Impact of pathogen reduction methods on immunological properties of the COVID-19 convalescent plasma

Blood Banking Capacity in Low-and Middle-Income Countries: Covid-19 Convalescent Plasma in Context

Blood transfusion capacity in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), encompassing both the safety and adequacy of the blood supply, is limited. The challenges facing blood banks in LMICs include regulatory oversight, blood donor selection, collection procedures, laboratory testing, and post-transfusion surveillance. A high proportion of LMICs are unable to fully meet clinical demands for blood products, and many do not meet even the minimum threshold of collection (10 units per 1000 population). Suboptimal clinical transfusion practices, in large part due to a lack of training in transfusion medicine, contribute to blood wastage. During the COVID-19 pandemic, high- and LMICs alike experienced blood shortages, in large part due to quarantine and containment measures that impeded donor mobility. COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) was particularly appealing for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 in LMICs, as it is a relatively inexpensive intervention and makes use of the existing blood collection infrastructure. Nonetheless, the challenges of using CCP in LMICs need to be contextualized among broad concerns surrounding blood safety and availability. Specifically, reliance on first time, family replacement and paid donors, coupled with deficient infectious disease testing and quality oversight, increase the risk of transfusion transmitted infections from CCP in LMICs. Furthermore, many LMICs are unable to meet general transfusion needs; therefore, CCP collection also risked exacerbation of pervasive blood shortages.

Benzopyrone, a privileged scaffold in drug discovery: An overview of FDA-approved drugs and clinical candidates

Natural products have always served as an important source of drugs for treating various diseases. Among various privileged natural product scaffolds, the benzopyrone class of compounds has a substantial presence among biologically active compounds. One of the pioneering anticoagulant drugs, warfarin approved in 1954 bears a benzo-α-pyrone (coumarin) nucleus. The widely investigated psoriasis drugs, methoxsalen, and trioxsalen, also contain a benzo-α-pyrone nucleus. Benzo-γ-pyrone (chromone) containing drugs, cromoglic acid, and pranlukast were approved as treatments for asthma in 1982 and 2007, respectively. Numerous other small molecules with a benzopyrone core are under clinical investigation. The present review discusses the discovery, absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion properties, and synthetic approaches for the Food and Drug Administration-approved and clinical-stage benzopyrone class of compounds. The role of the pyrone core in biological activity has also been discussed. The present review unravels the potential of benzopyrone core in medicinal chemistry and drug development.

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.

Assessment of the impact of pathogen reduction technologies on the neutralizing activity of COVID-19 convalescent plasma

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) could improve the clinical outcome of COVID-19 patients when high-titer CCP is administered in early stages of disease. However, CCP donors have a risk profile like first-time donors, pathogen reduction treatment (PRT) may mitigate such risk but should not impact CCP quality. The current study aims to assess the impact of PRT-technologies available in Saudi Arabia on the neutralizing activity of CCP. STUDY DESIGN: and Methods: CCP was collected from eligible donors by plasmapheresis. The neutralization titer was determined with an in-house microneutralization assay (MNA) using a local SARS-CoV-2 clinical isolate. Selected units were split and subject to PRT with amotosalen/UVA (AS) or Riboflavin/UVB (RB) (pairwise side-by-side comparison) followed by a second MNA analysis. 51 CCP units were collected, 27 were included in the analysis reaching the minimum MNA titer of 1:40 (4 reached high titer (≥1:250)). 27 CCP units were treated with AS and 14 with RB, the median MNA pre-treatment titer was 1:80 (1:40-640). The impact of AS and RB PRT on CCP neutralizing activity was not significantly different, nor in the total analysis neither in the pairwise comparison (94.6 vs 96.4 % retention, p > 0.05). No correlation of titer and blood group was observed, but a trend for increasing MNA titer with donor age, choosing donors with an age > 45 years would increase the number of high-titer CCP donors. The difference in impact of AS and RB on CCP MNA titer was below the limit of detection of the assay (0.5-fold).

Pathogen reduction with methylene blue does not have an impact on the clinical effectiveness of COVID-19 convalescent plasma

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is a concern about a possible deleterious effect of pathogen reduction (PR) with methylene blue (MB) on the function of immunoglobulins of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). We have evaluated whether MB-treated CCP is associated with a poorer clinical response compared to other inactivation systems at the ConPlas-19 clinical trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was an ad hoc sub-study of the ConPlas-19 clinical trial comparing the proportion of patients transfused with MB-treated CCP who had a worsening of respiration versus those treated with amotosalen (AM) or riboflavin (RB).

RESULTS

One-hundred and seventy-five inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were transfused with a single CCP unit. The inactivation system of the CCP units transfused was MB in 90 patients (51.4%), RB in 60 (34.3%) and AM in 25 (14.3%). Five out of 90 patients (5.6%) transfused with MB-treated CCP had worsening respiration compared to 9 out of 85 patients (10.6%) treated with alternative PR methods (p = 0.220). Of note, MB showed a trend towards a lower rate of respiratory progressions at 28 days (risk ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-1.50).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that MB-treated CCP does not provide a worse clinical outcome compared to the other PR methods for the treatment of COVID-19.

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.

Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 infectivity in platelet concentrates or plasma following treatment with ultraviolet C light or with methylene blue combined with visible light

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is unlikely to be a major transfusion-transmitted pathogen; however, convalescent plasma is a treatment option used in some regions. The risk of transfusion-transmitted infections can be minimized by implementing Pathogen Inactivation (PI), such as THERAFLEX MB-plasma and THERAFLEX UV-Platelets systems. Here we examined the capability of these PI systems to inactivate SARS-CoV-2.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

SARS-CoV-2 spiked plasma units were treated using the THERAFLEX MB-Plasma system in the presence of methylene blue (~0.8 μmol/L; visible light doses: 20, 40, 60, and 120 [standard] J/cm² ). SARS-CoV-2 spiked platelet concentrates (PCs) were treated using the THERAFLEX UV-platelets system (UVC doses: 0.05, 0.10, 0.15, and 0.20 [standard] J/cm² ). Samples were taken prior to the first and after each illumination dose, and viral infectivity was assessed using an immunoplaque assay.

RESULTS

Treatment of spiked plasma with the THERAFLEX MB-Plasma system resulted in an average ≥5.03 log₁₀ reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infectivity at one third (40 J/cm² ) of the standard visible light dose. For the platelet concentrates (PCs), treatment with the THERAFLEX UV-Platelets system resulted in an average ≥5.18 log₁₀ reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infectivity at the standard UVC dose (0.2 J/cm² ).

CONCLUSIONS

SARS-CoV-2 infectivity was reduced in plasma and platelets following treatment with the THERAFLEX MB-Plasma and THERAFLEX UV-Platelets systems, to the limit of detection, respectively. These PI technologies could therefore be an effective option to reduce the risk of transfusion-transmitted emerging pathogens.

Validation of Viral Inactivation Protocols for Therapeutic Blood Products against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-COV-2)

Therapeutic blood products including convalescent plasma/serum and immunoglobulins concentrated from convalescent plasma, such as intravenous immunoglobulins or hyperimmune globulins, and monoclonal antibodies are passive immunotherapy options for novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). They have been shown to improve the clinical status and biological and radiological parameters in some groups of COVID-19 patients. However, blood products are still potential sources of virus transmission in recipients. The use of pathogen reduction technology (PRT) should increase the safety of the products. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of solvent/detergents (S/D) procedures on SARS-COV-2 infectivity elimination in the plasma of donors but also on COVID-19 convalescent serum (CCS) capacity to neutralize SARS-COV-2 infectivity. In this investigation, S/D treatment for all experiments was performed at a shortened process time (30 min). We first evaluated the impact of S/D treatments (1% TnBP/1% TritonX-45 and 1% TnBP/1% TritonX-100) on the inactivation of SARS-COV-2 pseudoparticles (SARS-COV-2pp)-spiked human plasma followed by S/D agent removal using a Sep-Pak Plus C18 cartridge. Both treatments were able to completely inactivate SARS-COV-2pp infectivity to an undetectable level. Moreover, the neutralizing activity of CCS against SARS-COV-2pp was preserved after S/D treatments. Our data suggested that viral inactivation methods using such S/D treatments could be useful in the implementation of viral inactivation/elimination processes of therapeutic blood products against SARS-COV-2.

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

BACKGROUND

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

Fast and Accurate Surrogate Virus Neutralization Test Based on Antibody-Mediated Blocking of the Interaction of ACE2 and SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein RBD

The humoral response to the SARS-CoV-2 S protein determines the development of protective immunity against this infection. The standard neutralizing antibodies detection method is a live virus neutralization test. It can be replaced with an ELISA-based surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT), measuring the ability of serum antibodies to inhibit complex formation between the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the S protein and the cellular ACE2 receptor. There are conflicting research data on the sVNT methodology and the reliability of its results. We show that the performance of sVNT dramatically improves when the intact RBD from the Wuhan-Hu-1 virus variant is used as the plate coating reagent, and the HRP-conjugated soluble ACE2 is used as the detection reagent. This design omits the pre-incubation step in separate tubes or separate microplate and allows the simple quantification of the results using the linear regression, utilizing only 3–4 test sample dilutions. When this sVNT was performed for 73 convalescent plasma samples, its results showed a very strong correlation with VNT (Spearman’s Rho 0.83). For the RBD, bearing three amino acid substitutions and corresponding to the SARS-CoV-2 beta variant, the inhibitory strength was diminished for 18 out of 20 randomly chosen serum samples, and the magnitude of this decrease was not similar to the change in overall anti-RBD IgG level. The sVNT assay design with the ACE2-HRP is preferable over the assay with the RBD-HRP reagent and is suitable for mass screening of neutralizing antibodies titers.