Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Patients with Convalescent Plasma

Cytokine, Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody, and Neutralizing Antibody Levels in Conventional Blood Donors Who Have Recovered from COVID-19

Background

At the beginning of the pandemic, COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was suggested as a source of therapy. In the last 3 years, many trials have demonstrated the limited usefulness of CCP therapy. This led us to the hypothesis that CCP could contain other elements, along with the desired neutralizing antibodies, which could potentially prevent it from having a therapeutic effect, among them cytokines, chemokines, growth factors, clotting factors, and autoantibodies.

Methods

In total, 39 cytokines were analyzed in the plasma of 190 blood donors, and further research focused on the levels of 23 different cytokines in CCP (sCD40L, eotaxin, FGF-2, FLT-3L, ractalkine, GRO-α, IFNα2, IL-1β, IL-1RA, IL-5, IL-6, IL-8, IL-12, IL-13, IL-15, IL-17E, IP-10, MCP-1, MIP-1b, PDGF-AA, TGFα, TNFα, and TRAIL). Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and neutralizing antibodies were detected in CCP.

Results

We found no significant differences between CCP taken within a maximum of 180 days from the onset of the first COVID-19 symptoms and the controls. We also made a comparison of the cytokine levels between the low neutralizing antibodies (<160) group and the high neutralizing antibodies (≥160) group and found there were no differences between the groups. Our research also showed no correlation either to levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG Ab or to the levels of neutralizing antibodies. There were also no significant changes in cytokine levels based on the period after the start of COVID-19 symptoms.

Conclusions

No elements which could potentially be responsible for preventing CCP from having a therapeutic effect were found.

Efficacy and Safety of Treatment with Plasma from COVID-19-Recovered Individuals

Convalescent plasma therapy, which involves administering plasma from recovered coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients to infected individuals, is being explored as a potential treatment for severe cases of COVID-19. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients with moderate to severe illness. An open-label, single-arm intervention study was conducted without a control group. Plasma collected from recovered COVID-19 patients was administered to eligible participants. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who were placed on artificial ventilation or died within 14 days of transfusion. Secondary endpoints included clinical improvement, viral load measurements, and adverse event monitoring. A total of 59 cases were included in the study. The primary endpoint was evaluated by comparing the rate obtained in the study to an existing rate of 25%. The study also assessed clinical improvement, viral load changes, and safety endpoints through adverse event monitoring. Convalescent plasma therapy shows potential as a treatment option for COVID-19. This study aimed to provide evidence for the efficacy and safety of this therapy and may contribute to its future use in treating severe cases of COVID-19.

The psychological impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on health-care workers in primary health-care centers in resource-poor settings

Background

Health-care workers' psychological status is essential to Preventive control measures in a weak and unstable health system with poor infrastructural constraints. This study examines the psychological impact of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the health-care providers working in primary health-care settings in Sudan.

Materials and Methods

This is a health facility-based cross-sectional study conducted in primary health-care units in White Nile State, Sudan. The psychological impact of stress and anxiety was determined using the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale 21 (DASS-21). A self-administered questionnaire measured depression, anxiety, and stress. The population of this study included health professionals working in health centers, including physicians, nurses, technicians, pharmacists, and other support staff.

Results

A total of 167 health professionals were systematically recruited. The mean anxiety score in the study population was 8.26 & 9.0 (corresponding to mild anxiety). Participants without anxiety constituted 26.35% (n = 44) of the participants. Women were significantly more likely to be affected than men (P = 0.0). Age (21-40 years), female nurses, and other health-care workers (anesthesiology, public health, health education, occupational health, psychiatry, etc.) could be strong predictors of psychological disorders (P-value of 0.0).

Conclusion

This study provided evidence for primary health care at its preparatory levels, as they are the first line of protection against the COVID-19 pandemic. Addressing the high-risk population is a high priority in the preliminary phase.

Design of VA CoronavirUs Research and Efficacy Studies-1 (VA CURES-1): A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in hospitalized patients with early respiratory compromise

BACKGROUND

Effective therapeutics for severe acute respiratory syndrome CoronaVirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are evolving. Under Emergency Use Authorization, COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) was widely used in individuals hospitalized for COVID-19, but few randomized controlled trials supported its efficacy to limit respiratory failure or death.

METHODS

VA CoronavirUs Research and Efficacy Studies-1 (VA CURES-1) was a double-blind, multi-site, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of CCP with conventional therapy in hospitalized Veterans with SARS-CoV-2 infection and early respiratory compromise (requirement for oxygen). Participants (planned sample size 702) were randomized 1:1 to receive CCP with high titer neutralizing activity or 0.9% saline, stratified by site and age (≥65 versus <65 years old). Participants were followed daily during initial hospitalization and at Days 15, 22 and 28.

OUTCOMES

The composite primary outcome was acute hypoxemic respiratory failure or all-cause death by Day 28. Secondary outcomes by day 28 included time-to-recovery, clinical severity, mortality, rehospitalization for COVID-19, and adverse events. Serial respiratory and blood samples were collected for safety, virologic and immunologic analyses and future studies. Key variables in predicting the success of CURES-1 were: (1) enrollment early in the course of severe infection; (2) use of plasma with high neutralizing activity; (3) reliance on unambiguous, clinically meaningful outcomes. CURES-1 was terminated for futility due to perceived inability to enroll in the lull between the Alpha and Delta waves of the SARS CoV-2 epidemic.

CONCLUSIONS

VA CURES-1 was a large multi-site trial designed to provide conclusive information about the efficacy of CCP in well-characterized patients at risk for progression of COVID-19. It utilized a rigorous study design with relevant initial timing, quality of product and outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04539275.

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 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.

Convalescent Plasma Treatment of Patients Previously Treated with B-Cell-Depleting Monoclonal Antibodies Suffering COVID-19 Is Associated with Reduced Re-Admission Rates

Patients receiving treatment with B-cell-depleting monoclonal antibodies, such as anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab and obinutuzumab, either for hematological disease or another diagnosis, such as a rheumatological disease, are at an increased risk for medical complications and mortality from COVID-19. Since inconsistencies persist regarding the use of convalescent plasma (CP), especially in the vulnerable patient population that has received previous treatment with B-cell-depleting monoclonal antibodies, further studies should be performed in thisdirection. The aim of the present study was to describe the characteristics of patients with previous use of B-cell-depleting monoclonal antibodies and describe the potential beneficial effects of CP use in terms of mortality, ICU admission and disease relapse. In this retrospective cohort study, 39 patients with previous use of B-cell-depleting monoclonal antibodies hospitalized in the COVID-19 department of a tertiary hospital in Greece were recorded and evaluated. The mean age was 66.3 years and 51.3% were male. Regarding treatment for COVID-19, remdesivir was used in 89.7%, corticosteroids in 94.9% and CP in 53.8%. In-hospital mortality was 15.4%. Patients who died were more likely to need ICU admission and also had a trend towards a longer hospital stay, even though the last did not reach statistical significance. Patients treated with CP had a lower re-admission rate for COVID-19 after discharge. Further studies should be performed to identify the role of CP in patients with treatment with B-cell-depleting monoclonal antibodies suffering from COVID-19.

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.

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.

State of the art in epitope mapping and opportunities in COVID-19

The understanding of any disease calls for studying specific biological structures called epitopes. One important tool recently drawing attention and proving efficiency in both diagnosis and vaccine development is epitope mapping. Several techniques have been developed with the urge to provide precise epitope mapping for use in designing sensitive diagnostic tools and developing rpitope-based vaccines (EBVs) as well as therapeutics. In this review, we will discuss the state of the art in epitope mapping with a special emphasis on accomplishments and opportunities in combating COVID-19. These comprise SARS-CoV-2 variant analysis versus the currently available immune-based diagnostic tools and vaccines, immunological profile-based patient stratification, and finally, exploring novel epitope targets for potential prophylactic, therapeutic or diagnostic agents for COVID-19.

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.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Hospitalized Patients-An Open-Label Phase II Clinical Trial

Background: COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is an important antiviral option for selected patients with COVID-19. Materials and Methods: In this open-label, phase 2, clinical trial conducted from 30 April 2020 till 10 May 2021 in the Republic of North Macedonia, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of CCP in hospitalized patients. Treatment was with a single unit of CCP having an anti-RBD IgG concentration higher than 5 AU/mL. Results: There were 189 patients that completed the study, of which 65 (34.4%) had WHO 8-point clinical progression scale score of 3 (requiring hospital care but not oxygen support), 65 (34.4%) had a score of 4 (hospitalized and requiring supplemental oxygen by mask or nasal prongs), and 59 (31.2%) had a score of 5 (hospitalized and requiring supplemental oxygen by non-invasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen). Mean age was 57 years (range 22−94), 78.5% were males, 80.4% had elevated body mass index, and 70.9% had comorbidity. Following CCP transfusion, we observed clinical improvement with increase rates in oxygenation-free days of 32.3% and 58.5% at 24 h and seven days after CCP transfusion, a decline in WHO scores, and reduced progression to severe disease (only one patient was admitted to ICU after CCP transfusion). Mortality in the entire cohort was 11.6% (22/189). We recorded 0% mortality in WHO score 3 (0/65) and in patients that received CCP transfusion in the first seven days of disease, 4.6% mortality in WHO score 4 (3/65), and 30.5% mortality in WHO score 5 (18/59). Mortality correlated with WHO score (Chi-square 19.3, p < 0.001) and with stay in the ICU (Chi-square 55.526, p ≤ 0.001). No severe adverse events were reported. Conclusions: This study showed that early administration of CCP to patients with moderate disease was a safe and potentially effective treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04397523).

Targeted therapy in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Implication from cell and gene therapy to immunotherapy and vaccine

Severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a highly pathogenic and transmissible virus. Infection caused by SARS-CoV-2 known as Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can be severe, especially among high risk populations affected of underlying medical conditions. COVID-19 is characterized by the severe acute respiratory syndrome, a hyper inflammatory syndrome, vascular injury, microangiopathy and thrombosis. Antiviral drugs and immune modulating methods has been evaluated. So far, a particular therapeutic option has not been approved for COVID-19 and a variety of treatments have been studied for COVID-19 including, current treatment such as oxygen therapy, corticosteroids, antiviral agents until targeted therapy and vaccines which are diverse in each patient and have various outcomes. According to the findings of different in vitro and in vivo studies, some novel approach such as gene editing, cell based therapy, and immunotherapy may have significant potential in the treatment of COVID-19. Based on these findings, this paper aims to review the different strategies of treatment against COVID-19 and provide a summary from traditional and newer methods in curing COVID-19.

Prolonged ICU Stay in Severe and Critically-Ill COVID-19 Patients Who Received Convalescent Plasma Therapy

Background

Convalescent plasma administration in severe and critically-ill COVID-19 patients have been proven to not provide improvement in patients' outcome, yet it is still widely used in countries with limited resources due to its high availability and safety. This study aims to investigate its effects on ICU mortality, ICU length of stay (LoS), and improvement of oxygen support requirements.

Methods

Data of all severe and critically-ill patients in our COVID-19 ICU was collected retrospectively between May and November 2020. We dichotomized the variables and compared outcome data of 48 patients, who received convalescent plasma to 131 patients, receiving standard of care. Data were analyzed using multiple logistic regression to make prediction models of mortality, length of stay, and oxygen support device requirement.

Result

Overall mortality rate in our COVID-19 ICU was 55.3%, with a median overall length of stay of 8 (4–11) days. Less patients that received convalescent plasma presented with the need for mechanical ventilation on ICU admission (p < 0.001), but with comparable PaO₂ to FiO₂ (P/F) ratio (p=0.95). Factors that confounded mortality were obesity (aOR = 14.1; 95% CI (1.25, 166.7); p=0.032), mechanical ventilation (aOR = 333; 95% CI (4.5,1,000); p < 0.001), higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) (aOR = 7.32; 95% CI (1.82, 29.4); p=0.005), and lower P/F ratio (aOR = 7.70; 95% CI (2.04, 29.4); p=0.003). ICU LoS was longer in patients, who had prior history of hypertension (aOR = 2.14; 95% CI (1.05, 4.35); p=0.036) and received convalescent plasma (aOR = 3.88; 95% CI (1.77, 8.05); p < 0.001). Deceased patients, who received convalescent plasma, stayed longer in the ICU with a mean length of stay of 12.87 ± 5.7 days versus 8.13 ± 4.8 days with a significant difference (U = 434; p < 0.000). The chance of improved oxygen support requirements was lower in obese patients (aOR = 9.18; 95%CI (2.0, 42.1); p < 0.004), mechanically ventilated patients (aOR = 13.15; 95% CI (3.75, 46.09); p < 0.001), patients with higher NLR (aOR = 2.5; 95% CI (1.07, 5.85); p=0.034), and lower P/F ratio (aOR = 2.76; 95% CI (1.1, 6.91); p=0.031).

Conclusion

The length of stay of patients in the convalescent plasma group was significantly longer than the control group. There was no effect of convalescent plasma in ICU mortality and no improvement was observed in terms of oxygen support requirements.

The effect of convalescent plasma on the treatment of COVID-19 patients in Ardabil, Iran

BACKGROUND

Infection with COVID-19 has resulted in considerable mortality all around the world. This study aimed to investigate the effect of convalescent plasma on the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Imam Khomeini Hospital at Ardabil, Iran.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this quasi-experimental clinical trial, patients over 18 years of age with polymerase chain reaction-positive COVID-19 were admitted based on the clinical criteria of respiratory distress with hypoxia (O₂ saturation <90) and tachypnea (R Relative Risk (RR) >24) with moderate-to-severe lung involvement and in the 1^st week of respiratory disease who were not intubated were nonrandomly assigned to two groups: convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) group (197 cases) and control group (200 cases). We used the Chi-square, t-test, Fisher's exact test, and Pearson's correlation coefficient for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Analyses revealed that length of stay in hospital was significantly lower in the CPT group as compared to the control group (P = 0.001). Twenty-four cases (22.0%) in the CPT group and 85 cases (78.0%) in the control group needed intubation. Furthermore, mortality was 17 cases (18.3%) in the CPT group and 76 cases (81.7%) in the control group, the difference of which was also found to be statistically significant (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

It seems that CPT can be used as an alternative treatment at the early stages of COVID-19 to prevent the progress of the disease, reduce the need for intubation and consequently the length of stay in hospital, and finally, decrease mortality.

Characterization of Pathogen Inactivated COVID ‐19 Convalescent Plasma and Responses in Transfused Patients

Background

Efficacy of donated COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (dCCP) is uncertain and may depend on antibody titers, neutralizing capacity, timing of administration, and patient characteristics.

Study Design and Methods

In a single‐center hypothesis‐generating prospective case–control study with 1:2 matched dCCP recipients to controls according to disease severity at day 1, hospitalized adults with COVID‐19 pneumonia received 2 × 200 ml pathogen‐reduced treated dCCP from 2 different donors. We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) antibodies in COVID‐19 convalescent plasma donors and recipients using multiple antibody assays including a Coronavirus antigen microarray (COVAM), and binding and neutralizing antibody assays. Outcomes were dCCP characteristics, antibody responses, 28‐day mortality, and dCCP ‐related adverse events in recipients.

Results

Eleven of 13 dCCPs (85%) contained neutralizing antibodies (nAb). PRT did not affect dCCP antibody activity. Fifteen CCP recipients and 30 controls (median age 64 and 65 years, respectively) were enrolled. dCCP recipients received 2 dCCPs from 2 different donors after a median of one hospital day and 11 days after symptom onset. One dCCP recipient (6.7%) and 6 controls (20%) died (p = 0.233). We observed no dCCP‐related adverse events. Transfusion of unselected dCCP led to heterogeneous SARS CoV‐2 antibody responses. COVAM clustered dCCPs in 4 distinct groups and showed endogenous immune responses to SARS‐CoV‐2 antigens over 14–21 days post dCCP in all except 4 immunosuppressed recipients.

Discussion

PRT did not impact dCCP anti‐virus neutralizing activity. Transfusion of unselected dCCP did not impact survival and had no adverse effects. Variable dCCP antibodies and post‐transfusion antibody responses indicate the need for controlled trials using well‐characterized dCCP with informative assays.

Exercise in Cold Weather for COVID-19-Recovered Individuals (CRI)

Background: The sedentary lifestyle caused by the COVID-19 quarantine has resulted in a devastating threat to human health due to stress and anxiety. Although infected individuals must stop exercising, exercise is not prohibited when without symptoms and complications. Whereas exercise can be effective in immune system reinforcement during the prevention, recovery, and post-recovery stages, COVID-19-recovered Individuals (CRI) must exercise under accurate considerations. Objectives: This study aimed to study exercise in cold weather for the CRI. Methods: This article overviews how different exercises affect the immune system. PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar Databases and keywords including cold weather, COVID-19, immune system, and combined exercise were used to access scientific articles. Results: Recent reports show that different sports and exercises significantly improve COVID-19 symptoms, although there are many discrepancies among researchers in prescribing exercise programs (various training protocols, duration, and intensity). Also, CRI should avoid exercise in cold weather due to breathing complications Conclusions: Based on the present study, regular exercises (aerobic, resistance, and combined) with moderate intensity improve COVID-19 symptoms and the immune system.

Antibodies from convalescent plasma promote SARS-CoV-2 clearance in individuals with and without endogenous antibody response

BACKGROUNDNeutralizing antibodies are considered a key correlate of protection by current SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. The manner in which human infections respond to therapeutic SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, including convalescent plasma therapy, remains to be fully elucidated.METHODSWe conducted a proof-of-principle study of convalescent plasma therapy based on a phase I trial in 30 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with a median interval between onset of symptoms and first transfusion of 9 days (IQR, 7-11.8 days). Comprehensive longitudinal monitoring of the virological, serological, and disease status of recipients allowed deciphering of parameters on which plasma therapy efficacy depends.RESULTSIn this trial, convalescent plasma therapy was safe as evidenced by the absence of transfusion-related adverse events and low mortality (3.3%). Treatment with highly neutralizing plasma was significantly associated with faster virus clearance, as demonstrated by Kaplan-Meier analysis (P = 0.034) and confirmed in a parametric survival model including viral load and comorbidity (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.1-8.1; P = 0.026). The onset of endogenous neutralization affected viral clearance, but even after adjustment for their pretransfusion endogenous neutralization status, recipients benefitted from plasma therapy with high neutralizing antibodies (hazard ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.1-11; P = 0.034).CONCLUSIONOur data demonstrate a clear impact of exogenous antibody therapy on the rapid clearance of viremia before and after onset of the endogenous neutralizing response, and point beyond antibody-based interventions to critical laboratory parameters for improved evaluation of current and future SARS-CoV-2 therapies.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT04869072.FUNDINGThis study was funded via an Innovation Pool project by the University Hospital Zurich; the Swiss Red Cross Glückskette Corona Funding; Pandemiefonds of the UZH Foundation; and the Clinical Research Priority Program "Comprehensive Genomic Pathogen Detection" of the University of Zurich.

ERS International Congress 2021: highlights from the Respiratory Clinical Care and Physiology Assembly

It is a challenge to keep abreast of all the clinical and scientific advances in the field of respiratory medicine. This article contains an overview of laboratory-based science, randomised controlled trials and qualitative research that were presented during the 2021 European Respiratory Society International Congress within the sessions from the five groups of the Assembly 1 - Respiratory clinical care and physiology. Selected presentations are summarised from a wide range of topics: clinical problems, rehabilitation and chronic care, general practice and primary care, electronic/mobile health (e-health/m-health), clinical respiratory physiology, exercise and functional imaging.

Reinforcement of the Standard Therapy with Two Infusions of Convalescent Plasma for Patients with COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: The aim was to evaluate the reinforcement of the standard therapy with hyperimmune plasma (HP) in Coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19) patients. Methods: Open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed in three hospitals in the Balearic Islands. Non-severe COVID-19 hospitalized patients with clinical time evolution equal to/less than 7 days were included, and randomized in: plasma group (PG) (n = 37), receiving 600 mL divided into two doses from convalescent plasma donor, administered on days 1 and 2 after the enrollment; and control group (CG) (n = 17). Primary outcome was the time for clinical improvement within 21 days, defined as patient achievement of categories 8, 7, and 6 in the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial scale (ACTT). The trial was terminated early due to the impossibility of recruitment due to the pandemic. Results: PG presented better scores on the ACTT scale at 7 days after HP infusion, whereas CG was needed 14 days to achieve similar results. The plasma infusion was safe. Conclusions: Despite the tendency observed in the plasma group to achieve slightly earlier better physical condition compared with the standard treatment alone. The administration of HP has been shown to be a safe therapy. No robust evidence was found to affirm a therapeutic effect of the early administration of two infusions of HP for non-severe COVID-19 infected patients. The interpretation is limited by the early termination of the trial, which resulted in a small sample size.

Human Identical Sequences, hyaluronan, and hymecromone ─ the new mechanism and management of COVID-19

COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 has created formidable damage to public health and market economy. Currently, SARS-CoV-2 variants has exacerbated the transmission from person-to-person. Even after a great deal of investigation on COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 is still rampaging globally, emphasizing the urgent need to reformulate effective prevention and treatment strategies. Here, we review the latest research progress of COVID-19 and provide distinct perspectives on the mechanism and management of COVID-19. Specially, we highlight the significance of Human Identical Sequences (HIS), hyaluronan, and hymecromone ("Three-H") for the understanding and intervention of COVID-19. Firstly, HIS activate inflammation-related genes to influence COVID-19 progress through NamiRNA-Enhancer network. Accumulation of hyaluronan induced by HIS-mediated HAS2 upregulation is a substantial basis for clinical manifestations of COVID-19, especially in lymphocytopenia and pulmonary ground-glass opacity. Secondly, detection of plasma hyaluronan can be effective for evaluating the progression and severity of COVID-19. Thirdly, spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 may bind to hyaluronan and further serve as an allergen to stimulate allergic reaction, causing sudden adverse effects after vaccination or the aggravation of COVID-19. Finally, antisense oligonucleotides of HIS or inhibitors of hyaluronan synthesis (hymecromone) or antiallergic agents could be promising therapeutic agents for COVID-19. Collectively, Three-H could hold the key to understand the pathogenic mechanism and create effective therapeutic strategies for COVID-19.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Viremia Is Associated With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Severity and Predicts Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral RNA (vRNA) is detected in the bloodstream of some patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but it is not clear whether this RNAemia reflects viremia (ie, virus particles) and how it relates to host immune responses and outcomes.

METHODS

SARS-CoV-2 vRNA was quantified in plasma samples from observational cohorts of 51 COVID-19 patients including 9 outpatients, 19 hospitalized (non-intensive care unit [ICU]), and 23 ICU patients. vRNA levels were compared with cross-sectional indices of COVID-19 severity and prospective clinical outcomes. We used multiple imaging methods to visualize virions in plasma.

RESULTS

SARS-CoV-2 vRNA was detected in plasma of 100%, 52.6%, and 11.1% of ICU, non-ICU, and outpatients, respectively. Virions were detected in plasma pellets using electron tomography and immunostaining. Plasma vRNA levels were significantly higher in ICU > non-ICU > outpatients (P < .0001); for inpatients, plasma vRNA levels were strongly associated with higher World Health Organization (WHO) score at admission (P = .01), maximum WHO score (P = .002), and discharge disposition (P = .004). A plasma vRNA level >6000 copies/mL was strongly associated with mortality (hazard ratio, 10.7). Levels of vRNA were significantly associated with several inflammatory biomarkers (P < .01) but not with plasma neutralizing antibody titers (P = .8).

CONCLUSIONS

Visualization of virus particles in plasma indicates that SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia is due, at least in part, to viremia. The levels of SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia correlate strongly with disease severity, patient outcome, and specific inflammatory biomarkers but not with neutralizing antibody titers.

Efficacy of early transfusion of convalescent plasma with high-titer SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies in hospitalized patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Despite most controlled trials have shown no measurable benefit of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in patients with COVID-19, some studies suggest that early administration of CCP with high-titer anti-SARS-CoV-2 can be beneficial in selected patients. We investigated the efficacy of early administration of high-titer CCP to patients with COVID-19 who required hospitalization, STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Observational, propensity score (PS) matched case-control study of COVID-19 patients treated with CCP within 72 h of hospital admission and untreated controls from August 2020 to February 2021. All CCP donations had a Euroimmun anti-SARS-CoV-2 sample-to-cutoff ratio ≥3. PS matching was based on prognostic factors and presented features with high-standardized differences between the treated and control groups. The primary endpoint was mortality within 30 days of diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 1604 patients were analyzed, 261 of whom received CCP, most (82%) within 24 h after admission. Median age was 67 years (interquartile range: 56-79), and 953 (60%) were men. Presenting factors independently associated with higher 30-day mortality were increased age, cardiac disease, hypoxemic respiratory failure, renal failure, and plasma d-dimer >700 ng/ml. After PS matching, transfusion of CCP was associated with a significant reduction in the 30-day mortality rate (odds ratio [OR]; 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-0.98; p = .001) that extended to the 60th day after COVID-19 diagnosis (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.92-0.99; p = .01).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that CCP can still be helpful in selected patients with COVID-19 and call for further studies before withdrawing CCP from the COVID-19 therapeutic armamentarium.

Preservation of anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies in convalescent plasma after pathogen reduction with methylene blue and visible light

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is an experimental treatment against SARS-CoV-2. Although there has so far been no evidence of transmission through transfusion, pathogen reduction technologies (PRT) have been applied to CCP to mitigate risk of infectious disease. This study aims to assess the impact of methylene blue (MB) plus visible light PRT on the virus-neutralising activity of the specific antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirty-five plasma doses collected by plasmapheresis from COVID-19 convalescent donors were subjected to MB plus visible light PRT. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD S1 epitope IgGs antibodies were quantified by ELISA. Titres of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies (NtAbs) were measured before and after the PRT process. A Spearman's correlation was run to determine the relationship between antibody neutralisation ability and SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA ratio. Pre- and post-inactivation neutralising antibody titres were evaluated using a Wilcoxon test.

RESULTS

The plasma pathogen reduction procedure did not diminish NtAbS titres and so did not cause a change in the viral neutralisation capacity of CCP. There was a strong correlation between pre-and post-PRT NtAbs and anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgGs titres.

DISCUSSION

Our results showed PRT with MB did not impair the CCP passive immunity preserving its potential therapeutic potency. Therefore, PRT of CCP should be recommended to mitigate the risk for transmission of transfusion-associated infectious disease. There is a good correlation between SARS-CoV-2 IgG titres determined by ELISA and the neutralising capacity. This allows blood centres to select CCP donors based on IgG ELISA titres avoiding the much more labour-intensive laboratory processes for determining neutralising antibodies.

Efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in the patient with COVID-19: a randomised control trial (COPLA-II trial)

IMPORTANCE

No proven treatment is available for severely ill COVID-19. Therapeutic use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (COPLA) is under investigation.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of COPLA with standard medical therapy (SMT) alone in severe COVID-19 patients.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A multicentric, open-labelled, phase-III randomised controlled trial conducted at two treatment centres with COPLA collected at the third dedicated centre in North-India, the coordinating centre during trial from June 2020 to December 2020. The study population comprised 400 participants in the ratio of 1:1 in each treatment group.

INTERVENTION

One group received COPLA with SMT (n=200), and another group received SMT only (n=200).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was time to clinical improvement measured by a two-point reduction in the ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included duration of O₂ therapy, the proportion of patients on mechanical ventilation at day-7, mortality, SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels, cytokine levels and incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

The median time to a two-point reduction in the ordinal scale in both groups was 9 days (IQR=7-13) (p=0.328). The median duration of O₂ therapy was 8 days (IQR=6-12) in COPLA and 10 days (IQR=6-12) in SMT group (p=0.64). The PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio showed significant improvement at 7 days in COPLA group(p=0.036). There was no difference in mortality till 28 days in both groups (p=0.62). However, if COPLA was given within 3 days of hospital admission, a significant reduction in ordinal scale was observed (p=0.04). Neutralising antibody titres in COPLA group (80 (IQR 80-80)) were higher than SMT group (0 (IQR 0-80)) at 48 hours (p=0.001). COPLA therapy led to a significant reduction in TNF-α levels at 48 hours (p=0.048) and D-dimer at 7 days (p=0.02). Mild allergic reactions were observed in 3 (1.5%) patients in COPLA group.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Convalescent plasma with adequate antibody titres should be transfused in COVID-19 patients along with SMT in the initial 3 days of hospitalisation for better clinical outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04425915.

Novel antiviral effects of chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and green tea catechins against SARS CoV-2 main protease (Mpro) and 3C-like protease for COVID-19 treatment

OBJECTIVES

Coronaviruses are globally emerging viruses that threaten our health care systems and have become a popular pandemic around the world. This causes a sudden rise in positive coronavirus cases and related deaths to occur worldwide, representing a significant health hazard to humans and the economy.

METHODS

We examined predominantly catechins of green tea include epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG), epicatechin-3-gallate (ECG), and drugs of chloroquine (CQ), and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) appearing to reveal anti-viral activities. Data were collected from PubMed, Google Scholar, and Science Direct databases. To investigate the role of antiviral effects (CQ and HCQ), green tea catechins, beneficial use of convalescent plasma; covaxin in COVID-19 patients faced a dangerous healthiness issue. Computational docking analysis has been used for this purpose.

RESULTS

The lead compounds are EGCG and ECG act as potential inhibitors bind to the active site region of the HKU4-CoV 3CL protease and M-Pro protease enzymes of coronavirus. Conclusions: SARS-COV-2 is a pathogen of substantial vigour concern and the review unveils the role of catechins associated with many viral diseases. We suggested that the function of green tea catechins, novel drugs of CQ, and HCQ exhibit antiviral activities against positive-sense single-stranded RNA viruses (CoVs).

Correlation of Immunogenicity and Reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines

COVID-19 infection is a global health issue, and vaccination is the main strategy to control this pandemic. In this study, 189 participants received BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccine, and 133 of them recorded adverse events (AEs) daily for 4 weeks after vaccination. Their neutralizing antibody against SARS-CoV-2 was determined with live virus microneutralization (vMN) assay. The vMN geometric mean titer (GMT) on day 56 was 129.9 (95% confidence interval [CI],108.6 to 155.2) in the BNT162b2 group and 13.1 (95% CI, 11.2 to 15.3) in the CoronaVac group. Day 56 vMN GMT was 147.9 (95% CI, 118.9 to 184.1) in females and 129.9 (95% CI, 108.6 to 155.2) in males receiving BNT162b2, while it was 14.0 (95% CI, 11.6 to 17.0) in females and 11.4 (95% CI, 8.7 to 15.0) in males receiving CoronaVac. Injection site pain (88.8%) and redness (77.5%) were the most commonly BNT162b2-related AEs, and injection site pain (37.7%) and tiredness (26.4%) were more frequent in the CoronaVac group. Women showed a higher frequency of headache (45.7% versus 29.4%) and joint pain (26.1 versus 14.7%) than men in BTN162b2 group. Headache (26.5% versus 0%) and tiredness (38.2% versus 5.3%) were more common in women than in men vaccinated with CoronaVac. No correlation between any AE and antibody response was observed in BNT162b2 or CoronaVac platforms. After taking the gender factor into account, in the BNT162b2 group, a low correlation between day 21 vMN titer and redness (rho = 0.34) or itching (rho = 0.32) was presented in females, and a low correlation between day 56 vMN titer and fever (rho = 0.35) was presented in males. Taken together, AEs could have a low correlation with BNT162b2 vaccine response.

IMPORTANCE Effective vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are vital tools for containing the COVID-19 pandemic by increasing population immunity. While currently available vaccines can elicit antibody response against SARS-CoV-2 with high efficacy, the associated side effects may cause vaccine hesitancy. Our work is important in that we have thoroughly analyzed the correlation between immunogenicity and reactogenicity of two COVID-19 vaccines (BNT162b2 and CoronaVac) in the study. Our results showed that women had higher levels of neutralizing antibodies than men after receiving BNT162b2 or CoronaVac. Furthermore, a low correlation was observed between day 21 vMN titer and local reactions (redness and itching) in females, as well as between day 56 vMN titer and fever in males receiving BNT162b2. Thus, common side effects are not always a negative impact of vaccination but may serve as an indicator of immunogenicity of vaccines. Our study may help in increasing the public’s acceptance and confidence over COVID-19 vaccination and ultimately achieving the goal of containing COVID-19 pandemic.

Therapeutic role of immunomodulators during the COVID-19 pandemic- a narrative review

The emergency state caused by COVID-19 saw the use of immunomodulators despite the absence of robust research. To date, the results of relatively few randomized controlled trials have been published, and methodological approaches are riddled with bias and heterogeneity. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, convalescent plasma and the JAK inhibitor baricitinib have gained Emergency Use Authorizations and tentative recommendations for their use in clinical practice alone or in combination with other therapies. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are predominating the management of non-hospitalized patients, while the inpatient setting is seeing the use of convalescent plasma, baricitinib, tofacitinib, tocilizumab, sarilumab, and corticosteroids, as applicable. Available clinical data also suggest the potential clinical benefit of the early administration of blood-derived products (e.g. convalescent plasma, non-SARS-CoV-2-specific immunoglobins) and the blockade of factors implicated in the hyperinflammatory state of severe COVID-19 (Interleukin 1 and 6; Janus Kinase). Immune therapies seem to have a protective effect and using immunomodulators alone or in combination with viral replication inhibitors and other treatment modalities might prevent progression into severe COVID-19 disease, cytokine storm and death. Future trials should address existing gaps and reshape the landscape of COVID-19 management.

Development of superior antibodies against the S-protein of SARS-Cov-2 using macrocyclic epitopes

One of the proven methods to prevent and inhibit viral infections is to use antibodies to block the initial Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 S protein and avoid its binding with the host cells. Thus, developing these RBD-targeting antibodies would be a promising approach for treating the SARS-CoV-2 infectious disease and stop virus replication. Macrocyclic epitopes constitute closer mimics of the receptor's actual topology and, as such, are expected to be superior epitopes for antibody generation. This work demonstrated the vital effect of the three-dimensional shape of epitopes on the developed antibodies' activity against RBD protein of SARS-CoV-2. The molecular dynamics studies showed the greater stability of the cyclic epitopes in comparison with the linear counterpart, which was reflected in the activity of their produced antibodies. Indeed, the antibodies we developed using macrocyclic epitopes showed superiority with respect to binding to RBD proteins compared to antibodies formed from a linear peptide. The results of the present work constitute a roadmap for developing superior antibodies that could be used to inhibit the activity of the SARS-CoV-2 and prevent its reproduction.

The “Invisible Enemy” SARS-CoV-2: Viral Spread and Drug Treatment

Nowadays, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has become the main subject of the scientific medical world and all World Organizations, causing millions of deaths worldwide. In this review, we have highlighted the context of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, how the virus spreads, the symptoms and complications that may occur, and, especially, the drug treatment of viral infection, with emphasis on monoclonal antibodies. While well-known strains such as Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and, especially, Delta have shown an accelerated transmission among the population, the new Omicron variant (discovered on 24 November 2021) indicates more significant infectiousness and the poor efficacy of monoclonal antibody therapy due to mutations on the spike protein receptor-binding domain. With these discoveries, the experiments began, the first being in silico and in vitro, but these are not enough, and in vivo experiments are needed to see exactly the cause of neutralization of the action of these drugs. Following the documentation of the latest medical and scientific research, it has been concluded that there are many chemical molecules that have the potential to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection, but more detailed clinical trials are needed for their use in therapy. In addition, it is important to consider the structure of the viral strain in the administration of treatment.

Early humoral immune response to two doses of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine in a diverse group of solid organ transplant candidates and recipients

Response to two doses of a nucleoside-modified messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccine was evaluated in a large solid-organ transplant program. mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was administered to transplant candidates and recipients who met study inclusion criteria. Qualitative anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike Total Immunoglobulin (Ig) and IgG-specific assays, and a semi-quantitative test for anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein IgG were measured in 241 (17.2%) transplant candidates and 1,163 (82.8%) transplant recipients; 55.2% of whom were non-Hispanic White and 44.8% identified as another race. Transplant recipients were a median (IQR) of 3.2 (1.1, 6.8) years from transplantation. Response differed by transplant status: 96.0% vs 43.2% by the anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total Ig (candidates vs recipients, respectively), 93.5% vs 11.6% by the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay, and 91.9% vs 30.1% by anti-spike titers after two doses of vaccine. Multivariable analysis revealed candidates had higher likelihood of response vs recipients (odds ratio [OR], 14.6; 95 %CI 2.19, 98.11; p = 0.02). A slightly lower response was demonstrated in older patients (OR 0.96; 95 %CI 0.94, 0.99; p = 0.002), patients taking antimetabolites (OR, 0.21; 95% CI 0.08, 0.51; p = 0.001). Vaccination prior to transplantation should be encouraged. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Analytical and Clinical Evaluation of the Semiquantitative Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Receptor Binding Domain Antibody Assay on the Roche cobas e602 Analyzer

Objectives

To analytically and clinically evaluate the semiquantitative Elecsys anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein antibody (S-Ab) assay on the Roche cobas e602 analyzer.

Methods

The S-Ab assay is a 1-step, double-antigen sandwich electrochemiluminescent immunoassay that semiquantitatively measures total IgG, IgM, and IgA antibodies specific for the receptor binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in serum or plasma. The S-Ab assay was evaluated for precision, linearity, interference (by hemoglobin, bilirubin, triglycerides, and biotin), cross-reactivity, and clinical performance, and was compared to the qualitative Elecsys anti-nucleocapsid (N-Ab) immunoassay, a lateral flow device that qualitatively detects S-Ab and N-Ab, and an anti-spike enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

Results

S-Ab assay is precise, exhibits linearity from 0.4 to 250 U/mL, is unaffected by significant cross-reactivity or interferences, and qualitatively demonstrates greater than 90% concordance with N-Ab assay and lateral flow device. Readouts of S-Ab assay correlate with ELISA, which in turn correlates strongly with SARS-CoV-2 virus neutralization assay, and exhibit 100% sensitivity and specificity for COVID-19 patient samples obtained at or more than 14 days after PCR positivity.

Conclusions

The S-Ab assay is a robust clinical test for qualitative and semiquantitative detection of seropositivity following SARS-CoV-2 infection or spike-encoding mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

SARS-CoV-2 ferritin nanoparticle vaccines elicit broad SARS coronavirus immunogenicity

The need for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) next-generation vaccines has been highlighted by the rise of variants of concern (VoCs) and the long-term threat of emerging coronaviruses. Here, we design and characterize four categories of engineered nanoparticle immunogens that recapitulate the structural and antigenic properties of the prefusion SARS-CoV-2 spike (S), S1, and receptor-binding domain (RBD). These immunogens induce robust S binding, ACE2 inhibition, and authentic and pseudovirus neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. A spike-ferritin nanoparticle (SpFN) vaccine elicits neutralizing titers (ID50 > 10,000) following a single immunization, whereas RBD-ferritin nanoparticle (RFN) immunogens elicit similar responses after two immunizations and also show durable and potent neutralization against circulating VoCs. Passive transfer of immunoglobulin G (IgG) purified from SpFN- or RFN-immunized mice protects K18-hACE2 transgenic mice from a lethal SARS-CoV-2 challenge. Furthermore, S-domain nanoparticle immunization elicits ACE2-blocking activity and ID50 neutralizing antibody titers >2,000 against SARS-CoV-1, highlighting the broad response elicited by these immunogens.

Risk Factors Associated With an Impaired Antibody Response in Kidney Transplant Recipients Following 2 Doses of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine

Background.

Data about vaccine efficacy in solid organ transplant patients are limited. We previously reported our initial observation of a 6.2% immunogenicity rate in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) after administration of 1 dose of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mRNA vaccine. We sought to report our observations of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody in KTRs after 2 doses of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine.

Methods.

We identified 105 KTRs who received 2 doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine per availability and had anti-SARS-CoV-2 labs obtained at least 2 wk following administration of the second dose. Antibody testing was performed using 3 clinically validated qualitative and semiquantitative assays.

Results.

KTRs had a 36.2% antibody response rate, whereas an age ≥68 years and a longer time from transplant were factors associated with antibody response.

Conclusions.

The low antibody response in KTRs may be associated with the immunosuppressive state. More data are needed to evaluate if KTRs may require higher vaccine doses or an additional booster dose to increase their ability to mount an immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

Charismatic Trends in COVID-19 Patients in Pakistan: A Case Series

Severe acute respiratory coronavirus-2 syndrome (SARS-CoV-2), the novel coronavirus causing the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), spread across the world, resulting in a global crisis. This pandemic has caused consequences that are beyond the boundaries of a single discipline of life, but it is healthcare that is under the most stress. As we received COVID-19 cases in our hospital (a private tertiary care facility in Sialkot, Pakistan), we geared up to accommodate these cases, since the government sector was already overburdened. The purpose of this study is to report the trends observed in 80 COVID-19 patients admitted at our facility from May 16 to July 14, 2020.

A Year of Critical Care: The Changing Face of the ICU During COVID-19

During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, admissions to hospital intensive care units (ICUs) surged, exerting unprecedented stress on ICU resources and operations. The novelty of the highly infectious coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) required significant changes to the way critically ill patients were managed. Houston Methodist’s incident command center team navigated this health crisis by ramping up its bed capacity, streamlining treatment algorithms, and optimizing ICU staffing while ensuring adequate supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE), ventilators, and other ICU essentials. A tele–critical-care program and its infrastructure were deployed to meet the demands of the pandemic. Community hospitals played a vital role in creating a collaborative ecosystem for the treatment and referral of critically ill patients. Overall, the healthcare industry’s response to COVID-19 forced ICUs to become more efficient and dynamic, with improved patient safety and better resource utilization. This article provides an experiential account of Houston Methodist’s response to the pandemic and discusses the resulting impact on the function of ICUs.

Clinical Management of Adult Patients with COVID-19 Outside Intensive Care Units: Guidelines from the Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA) and the Italian Society of Pulmonology (SIP)

INTRODUCTION

The Italian Society of Anti-Infective Therapy (SITA) and the Italian Society of Pulmonology (SIP) constituted an expert panel for developing evidence-based guidance for the clinical management of adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outside intensive care units.

METHODS

Ten systematic literature searches were performed to answer ten different key questions. The retrieved evidence was graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology (GRADE).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The literature searches mostly assessed the available evidence on the management of COVID-19 patients in terms of antiviral, anticoagulant, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)/non-invasive ventilation (NIV) treatment. Most evidence was deemed as of low certainty, and in some cases, recommendations could not be developed according to the GRADE system (best practice recommendations were provided in similar situations). The use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies may be considered for outpatients at risk of disease progression. For inpatients, favorable recommendations were provided for anticoagulant prophylaxis and systemic steroids administration, although with low certainty of evidence. Favorable recommendations, with very low/low certainty of evidence, were also provided for, in specific situations, remdesivir, alone or in combination with baricitinib, and tocilizumab. The presence of many best practice recommendations testified to the need for further investigations by means of randomized controlled trials, whenever possible, with some possible future research directions stemming from the results of the ten systematic reviews.

Access to and safety of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in the United States Expanded Access Program: A national registry study

BACKGROUND

The United States (US) Expanded Access Program (EAP) to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma was initiated in response to the rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of COVID-19. While randomized clinical trials were in various stages of development and enrollment, there was an urgent need for widespread access to potential therapeutic agents. The objective of this study is to report on the demographic, geographical, and chronological characteristics of patients in the EAP, and key safety metrics following transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Mayo Clinic served as the central institutional review board for all participating facilities, and any US physician could participate as a local physician-principal investigator. Eligible patients were hospitalized, were aged 18 years or older, and had-or were at risk of progression to-severe or life-threatening COVID-19; eligible patients were enrolled through the EAP central website. Blood collection facilities rapidly implemented programs to collect convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Demographic and clinical characteristics of all enrolled patients in the EAP were summarized. Temporal patterns in access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma were investigated by comparing daily and weekly changes in EAP enrollment in response to changes in infection rate at the state level. Geographical analyses on access to convalescent plasma included assessing EAP enrollment in all national hospital referral regions, as well as assessing enrollment in metropolitan areas and less populated areas that did not have access to COVID-19 clinical trials. From April 3 to August 23, 2020, 105,717 hospitalized patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19 were enrolled in the EAP. The majority of patients were 60 years of age or older (57.8%), were male (58.4%), and had overweight or obesity (83.8%). There was substantial inclusion of minorities and underserved populations: 46.4% of patients were of a race other than white, and 37.2% of patients were of Hispanic ethnicity. Chronologically and geographically, increases in the number of both enrollments and transfusions in the EAP closely followed confirmed infections across all 50 states. Nearly all national hospital referral regions enrolled and transfused patients in the EAP, including both in metropolitan and in less populated areas. The incidence of serious adverse events was objectively low (<1%), and the overall crude 30-day mortality rate was 25.2% (95% CI, 25.0% to 25.5%). This registry study was limited by the observational and pragmatic study design that did not include a control or comparator group; thus, the data should not be used to infer definitive treatment effects.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the EAP provided widespread access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma in all 50 states, including for underserved racial and ethnic minority populations. The study design of the EAP may serve as a model for future efforts when broad access to a treatment is needed in response to an emerging infectious disease.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT#: NCT04338360.

Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19): A safety perspective

The goal of this review is to report a balanced perspective of current evidence for efficacy of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) against the historical safety of these treatments as of May 2021. We preselected therapies of interest for COVID-19 based on national guidelines and modified over time. We searched PubMed and Medline for these specific COVID-19 treatments and data related to their efficacy. We also searched for prior randomized controlled trials of each therapy to assess adverse effects, and we obtained the Food and Drug Administration Approval label for this information. Several drugs have been approved for the treatment of COVID-19, and many more are under study. This includes dexamethasone, remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, lopinvir/ritonavir, interferon or interleukin inhibitors, convalescent plasma and several vitamins and minerals. The strongest evidence for benefit is mortality benefit with dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and hypoxemia, although there is a signal of harm if this is started too early. There are several other promising therapies, like interleukin inhibitors and ivermectin. Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, lopinvir/ritonavir, and convalescent plasma do not have enough evidence of benefit to outweigh the known risks of these drugs.

ERS International Congress 2020 Virtual: highlights from the Respiratory Intensive Care Assembly

During the virtual European Respiratory Society Congress 2020, early career members summarised the sessions organised by the Respiratory Intensive Care Assembly. The topics covered included diagnostic strategies in patients admitted to the intensive care unit with acute respiratory failure, with a focus on patients with interstitial lung disease and for obvious reasons, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. These sessions are summarised in this article, with take-home messages highlighted.

Updates from #ERSCongress 2020 on diagnostic strategies in patients admitted to the ICU with acute respiratory failure and on the management of #SARSCoV2 infectionhttps://bit.ly/38cx0Pi

SEIR Mathematical Model of Convalescent Plasma Transfusion to Reduce COVID-19 Disease Transmission

In some diseases, due to the restrictive availability of vaccines on the market (e.g., during the early emergence of a new disease that may cause a pandemic such as COVID-19), the use of plasma transfusion is among the available options for handling such a disease. In this study, we developed an SEIR mathematical model of disease transmission dynamics, considering the use of convalescent plasma transfusion (CPT). In this model, we assumed that the effect of CPT increases patient survival or, equivalently, leads to a reduction in the length of stay during an infectious period. We attempted to answer the question of what the effects are of different rates of CPT applications in decreasing the number of infectives at the population level. Herein, we analyzed the model using standard procedures in mathematical epidemiology, i.e., finding the trivial and non-trivial equilibrium points of the system including their stability and their relation to basic and effective reproduction numbers. We showed that, in general, the effects of the application of CPT resulted in a lower peak of infection cases and other epidemiological measures. As a consequence, in the presence of CPT, lowering the height of an infective peak can be regarded as an increase in the number of remaining healthy individuals; thus, the use of CPT may decrease the burden of COVID-19 transmission.

Convalescent Plasma Reduces Mortality and Decreases Hospitalization Stay in Patients with Moderate COVID-19 Pneumonia

Humans infected with SARS-CoV-2 may develop COVID-19, which manifests across a wide spectrum of clinical severity ranging from mild upper respiratory tract illnesses to diffuse viral pneumonia, causing acute respiratory failure. Many therapies have been tested for their efficacy in treating COVID-19. Controversy surrounds convalescent plasma transfusions as an effective treatment for COVID-19. This study discusses the efficacy of this treatment on COVID-19 patients. Electronic medical record data were collected from patients diagnosed with COVID-19, from November 2020 to August 2021, in the Galilee Medical Center's COVID-19 departments. Epidemiological, clinical, laboratory and imaging variables were analyzed. Multivariate stepwise regression and discriminant analyses were used to identify and validate the correlation between convalescent treatment and either death or time to negative PCR and hospitalization length. The study population included 270 patients, 100 of them treated with convalescent plasma. The results show that convalescent plasma therapy significantly prevented mortality in moderate patients, reduced hospitalization length and time to negative PCR. Additionally, high BMI, elderly age, high CRP and 4C-scores correlated with the severity and mortality of COVID-19 patients. Convalescent plasma also significantly reduced inflammatory markers, especially in moderate COVID-19 patients. In non-critical hospitalized patients, convalescent plasma therapy reduces morbidity and mortality in moderate COVID-19 patients and hospitalization length. Identifying patients who could benefit from this treatment could reduce the risk of death and shorten their hospitalization stay.