A phase 2 single center open label randomised control trial for convalescent plasma therapy in patients with severe COVID-19

Convalescent plasma and predictors of mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Plasma collected from recovered patients with COVID-19 (COVID-19 convalescent plasma [CCP]) was the first antibody-based therapy employed to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. While the therapeutic effect of early administration of CCP in COVID-19 outpatients has been recognized, conflicting data exist regarding the efficacy of CCP administration in hospitalized patients.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effect of CCP compared to placebo or standard treatment, and to evaluate whether time from onset of symptoms to treatment initiation influenced the effect.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases were searched for studies published from January 2020 to January 2024.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of CCP on COVID-19 mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

PARTICIPANTS

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

INTERVENTIONS

CCP versus no CCP.

ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS

Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs.

METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS

The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI for the pooled effect estimates of CCP treatment. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven RCTs were included, representing 18,877 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. When transfused within 7 days from symptom onset, CCP significantly reduced the risk of death compared to standard therapy or placebo (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.95), while later CCP administration was not associated with a mortality benefit (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.06). The certainty of the evidence was graded as moderate. Meta-regression analysis demonstrated increasing mortality effects for longer interval to transfusion or worse initial clinical severity.

CONCLUSIONS

In-hospital transfusion of CCP within 7 days from symptom onset conferred a mortality benefit.

Exploring Study Design Foibles in Randomized Controlled Trials on Convalescent Plasma in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

Background: Sample size estimation is an essential step in the design of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating a treatment effect. Sample size is a critical variable in determining statistical significance and, thus, it significantly influences RCTs' success or failure. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many RCTs tested the efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in hospitalized patients but reported different efficacies, which could be attributed to, in addition to timing and dose, inadequate sample size estimates. Methods: To assess the sample size estimation in RCTs evaluating the effect of treatment with CCP in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, we searched the medical literature between January 2020 and March 2024 through PubMed and other electronic databases, extracting information on expected size effect, statistical power, significance level, and measured efficacy. Results: A total of 32 RCTs were identified. While power and significance level were highly consistent, heterogeneity in the expected size effect was relevant. Approximately one third of the RCTs did not reach the planned sample size for various reasons, with the most important one being slow patient recruitment during the pandemic's peaks. RCTs with a primary outcome in favor of CCP treatment had a significant lower median absolute difference in the expected size effect than unfavorable RCTs (20.0% versus 33.9%, P = 0.04). Conclusions: The analyses of sample sizes in RCTs of CCP treatment in hospitalized COVID-19 patients reveal that many underestimated the number of participants needed because of excessively high expectations on efficacy, and thus, these studies had low statistical power. This, in combination with a lower-than-planned recruitment of cases and controls, could have further negatively influenced the primary outcomes of the RCTs.

Suppressed transcript diversity and immune response in COVID-19 ICU patients: a longitudinal study

Understanding the dynamic changes in gene expression during Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) progression in post-acute infection patients is crucial for unraveling the underlying mechanisms. Study investigates the longitudinal changes in gene/transcript expression patterns in hospital-admitted severe COVID-19 patients with ARDS post-acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Blood samples were collected at three time points and patients were stratified into severe and mild ARDS, based on their oxygenation saturation (SpO2/FiO2) kinetics over 7 d. Decline in transcript diversity was observed over time, particularly in patients with higher severity, indicating dysregulated transcriptional landscape. Comparing gene/transcript-level analyses highlighted a rather limited overlap. With disease progression, a transition towards an inflammatory state was evident. Strong association was found between antibody response and disease severity, characterized by decreased antibody response and activated B cell population in severe cases. Bayesian network analysis identified various factors associated with disease progression and severity, viz. humoral response, TLR signaling, inflammatory response, interferon response, and effector T cell abundance. The findings highlight dynamic gene/transcript expression changes during ARDS progression, impact on tissue oxygenation and elucidate disease pathogenesis.

Therapeutic Management with Repurposing Approaches: A Mystery During COVID-19 Outbreak

The ubiquitous pandemic that emerged due to COVID-19 affected the whole planet. People all over the globe became vulnerable to the unpredictable emergence of coronavirus. The sudden emergence of respiratory disease in coronavirus infected several patients. This affected human life drastically, from mild symptoms to severe illness, leading to mortality. COVID-19 is an exceptionally communicable disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. According to a genomic study, the viral spike RBD interactions with the host ACE2 protein from several coronavirus strains and the interaction between RBD and ACE2 highlighted the potential change in affinity from the virus causing the COVID-19 outbreak to a progenitor type of SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2, which could be the principal reservoir, is phylogenetically related to the SARS-like bat virus. Other research works reported that intermediary hosts for the transmission of viruses to humans could include cats, bats, snakes, pigs, ferrets, orangutans, and monkeys. Even with the arrival of vaccines and individuals getting vaccinated and treated with FDAapproved repurposed drugs like Remdesivir, the first and foremost steps aimed towards the possible control and minimization of community transmission of the virus include social distancing, self-realization, and self-health care. In this review paper, we discussed and summarized various approaches and methodologies adopted and proposed by researchers all over the globe to help with the management of this zoonotic outbreak by following repurposed approaches.

Rates Among Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 Treated With Convalescent Plasma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

To examine the association of COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion with mortality and the differences between subgroups in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Patients and Methods

On October 26, 2022, a systematic search was performed for clinical studies of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in the literature from January 1, 2020, to October 26, 2022. Randomized clinical trials and matched cohort studies investigating COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion compared with standard of care treatment or placebo among hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 were included. The electronic search yielded 3841 unique records, of which 744 were considered for full-text screening. The selection process was performed independently by a panel of 5 reviewers. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data were extracted by 5 independent reviewers in duplicate and pooled using an inverse-variance random effects model. The prespecified end point was all-cause mortality during hospitalization.

Results

Thirty-nine randomized clinical trials enrolling 21,529 participants and 70 matched cohort studies enrolling 50,160 participants were included in the systematic review. Separate meta-analyses reported that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with the control cohort for both randomized clinical trials (odds ratio [OR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.00) and matched cohort studies (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.88). The meta-analysis of subgroups revealed 2 important findings. First, treatment with convalescent plasma containing high antibody levels was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with convalescent plasma containing low antibody levels (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.99). Second, earlier treatment with COVID-19 convalescent plasma was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with the later treatment cohort (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.82).

Conclusion

During COVID-19 convalescent plasma use was associated with a 13% reduced risk of mortality, implying a mortality benefit for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, particularly those treated with convalescent plasma containing high antibody levels treated earlier in the disease course.

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

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

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.

Association of gut microbial dysbiosis with disease severity, response to therapy and disease outcomes in Indian patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with systemic hyper-inflammation. An adaptive interaction between gut microbiota and host immune systems is important for intestinal homeostasis and systemic immune regulation. The association of gut microbial composition and functions with COVID-19 disease severity is sparse, especially in India. We analysed faecal microbial diversity and abundances in a cohort of Indian COVID-19 patients to identify key signatures in the gut microbial ecology in patients with severe COVID-19 disease as well as in response to different therapies. The composition of the gut microbiome was characterized using 16Sr RNA gene sequences of genomic DNA extracted from faecal samples of 52 COVID-19 patients. Metabolic pathways across the groups were predicted using PICRUSt2. All statistical analyses were done using Vegan in the R environment. Plasma cytokine abundance at recruitment was measured in a multiplex assay.

RESULTS

The gut microbiome composition of mild and severe patients was found to be significantly different. Immunomodulatory commensals, viz. Lachnospiraceae family members and Bifidobacteria producing butyrate and short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), were under represented in patients with severe COVID-19, with an increased abundance of opportunistic pathogens like Eggerthella. The higher abundance of Lachnoclostridium in severe disease was reduced in response to convalescent plasma therapy. Specific microbial genera showed distinctive trends in enriched metabolic pathways, strong correlations with blood plasma cytokine levels, and associative link to disease outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our study indicates that, along with SARS-CoV-2, a dysbiotic gut microbial community may also play an important role in COVID-19 severity through modulation of host immune responses.

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).

Convalescent plasma (hyperimmune immunoglobulin) for COVID-19 management: An update

The pandemic COVID-19 has spread widely throughout the globe and has been responsible for millions of deaths worldwide. Recently, it has been identified that there is no specific and 100% effective treatment available to manage the infection especially for the severe cases. A significant amount of research efforts and clinical trials have been undertaken globally and many more are underway to find the potential treatment option. Earlier, convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin was effectively used in the treatment of many endemic or epidemic viral infections as a part of passive immunization. In this article, we have touched upon the immunopathology of COVID-19 infection, a basic understanding of convalescent plasma, it's manufacturing as well as evaluation, and have reviewed the scientific developments focussing on the potential of convalescent plasma vis-à-vis other modalities for the management of COVID-19. The article also covers various research approaches, clinical trials conducted globally, and the clinical trials which are at various stages for exploring the efficacy and safety of the convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) to predict its future perspective to manage COVID-19.

Convalescent Plasma Therapy for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: While passive immunotherapy has been considered beneficial for patients with severe respiratory viral infections, the treatment of COVID-19 cases with convalescent plasma produced mixed results. Thus, there is a lack of certainty and consensus regarding its effectiveness. This meta-analysis aims to assess the role of convalescent plasma treatment on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients enrolled in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed database (end-of-search: 29 December 2022) for RCTs on convalescent plasma therapy compared to supportive care\standard of care. Pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated with random-effects models. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were also performed, in order to address heterogeneity and examine any potential association between the factors that varied, and the outcomes reported. The present meta-analysis was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: A total of 34 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Per overall analysis, convalescent plasma treatment was not associated with lower 28-day mortality [RR = 0.98, 95% CI (0.91, 1.06)] or improved 28-day secondary outcomes, such as hospital discharge [RR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.97, 1.03)], ICU-related or score-related outcomes, with effect estimates of RR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.98, 1.05) and RR = 1.06, 95% CI (0.95, 1.17), respectively. However, COVID-19 outpatients treated with convalescent plasma had a 26% less risk of requiring hospital care, when compared to those treated with the standard of care [RR = 0.74, 95% CI (0.56, 0.99)]. Regarding subgroup analyses, COVID-19 patients treated with convalescent plasma had an 8% lower risk of ICU-related disease progression when compared to those treated with the standard of care (with or without placebo or standard plasma infusions) [RR = 0.92, 95% CI (0.85, 0.99)] based on reported outcomes from RCTs carried out in Europe. Finally, convalescent plasma treatment was not associated with improved survival or clinical outcomes in the 14-day subgroup analyses. Conclusions: Outpatients with COVID-19 treated with convalescent plasma had a statistically significantly lower risk of requiring hospital care when compared to those treated with placebo or the standard of care. However, convalescent plasma treatment was not statistically associated with prolonged survival or improved clinical outcomes when compared to placebo or the standard of care, per overall analysis in hospitalized populations. This hints at potential benefits, when used early, to prevent progression to severe disease. Finally, convalescent plasma was significantly associated with better ICU-related outcomes in trials carried out in Europe. Well-designed prospective studies could clarify its potential benefit for specific subpopulations in the post-pandemic era.

Effect of convalescent plasma transfusion on outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019: a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

The aim of this review was to update evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma transfusion (CPT) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing CPT plus standard treatment versus standard treatment only in adults with COVID-19. Primary outcome measures were mortality and need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Twenty-Six RCT involving 19,816 patients were included in meta-analysis for mortality. Quantitative synthesis showed no statistically significant benefit of adding CPT to standard treatment (RR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.92 to 1.02) with unimportant heterogeneity (Q(25) = 26.48, p = .38, I² = 0.00%). Trim-and-fill-adjusted effect size was unimportantly changed and level of evidence was graded as high. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) indicated information size was adequate and CPT was futile. Seventeen trials involving 16,083 patients were included in meta-analysis for need of IMV. There was no statistically significant effect of CPT (RR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.10) with unimportant heterogeneity (Q(16) = 9.43, p = .89, I² = 3.30%). Trim-and-fill-adjusted effect size was trivially changed and level of evidence was graded as high. TSA showed information size was adequate and indicated futility of CPT. It is concluded with high level of certainty that CPT added to standard treatment of COVID-19 is not associated with reduced mortality or need of IMV compared with standard treatment alone. In view of these findings, further trials on efficacy of CPT in COVID-19 patients are probably not needed.

Circulating Interleukin-8 Dynamics Parallels Disease Course and Is Linked to Clinical Outcomes in Severe COVID-19

Severe COVID-19 frequently features a systemic deluge of cytokines. Circulating cytokines that can stratify risks are useful for more effective triage and management. Here, we ran a machine-learning algorithm on a dataset of 36 plasma cytokines in a cohort of severe COVID-19 to identify cytokine/s useful for describing the dynamic clinical state in multiple regression analysis. We performed RNA-sequencing of circulating blood cells collected at different time-points. From a Bayesian Information Criterion analysis, a combination of interleukin-8 (IL-8), Eotaxin, and Interferon-γ (IFNγ) was found to be significantly linked to blood oxygenation over seven days. Individually testing the cytokines in receiver operator characteristics analyses identified IL-8 as a strong stratifier for clinical outcomes. Circulating IL-8 dynamics paralleled disease course. We also revealed key transitions in immune transcriptome in patients stratified for circulating IL-8 at three time-points. The study identifies plasma IL-8 as a key pathogenic cytokine linking systemic hyper-inflammation to the clinical outcomes in 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.

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.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Discussion

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

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).

Use of convalescent plasma therapy in hospitalised adult patients with non-critical COVID-19: a focus on the elderly from Hungary

Convalescent plasma therapy might be a feasible option for treatment of novel infections. During the early phases of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, several promising results were published with convalescent plasma therapy, followed by more disappointing findings of randomised controlled trials. In our single-centre, open-label, prospective, cohort study, we assessed the findings of 180 patients treated with convalescent plasma during the first four waves of the pandemic in Hungary. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were clinical improvement and need for intensive care unit admission by day 28. Subgroup analysis comparing elderly and non-elderly (less than 65 years of age) was performed. Twenty (11.4%) patients died by day 28, at significantly higher rates in the elderly subgroup (3 vs. 17, p < 0.01). One hundred twenty-eight (72.7%) patients showed clinical improvement, and 15 (8.5%) were transferred to the intensive care unit until day 28. Non-elderly patients showed clinical improvement by day 28 in significantly higher rates (improvement 74 vs. 54, no improvement 15 vs. 11, worsening or death 4 vs. 18 patients, p < 0.01). In conclusion, we found similar clinical outcome results as randomised controlled trials, and the impact of risk factors for unfavourable clinical outcomes among patients in the elderly population.

A Comprehensive Review on the Efficacy of Several Pharmacologic Agents for the Treatment of COVID-19

SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), and the cause of the pandemic is extremely contagious among people and has spread around the world. Antivirals, immunomodulators, and other medications, such as antibiotics, stem cells, and plasma therapy, have all been utilized in the treatment of COVID-19. To better understand the clinical efficacy of these agents and to aid in the selection of effective COVID-19 therapies in various countries, this study reviewed the effectiveness of the various pharmacologic agents that have been used for COVID-19 therapy globally by summarizing the clinical outcomes that have been obtained from the clinical trials published on each drug related to COVID-19 infection. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized the use of remdesivir, paxlovid, molnupiravir, baricitinib, tixagevimab-cilgavimab, and bebtelovimab for the management of COVID-19. On the other hand, most research advises against using chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients because they are not beneficial. Although the FDA has given emergency use authorization for some monoclonal antibodies, including bamlanivimab, etesevimab, casirivimab, and imdevimab for managing COVID-19, they are not currently approved for use because the Omicron variant has significantly reduced their in vitro susceptibility. In this study, we also included a wide range of alternative therapy strategies that effectively treat COVID-19 patients, although further randomized studies are necessary to support and assess their applicability.

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

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) was an early and widely adopted putative therapy for severe COVID-19. Results from randomized control trials and observational studies have failed to demonstrate a clear therapeutic role for CCP for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Underlying these inconclusive findings is a broad heterogeneity in the concentrations of neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) between different CCP donors. We conducted this study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of nAb titer-defined CCP in adults admitted to an academic referral hospital. Patients positive by a SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test and with symptoms for <10 days were eligible. Participants received either CCP with nAb titers of >1:640 (high-titer group) or ≥1:160 to 1:640 (standard-titer group) in addition to standard of care treatments. The primary clinical outcome was time to hospital discharge, with mortality and respiratory support evaluated as secondary outcomes. Adverse events were contrasted by CCP titer. Between 28 August and 4 December 2020, 316 participants were screened, and 55 received CCP, with 14 and 41 receiving high- versus standard-titer CCP, respectively. Time to hospital discharge was shorter among participants receiving high- versus standard-titer CCP, accounting for death as a competing event (hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 3.58; Gray's P = 0.02). Severe adverse events (SAEs) (≥grade 3) occurred in 4 (29%) and 23 (56%) of participants receiving the high versus standard titer, respectively, by day 28 (risk ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.21 to 1.22; Fisher's P = 0.12). There were no observed treatment-related AEs. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT04524507). IMPORTANCE In this study, in a high-risk population of patients admitted for COVID-19, we found an earlier time to hospital discharge among participants receiving CCP with nAb titers of >1:640 compared with participants receiving CCP with a lower nAb titer and no CCP-related AEs. The significance of our research is in identifying a dose response of CCP and clinical outcomes based on nAb titer. Although limited by a small study size, these findings support further study of high-nAb-titer CCP defined as >1:640 in the treatment of COVID-19.

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.

Clinical Practice Guidelines From the Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB): COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma

DESCRIPTION

Coronavirus disease 2019 convalescent plasma (CCP) has emerged as a potential treatment of COVID-19. However, meta-analysis data and recommendations are limited. The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB) developed clinical practice guidelines for the appropriate use of CCP.

METHODS

These guidelines are based on 2 living systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CCP from 1 January 2019 to 26 January 2022. There were 33 RCTs assessing 21 916 participants. The results were summarized using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. An expert panel reviewed the data using the GRADE framework to formulate recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION 1 (OUTPATIENT)

The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for outpatients with COVID-19 who are at high risk for disease progression (weak recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 2 (INPATIENT)

The AABB recommends against CCP transfusion for unselected hospitalized persons with moderate or severe disease (strong recommendation, high-certainty evidence). This recommendation does not apply to immunosuppressed patients or those who lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.

RECOMMENDATION 3 (INPATIENT)

The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detected at admission (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 4 (INPATIENT)

The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting immunosuppression (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 5 (PROPHYLAXIS)

The AABB suggests against prophylactic CCP transfusion for uninfected persons with close contact exposure to a person with COVID-19 (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).

GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE STATEMENT

CCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers to infected patients early after symptom onset.

Antibodies to combat viral infections: development strategies and progress

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are appealing as potential therapeutics and prophylactics for viral infections owing to characteristics such as their high specificity and their ability to enhance immune responses. Furthermore, antibody engineering can be used to strengthen effector function and prolong mAb half-life, and advances in structural biology have enabled the selection and optimization of potent neutralizing mAbs through identification of vulnerable regions in viral proteins, which can also be relevant for vaccine design. The COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated extensive efforts to develop neutralizing mAbs against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), with several mAbs now having received authorization for emergency use, providing not just an important component of strategies to combat COVID-19 but also a boost to efforts to harness mAbs in therapeutic and preventive settings for other infectious diseases. Here, we describe advances in antibody discovery and engineering that have led to the development of mAbs for use against infections caused by viruses including SARS-CoV-2, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), Ebola virus (EBOV), human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) and influenza. We also discuss the rationale for moving from empirical to structure-guided strategies in vaccine development, based on identifying optimal candidate antigens and vulnerable regions within them that can be targeted by antibodies to result in a strong protective immune response.

Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Treatment Using Convalescent Plasma Transfusion: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

This study investigated the efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma (CP) transfusion against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) via a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A total of 5467 articles obtained from electronic databases were assessed; however, only 34 RCTs were eligible after manually screening and eliminating unnecessary studies. The beneficial effect was addressed by assessing the risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) of the meta-analysis. It was demonstrated that CP therapy is not effective in improving clinical outcomes, including reducing mortality with an RR of 0.88 [0.76; 1.03] (I2 = 68% and p = 0.10) and length of hospitalization with SMD of -0.47 [-0.95; 0.00] (I2 = 99% and p = 0.05). Subgroup analysis provided strong evidence that CP transfusion does not significantly reduce all-cause mortality compared to standard of care (SOC) with an RR of 1.01 [0.99; 1.03] (I2 = 70% and p = 0.33). In addition, CP was found to be safe for and well-tolerated by COVID-19 patients as was the SOC in healthcare settings. Overall, the results suggest that CP should not be applied outside of randomized trials because of less benefit in improving clinical outcomes for COVID-19 treatment.

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.

Safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma for severe COVID-19: a randomized, single blinded, parallel, controlled clinical study

Background

Convalescent plasma (CP) has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under study. However, the variability in the current clinical trials has averted its wide use in the current pandemic. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CP in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the early stages of the disease.

Methods

A randomized controlled clinical study was conducted on 101 patients admitted to the hospital with confirmed severe COVID-19. Most participants had less than 14 days from symptoms onset and less than seven days from hospitalization. Fifty patients were assigned to receive CP plus standard therapy (ST), and 51 were assigned to receive ST alone. Participants in the CP arm received two doses of 250 mL each, transfused 24 h apart. All transfused plasma was obtained from "super donors" that fulfilled the following criteria: titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG ≥ 1:3200 and IgA ≥ 1:800 antibodies. The effect of transfused anti-IFN antibodies and the SARS-CoV-2 variants at the entry of the study on the overall CP efficacy was evaluated. The primary outcomes were the reduction in viral load and the increase in IgG and IgA antibodies at 28 days of follow-up. The per-protocol analysis included 91 patients.

Results

An early but transient increase in IgG anti-S1-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels at day 4 post-transfusion was observed (Estimated difference [ED], − 1.36; 95% CI, − 2.33 to − 0.39; P = 0.04). However, CP was not associated with viral load reduction in any of the points evaluated. Analysis of secondary outcomes revealed that those patients in the CP arm disclosed a shorter time to discharge (ED adjusted for mortality, 3.1 days; 95% CI, 0.20 to 5.94; P = 0.0361) or a reduction of 2 points on the WHO scale when compared with the ST group (HR adjusted for mortality, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.5; P = 0.0376). There were no benefits from CP on the rates of intensive care unit admission (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.9; P = 0.6399), mechanical ventilation (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.25 to 1.7; P = 0.4039), or mortality (HR, 3.2; 95% CI, 0.64 to 16; P = 0.1584). Anti-IFN antibodies and SARS-CoV-2 variants did not influence these results.

Conclusion

CP was not associated with viral load reduction, despite the early increase in IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. However, CP is safe and could be a therapeutic option to reduce the hospital length of stay.

Trial registration NCT04332835

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-022-07560-7.

The State-of-the-Art of Gene Editing and its Application to Viral Infections and Diseases Including COVID-19

Gene therapy delivers a promising hope to cure many diseases and defects. The discovery of gene-editing technology fueled the world with valuable tools that have been employed in various domains of science, medicine, and biotechnology. Multiple means of gene editing have been established, including CRISPR/Cas, ZFNs, and TALENs. These strategies are believed to help understand the biological mechanisms of disease progression. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been designated the causative virus for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that emerged at the end of 2019. This viral infection is a highly pathogenic and transmissible disease that caused a public health pandemic. As gene editing tools have shown great success in multiple scientific and medical areas, they could eventually contribute to discovering novel therapeutic and diagnostic strategies to battle the COVID-19 pandemic disease. This review aims to briefly highlight the history and some of the recent advancements of gene editing technologies. After that, we will describe various biological features of the CRISPR-Cas9 system and its diverse implications in treating different infectious diseases, both viral and non-viral. Finally, we will present current and future advancements in combating COVID-19 with a potential contribution of the CRISPR system as an antiviral modality in this battle.

Early administration of COVID-19 convalescent plasma with high titer antibody content by live viral neutralization assay is associated with modest clinical efficacy

The efficacy of COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) as a treatment for hospitalized patients with COVID‐19 remains somewhat controversial; however, many studies have not evaluated CCP documented to have high neutralizing antibody titer by a highly accurate assay. To evaluate the correlation of the administration of CCP with titer determined by a live viral neutralization assay with 7‐ and 28‐day death rates during hospitalization, a total of 23 118 patients receiving a single unit of CCP were stratified into two groups: those receiving high titer CCP (>250 50% inhibitory dilution, ID50; n = 13 636) or low titer CCP (≤250 ID50; n = 9482). Multivariable Cox regression was performed to assess risk factors. Non‐intubated patients who were transfused with high titer CCP showed 1.1% and 1.7% absolute reductions in overall 7‐ and 28‐day death rates, respectively, compared to those non‐intubated patients receiving low titer CCP. No benefit of CCP was observed in intubated patients. The relative benefit of high titer CCP was confirmed in multivariable Cox regression. Administration of CCP with high titer antibody content determined by live viral neutralization assay to non‐intubated patients is associated with modest clinical efficacy. Although shown to be only of modest clinical benefit, CCP may play a role in the future should viral variants develop that are not neutralized by other available therapeutics.