RBD-specific polyclonal F(ab´)2 fragments of equine antibodies in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 disease: A randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, adaptive phase 2/3 clinical trial

Current development of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 neutralizing antibodies (Review)

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) seriously affected global public health security. Studies on vaccines, neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) and small molecule antiviral drugs are currently ongoing. In particular, NAbs have emerged as promising therapeutic agents due to their well‑defined mechanism, high specificity, superior safety profile, ease of large‑scale production and simultaneous application for both prevention and treatment of viral infection. Numerous NAb therapeutics have entered the clinical research stages, demonstrating promising therapeutic and preventive effects. These agents have been used for outbreak prevention and control under urgent authorization processes. The present review summarizes the molecular targets of SARS‑CoV‑2‑associated NAbs and screening and identification techniques for NAb development. Moreover, the current shortcomings and challenges that persist with the use of NAbs are discussed. The aim of the present review is to offer a reference for the development of NAbs for any future emergent infectious diseases, including SARS‑CoV‑2.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 glyco-humanized polyclonal antibody XAV-19: phase II/III randomized placebo-controlled trial shows acceleration to recovery for mild to moderate patients with COVID-19

Introduction

XAV-19 is a glyco-humanized swine polyclonal antibody targeting SARS-CoV-2 with high neutralizing activity. The safety and clinical efficacy of XAV-19 were investigated in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

Methods

This phase II/III, multicentric, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and clinical efficacy of XAV-19 in patients with a seven-point WHO score of 2 to 4 at randomization, i.e., inpatients with COVID-19 requiring or not requiring low-flow oxygen therapy, and outpatients not requiring oxygen (EUROXAV trial, NCT04928430). Adult patients presenting in specialized or emergency units with confirmed COVID-19 and giving their consent to participate in the study were randomized to receive 150 mg of XAV-19 or placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with aggravation within 8 days after treatment, defined as a worsening of the seven-point WHO score of at least one point between day 8 and day 1 (inclusion). The neutralization activity of XAV-19 against variants circulating during the trial was tested in parallel.

Results

From March 2021 to October 2022, 279 patients received either XAV-19 (N = 140) or placebo (N = 139). A slow enrollment and a low rate of events forced the termination of the premature trial. XAV-19 was well tolerated. Underpowered statistics did not allow the detection of any difference in the primary endpoint between the two groups or in stratified groups. Interestingly, analysis of the time to improvement (secondary endpoint) showed that XAV-19 significantly accelerated the recovery for patients with a WHO score of 2 or 3 (median at 7 days vs. 14 days, p = 0.0159), and even more for patients with a WHO score of 2 (4 days vs. 14 days, p = 0.0003). The neutralizing activity against Omicron and BA.2, BA.2.12.1, BA.4/5, and BQ.1.1 subvariants was shown.

Discussion

In this randomized placebo- controlled trial with premature termination, reduction of aggravation by XAV-19 at day 8 in patients with COVID-19 was not detectable. However, a significant reduction of the time to improvement for patients not requiring oxygen was observed. XAV-19 maintained a neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 variants. Altogether, these data support a possible therapeutic interest for patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 requiring anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies.

Clinical Trial Registration

https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier NCT04928430; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/about.html (EudraCT), identifier 2020-005979-12.

Blood-derived product therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection and long COVID

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is capable of large-scale transmission and has caused the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Patients with COVID-19 may experience persistent long-term health issues, known as long COVID. Both acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and long COVID have resulted in persistent negative impacts on global public health. The effective application and development of blood-derived products are important strategies to combat the serious damage caused by COVID-19. Since the emergence of COVID-19, various blood-derived products that target or do not target SARS-CoV-2 have been investigated for therapeutic applications. SARS-CoV-2-targeting blood-derived products, including COVID-19 convalescent plasma, COVID-19 hyperimmune globulin, and recombinant anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing immunoglobulin G, are virus-targeting and can provide immediate control of viral infection in the short term. Non-SARS-CoV-2-targeting blood-derived products, including intravenous immunoglobulin and human serum albumin exhibit anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, antioxidant, and anticoagulatory properties. Rational use of these products can be beneficial to patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection or long COVID. With evidence accumulated since the pandemic began, we here summarize the progress of blood-derived product therapies for COVID-19, discuss the effective methods and scenarios regarding these therapies, and provide guidance and suggestions for clinical treatment.

Refinement of an ovine-based immunoglobulin therapy against SARS-CoV-2, with comparison of whole IgG versus F(ab')2 fragments

The development of new therapies against SARS-CoV-2 is required to extend the toolkit of intervention strategies to combat the global pandemic. In this study, hyperimmune plasma from sheep immunised with whole spike SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein has been used to generate candidate products. In addition to purified IgG, we have refined candidate therapies by removing non-specific IgG via affinity binding along with fragmentation to eliminate the Fc region to create F(ab')2 fragments. These preparations were evaluated for in vitro activity and demonstrated to be strongly neutralising against a range of SARS-CoV-2 strains, including Omicron B2.2. In addition, their protection against disease manifestations and viral loads were assessed using a hamster SARS-CoV-2 infection model. Results demonstrated protective effects of both IgG and F(ab')2, with the latter requiring sequential dosing to maintain in vivo activity due to rapid clearance from the circulation.

PEGylation Prolongs the Half-Life of Equine Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Specific F(ab')2

Therapeutic antibodies-F(ab')₂ obtained from hyperimmune equine plasma could treat emerging infectious diseases rapidly because of their high neutralization activity and high output. However, the small-sized F(ab')₂ is rapidly eliminated by blood circulation. This study explored PEGylation strategies to maximize the half-life of equine anti-SARS-CoV-2 specific F(ab')₂. Equine anti-SARS-CoV-2 specific F(ab')₂ were combined with 10 KDa MAL-PEG-MAL in optimum conditions. Specifically, there were two strategies: Fab-PEG and Fab-PEG-Fab, F(ab')₂ bind to a PEG or two PEG, respectively. A single ion exchange chromatography step accomplished the purification of the products. Finally, the affinity and neutralizing activity was evaluated by ELISA and pseudovirus neutralization assay, and ELISA detected the pharmacokinetic parameters. The results displayed that equine anti-SARS-CoV-2 specific F(ab')₂ has high specificity. Furthermore, PEGylation F(ab')₂-Fab-PEG-Fab had a longer half-life than specific F(ab')₂. The serum half-life of Fab-PEG-Fab, Fab-PEG, and specific F(ab')₂ were 71.41 h, 26.73 h, and 38.32 h, respectively. The half-life of Fab-PEG-Fab was approximately two times as long as the specific F(ab')₂. Thus far, PEGylated F(ab')₂ has been prepared with high safety, high specificity, and a longer half-life, which could be used as a potential treatment for COVID-19.

Differential efficacy and safety of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody therapies for the management of COVID-19: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess and compare the relative efficacy and safety of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody regimens for COVID-19.

METHODS

This systematic review and random-effects network meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA-NMA. Literature searches were conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and CNKI up to February 20th, 2022. Interventions were ranked using P scores.

RESULTS

Fifty-five RCTs (N = 45,005) were included in the review. Bamlanivimab + etesevimab (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.77) was associated with a significant reduction in mortality compared to standard of care/placebo. Casirivimab + imdevimab reduced mortality (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50-0.91) in baseline seronegative patients only. Four different regimens led to a significant decrease in the incidence of hospitalization compared to standard of care/placebo with sotrovimab ranking first in terms of efficacy (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.08-0.48). No treatment improved incidence of mechanical ventilation, duration of hospital/ICU stay, and time to viral clearance. Convalescent plasma and anti-COVID IVIg both led to a significant increase in adverse events compared to standard of care/placebo, but no treatment increased the odds of serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs are safe, and could be effective in improving mortality and incidence of hospitalization. Convalescent plasma and anti-COVID IVIg were not efficacious and could increase odds of adverse events. Future trials should further examine the effect of baseline seronegativity, disease severity, patient risk factors, and SARS-CoV-2 strain variation on the efficacy of these regimes.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO-CRD42021289903.

Hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Safety and effectiveness of RBD-specific polyclonal equine F(ab´)2 fragments for the treatment of hospitalized patients with severe Covid-19 disease: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Passive immunotherapy has been evaluated as a therapeutic alternative for patients with COVID-19 disease. Equine polyclonal immunotherapy for COVID-19 (EPIC) showed adequate safety and potential efficacy in a clinical trial setting and obtained emergency use authorization in Argentina. We studied its utility in a real world setting with a larger population.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study at “Hospital de Campaña Escuela-Hogar" (HCEH) in Corrientes, Argentina, to assess safety and effectiveness of EPIC in hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Primary endpoints were 28-days all-cause mortality and safety. Mortality and improvement in modified WHO clinical scale at 14 and 21 days were secondary endpoints. Potential confounder adjustment was made by logistic regression weighted by the inverse of the probability of receiving the treatment (IPTW) and doubly robust approach.

Findings

Subsequent clinical records of 446 non-exposed (Controls) and 395 exposed (EPIC) patients admitted between November 2020 and April 2021 were analyzed. Median age was 58 years and 56.8% were males. Mortality at 28 days was 15.7% (EPIC) vs. 21.5% (Control). After IPTW adjustment the OR was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.46–0.96) P = 0.03. The effect was more evident in the subgroup who received two EPIC doses (complete treatment, n = 379), OR 0.58 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.85) P = 0.005. Overall and serious adverse events were not significantly different between groups.

Conclusions

In this retrospective cohort study, EPIC showed adequate safety and effectiveness in the treatment of hospitalized patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 disease.

Passive immunization with equine RBD-specific Fab protects K18-hACE2-mice against Alpha or Beta variants of SARS-CoV-2

Emergence of variants of concern (VOC) during the COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to the decreased efficacy of therapeutic monoclonal antibody treatments for severe cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In addition, the cost of creating these therapeutic treatments is high, making their implementation in low- to middle-income countries devastated by the pandemic very difficult. Here, we explored the use of polyclonal EpF(ab’)₂ antibodies generated through the immunization of horses with SARS-CoV-2 WA-1 RBD conjugated to HBsAg nanoparticles as a low-cost therapeutic treatment for severe cases of disease. We determined that the equine EpF(ab’)₂ bind RBD and neutralize ACE2 receptor binding by virus for all VOC strains tested except Omicron. Despite its relatively quick clearance from peripheral circulation, a 100μg dose of EpF(ab’)₂ was able to fully protect mice against severe disease phenotypes following intranasal SARS-CoV-2 challenge with Alpha and Beta variants. EpF(ab’)₂ administration increased survival while subsequently lowering disease scores and viral RNA burden in disease-relevant tissues. No significant improvement in survival outcomes or disease scores was observed in EpF(ab’)₂-treated mice challenged using the Delta variant at 10μg or 100µg doses. Overall, the data presented here provide a proof of concept for the use of EpF(ab’)₂ in the prevention of severe SARS-CoV-2 infections and underscore the need for either variant-specific treatments or variant-independent therapeutics for COVID-19.

Potent Neutralizing Activity of Polyclonal Equine Antibodies Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Variants of Concern

Several anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have received emergency authorization for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment. However, most of these mAbs are not active against the highly mutated Omicron SARS-CoV-2 subvariants. We have tested a polyclonal approach of equine anti-SARS-CoV-2 F(ab')2 antibodies that achieved a high level of neutralizing potency against all SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern tested including Omicron BA.1, BA.2, BA.2.12 and BA.4/5. A repertoire of antibodies targeting conserved epitopes in different regions of the spike protein could plausibly account for this remarkable breadth of neutralization. These results warrant the clinical investigation of equine polyclonal F(ab')2 antibodies as a novel therapeutic strategy against COVID-19.

Equine Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Serum (ECIG) Binds to Mutated RBDs and N Proteins of Variants of Concern and Inhibits the Binding of RBDs to ACE-2 Receptor

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the severe acute syndrome virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been around since November 2019. As of early June 2022, more than 527 million cases were diagnosed, with more than 6.0 million deaths due to this disease. Coronaviruses accumulate mutations and generate greater diversity through recombination when variants with different mutations infect the same host. Consequently, this virus is predisposed to constant and diverse mutations. The SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern/interest (VOCs/VOIs) such as Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (B.1.1.28/P.1), Delta (B.1.617.2), and Omicron (B.1.1.529) have quickly spread across the world. These VOCs and VOIs have accumulated mutations within the spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD) which interacts with the angiotensin-2 converting enzyme (ACE-2) receptor, increasing cell entry and infection. The RBD region is the main target for neutralizing antibodies; however, other notable mutations have been reported to enhance COVID-19 infectivity and lethality. Considering the urgent need for alternative therapies against this virus, an anti-SARS-CoV-2 equine immunoglobulin F(ab’)2, called ECIG, was developed by the Butantan Institute using the whole gamma-irradiated SARS-CoV-2 virus. Surface plasmon resonance experiments revealed that ECIG binds to wild-type and mutated RBD, S1+S2 domains, and nucleocapsid proteins of known VOCs, including Alpha, Gamma, Beta, Delta, Delta Plus, and Omicron. Additionally, it was observed that ECIG attenuates the binding of RBD (wild-type, Beta, and Omicron) to human ACE-2, suggesting that it could prevent viral entry into the host cell. Furthermore, the ability to concomitantly bind to the wild-type and mutated nucleocapsid protein likely enhances its neutralizing activity of SARS-CoV-2. We postulate that ECIG benefits COVID-19 patients by reducing the infectivity of the original virus and existing variants and may be effective against future ones. Impacting the course of the disease, mainly in the more vulnerable, reduces infection time and limits the appearance of new variants by new recombination.

Timing of convalescent plasma administration and 28-day mortality in COVID-19 pneumonia

This is a multicenter cohort study including consecutive, hospitalized patients ≥18 years, with moderate to severe COVID-19, carried out to evaluate the relationship between the timing of convalescent plasma administration and 28-day mortality. Data were prospectively collected between May 14, 2020 and October 31, 2020. Patients were grouped according to the timing of administration of convalescent plasma as <3 days, between 3 and 7 days, and >7 days. The main outcome variable was 28-day mortality. Independent predictors of mortality were identified by logistic regression. Of 4719 patients receiving convalescent plasma, 3036 (64.3%) were in the general ward, 1171 (24.8%) in the intensive care unit (ICU), and 512 (10.8%) in the ICU on mechanical ventilation. Convalescent plasma was administered to 3113 (66%) patients within the first 3 days of hospital admission, to 1380 (29.2%) between 3 and 7 days, and to 226 after 7 days; 28-day mortality was, respectively, 18.1%, 30.4% and 38.9% (p<0.001). In the regression model, convalescent plasma administration within the first 3 days of admission was associated with reduced 28-day mortality, compared with the administration after 7 days (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.53). Early convalescent plasma administration was associated to a significant decreased mortality in patients in the general ward (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.69) and in the ICU (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.64), but not in those requiring mechanical ventilation (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.01). In conclusion, this study suggests that early administration of convalescent plasma to patients with COVID-19 pneumonia is critical to obtain therapeutic benefit.

Passive Immunotherapy Against SARS-CoV-2: From Plasma-Based Therapy to Single Potent Antibodies in the Race to Stay Ahead of the Variants

The COVID-19 pandemic is now approaching 2 years old, with more than 440 million people infected and nearly six million dead worldwide, making it the most significant pandemic since the 1918 influenza pandemic. The severity and significance of SARS-CoV-2 was recognized immediately upon discovery, leading to innumerable companies and institutes designing and generating vaccines and therapeutic antibodies literally as soon as recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein sequence was available. Within months of the pandemic start, several antibodies had been generated, tested, and moved into clinical trials, including Eli Lilly's bamlanivimab and etesevimab, Regeneron's mixture of imdevimab and casirivimab, Vir's sotrovimab, Celltrion's regdanvimab, and Lilly's bebtelovimab. These antibodies all have now received at least Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) and some have received full approval in select countries. To date, more than three dozen antibodies or antibody combinations have been forwarded into clinical trials. These antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 all target the receptor-binding domain (RBD), with some blocking the ability of the RBD to bind human ACE2, while others bind core regions of the RBD to modulate spike stability or ability to fuse to host cell membranes. While these antibodies were being discovered and developed, new variants of SARS-CoV-2 have cropped up in real time, altering the antibody landscape on a moving basis. Over the past year, the search has widened to find antibodies capable of neutralizing the wide array of variants that have arisen, including Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron. The recent rise and dominance of the Omicron family of variants, including the rather disparate BA.1 and BA.2 variants, demonstrate the need to continue to find new approaches to neutralize the rapidly evolving SARS-CoV-2 virus. This review highlights both convalescent plasma- and polyclonal antibody-based approaches as well as the top approximately 50 antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, their epitopes, their ability to bind to SARS-CoV-2 variants, and how they are delivered. New approaches to antibody constructs, including single domain antibodies, bispecific antibodies, IgA- and IgM-based antibodies, and modified ACE2-Fc fusion proteins, are also described. Finally, antibodies being developed for palliative care of COVID-19 disease, including the ramifications of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), are described.

Equine immunoglobulin fragment F(ab')2 displays high neutralizing capability against multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants

Neutralizing antibody-based passive immunotherapy could be an important therapeutic option against COVID-19. Herein, we demonstrate that equines hyper-immunized with chemically inactivated SARS-CoV-2 elicited high antibody titers with a strong virus-neutralizing potential, and F(ab')₂ fragments purified from them displayed strong neutralization potential against five different SARS-CoV-2 variants. F(ab')₂ fragments purified from the plasma of hyperimmunized horses showed high antigen-specific affinity. Experiments in rabbits suggested that the F(ab')₂ displays a linear pharmacokinetics with approximate plasma half-life of 47 h. In vitro microneutralization assays using the purified F(ab')₂ displayed high neutralization titers against five different variants of SARS-CoV-2 including the Delta variant, demonstrating its potential efficacy against the emerging viral variants. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that F(ab')₂ generated against SARS-CoV-2 in equines have high neutralization titers and have broad target-range against the evolving variants, making passive immunotherapy a potential regimen against the existing and evolving SARS-CoV-2 variants in combating COVID-19.

Comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions on mortality and the average length of hospital stay of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Up to now, numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined various drugs as possible treatments for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the results were diverse and occasionally even inconsistent with each other. To this point,we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological agents in published RCTs.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search was performed using PubMed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases. RCTs evaluating mortality and the average length of hospital stay to standard of care (SOC)/placebo/control were included. RCTs mainly were classified into five categories of drugs, including anti-inflammatory, antiviral, antiparasitic, antibody and antibiotics. Meta-analysis was done on 5 drugs classes and sub-group meta-analysis was done on single drugs and moderate or severe stage of disease.

EXPERT OPINION

Mortality and the average length of hospital stay of COVID-19 patients were significantly reduced with anti-inflammatory drugs (odds ratio [OR]: 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69 to 0.85, P<0.00001, and mean difference [MD]: -1.41, CI:-1.75 to -1.07, P<0.00001, respectively) compared to SOC/control/placebo. Furthermore, antiparasitic was associated with reduced length of hospital stay (MD: -0.65, CI: -1.26 to -0.03, P<0.05) in comparison to SOC/placebo/control. However, no effectiveness was found in other pharmacological interventions.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 equine F (Ab')2 immunoglobulin as a possible therapy for COVID-19

The new outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has infected and caused the death of millions of people worldwide. Intensive efforts are underway around the world to establish effective treatments. Immunoglobulin from immunized animals or plasma from convalescent patients might constitute a specific treatment to guarantee the neutralization of the virus in the early stages of infection, especially in patients with risk factors and a high probability of progressing to severe disease. Worldwide, a few clinical trials using anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulins from horses immunized with the entire spike protein or fragments of it in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 are underway. Here, we describe the development of an anti-SARS-CoV-2 equine F(ab')₂ immunoglobulin using a newly developed SARS-CoV-2 viral antigen that was purified and inactivated by radiation. Cell-based and preclinical assays showed that the F(ab')₂ immunoglobulin successfully neutralizes the virus, is safe in animal models, and reduces the severity of the disease in a hamster model of SARS-CoV-2 infection and disease.

Hyperimmune immunoglobulin for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (ITAC): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3, randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Passive immunotherapy using hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) to SARS-CoV-2, derived from recovered donors, is a potential rapidly available, specific therapy for an outbreak infection such as SARS-CoV-2. Findings from randomised clinical trials of hIVIG for the treatment of COVID-19 are limited.

METHODS

In this international randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who had been symptomatic for up to 12 days and did not have acute end-organ failure were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either hIVIG or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo, in addition to remdesivir, when not contraindicated, and other standard clinical care. Randomisation was stratified by site pharmacy; schedules were prepared using a mass-weighted urn design. Infusions were prepared and masked by trial pharmacists; all other investigators, research staff, and trial participants were masked to group allocation. Follow-up was for 28 days. The primary outcome was measured at day 7 by a seven-category ordinal endpoint that considered pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications and ranged from no limiting symptoms to death. Deaths and adverse events, including organ failure and serious infections, were used to define composite safety outcomes at days 7 and 28. Prespecified subgroup analyses were carried out for efficacy and safety outcomes by duration of symptoms, the presence of anti-spike neutralising antibodies, and other baseline factors. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received all or part of the assigned study product infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04546581.

FINDINGS

From Oct 8, 2020, to Feb 10, 2021, 593 participants (n=301 hIVIG, n=292 placebo) were enrolled at 63 sites in 11 countries; 579 patients were included in the mITT analysis. Compared with placebo, the hIVIG group did not have significantly greater odds of a more favourable outcome at day 7; the adjusted OR was 1·06 (95% CI 0·77-1·45; p=0·72). Infusions were well tolerated, although infusion reactions were more common in the hIVIG group (18·6% vs 9·5% for placebo; p=0·002). The percentage with the composite safety outcome at day 7 was similar for the hIVIG (24%) and placebo groups (25%; OR 0·98, 95% CI 0·66-1·46; p=0·91). The ORs for the day 7 ordinal outcome did not vary for subgroups considered, but there was evidence of heterogeneity of the treatment effect for the day 7 composite safety outcome: risk was greater for hIVIG compared with placebo for patients who were antibody positive (OR 2·21, 95% CI 1·14-4·29); for patients who were antibody negative, the OR was 0·51 (0·29-0·90; pinteraction=0·001).

INTERPRETATION

When administered with standard of care including remdesivir, SARS-CoV-2 hIVIG did not demonstrate efficacy among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. The safety of hIVIG might vary by the presence of endogenous neutralising antibodies at entry.

FUNDING

US National Institutes of Health.

Using in vivo animal models for studying SARS-CoV-2

INTRODUCTION

The search for an animal model capable of reproducing the physiopathology of the COVID-19, and also suitable for evaluating the efficacy and safety of new drugs has become a challenge for many researchers.

AREAS COVERED

This work reviews the current animal models for in vivo tests with SARS-CoV-2 as well as the challenges involved in the safety and efficacy trials.

EXPERT OPINION

Studies have reported the use of nonhuman primates, ferrets, mice, Syrian hamsters, lagomorphs, mink, and zebrafish in experiments that aimed to understand the course of COVID-19 or test vaccines and other drugs. In contrast, the assays with animal hyperimmune sera have only been used in in vitro assays. Finding an animal that faithfully reproduces all the characteristics of the disease in humans is difficult. Some models may be more complex to work with, such as monkeys, or require genetic manipulation so that they can express the human ACE2 receptor, as in the case of mice. Although some models are more promising, possibly the use of more than one animal model represents the best scenario. Therefore, further studies are needed to establish an ideal animal model to help in the development of other treatment strategies besides vaccines.

Immune Maturation Effects on Viral Neutralization and Avidity of Hyperimmunized Equine Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Sera

Mass-vaccination against COVID-19 is still a distant goal for most low-to-middle income countries. The experience gained through decades producing polyclonal immunotherapeutics (such as antivenoms) in many of those countries is being redirected to develop similar products able to neutralize SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this study we analyzed the biological activity (viral neutralization or NtAb) and immunochemical properties of hyperimmune horses' sera (HHS) obtained during initial immunization (I) and posterior re-immunization (R) cycles using the RBD domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein as antigen. HHS at the end of the R cycle showed higher NtAb titers when compared to those after the I cycle (35,585 vs. 7000 mean NtAb, respectively). Moreover, this increase paralleled an increase in avidity (95.2% to 65.2% mean avidity units, respectively). The results presented herein are relevant for manufacturers of these therapeutic tools against COVID-19.

Therapeutic antibodies for COVID-19: is a new age of IgM, IgA and bispecific antibodies coming?

Early humoral immune responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are dominated by IgM and IgA antibodies, which greatly contribute to virus neutralization at mucosal sites. Given the essential roles of IgM and IgA in the control and elimination of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the mucosal immunity could be exploited for therapeutic and prophylactic purposes. However, almost all neutralizing antibodies that are authorized for emergency use and under clinical development are IgG antibodies, and no vaccine has been developed to boost mucosal immunity for SARS-CoV-2 infection. In addition to IgM and IgA, bispecific antibodies (bsAbs) combine specificities of two antibodies in one molecule, representing an important alternative to monoclonal antibody cocktails. Here, we summarize the latest advances in studies on IgM, IgA and bsAbs against SARS-CoV-2. The current challenges and future directions in vaccine design and antibody-based therapeutics are also discussed.

SARS-CoV-2 Antiviral Therapy

The development of effective antiviral therapy for COVID-19 is critical for those awaiting vaccination, as well as for those who do not respond robustly to vaccination. This review summarizes 1 year of progress in the race to develop antiviral therapies for COVID-19, including research spanning preclinical and clinical drug development efforts, with an emphasis on antiviral compounds that are in clinical development or that are high priorities for clinical development. The review is divided into sections on compounds that inhibit SARS-CoV-2 enzymes, including its polymerase and proteases; compounds that inhibit virus entry, including monoclonal antibodies; interferons; and repurposed drugs that inhibit host processes required for SARS-CoV-2 replication. The review concludes with a summary of the lessons to be learned from SARS-CoV-2 drug development efforts and the challenges to continued progress.

XAV-19, a Swine Glyco-Humanized Polyclonal Antibody Against SARS-CoV-2 Spike Receptor-Binding Domain, Targets Multiple Epitopes and Broadly Neutralizes Variants

Amino acid substitutions and deletions in the Spike protein of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants can reduce the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). In contrast, heterologous polyclonal antibodies raised against S protein, through the recognition of multiple target epitopes, have the potential to maintain neutralization capacities. XAV-19 is a swine glyco-humanized polyclonal neutralizing antibody raised against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the Wuhan-Hu-1 Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. XAV-19 target epitopes were found distributed all over the RBD and particularly cover the receptor binding motives (RBMs), in direct contact sites with the angiotensin converting enzyme-2 (ACE-2). Therefore, in Spike/ACE-2 interaction assays, XAV-19 showed potent neutralization capacities of the original Wuhan Spike and of the United Kingdom (Alpha/B.1.1.7) and South African (Beta/B.1.351) variants. These results were confirmed by cytopathogenic assays using Vero E6 and live virus variants including the Brazil (Gamma/P.1) and the Indian (Delta/B.1.617.2) variants. In a selective pressure study on Vero E6 cells conducted over 1 month, no mutation was associated with the addition of increasing doses of XAV-19. The potential to reduce viral load in lungs was confirmed in a human ACE-2 transduced mouse model. XAV-19 is currently evaluated in patients hospitalized for COVID-19-induced moderate pneumonia in phase 2a-2b (NCT04453384) where safety was already demonstrated and in an ongoing 2/3 trial (NCT04928430) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of XAV-19 in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19. Owing to its polyclonal nature and its glyco-humanization, XAV-19 may provide a novel safe and effective therapeutic tool to mitigate the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) including the different variants of concern identified so far.

Is SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance in nasopharyngeal swabs an appropriate surrogate marker for clinical efficacy of neutralising antibody-based therapeutics?

Viral clearance is likely the best way to assess the efficacy of antibody-based therapies. Although antibodies can mediate a variety of effects that include modulation of inflammation, the demonstration of viral clearance provides an accessible and measurable parameter that can be used to evaluate efficacy and determine dosing. Therefore, it is important to ascertain the ability of monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma to effect viral clearance. For COVID-19, which is caused by the respiratory virus SARS-CoV-2, the most common assay to assess viral clearance is via a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS). However, assessment of antibody efficacy by sampling this site may be misleading because it may not be as accessible to serum antibodies as respiratory secretions or circulating blood. Adding to the complexity of assessing the efficacy of administered antibody, particularly in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enroled patients at different times after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms, viral clearance may also be mediated by endogenous antibody. In this article we critically review available data on viral clearance in RCTs, matched control studies, case series and case reports of antibody therapies in an attempt to identify variables that contribute to antibody efficacy and suggest optimal strategies for future studies.

Polyclonal F(ab')2 fragments of equine antibodies raised against the spike protein neutralize SARS-CoV-2 variants with high potency

We used the recombinant trimeric spike (S) glycoprotein in the prefusion conformation to immunize horses for the production of hyperimmune globulins against SARS-CoV-2. Serum antibody titers measured by ELISA were above 1:106, and the neutralizing antibody titer against authentic virus (WT) was 1:14,604 (average PRNT90). Plasma from immunized animals was pepsin digested to remove the Fc portion and purified, yielding an F(ab')2 preparation with PRNT90 titers 150-fold higher than the neutralizing titers in human convalescent plasma. Challenge studies were carried out in hamsters and showed the in vivo ability of equine F(ab')2 to reduce viral load in the pulmonary tissues and significant clinical improvement determined by weight gain. The neutralization curve by F(ab')2 was similar against the WT and P.2 variants, but displaced to higher concentrations by 0.39 log units against the P.1 (Gamma) variant. These results support the possibility of using equine F(ab')2 preparation for the clinical treatment of COVID patients.

Generation and Effect Testing of a SARS-CoV-2 RBD-Targeted Polyclonal Therapeutic Antibody Based on a 2-D Airway Organoid Screening System

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an acute respiratory infectious disease caused by infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The US FDA has approved several therapeutics and vaccines worldwide through the emergency use authorization in response to the rapid spread of COVID-19. Nevertheless, the efficacies of these treatments are being challenged by viral escape mutations. There is an urgent need to develop effective treatments protecting against SARS-CoV-2 infection and to establish a stable effect-screening model to test potential drugs. Polyclonal antibodies (pAbs) have an intrinsic advantage in such developments because they can target rapidly mutating viral strains as a result of the complexity of their binding epitopes. In this study, we generated anti-receptor-binding domain (anti-RBD) pAbs from rabbit serum and tested their safety and efficacy in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection both in vivo and ex vivo. Primary human bronchial epithelial two-dimensional (2-D) organoids were cultured and differentiated to a mature morphology and subsequently employed for SARS-CoV-2 infection and drug screening. The pAbs protected the airway organoids from viral infection and tissue damage. Potential side effects were tested in mouse models for both inhalation and vein injection. The pAbs displayed effective viral neutralization effects without significant side effects. Thus, the use of animal immune serum-derived pAbs might be a potential therapy for protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection, with the strategy developed to produce these pAbs providing new insight into the treatment of respiratory tract infections, especially for infections with viruses undergoing rapid mutation.

Efficacy of COVID-19 Treatments: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: We provided a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy of available treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods: We searched for candidate COVID-19 studies in WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database up to August 19, 2021. Randomized controlled trials for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients published on peer-reviewed journals were included, regardless of demographic characteristics. Outcome measures included mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Bayesian network meta-analysis with fixed effects was conducted to estimate the effect sizes using posterior means and 95% equal-tailed credible intervals (CrIs). Odds ratio (OR) was used as the summary measure for treatment effect. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate effect sizes of treatments grouped by the treatment classifications.

Results: We identified 222 eligible studies with a total of 102,950 patients. Compared with the standard of care, imatinib, intravenous immunoglobulin and tocilizumab led to lower risk of death; baricitinib plus remdesivir, colchicine, dexamethasone, recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor and tocilizumab indicated lower occurrence of mechanical ventilation; tofacitinib, sarilumab, remdesivir, tocilizumab and baricitinib plus remdesivir increased the hospital discharge rate; convalescent plasma, ivermectin, ivermectin plus doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide and proxalutamide resulted in better viral clearance. From the treatment class level, we found that the use of antineoplastic agents was associated with fewer mortality cases, immunostimulants could reduce the risk of mechanical ventilation and immunosuppressants led to higher discharge rates.

Conclusions: This network meta-analysis identified superiority of several COVID-19 treatments over the standard of care in terms of mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Tocilizumab showed its superiority compared with SOC on preventing severe outcomes such as death and mechanical ventilation as well as increasing the discharge rate, which might be an appropriate treatment for patients with severe or mild/moderate illness. We also found the clinical efficacy of antineoplastic agents, immunostimulants and immunosuppressants with respect to the endpoints of mortality, mechanical ventilation and discharge, which provides valuable information for the discovery of potential COVID-19 treatments.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 and anti-cytokine storm neutralizing antibody therapies against COVID-19: Update, challenges, and perspectives

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been declared by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a pandemic since March 2020. This disease is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The only available tools to avoid contamination and transmission of this virus are physical distancing, the use of N95 and surgical masks, and hand hygiene. Vaccines are another essential tool to reduce the impact of the pandemic, though these present challenges in terms of production and logistics, particularly in underdeveloped and developing countries. One of the critical early research findings is the interaction of the spike virus protein with the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) human receptor. Developing strategies to block this interaction has therefore been identified as a way to treat this infection. Neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) have emerged as a therapeutic approach since the pandemic started. Infected patients may be asymptomatic or present with mild symptoms, and others may evolve to moderate or severe disease, leading to death. An immunological phenomenon known as cytokine storm has been observed in patients with severe disease characterized by a proinflammatory cytokine cascade response that leads to lung injury. Thus, some treatment strategies focus on anti-cytokine storm nAbs. This review summarizes the latest advances in research and clinical trials, challenges, and perspectives on antibody-based treatments (ABT) as therapies against COVID-19.

Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies among COVID19 biobank donors in Argentina

Biobanks are instrumental for accelerating research. Early in SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the Argentinean Biobank of Infectious Diseases (BBEI) initiated the COVID19 collection and started its characterization. Blood samples from subjects with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection either admitted to health institutions or outpatients, were enrolled. Highly exposed seronegative individuals, were also enrolled. Longitudinal samples were obtained in a subset of donors, including persons who donated plasma for therapeutic purposes (plasma donors). SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG levels, IgG titers and IgG viral neutralization capacity were determined. Out of 825 donors, 57.1% were females and median age was 41 years (IQR 32-53 years). Donors were segregated as acute or convalescent donors, and mild versus moderate/severe disease donors. Seventy-eight percent showed seroconversion to SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies. Specific IgM and IgG showed comparable positivity rates in acute donors. IgM detectability rate declined in convalescent donors while IgG detectability remained elevated in early (74,8%) and late (83%) convalescent donors. Among donors with follow-up samples, IgG levels seemed to decline more rapidly in plasma donors. IgG levels were higher with age, disease severity, number of symptoms, and more durable in moderate/severe disease donors. Levels and titers of anti-spike/RBD IgG strongly correlated with neutralization activity against WT virus. The BBEI-COVID19 collection serves a dual role in this SARS-CoV-2 global crisis. First, it feeds researchers and developers transferring samples and data to fuel research projects. Second, it generates highly needed local data to understand and frame the regional dynamics of the infection.

High Efficacy of Therapeutic Equine Hyperimmune Antibodies Against SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern

SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern show reduced neutralization by vaccine-induced and therapeutic monoclonal antibodies; therefore, treatment alternatives are needed. We tested therapeutic equine polyclonal antibodies (pAbs) that are being assessed in clinical trials in Costa Rica against five globally circulating variants of concern: alpha, beta, epsilon, gamma and delta, using plaque reduction neutralization assays. We show that equine pAbs efficiently neutralize the variants of concern, with inhibitory concentrations in the range of 0.146–1.078 μg/mL, which correspond to extremely low concentrations when compared to pAbs doses used in clinical trials. Equine pAbs are an effective, broad coverage, low-cost and a scalable COVID-19 treatment.

Antibody and cellular therapies for treatment of covid-19: a living systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).

DESIGN

Living systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data.

DATA SOURCES

WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021).

STUDY SELECTION

Trials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate.

METHODS

After duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm.

RESULTS

As of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative.

CONCLUSION

In patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement.

FUNDING

This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321).

READERS' NOTE

This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).

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

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are being investigated as potential therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of these interventions is required.  OBJECTIVES: Using a living systematic review approach, to assess whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence.

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, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform, and trial registries. Searches were done on 17 March 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. For safety assessments, we also included non-controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) if 500 or more participants were included. 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 the Cochrane 'Risk of Bias 2' tool for RCTs, and for NRSIs, the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer. We rated the certainty of evidence, using the GRADE approach, for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, improvement and worsening of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), development of severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms (for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease), quality of life (including fatigue and functional independence), grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies (12 RCTs, 1 NRSI) with 48,509 participants, of whom 41,880 received convalescent plasma. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We identified a further 100 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, and 33 studies reporting as being completed or terminated. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease Eleven RCTs and one NRSI investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 48,349 participants with moderate to severe disease. Nine RCTs compared convalescent plasma to placebo treatment or standard care alone, and two compared convalescent plasma to standard plasma (results not included in abstract). Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We included data on nine RCTs (12,875 participants) to assess the effectiveness of convalescent plasma compared to 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 1.05; 7 RCTs, 12,646 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on clinical improvement for all participants when assessed by liberation from respiratory support (RR not estimable; 8 RCTs, 12,682 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on the chance of being weaned or liberated from invasive mechanical ventilation for the subgroup of participants requiring invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.93; 2 RCTs, 630 participants; low-certainty evidence). It does not reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.08; 4 RCTs, 11,765 participants; high-certainty evidence). We did not identify any subgroup differences.  We did not identify any studies reporting quality of life, and therefore, do not know whether convalescent plasma has any impact on quality of life. One RCT assessed resolution of fatigue on day 7, but we are very uncertain about the effect (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.42; 309 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Safety of convalescent plasma We included results from eight RCTs, and one NRSI, to assess the safety of convalescent plasma. Some of the RCTs reported on safety data only for the convalescent plasma group.  We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma increases or reduces the risk of grade 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.41; 4 RCTs, 905 participants; low-certainty evidence), and serious adverse events (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.90; 2 RCTs, 414 participants; low-certainty evidence).  A summary of reported events of the NRSI (reporting safety data for 20,000 of 35,322 transfused participants), and four RCTs reporting safety data only for transfused participants (6125 participants) are included in the full text. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and asymptomatic or mild disease We identified one RCT reporting on 160 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo treatment (saline).  Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We are very uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on all-cause mortality (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.65; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on developing severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR not estimable; low-certainty evidence).  We identified no study reporting quality of life.  Safety of convalescent plasma We do not know whether convalescent plasma is associated with a higher risk of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (very low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). This is a living systematic review. We search weekly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have high certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for the treatment of individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on measures of clinical improvement. We are uncertain about the adverse effects of convalescent plasma. While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, heterogeneous reporting of outcomes is still problematic. There are 100 ongoing studies and 33 studies reporting in a study registry as being completed or terminated. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around hyperimmune immunoglobulin therapy for people with any disease severity, and convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.