Patient-blood management for COVID19 convalescent plasma therapy: relevance of affinity and donor-recipient differences in concentration of neutralizing antibodies

Immunoadsorption as a method of antibody donation during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Initial therapeutic efforts to treat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) included the use of plasma from convalescent donors containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. High-neutralizing antibody titres are required for therapeutic efficacy. This study aims to show that immunoadsorption followed by tangential flow filtration can be used to obtain antibody concentrates with high-neutralizing capacities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eligible donors (n = 10, five males and three females) underwent immunoadsorption using adsorber columns specific for human antibodies. Glycine-washed out eluates of 1.5 L volume were further concentrated by tangential flow filtration using 30 kDa ultrafiltration membranes. The same membranes were applied for diafiltrations to exchange residual glycine for 0.9% normal saline.

RESULTS

Antibody concentrates were obtained within 8 h from the start of donation and had 4.58 ± 1.95, 3.28 ± 1.28 and 2.02 ± 0.92 times higher total IgG, IgA and IgM concentrations, 3.29 ± 1.62 and 3.74 ± 0.6 times higher SARS-CoV-2 N and S antibody concentrations and 3.85 ± 1.71 times higher SARS-CoV-2 S-specific IgG concentrations compared to the donors' peripheral blood. The specific SARS-CoV-2 virus neutralization capacities increased in all but one concentrate. All antibody concentrates (50-70 mL final volume) passed microbiological tests, were free of hazardous glycine levels and could be stored at -80°C and 4°C for 1 year with 20 ± 3% antibody loss.

CONCLUSION

Immunoadsorption followed by tangential flow filtration is a feasible procedure to collect IgG, IgA and IgM as well as SARS-CoV-2 N- and S-specific antibody concentrates of low volume, free of albumin and coagulation factors. Whether these concentrates can be used as passive immunisation in infected patients remains to be elucidated.

The Role of Convalescent Plasma in COVID-19: A Conclusive Post-Pandemic Review

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has represented the frontline response to the COVID-19 pandemic, largely because of encouraging historical evidences in previous pandemics, biological plausibility, and the initial unavailability of targeted antivirals. Unfortunately, investigator-initiated randomized clinical trials in 2020, launched during a stressful pandemic peak, were designed mostly at addressing the main unmet need, i.e., treating critically ill hospitalized patients who were unlikely to benefit from any antiviral therapy. The failure of most of these drugs, in combination with the lack of any sponsor, led to the false belief that convalescent plasma was useless. With the relaxing pandemic stages, evidences have instead mounted that, when administered properly (i.e., within 5 days from onset of symptoms and at high titers of neutralizing antibodies), CCP is as effective as other antivirals at preventing disease progression in outpatients, and also reduces mortality in hospitalized patients. Recently, the focus of clinical use has been on immunosuppressed patients with persistent seronegativity and infection, where a randomized clinical trial has shown a reduction in mortality. Lessons learnt during the COVID-19 pandemic will be of utmost importance for future pandemics.

COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma and Clinical Trials: Understanding Conflicting Outcomes

Convalescent plasma (CP) recurs as a frontline treatment in epidemics because it is available as soon as there are survivors. The COVID-19 pandemic represented the first large-scale opportunity to shed light on the mechanisms of action, safety, and efficacy of CP using modern evidence-based medicine approaches. Studies ranging from observational case series to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported highly variable efficacy results for COVID-19 CP (CCP), resulting in uncertainty. We analyzed variables associated with efficacy, such as clinical settings, disease severity, CCP SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) antibody levels and function, dose, timing of administration (variously defined as time from onset of symptoms, molecular diagnosis, diagnosis of pneumonia, or hospitalization, or by serostatus), outcomes (defined as hospitalization, requirement for ventilation, clinical improvement, or mortality), CCP provenance and time for collection, and criteria for efficacy. The conflicting trial results, along with both recent WHO guidelines discouraging CCP usage and the recent expansion of the FDA emergency use authorization (EUA) to include outpatient use of CCP, create confusion for both clinicians and patients about the appropriate use of CCP. A review of 30 available RCTs demonstrated that signals of efficacy (including reductions in mortality) were more likely if the CCP neutralizing titer was >160 and the time to randomization was less than 9 days. The emergence of the Omicron variant also reminds us of the benefits of polyclonal antibody therapies, especially as a bridge to the development and availability of more specific therapies.

Therapeutic plasma exchange followed by convalescent plasma transfusion in severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients: A single centre non-randomized controlled trial

Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) has been proposed as a rescue therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients. The aim of the present study was to determine whether combining TPE with convalescent plasma (CVP) transfusion early in the intensive care unit (ICU) stay improves survival among this heterogeneous population. The primary endpoint was survival at 30 days. Secondary endpoints included assessing the evolution of biomarkers, such as the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fractional inspired oxygen ratio, and C reactive protein (CRP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and ferritin levels at the 7-day follow-up. This single centre, prospective, non-randomized controlled trial was conducted in an 8-bed COVID-19 ICU and included patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring intensive care treatment. A total of 19 patients were treated by performing TPE followed by CVP transfusion, in addition to standard treatment, while for another 19 patients, only standard treatment according to hospital protocols was used. TPE was initiated during the first 24 h after ICU admission, followed immediately by transfusion of CVP. Survival at 30 days was 47.37% in the TPE CVP group and 26.32% in the control group (P=0.002). Patients in the TPE CVP group also showed better oxygenation and a reduction in inflammation, with decreased CRP, LDH and ferritin levels compared with those in the control group. Overall, the study indicated that early initiation of TPE followed by CVP transfusion may be a valid rescue therapy in severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients, with a statistically significant survival benefit, improved oxygenation and a reduction in inflammatory markers. The trial was registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database (trial registration number: NCT04973488) on July 22, 2021 (retrospectively registered).