear) to produce the CCP. It demonstrates a significant 65% survival improvement in HemoClear-produced CCP recipients (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.66; P = 0.001). Although this is an exploratory study, it clearly shows the benefit of using the HemoClear-produced CCP in ICU patients in the Suriname LMIC setting. Additional studies could further substantiate our findings and their applicability for both LMICs and high-income countries and the use of CCP as a prepared readiness method to combat new viral pandemics.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma (CCP) During the Pandemic Era: A Literature Review

Worldwide pandemic with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) was caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). As November 2, 2022, World Health Organization (WHO) received 628,035,553 reported incidents on COVID-19, with 6,572,800 mortalities and, with a total 12,850,970,971 vaccine doses have been delivered as of October 31, 2022. The infection can cause mild or self-limiting symptoms of pulmonary and severe infections or death may be caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Simultaneously, antivirals, corticosteroids, immunological treatments, antibiotics, and anticoagulants have been proposed as potential medicines to cure COVID-19 affected patients. Among these initial treatments, COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP), which was retrieved from COVID-19 recovered patients to be used as passive immune therapy, in which antibodies from cured patients were given to infected patients to prevent illness. Such treatment has yielded the best results in earlier with preventative or early stages of illness. Convalescent plasma (CP) is the first treatment available when infectious disease initially appears, although few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to evaluate its effectiveness. The historical record suggests with potential benefit for other respiratory infections, as coronaviruses like Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-CoV-I (SARS-CoV-I) and Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), though the analysis of such research is constrained by some non-randomized experiments (NREs). Rigorous studies on CP are made more demanding by the following with the immediacy of the epidemics, CP use may restrict the ability to utilize it for clinical testing, non-homogenous nature of product, highly decentralized manufacturing process; constraints with capacity to measure biologic function, ultimate availability of substitute therapies, as antivirals, purified immune globulins, or monoclonal antibodies. Though, it is still not clear how effectively CCP works among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The current review tries to focus on its efficiency and usage in clinical scenarios and identifying existing benefits of implementation during pandemic or how it may assist with future pandemic preventions.

Early Treatment, Inflammation and Post-COVID Conditions

Background

Post-COVID conditions (PCC) are common and have significant morbidity. Risk factors for PCC include advancing age, female sex, obesity, and diabetes mellitus. Little is known about early treatment, inflammation, and PCC.

Methods

Among 883 individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection participating in a randomized trial of CCP vs. control plasma with available biospecimens and symptom data, the association between early COVID treatment, cytokine levels and PCC was evaluated. Cytokine and chemokine levels were assessed at baseline, day 14 and day 90 using a multiplexed sandwich immuosassay (Mesoscale Discovery). Presence of any self-reported PCC symptoms was assessed at day 90. Associations between COVID treatment, cytokine levels and PCC were examined using multivariate logistic regression models.

Results

One-third of the 882 participants had day 90 PCC symptoms, with fatigue (14.5%) and loss of smell (14.5%) being most common. Cytokine levels decreased from baseline to day 90. In a multivariable analysis including diabetes, body mass index, race, and vaccine status, female sex (adjusted odds ratio[AOR]=2.70[1.93-3.81]), older age (AOR=1.32[1.17-1.50]), and elevated baseline levels of IL-6 (AOR=1.59[1.02-2.47]) were associated with development of PCC.There was a trend for decreased PCC in those with early CCP treatment (≤5 days after symptom onset) compared to late CCP treatment.

Conclusion

Increased IL-6 levels were associated with the development of PCC and there was a trend for decreased PCC with early CCP treatment in this predominately unvaccinated population. Future treatment studies should evaluate the effect of early treatment and anti-IL-6 therapies on PCC development.

Mid-titer human convalescent plasma administration results in suboptimal prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection in rhesus macaques

Introduction

ARS-CoV-2 is a respiratory pathogen currently causing a worldwide pandemic, with resulting pathology of differing severity in humans, from mild illness to severe disease and death. The rhesus macaque model of COVID-19 was utilized to evaluate the added benefit of prophylactic administration of human post-SARS-CoV-2 infection convalescent plasma (CP) on disease progression and severity.

Methods

A pharmacokinetic (PK) study using CP in rhesus monkeys preceded the challenge study and revealed the optimal time of tissue distribution for maximal effect. Thereafter, CP was administered prophylactically three days prior to mucosal SARS-CoV-2 viral challenge.

Results

Results show similar viral kinetics in mucosal sites over the course of infection independent of administration of CP or normal plasma, or historic controls with no plasma. No changes were noted upon necropsy via histopathology, although there were differences in levels of vRNA in tissues, with both normal and CP seemingly blunting viral loads.

Discussion

Results indicate that prophylactic administration with mid-titer CP is not effective in reducing disease severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the rhesus COVID-19 disease model.

SARS-CoV-2 multi-antigen protein microarray for detailed characterization of antibody responses in COVID-19 patients

Antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) target multiple epitopes on different domains of the spike protein, and other SARS-CoV-2 proteins. We developed a SARS-CoV-2 multi-antigen protein microarray with the nucleocapsid, spike and its domains (S1, S2), and variants with single (D614G, E484K, N501Y) or double substitutions (N501Y/Deletion69/70), allowing a more detailed high-throughput analysis of the antibody repertoire following infection. The assay was demonstrated to be reliable and comparable to ELISA. We analyzed antibodies from 18 COVID-19 patients and 12 recovered convalescent donors. The S IgG level was higher than N IgG in most of the COVID-19 patients, and the receptor-binding domain of S1 showed high reactivity, but no antibodies were detected against the heptad repeat domain 2 of S2. Furthermore, antibodies were detected against S variants with single and double substitutions in COVID-19 patients who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 early in the pandemic. Here we demonstrated that the SARS-CoV-2 multi-antigen protein microarray is a powerful tool for detailed characterization of antibody responses, with potential utility in understanding the disease progress and assessing current vaccines and therapies against evolving SARS-CoV-2.

Transfusing Convalescent Plasma as Post-Exposure Prophylaxis Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection: A Double-Blinded, Phase 2 Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) convalescent plasma (CCP) for preventing infection in exposed, uninfected individuals is unknown. CCP might prevent infection when administered before symptoms or laboratory evidence of infection.

METHODS

This double-blinded, phase 2 randomized, controlled trial (RCT) compared the efficacy and safety of prophylactic high titer (≥1:320 by Euroimmun ELISA) CCP with standard plasma. Asymptomatic participants aged ≥18 years with close contact exposure to a person with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the previous 120 hours and negative SARS-CoV-2 test within 24 hours before transfusion were eligible. The primary outcome was new SARS-CoV-2 infection.

RESULTS

In total, 180 participants were enrolled; 87 were assigned to CCP and 93 to control plasma, and 170 transfused at 19 sites across the United States from June 2020 to March 2021. Two were excluded for screening SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) positivity. Of the remaining 168 participants, 12/81 (14.8%) CCP and 13/87 (14.9%) control recipients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection; 6 (7.4%) CCP and 7 (8%) control recipients developed COVID-19 (infection with symptoms). There were no COVID-19-related hospitalizations in CCP and 2 in control recipients. Efficacy by restricted mean infection free time (RMIFT) by 28 days for all SARS-CoV-2 infections (25.3 vs 25.2 days; P = .49) and COVID-19 (26.3 vs 25.9 days; P = .35) was similar for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of high-titer CCP as post-exposure prophylaxis, although appearing safe, did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT04323800.

Immune Plasma for the Treatment of COVID-19: Lessons Learned so far

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been explored as one of the treatment options for COVID-19. Results of many cohort studies and clinical trials have been recently published. At first glance, the results of the CCP studies appear to be inconsistent. However, it became clear that CCP is not beneficial if CCP with low anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations is used, if it is administered late in advanced disease stages, and to patients who already mounted an antibody response against SARS-CoV-2 at the time of CCP transfusion. On the other hand, CCP may prevent progression to severe COVID-19 when very high-titer CCP is given early in vulnerable patients. Immune escape of new variants is a challenge for passive immunotherapy. While new variants of concern developed resistance to most clinically used monoclonal antibodies very rapidly, immune plasma from individuals immunized by both a natural SARS-CoV-2 infection and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination retained neutralizing activity against variants. This review briefly summarizes the evidence on CCP treatment to date and identifies further research needs. Ongoing research on passive immunotherapy is not only relevant for improving care for vulnerable patients in the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, but even more as a model for passive immunotherapy in case of future pandemics with a newly evolving pathogen. Compared to other drugs, which must be newly developed in a pandemic (e.g., monoclonal antibodies, antiviral drugs), convalescent plasma is rapidly available, inexpensive to produce, and can be adaptive to viral evolution by selection of contemporary convalescent donors.

Lessons learned from the CONCOR-1 trial

Faced with an evolving pandemic and a lack of clarity of the role of convalescent plasma for patients with COVID-19, the CONCOR-1 trial was launched. In 14 months the trial was designed, launched, completed, and submitted for publication. In total, 72 sites in three countries served by four blood suppliers randomised 940 patients. Many enablers facilitated the trial including: three study principal investigators to distribute the trial workload, diverse steering committee members, an international data safety monitoring committee, multiple statisticians and methodologists, virtual meeting platforms, REDCap data platform, pausing of non-COVID-19 trials, rapid approval pathways for institutional review boards and regulators, centralised institutional review boards in many locations, restriction of use of convalescent plasma to trial participants and the incredible dedication by research personnel. In future pandemics, we need to be prepared for rapid launch of trials. The protocols, consent forms, data collection tools, and procedures need to be in draft form ready for use at all times. We were well-prepared for blood shortages but should have anticipated the need to conduct trials with convalescent plasma. In this short article, we detail our lessons learned to inform researchers faced with the next pandemic pathogen.

Antibody Response and Safety of ChAdOx1-nCOV (Covishield) in Patients with Cirrhosis: A Cross-Sectional, Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

Patients with cirrhosis have a higher risk of severe COVID-19 and mortality and are high-priority patients for vaccination. However, cirrhotics were excluded from the phase 2/3 vaccine trials. Hence, we aimed to assess the antibody response and safety of Covishield (ChAdOx1nCoV-19) among patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

Patients who attended the tele-hepatology services at our institute from March 2020 to June 2021 and diagnosed with cirrhosis as per their medical records were telephonically interviewed in July 2021 using a pre-specified questionnaire. Patients who had completed 2 doses of ChAdOx1-nCOV (with the 2^nd dose administered at least 2 weeks back) and without history of documented COVID-19 infection (pre- or post-vaccination) were tested for antibodies against the spike protein. Seropositive patients were divided into high, moderate, and low antibody responses based on the signal/cut-off.

RESULTS

We interviewed 784 patients with cirrhosis. At least 1 dose of ChAdOx1-nCOV was received by 231 patients among whom 134 (58%) had received 2 doses. Documented COVID-19 was reported in 3.9% patients who received at least 1 dose of ChAdOx1-nCOV including breakthrough infections in 3.7% patients vaccinated with 2 doses. Local and systemic adverse events were reported by 42% and 22.1% patients. None developed anaphylaxis, acute decompensation, acute-on-chronic liver failure, or other serious adverse events requiring hospitalization. Seroconversion was documented in 81 (92%) out of 88 patients. No difference was observed in level of antibody response between patients with compensated and decompensated cirrhosis (p = 0.12).

CONCLUSION

Our preliminary data suggest that ChAdOx1-nCOV is safe with high seroconversion rates in patients with cirrhosis.

Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have low certainty evidence for our primary outcomes. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIVIG) contains polyclonal antibodies, which can be prepared from large amounts of pooled convalescent plasma or prepared from animal sources through immunisation. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This review was previously part of a parent review addressing convalescent plasma and hIVIG for people with COVID-19 and was split to address hIVIG and convalescent plasma separately.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of hIVIG therapy for the treatment of people with COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Research Database, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform and Medline and Embase from 1 January 2019 onwards. We carried out searches on 31 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated hIVIG for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies that evaluated standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used RoB 2. We rated the certainty of evidence, using the GRADE approach, for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, improvement and worsening of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), quality of life, adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs with 947 participants, of whom 688 received hIVIG prepared from humans, 18 received heterologous swine glyco-humanised polyclonal antibody, and 241 received equine-derived processed and purified F(ab')2 fragments. All participants were hospitalised with moderate-to-severe disease, most participants were not vaccinated (only 12 participants were vaccinated). The studies were conducted before or during the emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. There are no data for people with COVID-19 with no symptoms (asymptomatic) or people with mild COVID-19. We identified a further 10 ongoing studies evaluating hIVIG. Benefits of hIVIG prepared from humans We included data on one RCT (579 participants) that assessed the benefits and harms of hIVIG 0.4 g/kg compared to saline placebo. hIVIG may have little to no impact on all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.44; absolute effect 77 per 1000 with placebo versus 61 per 1000 (33 to 111) with hIVIG; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on worsening of clinical status at day 7 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.23; very low-certainty evidence). It probably has little to no impact on improvement of clinical status on day 28 (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.08; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify any studies that reported quality-of-life outcomes, so we do not know if hIVIG has any impact on quality of life. Harms of hIVIG prepared from humans hIVIG may have little to no impact on adverse events at any grade on day 1 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.18; 431 per 1000; 1 study 579 participants; low-certainty evidence). Patients receiving hIVIG probably experience more adverse events at grade 3-4 severity than patients who receive placebo (RR 4.09, 95% CI 1.39 to 12.01; moderate-certainty evidence). hIVIG may have little to no impact on the composite outcome of serious adverse events or death up to day 28 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence). We also identified additional results on the benefits and harms of other dose ranges of hIVIG, not included in the summary of findings table, but summarised in additional tables. Benefits of animal-derived polyclonal antibodies We included data on one RCT (241 participants) to assess the benefits and harms of receptor-binding domain-specific polyclonal F(ab´)2 fragments of equine antibodies (EpAbs) compared to saline placebo. EpAbs may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.37; absolute effect 114 per 1000 with placebo versus 68 per 1000 (30 to 156) ; low-certainty evidence). EpAbs may reduce worsening of clinical status up to day 28 (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.18; absolute effect 203 per 1000 with placebo versus 136 per 1000 (77 to 240); low-certainty evidence). It may have some effect on improvement of clinical status on day 28 (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.17; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any studies that reported quality-of-life outcomes, so we do not know if EpAbs have any impact on quality of life. Harms of animal-derived polyclonal antibodies EpAbs may have little to no impact on the number of adverse events at any grade up to 28 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events at grade 3-4 severity were not reported. Individuals receiving EpAbs may experience fewer serious adverse events than patients receiving placebo (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.19; low-certainty evidence). We also identified additional results on the benefits and harms of other animal-derived polyclonal antibody doses, not included in the summary of findings table, but summarised in additional tables.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We included data from five RCTs that evaluated hIVIG compared to standard therapy, with participants with moderate-to-severe disease. As the studies evaluated different preparations (from humans or from various animals) and doses, we could not pool them. hIVIG prepared from humans may have little to no impact on mortality, and clinical improvement and worsening. hIVIG may increase grade 3-4 adverse events. Studies did not evaluate quality of life. RBD-specific polyclonal F(ab´)2 fragments of equine antibodies may reduce mortality and serious adverse events, and may reduce clinical worsening. However, the studies were conducted before or during the emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and prior to widespread vaccine rollout. As no studies evaluated hIVIG for participants with asymptomatic infection or mild disease, benefits for these individuals remains uncertain. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

Correlates of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Inpatient Mortality at a Southern California Community Hospital With a Predominantly Hispanic/Latino Adult Population

Background

Studies of inpatient coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality risk factors have mainly used data from academic medical centers or large multihospital databases and have not examined populations with large proportions of Hispanic/Latino patients. In a retrospective cohort study of 4881 consecutive adult COVID-19 hospitalizations at a single community hospital in Los Angeles County with a majority Hispanic/Latino population, we evaluated factors associated with mortality.

Methods

Data on demographic characteristics, comorbidities, laboratory and clinical results, and COVID-19 therapeutics were abstracted from the electronic medical record. Cox proportional hazards regression modeled statistically significant, independently associated predictors of hospital mortality.

Results

Age ≥65 years (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.90-3.72), male sex (HR = 1.31; 95% CI = 1.07-1.60), renal disease (HR = 1.52; 95% CI = 1.18-1.95), cardiovascular disease (HR = 1.45; 95% CI = 1.18-1.78), neurological disease (HR = 1.84; 95% CI = 1.41-2.39), D-dimer ≥500 ng/mL (HR = 2.07; 95% CI = 1.43-3.0), and pulse oxygen level <88% (HR = 1.39; 95% CI = 1.13-1.71) were independently associated with increased mortality. Patient household with (1) multiple COVID-19 cases and (2) Asian, Black, or Hispanic compared with White non-Hispanic race/ethnicity were associated with reduced mortality. In hypoxic COVID-19 inpatients, remdesivir, tocilizumab, and convalescent plasma were associated with reduced mortality, and corticosteroid use was associated with increased mortality.

Conclusions

We corroborate several previously identified mortality risk factors and find evidence that the combination of factors associated with mortality differ between populations.

Effects of convalescent plasma infusion on the ADAMTS13-von Willebrand factor axis and endothelial integrity in patients with severe and critical COVID-19

Background

Convalescent plasma infusion (CPI) was given to patients with COVID-19 during the early pandemic with mixed therapeutic efficacy. However, the impacts of CPI on the ADAMTS13-von Willebrand factor (VWF) axis and vascular endothelial functions are not known.

Objectives

To determine the impacts of CPI on the ADAMTS13-VWF axis and vascular endothelial functions.

Methods

Sixty hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were enrolled in the study; 46 received CPI and 14 received no CPI. Plasma ADAMTS13 activity, VWF antigen, endothelial syndecan-1, and soluble thrombomodulin (sTM) were assessed before and 24 hours after treatment.

Results

Patients with severe and critical COVID-19 exhibited significantly lower plasma ADAMTS13 activity than the healthy controls. Conversely, these patients showed a significantly increased VWF antigen. This resulted in markedly reduced ratios of ADAMTS13 to VWF in these patients. The levels of plasma ADAMTS13 activity in each patient remained relatively constant throughout hospitalization. Twenty-four hours following CPI, plasma ADAMTS13 activity increased by ∼12% from the baseline in all patients and ∼21% in those who survived. In contrast, plasma levels of VWF antigen varied significantly over time. Patients who died exhibited a significant reduction of plasma VWF antigen from the baseline 24 hours following CPI, whereas those who survived did not. Furthermore, patients with severe and critical COVID-19 showed significantly elevated plasma levels of syndecan-1 and sTM, similar to those found in patients with immune thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. Both syndecan-1 and sTM levels were significantly reduced 24 hours following CPI.

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate the relative deficiency of plasma ADAMTS13 activity and endothelial damage in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, which could be modestly improved following CPI therapy.

Convalescent human IgG, but not IgM, from COVID-19 survivors confers dose-dependent protection against SARS-CoV-2 replication and disease in hamsters

Introduction

Antibody therapeutic strategies have served an important role during the COVID-19 pandemic, even as their effectiveness has waned with the emergence of escape variants. Here we sought to determine the concentration of convalescent immunoglobulin required to protect against disease from SARS-CoV-2 in a Syrian golden hamster model.

Methods

Total IgG and IgM were isolated from plasma of SARS-CoV-2 convalescent donors. Dose titrations of IgG and IgM were infused into hamsters 1 day prior to challenge with SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan-1.

Results

The IgM preparation was found to have ~25-fold greater neutralization potency than IgG. IgG infusion protected hamsters from disease in a dose-dependent manner, with detectable serum neutralizing titers correlating with protection. Despite a higher in vitro neutralizing potency, IgM failed to protect against disease when transferred into hamsters.

Discussion

This study adds to the growing body of literature that demonstrates neutralizing IgG antibodies are important for protection from SARS-CoV-2 disease, and confirms that polyclonal IgG in sera can be an effective preventative strategy if the neutralizing titers are sufficiently high. In the context of new variants, against which existing vaccines or monoclonal antibodies have reduced efficacy, sera from individuals who have recovered from infection with the emerging variant may potentially remain an efficacious tool.

Performance and correlation of ten commercial immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies

Accurate immunoassays with a good correlation to neutralizing antibodies are required to support SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, management, vaccine deployment, and epidemiological investigation. We conducted a study to evaluate the performance and correlation of the surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) and other commercial immunoassays. We tested 107 sera of COVID-19 confirmed cases from three different time points, 58 confirmed non-COVID-19 sera, and 52 sera collected before the pandemic with two sVNTs, seven chemiluminescent assays, and one fluorescein assay. All assays achieved excellent sensitivity (95%-100%, ≥15 days after onset of illness), specificity (95.5%-100%), and showed moderate to high correlation with GenScript sVNT (r = 0.58 to r = 0.98), except Roche total antibodies (r = 0.48). Vazyme sVNT and Siemens total antibodies showed the highest correlation with GenScript sVNT (r = 0.98 and 0.88, respectively). Median indexes that may be used to estimate sera with the highest ability to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 and ACE-2 receptor attachment (GenScript sVNT inhibition 90%-100%) were 6.9 S/C (Abbott IgG), 161.9 COI (FREND™ IgG), 16.8 AU/ml (Snibe IgG), 40.1 S/CO (Beckman IgG), 281.9 U/ml (Mindray IgG), 712.2 U/ml (Mindray total antibodies), >10 index (Siemens total antibodies), and 95.3% inhibition (Vazyme sVNT). All ten commercial COVID-19 serology assays, with different targeting antigens, demonstrated a reliable performance, supporting the utility of those assays in clinical and research settings. However, further studies using more samples are needed to refine the results of evaluating the performances of these marketed serological assays. Reliable serological assays would be useful for clinicians, researchers and epidemiologists in confirming SARS-CoV-2 infections, observing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and immune response post infection and vaccination, leading to better management and control of the disease.

Commentary on "Outcomes of Convalescent Plasma with Defined High versus Lower Neutralizing Antibody Titers against SARS-CoV-2 among Hospitalized Patients: CoronaVirus Inactivating Plasma (CoVIP) Study"

The totality of evidence favors the efficacy of convalescent plasma to treat COVID-19 when high-titer plasma is administered early in the course of disease or to immunocompromised patients. In this commentary, we frame the findings of L. A. Bartelt, A. J. Markmann, B. Nelson, J. Keys, et al. (mBio 13:e01751-22, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01751-22) in the context of the normal approval process for a therapeutic product. We point out that convalescent plasma has taken all of the typical steps associated with approval for a therapeutic product. Additionally, in less than 3 years, the optimal use cases and continued utility of this product to treat COVID-19 have been defined.

The Potential Role of Passive Antibody-Based Therapies as Treatments for Monkeypox

Monkeypox, a zoonosis caused by the orthopox monkeypox virus (MPXV) that is endemic to Central and West Africa, was previously linked to sporadic outbreaks and rare, travel-associated cases. An outbreak of monkeypox in 2022 has spurred a public health emergency of international concern, and this outbreak is unprecedented in terms of its scale and epidemiology. The outbreak has been focused overwhelmingly in men who have sex with men; however, the trajectory of the outbreak remains uncertain, with spread now being reported in women and children. The mortality has been low (<1%), yet the morbidity is high. Vaccines and oral antiviral agents that have been developed to protect against smallpox are available for use against monkeypox. However, the supply has been unable to match the demand during the outbreak. Passive antibody-based therapies, such as hyperimmune globulin (HIG), monoclonal antibodies, and convalescent plasma (CP), have been used against a diverse array of infectious diseases, culminating in their extensive use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Passive antibody-based therapies could play a role in the treatment of monkeypox, either as a temporizing role amid a shortfall in vaccines and antivirals or a complementary role to direct-acting antivirals. Drawing on the collective experience to date, there are regulatory, administrative, and logistical challenges to the implementation of antibody-based therapies. Their efficacy is contingent upon early administration and the presence of high-titer antibodies against the targeted pathogen. Research is needed to address questions pertaining to how to qualify HIG and CP and to determine their relative efficacy against MPXV, compared to antecedent therapies and preventative strategies. IMPORTANCE Monkeypox is an infection caused by the monkeypox virus (MPXV). The clinical findings in monkeypox include fever and rash. Historically, most cases of human monkeypox were reported in Africa. This changed in 2022, with a massive escalation in the number of cases across multiple countries, mainly affecting men who have sex with men. Although vaccines and oral antiviral medications are available for the treatment of monkeypox, their supply has been overwhelmed by the unprecedented number of cases. Antibody-based therapies (ABTs) have long been used to treat infectious diseases. They are produced in a laboratory or from plasma that has been collected from individuals who have recovered from an infection or have been vaccinated against that infection (in this case, monkeypox). ABTs could play a role in the treatment of monkeypox, either while awaiting oral medications or as a complementary treatment for patients that are at risk of severe disease.

One-year follow-up of the CAPSID randomized trial for high-dose convalescent plasma in severe COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUNDResults of many randomized trials on COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) have been reported, but information on long-term outcome after CCP treatment is limited. The objectives of this extended observation of the randomized CAPSID trial are to assess long-term outcome and disease burden in patients initially treated with or without CCP.METHODSOf 105 randomized patients, 50 participated in the extended observation. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed by questionnaires and a structured interview. CCP donors (n = 113) with asymptomatic to moderate COVID-19 were included as a reference group.RESULTSThe median follow-up of patients was 396 days, and the estimated 1-year survival was 78.7% in the CCP group and 60.2% in the control (P = 0.08). The subgroup treated with a higher cumulative amount of neutralizing antibodies showed a better 1-year survival compared with the control group (91.5% versus 60.2%, P = 0.01). Medical events and QoL assessments showed a consistent trend for better results in the CCP group without reaching statistical significance. There was no difference in the increase in neutralizing antibodies after vaccination between the CCP and control groups.CONCLUSIONThe trial demonstrated a trend toward better outcome in the CCP group without reaching statistical significance. A predefined subgroup analysis showed a significantly better outcome (long-term survival, time to discharge from ICU, and time to hospital discharge) among those who received a higher amount of neutralizing antibodies compared with the control group. A substantial long-term disease burden remains after severe COVID-19.Trial registrationEudraCT 2020-001310-38 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04433910.FundingBundesministerium für Gesundheit (German Federal Ministry of Health).

Evaluation of a COVID-19 convalescent plasma program at a U.S. academic medical center

Amidst the therapeutic void at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a critical mass of scientific and clinical interest coalesced around COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). To date, the CCP literature has focused largely on safety and efficacy outcomes, but little on implementation outcomes or experience. Expert opinion suggests that if CCP has a role in COVID-19 treatment, it is early in the disease course, and it must deliver a sufficiently high titer of neutralizing antibodies (nAb). Missing in the literature are comprehensive evaluations of how local CCP programs were implemented as part of pandemic preparedness and response, including considerations of the core components and personnel required to meet demand with adequately qualified CCP in a timely and sustained manner. To address this gap, we conducted an evaluation of a local CCP program at a large U.S. academic medical center, the University of North Carolina Medical Center (UNCMC), and patterned our evaluation around the dimensions of the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to systematically describe key implementation-relevant metrics. We aligned our evaluation with program goals of reaching the target population with severe or critical COVID-19, integrating into the structure of the hospital-wide pandemic response, adapting to shifting landscapes, and sustaining the program over time during a compassionate use expanded access program (EAP) era and a randomized controlled trial (RCT) era. During the EAP era, the UNCMC CCP program was associated with faster CCP infusion after admission compared with contemporaneous affiliate hospitals without a local program: median 29.6 hours (interquartile range, IQR: 21.2-48.1) for the UNCMC CCP program versus 47.6 hours (IQR 32.6-71.6) for affiliate hospitals; (P<0.0001). Sixty-eight of 87 CCP recipients in the EAP (78.2%) received CCP containing the FDA recommended minimum nAb titer of ≥1:160. CCP delivery to hospitalized patients operated with equal efficiency regardless of receiving treatment via a RCT or a compassionate-use mechanism. It was found that in a highly resourced academic medical center, rapid implementation of a local CCP collection, treatment, and clinical trial program could be achieved through re-deployment of highly trained laboratory and clinical personnel. These data provide important pragmatic considerations critical for health systems considering the use of CCP as part of an integrated pandemic response.

Lack of efficacy of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients with concomitant hematological malignancies: An Italian retrospective study

A multicenter retrospective study was designed to assess clinical outcome of COVID-19 in patients with hematological malignancies (HM) following treatment with anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma (CP) or standard of care therapy. To this aim, a propensity score matching was used to assess the role of non-randomized administration of CP in this high-risk cohort of patients from the Italian Hematology Alliance on COVID-19 (ITA-HEMA-COV) project, now including 2049 untreated control patients. We investigated 30- and 90-day mortality, rate of admission to intensive care unit, proportion of patients requiring mechanical ventilatory support, hospitalization time, and SARS-CoV-2 clearance in 79 CP recipients and compared results with 158 propensity score-matched controls. Results indicated a lack of efficacy of CP in the study group compared with the untreated group, thus confirming the negative results obtained from randomized studies in immunocompetent individuals with COVID-19. In conclusion, this retrospective analysis did not meet the primary and secondary end points in any category of immunocompromized patients affected by HM.

Convalescent or standard plasma versus standard of care in the treatment of COVID-19 patients with respiratory impairment: short and long-term effects. A three-arm randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of early treatment with convalescent plasma in patients with COVID-19 is debated. Nothing is known about the potential effect of other plasma components other than anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

METHODS

To determine whether convalescent or standard plasma would improve outcomes for adults in early phase of Covid19 respiratory impairment we designed this randomized, three-arms, clinical trial (PLACO COVID) blinded on interventional arms that was conducted from June 2020 to August 2021. It was a multicentric trial at 19 Italian hospitals. We enrolled 180 hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia within 5 days from the onset of respiratory distress. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to standard of care (n = 60) or standard of care + three units of standard plasma (n = 60) or standard of care + three units of high-titre convalescent plasma (n = 60) administered on days 1, 3, 5 after randomization. Primary outcome was 30-days mortality. Secondary outcomes were: incidence of mechanical ventilation or death at day 30, 6-month mortality, proportion of days with mechanical ventilation on total length of hospital stay, IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion, viral clearance from plasma and respiratory tract samples, and variations in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. The trial was analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

180 patients (133/180 [73.9%] males, mean age 66.6 years [IQR 57-73]) were enrolled a median of 8 days from onset of symptoms. At enrollment, 88.9% of patients showed moderate/severe respiratory failure. 30-days mortality was 20% in Control arm, 23% in Convalescent (risk ratio [RR] 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-2.13, P = 0.694) and 25% in Standard plasma (RR 1.23; 95%CI, 0.63-2.37, P = 0.544). Time to viral clearance from respiratory tract was 21 days for Convalescent, 28 for Standard plasma and 23 in Control arm but differences were not statistically significant. No differences for other secondary endpoints were seen in the three arms. Serious adverse events were reported in 1.7%, 3.3% and 5% of patients in Control, Standard and Convalescent plasma arms respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither high-titer Convalescent nor Standard plasma improve outcomes of COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04428021. First posted: 11/06/2020.

The clinical outcomes of high neutralizing antibodies titer convalescent plasma therapy in early developed severe COVID-19 patients; a case-control study

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes life-threatening pneumonia. Convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) is expected to be the effective COVID-19 treatment for passive immunity. The high neutralizing antibodies titer of CPT is needed to prove the benefit in early developed severe COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE

This case-control study evaluated transfusion efficacy and adverse events with high-titer (≥ 1:320) COVID-19 convalescent plasma compared with standard care alone in severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

RESULTS

Among 107 severe COVID-19 patients, 55 received CPT plus standard care, and 52 received standard care alone. All-cause mortality was 15.3% in the CPT group compared with 85.4% in the standard care group (p < 0.001). Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed reduced mortality with CPT (HR 0.14; 95% CI 0.07-0.31; p < 0.001 and HR 0.26; 95% CI 0.08-0.79; p = 0.018, respectively). CPT resulted in decreased use of mechanical ventilation, duration of supplemental oxygen, and high-flow oxygen requirement. Clinical and radiological outcomes improved.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate high neutralizing antibody titer CPT is safe and reduces mortality in early developed severe COVID-19 patients. The benefit of CPT in the early course of illness is challenging and requires additional study. Trial registration Thai clinical trials registry (TCTR) no. 20220101003.

Nucleocapsid-specific antibody function is associated with therapeutic benefits from COVID-19 convalescent plasma therapy

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP), a passive polyclonal antibody therapeutic agent, has had mixed clinical results. Although antibody neutralization is the predominant approach to benchmarking CCP efficacy, CCP may also influence the evolution of the endogenous antibody response. Using systems serology to comprehensively profile severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) functional antibodies of hospitalized people with COVID-19 enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of CCP (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04397757), we find that the clinical benefits of CCP are associated with a shift toward reduced inflammatory Spike (S) responses and enhanced nucleocapsid (N) humoral responses. We find that CCP has the greatest clinical benefit in participants with low pre-existing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody function and that CCP-induced immunomodulatory Fc glycan profiles and N immunodominant profiles persist for at least 2 months. We highlight a potential mechanism of action of CCP associated with durable immunomodulation, outline optimal patient characteristics for CCP treatment, and provide guidance for development of a different class of COVID-19 hyperinflammation-targeting antibody therapeutic agents.

Convalescent plasma treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infected high-risk patients: a matched pair analysis to the LEOSS cohort

Establishing the optimal treatment for COVID-19 patients remains challenging. Specifically, immunocompromised and pre-diseased patients are at high risk for severe disease course and face limited therapeutic options. Convalescent plasma (CP) has been considered as therapeutic approach, but reliable data are lacking, especially for high-risk patients. We performed a retrospective analysis of 55 hospitalized COVID-19 patients from University Hospital Duesseldorf (UKD) at high risk for disease progression, in a substantial proportion due to immunosuppression from cancer, solid organ transplantation, autoimmune disease, dialysis. A matched-pairs analysis (1:4) was performed with 220 patients from the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2-infected Patients (LEOSS) who were treated or not treated with CP. Both cohorts had high mortality (UKD 41.8%, LEOSS 34.1%). A matched-pairs analysis showed no significant effect on mortality. CP administration before the formation of pulmonary infiltrates showed the lowest mortality in both cohorts (10%), whereas mortality in the complicated phase was 27.8%. CP administration during the critical phase revealed the highest mortality: UKD 60.9%, LEOSS 48.3%. In our cohort of COVID-19 patients with severe comorbidities CP did not significantly reduce mortality in a retrospective matched-pairs analysis. However, our data supports the concept that a reduction in mortality is achievable by early CP administration.

Preceding anti-spike IgG levels predicted risk and severity of COVID-19 during the Omicron-dominant wave in Santa Fe city, Argentina

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant has increased infectivity and immune escape compared with previous variants, and caused the surge of massive COVID-19 waves globally. Despite a vast majority (~90%) of the population of Santa Fe city, Argentina had been vaccinated and/or had been infected by SARS-CoV-2 when Omicron emerged, the epidemic wave that followed its arrival was by far the largest one experienced in the city. A serosurvey conducted prior to the arrival of Omicron allowed to assess the acquired humoral defences preceding the wave and to conduct a longitudinal study to provide individual-level real-world data linking antibody levels and protection against COVID-19 during the wave. A very large proportion of 1455 sampled individuals had immunological memory against COVID-19 at the arrival of Omicron (almost 90%), and about half (48.9%) had high anti-spike immunoglobulin G levels (>200 UI/ml). However, the antibody titres varied greatly among the participants, and such variability depended mainly on the vaccine platform received, on having had COVID-19 previously and on the number of days elapsed since last antigen exposure (vaccine shot or natural infection). A follow-up of 514 participants provided real-world evidence of antibody-mediated protection against COVID-19 during a period of high risk of exposure to an immune-escaping highly transmissible variant. Pre-wave antibody titres were strongly negatively associated with COVID-19 incidence and severity of symptoms during the wave. Also, receiving a vaccine shot during the follow-up period reduced the COVID-19 risk drastically (15-fold). These results highlight the importance of maintaining high defences through vaccination at times of high risk of exposure to immune-escaping variants.

Treatment of COVID-19 with convalescent plasma in patients with humoral immunodeficiency - Three consecutive cases and review of the literature

Patients lacking humoral response have been suggested to develop a less severe COVID-19, but there are some reports with a prolonged, relapsing or deadly course. From April 2020, there is growing evidence on the benefits of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) for patients with humoral immunodeficiency. Most of them had a congenital primary immunodeficiency or were on treatment with anti CD20 antibodies. We report on three patients treated in our hospital and review thirty-one more cases described in the literature. All patients but three resolved clinical picture with CCP. A dose from 200 to 800ml was enough in most cases. Antibody levels after transfusion were negative or low, suggesting consumption of them in SARS-CoV-2 neutralization. These patients have a protracted clinical course shortened after CCP. CCP could be helpful for patients with humoral immunodeficiency. It avoid relapses and chronification. CCP should be transfused as early as possible in patients with COVID-19 and humoral immunodeficiency.