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

Biochemical rationale for transfusion of high titre COVID-19 convalescent plasma

We aimed to model binding of donor antibodies to virus that infects COVID-19 patients following transfusion of convalescent plasma (CCP). An immunosorbent assay was developed to determine apparent affinity (Kd, app). Antibody binding to virus was modelled using antibody concentration and estimations of viral load. Assay and model were validated using reference antibodies and clinical data of monoclonal antibody therapy. A single Kd, app or two resolvable Kd, app were found for IgG in 11% or 89% of CCP donations, respectively. For IgA this was 50%-50%. Median IgG Kd, app was 0.8nM and 3.6nM for IgA, ranging from 0.1-14.7nM and 0.2-156.0nM respectively. The median concentration of IgG was 44.0nM (range 8.4-269.0nM) and significantly higher than IgA at 2.0nM (range 0.4-11.4nM). The model suggested that a double CCP transfusion (i.e. 500 mL) allows for > 80% binding of antibody to virus provided Kd, app was < 1nM and concentration > 150nM. In our cohort from the pre-vaccination era, 4% of donations fulfilled these criteria. Low and mid-range viral loads are found early post exposure, suggesting that convalescent plasma will be most effective then. This study provides a biochemical rationale for selecting high affinity and high antibody concentration CCP transfused early in the disease course.

Estimates of actual and potential lives saved in the United States from the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma

In the Spring of 2020, the United States of America (USA) deployed COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) to treat hospitalized patients. Over 500,000 patients were treated with CCP during the first year of the pandemic. In this study, we estimated the number of actual inpatient lives saved by CCP treatment in the United States of America based on CCP weekly use, weekly national mortality data, and CCP mortality reduction data from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and real-world data. We also estimate the potential number of lives saved if CCP had been deployed for 100% of hospitalized patients or used in 15 to 75% of outpatients. Depending on the assumptions modeled in stratified analyses, we estimated that CCP saved between 16,476 and 66,296 lives. The CCP ideal use might have saved as many as 234,869 lives and prevented 1,136,133 hospitalizations. CCP deployment was a successful strategy for ameliorating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA. This experience has important implications for convalescent plasma use in future infectious disease emergencies.

Avoided and Avoidable Deaths with the Use of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Italy during the First Two Years of Pandemic

Italy was the first western country to be hit by the COVID-19 pandemic and has suffered nearly 200,000 deaths so far during the four years of the pandemic. In March 2020, Italy first deployed COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) to treat hospitalized patients. Despite this initial effort, the proportion of COVID-19 patients treated with CCP during the first two years of the pandemic (2020-2021) was very low (approximately 2% of individuals hospitalized for COVID-19). In this study, we estimated the number of actual inpatient lives saved by CCP treatment in Italy using national mortality data, and CCP mortality reduction data from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and real-world data. We also estimated the potential number of lives saved if CCP had been deployed to 100% of hospitalized patients or used in 15% to 75% of outpatients. According to these models, CCP usage in 2020-2021 saved between 385-1304 lives, but this number would have increased to 17,751-60,079 if 100% of inpatients had been transfused with CCP. Similarly, broader (15-75%) usage in outpatients could have prevented 21,187-190,689 hospitalizations (desaturating hospitals) and 6144-81,926 deaths. These data have important implications for convalescent plasma use in future infectious disease emergencies.

The role of convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulins in the COVID-19 pandemic, including implications for future preparedness

Introduction

When Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) struck the world in December 2019, initiatives started to investigate the efficacy of convalescent plasma, a readily available source of passive antibodies, collected from recovered patients as a therapeutic option. This was based on historical observational data from previous virus outbreaks.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted on the efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulins for COVID-19 treatment. This review included the latest Cochrane systematic review update on 30-day mortality and safety. We also covered use in pediatric and immunocompromised patients, as well as the logistic challenges faced in donor recruitment and plasma collection in general. Challenges for low resource countries were specifically highlighted.

Results

A major challenge is the high donation frequency required from first-time donors to ensure a safe product, which minimizes the risk of transfusion-transmitted infectious. This is particularly difficult in low- and middle- income countries due to inadequate infrastructure and insufficient blood product supplies. High-certainty evidence indicates that convalescent plasma does not reduce mortality or significantly improve clinical outcomes in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 infection. However, CCP may provide a viable treatment for patients unable to mount an endogenous immune response to SARS-CoV-2, based on mostly observational studies and subgroup data of published and ongoing randomized trials. Convalescent plasma has been shown to be safe in adults and children with COVID-19 infection. However, the efficacy in pediatric patients remains unclear.

Discussion

Data on efficacy and safety of CCP are still underway in ongoing (randomized) studies and by reporting the challenges, limitations and successes encountered to-date, research gaps were identified to be addressed for the future.

Conclusion

This experience serves as a valuable example for future pandemic preparedness, particularly when therapeutic options are limited, and vaccines are either being developed or ineffective due to underlying immunosuppression.

Evidence for the Efficacy of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma

During the global health emergency caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), evidence relating to the efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy-evidence critically needed for both public policy and clinical practice-came from multiple levels of the epistemic hierarchy. The challenges of conducting clinical research during a pandemic, combined with the biological complexities of convalescent plasma treatment, required the use of observational data to fully assess the impact of convalescent plasma therapy on COVID symptomatology, hospitalization rates, and mortality rates. Observational studies showing the mortality benefits of convalescent plasma emerged early during the COVID-19 pandemic from multiple continents and were substantiated by real-time pragmatic meta-analyses. Although many randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were initiated at the onset of the pandemic and were designed to provide high-quality evidence, the relative inflexibility in the design of clinical trials meant that findings generally lagged behind other forms of emerging information and ultimately provided inconsistent results on the efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma. In the pandemic framework, it is necessary to emphasize more flexible analytic strategies in clinical trials, including secondary, subgroup, and exploratory analyses. We conclude that in totality, observational studies and clinical trials taken together provide strong evidence of a mortality benefit conferred by COVID-19 convalescent plasma, while acknowledging that some randomized clinical trials examined suboptimal uses of convalescent plasma.

COVID-19 epidemic investigation study of a follow-up cohort of patients with diabetic kidney disease

Introduction

The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on diabetic kidney disease (DKD) patients in China is not fully understood. This study aimed to investigate infection status in a DKD cohort post-renal biopsy and analyze vaccination and infection rates, as well as symptom severity, across various renal pathologies in DKD patients.

Methods

This epidemiological survey, centered on COVID-19, employed a Chinese DKD and renal puncture follow-up cohort. A customized questionnaire enabled standardized data gathering. It collected data on clinical characteristics, vaccination and infection statuses, and diverse pathological types. The study analyzed the relationship between vaccination and infection statuses across various pathological types, evaluating characteristics and treatment outcomes in patients with infections.

Results

In total, 437 patients with DKD from 26 Chinese provinces were followed up for a median of 44.6 ± 20 months. COVID-19 infection, vaccination, and novel coronavirus pneumonia (NCP) rates were 73.68%, 59.3%, and 6.63%, respectively. Ten patients with NCP had severe pneumonia or died of COVID-19. Renal pathology revealed that 167 (38.22%) patients had diabetic nephropathy (DN), 171 (39.13%) had non-diabetic renal disease (NDRD), and 99 had DN and NDRD (22.65%). The DN group had the lowest vaccination (54.5%), highest all-cause mortality (3.6%), and highest endpoint rates (34.10%). Compared to patients who were not vaccinated pre-infection (117 cases), vaccinated patients (198 cases) had reduced NCP (6.6% vs. 13.7%), severity (1.0% vs. 3.4%), and endpoint (9.10% vs. 31.60%) rates.

Conclusion

Vaccination can prevent infection and diminish COVID-19 severity in patients with DKD; therefore, increasing vaccination rates is particularly important.

Clinical Trial registration

ClinicalTrails.gov, NCT05888909.

HemoClear: A Practical and Cost-Effective Alternative to Conventional Convalescent Plasma Retrieval Methods

Convalescent plasma has increasingly been used to treat various viral infections and confer post-exposure prophylactic protection during the last decade and has demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes in patients infected with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during the recent COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has highlighted the need for cost-effective, accessible, and easy-to-use alternatives to conventional blood plasmapheresis techniques, allowing hospitals to become more self-sufficient in harvesting and transfusing donor plasma into recipients in a single setting. To this end, the use of a membrane-based bedside plasmapheresis device (HemoClear) was evaluated in an open-label, non-randomized prospective trial in Suriname in 2021, demonstrating its practicality and efficacy in a low-to middle-income country. This paper will review the use of this method and its potential to expedite the process of obtaining convalescent plasma, especially during pandemics and in resource-constrained settings.

Convalescent Plasma and Other Antibody Therapies for Infectious Diseases-Lessons Learned from COVID-19 and Future Prospects

Antiviral passive antibody therapy includes convalescent plasma, hyperimmune globulin, and monoclonal antibodies. Passive antibodies have proven effective in reducing morbidity and mortality for SARS-CoV-2 and other infectious diseases when given early in the disease course with sufficiently high specific total and neutralizing antibody levels. Convalescent plasma can be delivered to patients before vaccination implementation or novel drug production. Carefully designed and executed randomized controlled trials near the pandemic outset are important for regulatory bodies, healthcare workers, guideline committees, the public, and the government. Unfortunately, many otherwise well-designed antibody-based clinical trials in COVID-19 were futile, either because they intervened too late in the disease or provided plasma with insufficient antibodies. The need for early treatment mandates outpatient clinical trials in parallel with inpatient trials. Early outpatient COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion with high antibody content within 9 days of symptom onset has proven effective in blunting disease progression and reducing hospitalization, thus reducing hospital overcrowding in a pandemic. Convalescent plasma offers the opportunity for hope by enabling community participation in outpatient curative therapy while monoclonal therapies, vaccines, and drugs are being developed. Maintaining the appropriate infrastructure for antibody infusion in both outpatient and inpatient facilities is critical for future pandemic readiness.

The Importance of Geographic Proximity of Convalescent Plasma Donors

Donor-recipient proximity emerged as an important factor influencing the efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) treatment during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. This relationship was uncovered while analyzing data collected in the collaborative Expanded Access Program (EAP) for CCP at Mayo Clinic, a project aimed to establish protocols for CCP use amid the uncertainty of the novel disease. Analysis of data from nearly 28,000 patients revealed a significant reduction in risk of 30-day mortality for those receiving near-sourced plasma when compared to those receiving distantly sourced plasma [pooled relative risk, 0.73 (95% CI 0.67-0.80)], prompting adjustments in treatment protocols at selected institutions, and highlighting the importance of proximity in optimizing CCP outcomes. Despite its significance, subsequent studies of CCP effectiveness in COVID-19 have often overlooked donor-recipient proximity. Our findings emphasize the importance of donor-recipient proximity in CCP treatment in the current pandemic, and we discuss potential methods for improving CCP efficacy in future pandemics. Our recommendations include prioritizing virus genotyping for vulnerable patients, establishing a robust testing infrastructure, and collecting additional donor data to enhance plasma selection. This chapter underscores the importance of comprehensive data collection and sharing to navigate the evolving landscape of newly emerging infectious diseases.

Generating the Evidence Base for Convalescent Plasma Use for a New Infectious Disease

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) swept across the world in the waning months of 2019 and emerged as the cause of the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic in early 2020. The use of convalescent plasma (CP) for prior respiratory pandemics provided a strong biological rationale for the rapid deployment of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in early 2020 when no validated treatments or prior immunity existed. CCP is an antiviral agent, with its activity against SARS-CoV-2 stemming from specific antibodies elicited by the virus. Early efforts to investigate the efficacy of CCP in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that targeted hospitalized patients with COVID-19 did not demonstrate the overall efficacy of CCP despite signals of benefit in certain subgroups, such as those treated earlier in disease. In contrast, studies adhering to the principles of antibody therapy in their study design, choice of patient population, and product qualification, i.e., those that administered high levels of specific antibody during the viral phase of disease in immunocompromised or very early in immunocompetent individuals, demonstrated benefits. In this chapter, we leverage the knowledge gained from clinical studies of CCP for COVID-19 to propose a framework for future studies of CP for a new infectious disease. This framework includes obtaining high-quality CP and designing clinical studies that adhere to the principles of antibody therapy to generate a robust evidence base for using CP.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients With COVID-19 (September 2022)

There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials. The objective was to develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Based on the most recent search conducted on 31 May 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 32 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and postexposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, and hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines. At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were conducted that provided much-needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved, which we hope future trials can answer.

Association between COVID-19 convalescent plasma antibody levels and COVID-19 outcomes stratified by clinical status at presentation

BACKGROUND

There is a need to understand the relationship between COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma (CCP) anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels and clinical outcomes to optimize CCP use. This study aims to evaluate the relationship between recipient baseline clinical status, clinical outcomes, and CCP antibody levels.

METHODS

The study analyzed data from the COMPILE study, a meta-analysis of pooled individual patient data from 8 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of CCP vs. control, in adults hospitalized for COVID-19 who were not receiving mechanical ventilation at randomization. SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels, referred to as 'dose' of CCP treatment, were retrospectively measured in donor sera or the administered CCP, semi-quantitatively using the VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG chemiluminescent immunoassay (Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics) with a signal-to-cutoff ratio (S/Co). The association between CCP dose and outcomes was investigated, treating dose as either continuous or categorized (higher vs. lower vs. control), stratified by recipient oxygen supplementation status at presentation.

RESULTS

A total of 1714 participants were included in the study, 1138 control- and 576 CCP-treated patients for whom donor CCP anti-SARS-CoV2 antibody levels were available from the COMPILE study. For participants not receiving oxygen supplementation at baseline, higher-dose CCP (/control) was associated with a reduced risk of ventilation or death at day 14 (OR = 0.19, 95% CrI: [0.02, 1.70], posterior probability Pr(OR < 1) = 0.93) and day 28 mortality (OR = 0.27 [0.02, 2.53], Pr(OR < 1) = 0.87), compared to lower-dose CCP (/control) (ventilation or death at day 14 OR = 0.79 [0.07, 6.87], Pr(OR < 1) = 0.58; and day 28 mortality OR = 1.11 [0.10, 10.49], Pr(OR < 1) = 0.46), exhibiting a consistently positive CCP dose effect on clinical outcomes. For participants receiving oxygen at baseline, the dose-outcome relationship was less clear, although a potential benefit for day 28 mortality was observed with higher-dose CCP (/control) (OR = 0.66 [0.36, 1.13], Pr(OR < 1) = 0.93) compared to lower-dose CCP (/control) (OR = 1.14 [0.73, 1.78], Pr(OR < 1) = 0.28).

CONCLUSION

Higher-dose CCP is associated with its effectiveness in patients not initially receiving oxygen supplementation, however, further research is needed to understand the interplay between CCP anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels and clinical outcome in COVID-19 patients initially receiving oxygen supplementation.

Bioengineered self-assembled nanofibrils for high-affinity SARS-CoV-2 capture and neutralization

The recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spurred intense research efforts to develop new materials with antiviral activity. In this study, we genetically engineered amyloid-based nanofibrils for capturing and neutralizing SARS-CoV-2. Building upon the amyloid properties of a short Sup35 yeast prion sequence, we fused it to SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) capturing proteins, LCB1 and LCB3. By tuning the reaction conditions, we achieved the spontaneous self-assembly of the Sup35-LCB1 fusion protein into a highly homogeneous and well-dispersed amyloid-like fibrillar material. These nanofibrils exhibited high affinity for the SARS-CoV-2 RBD, effectively inhibiting its interaction with the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, the primary entry point for the virus into host cells. We further demonstrate that this functional nanomaterial entraps and neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 virus-like particles (VLPs), with a potency comparable to that of therapeutic antibodies. As a proof of concept, we successfully fabricated patterned surfaces that selectively capture SARS-CoV-2 RBD protein on wet environments. Collectively, these findings suggest that these protein-only nanofibrils hold promise as disinfecting coatings endowed with selective SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing properties to combat viral spread or in the development of sensitive viral sampling and diagnostic tools.

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.

Hyperimmune Globulins in COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic, resulting from the emergence of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, posed unprecedented challenges to global health systems as no proven therapy was available. Initially, COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) from recovered COVID-19 patients showed promise as a therapeutic option. However, the efficacy of this approach was closely correlated with the neutralizing antibody titer in the administered plasma and thus effectiveness was not always guaranteed. In response, hyperimmune immunoglobulins (hIG) derived from CCP obtained by apheresis from recovered or vaccinated individuals emerged as a potential alternative. hIG were purified through stringent chromatographic processing from CCP units and displayed varying results in clinical trials, although it seems likely that they improved outcomes compared to placebo or CCP at day 28, particularly in unvaccinated patients. The variability in the effect of hIG likely stems from factors such as the timing of outcome assessment, the administered dose of hIG, the patients' immunological background, and the matching between the variant infecting patients and the neutralization ability of the immunoglobulin batch, which depended on the timing of the CCP collection. Despite logistical challenges and high production costs, hIG showcase advantages over CCP, offering versatility in administration routes and eliminating the need for blood matching, thus facilitating administration in the community, and allowing for variant-specific preparations. hIG appear to be of particular importance in the treatment of immunocompromised patients and patients with persistent COVID-19, although studies in these populations are lacking. Non-human alternatives, such as equine-derived hIG and recombinant hIG, may provide a solution to the logistical challenges of large-scale hIG preparation. Further study is needed to explore these avenues. Establishing the infrastructure for large-scale hIG production independent of plasma donations emerges as a strategic approach for future pandemics, justifying exploration and promotion by health authorities.

Convalescent Plasma and the US Expanded Access Program: A Personal Narrative

Between early April 2020 and late August 2020, nearly 100,000 patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV2 infections were treated with COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in the US under the auspices of an FDA-authorized Expanded Access Program (EAP) housed at the Mayo Clinic. Clinicians wishing to provide CCP to their patients during that 5-month period early in the COVID pandemic had to register their patients and provide clinical information to the EAP program. This program was utilized by some 2,200 US hospitals located in every state ranging from academic medical centers to small rural hospitals and facilitated the treatment of an ethnically and socio-economically diverse cross section of patients. Within 6 weeks of program initiation, the first signals of safety were found in 5,000 recipients of CCP, supported by a later analysis of 20,000 recipients (Joyner et al. in J Clin Invest 130:4791-4797, 2020a; Joyner et al. in Mayo Clin Proc 95:1888-1897, 2020b). By mid-summer of 2020, strong evidence was produced showing that high-titer CCP given early in the course of hospitalization could lower mortality by as much as a third (Joyner et al. in N Engl J Med 384:1015-1027, 2021; Senefeld et al. in PLoS Med 18, 2021a). These data were used by the FDA in its August decision to grant Emergency Use Authorization for CCP use in hospitals. This chapter provides a personal narrative by the principal investigator of the EAP that describes the events leading up to the program, some of its key outcomes, and some lessons learned that may be applicable to the next pandemic. This vast effort was a complete team response to a crisis and included an exceptional level of collaboration both inside and outside of the Mayo Clinic. Writing just 4 years after the initiation of the EAP, this intense professional effort, comprising many moving parts, remains hard to completely understand or fully explain in this brief narrative. As Nelson Mandela said of the perception of time during his decades in prison, "the days seemed like years, and the years seemed like days."

Quality of life and cost-effectiveness of convalescent plasma compared to standard care for hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the CONCOR-1 trial

BACKGROUND

The CONvalescent Plasma for Hospitalized Adults With COVID-19 Respiratory Illness (CONCOR-1) trial was a multicenter randomized controlled trial assessing convalescent plasma in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of convalescent plasma and its impact on quality-of-life to provide insight into its potential as an alternative treatment in resource-constrained settings.

METHODS

Individual patient data on health outcomes and resource utilization from the CONCOR-1 trial were used to conduct the analysis from the Canadian public payer's perspective with a time horizon of 30 days post-randomization. Baseline and 30-day EQ-5D-5L were measured to calculate quality-adjusted survival. All costs are presented in 2021 Canadian dollars. The base case assessed the EQ-5D-5L scores of hospitalized inpatients reporting at both timepoints, and a utility score of 0 was assigned for patients who died within 30 days. Costs for all patients enrolled were used. The sensitivity analysis utilizes EQ-5D-5L scores from the same population but only uses costs from this population.

RESULTS

940 patients were randomized: 627 received CCP and 313 received standard care. The total costs were $28,716 (standard deviation, $25,380) and $24,258 ($22,939) for the convalescent plasma and standard care arms respectively. EQ-5D-5L scores were 0.61 in both arms (p = .85) at baseline. At 30 days, EQ-5D-5L scores were 0.63 and 0.64 for patients in the convalescent plasma and standard care arms, respectively (p = .46). The incremental cost was $4458 and the incremental quality-adjusted life day was -0.078.

DISCUSSION

Convalescent plasma was less effective and more costly than standard care in treating hospitalized COVID-19.

Function and mechanism of bispecific antibodies targeting SARS-CoV-2

As the dynamic evolution of SARS-CoV-2 led to reduced efficacy in monoclonal neutralizing antibodies and emergence of immune escape, the role of bispecific antibodies becomes crucial in bolstering antiviral activity and suppressing immune evasion. This review extensively assesses a spectrum of representative bispecific antibodies targeting SARS-CoV-2, delving into their characteristics, design formats, mechanisms of action, and associated advantages and limitations. The analysis encompasses factors influencing the selection of parental antibodies and strategies for incorporating added benefits in bispecific antibody design. Furthermore, how different classes of parental antibodies contribute to augmenting the broad-spectrum neutralization capability within bispecific antibodies is discussed. In summary, this review presents analyses and discussions aimed at offering valuable insights for shaping future strategies in bispecific antibody design to effectively confront the challenges posed by SARS-CoV-2 and propel advancements in antiviral therapeutic development.

Outpatient COVID-19 convalescent plasma recipient antibody thresholds correlated to reduced hospitalizations within a randomized trial

BACKGROUNDCOVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) virus-specific antibody levels that translate into recipient posttransfusion antibody levels sufficient to prevent disease progression are not defined.METHODSThis secondary analysis correlated donor and recipient antibody levels to hospitalization risk among unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients within the outpatient, double-blind, randomized clinical trial that compared CCP to control plasma. The majority of COVID-19 CCP arm hospitalizations (15/17, 88%) occurred in this unvaccinated, seronegative subgroup. A functional cutoff to delineate recipient high versus low posttransfusion antibody levels was established by 2 methods: (i) analyzing virus neutralization-equivalent anti-Spike receptor-binding domain immunoglobulin G (anti-S-RBD IgG) responses in donors or (ii) receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.RESULTSSARS-CoV-2 anti-S-RBD IgG antibody was volume diluted 21.3-fold into posttransfusion seronegative recipients from matched donor units. Virus-specific antibody delivered was approximately 1.2 mg. The high-antibody recipients transfused early (symptom onset within 5 days) had no hospitalizations. A CCP-recipient analysis for antibody thresholds correlated to reduced hospitalizations found a statistical significant association between early transfusion and high antibodies versus all other CCP recipients (or control plasma), with antibody cutoffs established by both methods-donor-based virus neutralization cutoffs in posttransfusion recipients (0/85 [0%] versus 15/276 [5.6%]; P = 0.03) or ROC-based cutoff (0/94 [0%] versus 15/267 [5.4%]; P = 0.01).CONCLUSIONIn unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients, early transfusion of plasma units in the upper 30% of study donors' antibody levels reduced outpatient hospitalizations. High antibody level plasma units, given early, should be reserved for therapeutic use.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT04373460.FUNDINGDepartment of Defense (W911QY2090012); Defense Health Agency; Bloomberg Philanthropies; the State of Maryland; NIH (3R01AI152078-01S1, U24TR001609-S3, 1K23HL151826NIH); the Mental Wellness Foundation; the Moriah Fund; Octapharma; the Healthnetwork Foundation; the Shear Family Foundation; the NorthShore Research Institute; and the Rice Foundation.

COVID-19 convalescent plasma therapy decreases inflammatory cytokines: a randomized controlled trial

IMPORTANCE

This study examined the role that cytokines may have played in the beneficial outcomes found when outpatient individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 were transfused with COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) early in their infection. We found that the pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-6 decreased significantly faster in patients treated early with CCP. Participants with COVID-19 treated with CCP later in the infection did not have the same effect. This decrease in IL-6 levels after early CCP treatment suggests a possible role of inflammation in COVID-19 progression. The evidence of IL-6 involvement brings insight into the possible mechanisms involved in CCP treatment mitigating SARS-CoV-2 severity.

Clinical outcomes in hospitalized plasma and platelet transfusion recipients prior to and following widespread blood donor SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination

BACKGROUND

The safety of transfusion of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in high plasma volume blood components to recipients without COVID-19 is not established. We assessed whether transfusion of plasma or platelet products during periods of increasing prevalence of blood donor SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination was associated with changes in outcomes in hospitalized patients without COVID-19.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of hospitalized adults who received plasma or platelet transfusions at 21 hospitals during pre-COVID-19 (3/1/2018-2/29/2020), COVID-19 pre-vaccine (3/1/2020-2/28/2021), and COVID-19 post-vaccine (3/1/2021-8/31/2022) study periods. We used multivariable logistic regression with generalized estimating equations to adjust for demographics and comorbidities to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Among 21,750 hospitalizations of 18,584 transfusion recipients without COVID-19, there were 697 post-transfusion thrombotic events, and oxygen requirements were increased in 1751 hospitalizations. Intensive care unit length of stay (n = 11,683) was 3 days (interquartile range 1-5), hospital mortality occurred in 3223 (14.8%), and 30-day rehospitalization in 4144 (23.7%). Comparing the pre-COVID, pre-vaccine and post-vaccine study periods, there were no trends in thromboses (OR 0.9 [95% CI 0.8, 1.1]; p = .22) or oxygen requirements (OR 1.0 [95% CI 0.9, 1.1]; p = .41). In parallel, there were no trends across study periods for ICU length of stay (p = .83), adjusted hospital mortality (OR 1.0 [95% CI 0.9-1.0]; p = .36), or 30-day rehospitalization (p = .29).

DISCUSSION

Transfusion of plasma and platelet blood components collected during the pre-vaccine and post-vaccine periods of the COVID-19 pandemic was not associated with increased adverse outcomes in transfusion recipients without COVID-19.

Factors related to the development of high antibody titres against SARS-CoV-2 in convalescent plasma donors from the ConPlas-19 trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CP) associates with high titres of antibodies. ConPlas-19 clinical trial showed that CP reduces the risk of progression to severe COVID-19 at 28 days. Here, we aim to study ConPlas-19 donors and characteristics that associate with high anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four-hundred donors were enrolled in ConPlas-19. The presence and titres of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were evaluated by EUROIMMUN anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG ELISA.

RESULTS

A majority of 80.3% of ConPlas-19 donor candidates had positive EUROIMMUN test results (ratio ≥1.1), and of these, 51.4% had high antibody titres (ratio ≥3.5). Antibody levels decline over time, but nevertheless, out of 37 donors tested for an intended second CP donation, over 90% were still EUROIMMUN positive, and nearly 75% of those with high titres maintained high titres in the second sample. Donors with a greater probability of developing high titres of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies include those older than 40 years of age (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.24-3.42), with more than 7 days of COVID-19 symptoms (RR 1.89; 95% CI 1.05-3.43) and collected within 4 months from infection (RR 2.61; 95% CI 1.16-5.90). Male donors had a trend towards higher titres compared with women (RR 1.67; 95% CI 0.91-3.06).

CONCLUSION

SARS-CoV-2 CP candidate donors' age, duration of COVID-19 symptoms and time from infection to donation associate with the collection of CP with high antibody levels. Beyond COVID-19, these data are relevant to inform decisions to optimize the CP donor selection process in potential future outbreaks.

Factors associated with mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 disease treated with convalescent plasma

IMPORTANCE

The use of convalescent plasma (CP) could be an option for patients with severe COVID-19, especially in poor-resource countries where direct antiviral drugs are not commercially available. Currently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration limits the CP administration for outpatients and inpatients with COVID-19 who are immunocompromised and only if high levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are confirmed in the CP unit. Although most of the randomized clinical trials failed to show a clear-cut benefit of CP in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19, other studies have shown that if given early in the course of the disease, it might be a useful therapeutic option. In this retrospective study, we demonstrated that early treatment (within 3 days of hospitalization) was significantly associated with reduced 28-day mortality compared with those patients treated beyond day 3. The results from our study add up to the scientific evidence on the use of CP as a relatively safe, cheap, and possibly effective therapy in certain patients suffering from severe SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The value of observational registry studies for the next infectious disease emergency

During infectious disease emergencies, it may be necessary to deploy new therapies without conclusive evidence for their effectiveness. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, several countries used registries to track the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). Those registries provided evidence that CCP was effective when used early and with high titer.

Inactivated vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 in Fujian, China during the Omicron BA.2 outbreak

Objective

More than 90% of the Chinese population have completed 2 doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines in Mainland China. However, after China government abandoned strict control measures, many breakthrough infections appeared, and vaccine effectiveness against Omicron BA.2 infection was uncertain. This study aims to investigate the real-world effectiveness of widely used inactivated vaccines during the wave of Omicron variants.

Methods

Test-negative case-control study was conducted in this study to analyze the vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease caused by the Omicron variant (BA.2) in Fujian, China. Conditional logistic regression was selected to estimate the vaccine effectiveness.

Results

The study found the vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 is 32.46% (95% CI, 8.08% to 50.37%) at 2 to 8 weeks, and 27.05% (95% CI, 1.23% to 46.12%) at 12 to 24 weeks after receiving booster doses of the inactivated vaccine. Notably, the 3-17 years group had higher vaccine effectiveness after 2 doses than the 18-64 years and over 65 years groups who received booster doses.

Conclusion

Inactivated vaccines alone may not offer sufficient protection for all age groups before the summer of 2022. To enhance protection, other types of vaccines or bivalent vaccines should be considered.

Efficacy of combined COVID-19 convalescent plasma with oral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase inhibitor treatment versus neutralizing monoclonal antibody therapy in COVID-19 outpatients: a multi-center, non-inferiority, open-label randomized controlled trial (PlasMab)

IMPORTANCE

This pivotal study reveals that high neutralizing titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) combined with favipiravir (FPV) is non-inferior to sotrovimab in preventing hospitalization and severe outcomes in outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and high-risk comorbidities. It underscores the potential of CPT-FPV as a viable alternative to neutralizing monoclonal antibodies like sotrovimab, especially amid emerging variants with spike protein mutations. The study's unique approach, comparing a monoclonal antibody with CPT, demonstrates the efficacy of early intervention using high neutralizing antibody titer CPT, even in populations with a significant proportion of elderly patients. These findings are crucial, considering the alternative treatment challenges, especially in resource-limited countries, posed by the rapidly mutating SARS-CoV-2 virus and the need for adaptable therapeutic strategies.

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.

COVID-19 subphenotypes at hospital admission are associated with mortality: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

We have an incomplete understanding of COVID-19 characteristics at hospital presentation and whether underlying subphenotypes are associated with clinical outcomes and therapeutic responses.

METHODS

For this cross-sectional study, we extracted electronic health data from adults hospitalized between 1 March and 30 August 2020 with a PCR-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 at five New York City Hospitals. We obtained clinical and laboratory data from the first 24 h of the patient's hospitalization. Treatment with tocilizumab and convalescent plasma was assessed over hospitalization. The primary outcome was mortality; secondary outcomes included intubation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and length of stay (LOS). First, we employed latent class analysis (LCA) to identify COVID-19 subphenotypes on admission without consideration of outcomes and assigned each patient to a subphenotype. We then performed robust Poisson regression to examine associations between COVID-19 subphenotype assignment and outcome. We explored whether the COVID-19 subphenotypes had a differential response to tocilizumab and convalescent plasma therapies.

RESULTS

A total of 4620 patients were included. LCA identified six subphenotypes, which were distinct by level of inflammation, clinical and laboratory derangements and ranged from a hypoinflammatory subphenotype with the fewest derangements to a hyperinflammatory with multiorgan dysfunction subphenotypes. Multivariable regression analyses found differences in risk for mortality, intubation, ICU admission and LOS, as compared to the hypoinflammatory subphenotype. For example, in multivariable analyses the moderate inflammation with fever subphenotype had 3.29 times the risk of mortality (95% CI 2.05, 5.28), while the hyperinflammatory with multiorgan failure subphenotype had 17.87 times the risk of mortality (95% CI 11.56, 27.63), as compared to the hypoinflammatory subphenotype. Exploratory analyses suggested that subphenotypes may differential respond to convalescent plasma or tocilizumab therapy.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 subphenotype at hospital admission may predict risk for mortality, ICU admission and intubation and differential response to treatment.KEY MESSAGEThis cross-sectional study of COVID patients admitted to the Mount Sinai Health System, identified six distinct COVID subphenotypes on admission. Subphenotypes correlated with ICU admission, intubation, mortality and differential response to treatment.

Passive antibody therapy in emerging infectious diseases

The epidemic of corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 and its variants of concern (VOCs) has been ongoing for over 3 years. Antibody therapies encompassing convalescent plasma, hyperimmunoglobulin, and neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) applied in passive immunotherapy have yielded positive outcomes and played a crucial role in the early COVID-19 treatment. In this review, the development path, action mechanism, clinical research results, challenges, and safety profile associated with the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma, hyperimmunoglobulin, and mAbs were summarized. In addition, the prospects of applying antibody therapy against VOCs was assessed, offering insights into the coping strategies for facing new infectious disease outbreaks.

Pathogen evolution, prevention/control strategy and clinical features of COVID-19: experiences from China

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was reported at the end of 2019 as a worldwide health concern causing a pandemic of unusual viral pneumonia and many other organ damages, which was defined by the World Health Organization as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The pandemic is considered a significant threat to global public health till now. In this review, we have summarized the lessons learnt during the emergence and spread of SARS-CoV-2, including its prototype and variants. The overall clinical features of variants of concern (VOC), heterogeneity in the clinical manifestations, radiology and pathology of COVID-19 patients are also discussed, along with advances in therapeutic agents.

COVID-19 outcome is not affected by anti-CD20 or high-titer convalescent plasma in immunosuppressed patients

The role of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) convalescent plasma in the treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in immunosuppressed individuals remains controversial. We describe the course of COVID-19 in patients who had received anti-CD20 therapy within the 3 years prior to infection. We compared outcomes between those treated with and those not treated with high titer SARS-CoV2 convalescent plasma. We identified 144 adults treated at Mayo clinic sites who had received anti-CD20 therapies within a median of 5.9 months prior to the COVID-19 index date. About one-third (34.7%) were hospitalized within 14 days and nearly half (47.9%) within 90 days. COVID-19 directed therapy included anti-spike monoclonal antibodies (n = 30, 20.8%), and, among those hospitalized within 14 days (n = 50), remdesivir (n = 45, 90.0%), glucocorticoids (n = 36, 72.0%) and convalescent plasma (n = 24, 48.0%). The duration from receipt of last dose of anti-CD20 therapy did not correlate with outcomes. The overall 90-day mortality rate was 14.7%. Administration of convalescent plasma within 14 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis was not significantly associated with any study outcome. Further study of COVID-19 in CD20-depleted individuals is needed focusing on the early administration of new and potentially combination antiviral agents, associated or not with vaccine-boosted convalescent plasma.

Fc-mediated functions and the treatment of severe respiratory viral infections with passive immunotherapy - a balancing act

Passive immunotherapies have been used to treat severe respiratory infections for over a century, with convalescent blood products from recovered individuals given to patients with influenza-related pneumonia as long ago as the Spanish flu pandemic. However, passive immunotherapy with convalescent plasma or hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) has not provided unequivocal evidence of a clinical benefit for severe respiratory infections including influenza and COVID-19. Efficacy trials, primarily conducted in late-stage disease, have demonstrated inconsistent efficacy and clinical benefit for hIVIG treatment of severe respiratory infections. To date, most serological analyses of convalescent plasma and hIVIG trial samples have focused on the measurement of neutralizing antibody titres. There is, however, increasing evidence that baseline antibody levels and extra-neutralizing antibody functions influence the outcome of passive immunotherapy in humans. In this perspective, findings from convalescent plasma and hIVIG trials for severe influenza, COVID-19 and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) will be described. Clinical trial results will be discussed in the context of the potential beneficial and deleterious roles of antibodies with Fc-mediated effector functions, with a focus on natural killer cells and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. Overall, we postulate that treating respiratory viral infections with hIVIG represents a delicate balance between protection and immunopathology.

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

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

Flow injection analysis coupled with photoelectrochemical immunoassay for simultaneous detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2-spike and anti-SARS-CoV-2-nucleocapsid antibodies in serum samples

A thin-layer flow cell of low internal volume (12 μL) is incorporated in a flow injection analysis (FIA) system for simultaneous and real-time photoelectrochemical (PEC) immunoassay of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike 1 (S1) and anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) antibodies. Covalent linkage of S1 and N proteins to two separate polyethylene glycol (PEG)-covered gold nanoparticles (AuNPs)/TiO2 nanotube array (NTA) electrodes affords 10 consecutive analyses with surface regenerations in between. An indium tin oxide (ITO) allows visible light to impinge onto the two electrodes. The detection limits for anti-S1 and anti-N antibodies were estimated to be 177 and 97 ng mL-1, respectively. Such values compare well with those achieved with other reported methods and satisfy the requirement for screening convalescent patients with low antibody levels. Additionally, our method exhibits excellent intra-batch (RSD = 1.3%), inter-batch (RSD = 3.4%), intra-day (RSD = 1.0%), and inter-day (RSD = 1.6%) reproducibility. The obviation of an enzyme label and continuous analysis markedly decreased the assay cost and duration, rendering this method cost-effective. The excellent anti-fouling property of PEG enables accuracy validation by comparing our PEC immunoassays of patient sera to those of ELISA. In addition, the simultaneous detection of two antibodies holds great potential in disease diagnosis and immunity studies.

COVID-19 Treatments: Then and Now

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has evolved over the past 3+ years, and strategies to prevent illness and treat infection have changed over time. As COVID-19 transitions from a pandemic to an endemic infection, widespread nonpharmaceutical interventions such as mask mandates and governmental policies requiring social distancing have given way to more selective strategies for risk mitigation. Monoclonal antibody therapies used for disease prevention and treatment lost utility owing to the emergence of resistant viral variants. Oral antiviral medications have become the mainstay of treatment in nonhospitalized individuals, whereas systemic corticosteroids remain the cornerstone of therapy in those requiring supplemental oxygen. Emerging literature also supports the use of additional immune-modulating therapies in select admitted patients. Importantly, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted both unprecedented research and development of medical interventions while also drawing attention to significant pitfalls in the global response. This review provides a comprehensive update in prevention and management of COVID-19.

COVID-19 after hematopoietic cell transplantation and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T-cell therapy

More than 3 years have passed since Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a global pandemic, yet COVID-19 still severely impacts immunocompromised individuals including those treated with hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and chimeric antigen receptor-T-cell therapies who remain at high risk for severe COVID-19 and mortality. Despite vaccination efforts, these patients have inadequate responses due to immunosuppression, which underscores the need for additional preventive approaches. The optimal timing, schedule of vaccination, and immunological correlates for protective immunity remain unknown. Antiviral therapies used early during disease can reduce mortality and severity due to COVID-19. The combination or sequential use of antivirals could be beneficial to control replication and prevent the development of treatment-related mutations in protracted COVID-19. Despite conflicting data, COVID-19 convalescent plasma remains an option in immunocompromised patients with mild-to-moderate disease to prevent progression. Protracted COVID-19 has been increasingly recognized among these patients and has been implicated in intra-host emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants. Finally, novel SARS-CoV2-specific T-cells and natural killer cell-boosting (or -containing) products may be active against multiple variants and are promising therapies in immunocompromised patients.

Early antibody treatment, inflammation, and risk of post-COVID conditions

IMPORTANCE

Approximately 20% of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 experienced long-term health effects, as defined PCC. However, it is unknown if there are any early biomarkers associated with PCC or whether early intervention treatments may decrease the risk of PCC. In a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, this study demonstrates that among outpatients with SARS-CoV-2, increased IL-6 at time of infection is associated with increased odds of PCC. In addition, among individuals treated early, within 5 days of symptom onset, with COVID-19 convalescent plasma, there was a trend for decreased odds of PCC after adjusting for other demographic and clinical characteristics. Future treatment studies should be considered to evaluate the effect of early treatment and anti-IL-6 therapies on PCC development.

Use of covid-19 convalescent plasma to treat patients admitted to hospital for covid-19 with or without underlying immunodeficiency: open label, randomised clinical trial

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of covid-19 convalescent plasma to treat patients admitted to hospital for moderate covid-19 disease with or without underlying immunodeficiency (CORIPLASM trial).

Design

Open label, randomised clinical trial.

Setting

CORIMUNO-19 cohort (publicly supported platform of open label, randomised controlled trials of immune modulatory drugs in patients admitted to hospital with moderate or severe covid-19 disease) based on 19 university and general hospitals across France, from 16 April 2020 to 21 April 2021.

Participants

120 adults (n=60 in the covid-19 convalescent plasma group, n=60 in the usual care group) admitted to hospital with a positive SARS-CoV2 test result, duration of symptoms <9 days, and World Health Organization score of 4 or 5. 49 patients (n=22, n=27) had underlying immunosuppression.

Interventions

Open label randomisation to usual care or four units (200-220 mL/unit, 2 units/day over two consecutive days) of covid-19 convalescent plasma with a seroneutralisation titre >40.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcomes were proportion of patients with a WHO Clinical Progression Scale score of ≥6 on the 10 point scale on day 4 (higher values indicate a worse outcome), and survival without assisted ventilation or additional immunomodulatory treatment by day 14. Secondary outcomes were changes in WHO Clinical Progression Scale scores, overall survival, time to discharge, and time to end of dependence on oxygen supply. Predefined subgroups analyses included immunosuppression status, duration of symptoms before randomisation, and use of steroids.

Results

120 patients were recruited and assigned to covid-19 convalescent plasma (n=60) or usual care (n=60), including 22 (covid-19 convalescent plasma) and 27 (usual care) patients who were immunocompromised. 13 (22%) patients who received convalescent plasma had a WHO Clinical Progression Scale score of ≥6 at day 4 versus eight (13%) patients who received usual care (adjusted odds ratio 1.88, 95% credible interval 0.71 to 5.24). By day 14, 19 (31.6%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and 20 (33.3%) patients in the usual care group needed ventilation, additional immunomodulatory treatment, or had died. For cumulative incidence of death, three (5%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and eight (13%) in the usual care group died by day 14 (adjusted hazard ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 1.53), and seven (12%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and 12 (20%) in the usual care group by day 28 (adjusted hazard ratio 0.51, 0.20 to 1.32). In a subgroup analysis performed in patients who were immunocompromised, transfusion of covid-19 convalescent plasma was associated with mortality (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 1.10).

Conclusions

In this study, covid-19 convalescent plasma did not improve early outcomes in patients with moderate covid-19 disease. The efficacy of convalescent plasma in patients who are immunocompromised should be investigated further.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04345991.

[Efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma administration in patients with COVID-19 infection]

INTRODUCTION

During the COVID-19 pandemic, several strategies were suggested for the management of the disease, including pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments such as convalescent plasma (CP). The use of CP was suggested due to the beneficial results shown in treating other viral diseases.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of CP obtained from whole blood in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

Pilot clinical trial in patients with COVID-19 from a general hospital. The subjects were separated into three groups that received the transfusion of 400ml of CP (n=23) or 400ml of standard plasma (SP) (n=19) and a non-transfused group (NT) (n=37). Patients also received the standard available medical treatment for COVID-19. Subjects were followed up daily from admission to day 21.

RESULTS

The CP did not improve the survival curve in moderate and severe variants of COVID-19, nor did it reduce the degree of severity of the disease evaluated with the COVID-19 WHO and SOFA clinical progression scale. No patient had a severe post-transfusion reaction to CP.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with CP does not reduce the mortality of patients even when its administration has a high degree of safety.

Convalescent Plasma for Covid-19-Induced ARDS in Mechanically Ventilated Patients

BACKGROUND

Passive immunization with plasma collected from convalescent patients has been regularly used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Minimal data are available regarding the use of convalescent plasma in patients with Covid-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

METHODS

In this open-label trial, we randomly assigned adult patients with Covid-19-induced ARDS who had been receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for less than 5 days in a 1:1 ratio to receive either convalescent plasma with a neutralizing antibody titer of at least 1:320 or standard care alone. Randomization was stratified according to the time from tracheal intubation to inclusion. The primary outcome was death by day 28.

RESULTS

A total of 475 patients underwent randomization from September 2020 through March 2022. Overall, 237 patients were assigned to receive convalescent plasma and 238 to receive standard care. Owing to a shortage of convalescent plasma, a neutralizing antibody titer of 1:160 was administered to 17.7% of the patients in the convalescent-plasma group. Glucocorticoids were administered to 466 patients (98.1%). At day 28, mortality was 35.4% in the convalescent-plasma group and 45.0% in the standard-care group (P = 0.03). In a prespecified analysis, this effect was observed mainly in patients who underwent randomization 48 hours or less after the initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation. Serious adverse events did not differ substantially between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of plasma collected from convalescent donors with a neutralizing antibody titer of at least 1:160 to patients with Covid-19-induced ARDS within 5 days after the initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation significantly reduced mortality at day 28. This effect was mainly observed in patients who underwent randomization 48 hours or less after ventilation initiation. (Funded by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04558476.).

A Randomized Controlled Study Assessing Convalescent Immunoglobulins vs Convalescent Plasma for Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus 2019

BACKGROUND

It is unknown whether convalescent immunoglobulins (cIgGs) are better than convalescent plasma (CP) for patients with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, we assigned high risk COVID-19 patients with ≤10 days of symptoms, to receive cIgGs or CP. The primary endpoint was improvement on day 14 according to the World Health Organization scale. Secondary endpoints were survival on day 14, and improvement, survival, and percent of ventilated patients on day 28, and treatment response in unvaccinated and vaccinated patients.

RESULTS

A total of 319 patients were included: 166 received cIgGs and 153 CP. Median age was 64 to 66 years. A total of 112 patients (67.5%) in the cIgG group and 103 patients (67.3%) in the CP group reached the primary endpoint. Difference between groups was 0.1 (95% confidence interval, -10.1 to 10.4; P = .026), failing to reach noninferiority. More patients receiving cIgG improved by day 28 (136 patients [81.9%] and 108 patients [70.6%], respectively; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-20.7; P < .001; for superiority P = .018). Seventeen patients in the cIgG group (10.2%) and 25 patients (16.3%) in the CP group required mechanical ventilation (P = .136). Sixteen (9.6%) and 23 (15%) patients, respectively, died (P = .172). More unvaccinated patients improved by day 28 in the cIgG group (84.1% vs 66.1%; P = .024), and survival was better in the cIgG group (89.9% vs 77.4%; P = .066).

CONCLUSIONS

cIgGs failed to reach the primary noninferiority endpoint on day 14 but was superior to CP on day 28. Survival and improvement by day 28 in unvaccinated patients treated with cIgGs were better. In the face of new variants, cIgGs are a viable option for treating COVID-19.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

My Trials MOH_2021-01-14_009667.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

OUTCOMES

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04539275.

Sex differences in coronavirus disease 2019 myocarditis

Myocarditis is frequently caused by viral infections, but animal models that closely resemble human disease suggest that virus-triggered autoimmune disease is the most likely cause of myocarditis. Myocarditis is a rare condition that occurs primarily in men under age 50. The incidence of myocarditis rose at least 15x during the COVID-19 pandemic from 1-10 to 150-400 cases/100,000 individuals, with most cases occurring in men under age 50. COVID-19 vaccination was also associated with rare cases of myocarditis primarily in young men under 50 years of age with an incidence as high as 50 cases/100,000 individuals reported for some mRNA vaccines. Sex differences in the immune response to COVID-19 are virtually identical to the mechanisms known to drive sex differences in myocarditis pre-COVID based on clinical studies and animal models. The many similarities between COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis to COVID-19 myocarditis and non-COVID myocarditis suggest common immune mechanisms drive disease.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on blood donation and transfusions in the United States in 2020

INTRODUCTION

Reports have suggested the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in blood donation shortages and adverse impacts on the blood supply. Using data from the National Blood Collection and Utilization Survey (NBCUS), we quantified the pandemic's impact on red blood cell (RBC) and apheresis platelet collections and transfusions in the United States during year 2020.

METHODS

The 2021 NBCUS survey instrument was modified to include certain blood collection and utilization variables for 2020. The survey was distributed to all US blood collection centers, all US hospitals performing ≥1000 surgeries annually, and a 40% random sample of hospitals performing 100-999 surgeries annually. Weighting and imputation were used to generate national estimates for whole blood and apheresis platelet donation; RBC and platelet transfusion; and convalescent plasma distribution.

RESULTS

Whole blood collections were stable from 2019 (9,790,000 units; 95% CI: 9,320,000-10,261,000) to 2020 (9,738,000 units; 95% CI: 9,365,000-10,110,000). RBC transfusions decreased by 6.0%, from 10,852,000 units (95% CI: 10,444,000-11,259,000) in 2019 to 10,202,000 units (95% CI: 9,811,000-10,593,000) in 2020. Declines were steepest during March-April 2020, with transfusions subsequently rebounding. Apheresis platelet collections increased from 2,359,000 units (95% CI: 2,240,000-2,477,000) in 2019 to 2,408,000 units (95% CI: 2,288,000-2,528,000) in 2020. Apheresis platelet transfusions increased from 1,996,000 units (95% CI: 1,846,000-2,147,000) in 2019 to 2,057,000 units (95% CI: 1,902,000-2,211,000) in 2020.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in reduced blood donations and transfusions in some months during 2020 but only a minimal annualized decline compared with 2019.

SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibody therapies: Recent advances and future challenges

The COVID-19 pandemic represents an unparalleled global public health crisis. Despite concerted research endeavours, the repertoire of effective treatment options remains limited. However, neutralising-antibody-based therapies hold promise across an array of practices, encompassing the prophylaxis and management of acute infectious diseases. Presently, numerous investigations into COVID-19-neutralising antibodies are underway around the world, with some studies reaching clinical application stages. The advent of COVID-19-neutralising antibodies signifies the dawn of an innovative and promising strategy for treatment against SARS-CoV-2 variants. Comprehensively, our objective is to amalgamate contemporary understanding concerning antibodies targeting various regions, including receptor-binding domain (RBD), non-RBD, host cell targets, and cross-neutralising antibodies. Furthermore, we critically examine the prevailing scientific literature supporting neutralising antibody-based interventions, and also delve into the functional evaluation of antibodies, with a particular focus on in vitro (vivo) assays. Lastly, we identify and consider several pertinent challenges inherent to the realm of COVID-19-neutralising antibody-based treatments, offering insights into potential future directions for research and development.

Characterization of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in lyophilized plasma prepared with amotosalen-UVA pathogen reduction

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected patients exhibit disease ranging from asymptomatic to severe pneumonia, multi-organ failure, and death. convalescent COVID plasma (CCP) from recovered patients with high levels of neutralizing antibodies has demonstrated therapeutic efficacy to reduce the morbidity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in some studies. The development of assays to characterize the activity of CCP to neutralize SARS-CoV-2 infectivity offers the possibility to improve potential therapeutic efficacy. Lyophilization of CCP may increase the availability of this therapy. We hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 antibody profiles of pooled lyophilized pathogen-reduced CCP from COVID-19-recovered blood donors retains virus-neutralizing efficacy as reported for frozen pathogen-reduced CCP.

METHODS

Pooled lyophilized pathogen-reduced plasma was prepared from recovered COVID plasma donors. Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 were characterized in each donor plasma prior to pathogen reduction and lyophilization and after lyophilization of individual CCP, and in the lyophilized CCP pool. Several complimentary assays were used to characterize antibody levels, neutralizing capacity, and the spectrum of antigen reactivity. The mean values for individual plasma samples and the value in the pool were compared.

RESULTS

The mean ratio for antibody binding to SARS-CoV-2 antigens before and after treatment was 0.95 ± 0.22 mean fluorescent intensity (MFI) units. Antibody activity to an array of influenza virus antigens demonstrated a mean activity ratio of 0.92 ± 0.12 MFI before and after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The antibody activity in pooled pathogen-reduced lyophilized CCPs demonstrated minimal impact due to pathogen reduction treatment and lyophilization.

COVID-19 and Multiorgan Response: The Long-Term Impact

In late December 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type-2 (SARS-CoV-2) was discovered following a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China. During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, it was unclear how this virus would manifest into a multiorgan impacting disease. After over 750 million cases worldwide, it has become increasingly evident that SARS-CoV-2 is a complex multifaceted disease we continue to develop our understanding of the pathophysiology of COVID-19 and how it affects these systems has many theories, ranging from direct viral infection via ACE2 receptor binding, to indirect coagulation dysfunction, cytokine storm, and pathological activation of the complement system. Since the onset of the pandemic, disease presentation, management, and manifestation have changed significantly. This paper intends to expand on the long-term impacts of COVID-19 on the cardiovascular, respiratory, urinary, gastrointestinal, and vascular systems of the body and the changes in clinical management. It is evident that the pharmacological, nonpharmacological and psychological management of COVID-19 patients require clearer guidelines to improve the survival odds and long-term clinical outcomes of those presenting with severe disease.