1
|
Mallory M, Munt JE, Narowski TM, Castillo I, Cuadra E, Pisanic N, Fields P, Powers JM, Dickson A, Harris R, Wargowsky R, Moran S, Allabban A, Raphel K, McCaffrey TA, Brien JD, Heaney CD, Lafleur JE, Baric RS, Premkumar L. COVID-19 point-of-care tests can identify low-antibody individuals: In-depth immunoanalysis of boosting benefits in a healthy cohort. SCIENCE ADVANCES 2024; 10:eadi1379. [PMID: 38865463 PMCID: PMC11168476 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adi1379] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2023] [Accepted: 05/08/2024] [Indexed: 06/14/2024]
Abstract
The recommended COVID-19 booster vaccine uptake is low. At-home lateral flow assay (LFA) antigen tests are widely accepted for detecting infection during the pandemic. Here, we present the feasibility and potential benefits of using LFA-based antibody tests as a means for individuals to detect inadequate immunity and make informed decisions about COVID-19 booster immunization. In a health care provider cohort, we investigated the changes in the breadth and depth of humoral and T cell immune responses following mRNA vaccination and boosting in LFA-positive and LFA-negative antibody groups. We show that negative LFA antibody tests closely reflect the lack of functional humoral immunity observed in a battery of sophisticated immune assays, while positive results do not necessarily reflect adequate immunity. After booster vaccination, both groups gain depth and breadth of systemic antibodies against evolving SARS-CoV-2 and related viruses. Our findings show that LFA-based antibody tests can alert individuals about inadequate immunity against COVID-19, thereby increasing booster shots and promoting herd immunity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Mallory
- Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, UNC Chapel Hill School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Jennifer E. Munt
- Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, UNC Chapel Hill School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Tara M. Narowski
- Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Izabella Castillo
- Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Edwing Cuadra
- Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Nora Pisanic
- Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | | | - John M. Powers
- Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, UNC Chapel Hill School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Alexandria Dickson
- Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA
| | - Rohan Harris
- Department Emergency Medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Richard Wargowsky
- Department of Medicine, Division of Genomic Medicine, The George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Seamus Moran
- Department Emergency Medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Ahmed Allabban
- Department Emergency Medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Kristin Raphel
- Department Emergency Medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Timothy A. McCaffrey
- Department of Medicine, Division of Genomic Medicine, The George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - James D. Brien
- Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA
| | - Christopher D. Heaney
- Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Department of International Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - John E. Lafleur
- Department Emergency Medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Ralph S. Baric
- Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, UNC Chapel Hill School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Lakshmanane Premkumar
- Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Khawaja T, Kajova M, Levonen I, Pietilä JP, Välimaa H, Paajanen J, Pakkanen SH, Patjas A, Montonen R, Miettinen S, Virtanen J, Smura T, Sironen T, Fagerlund R, Ugurlu H, Iheozor-Ejiofor R, Saksela K, Vahlberg T, Ranki A, Vierikko A, Ihalainen J, Vapalahti O, Kantele A. Double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of convalescent plasma for COVID-19: analyses by neutralising antibodies homologous to recipients' variants. Infect Dis (Lond) 2024; 56:423-433. [PMID: 38513074 DOI: 10.1080/23744235.2024.2329957] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2023] [Accepted: 03/08/2024] [Indexed: 03/23/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Convalescent plasma (CP) emerged as potential treatment for COVID-19 early in the pandemic. While efficacy in hospitalised patients has been lacklustre, CP may be beneficial at the first stages of disease. Despite multiple new variants emerging, no trials have involved analyses on variant-specific antibody titres of CP. METHODS We recruited hospitalised COVID-19 patients within 10 days of symptom onset and, employing a double-blinded approach, randomised them to receive 200 ml convalescent plasma with high (HCP) or low (LCP) neutralising antibody (NAb) titre against the ancestral strain (Wuhan-like variant) or placebo in 1:1:1 ratio. Primary endpoints comprised intubation, corticosteroids for symptom aggravation, and safety assessed as serious adverse events. For a preplanned ad hoc analysis, the patients were regrouped by infused CP's NAb titers to variants infecting the recipients i.e. by titres of homologous HCP (hHCP) or LCP (hLCP). RESULTS Of the 57 patients, 18 received HCP, 19 LCP and 20 placebo, all groups smaller than planned. No significant differences were found for primary endpoints. In ad hoc analysis, hHCPrecipients needed significantly less respiratory support, and appeared to be given corticosteroids less frequently (1/14; 7.1%) than those receiving hLCP (9/23; 39.1%) or placebo (8/20; 40%), (p = 0.077). DISCUSSION Our double-blinded, placebo-controlled CP therapy trial remained underpowered and does not allow any firm conclusions for early-stage hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Interestingly, however, regrouping by homologous - recipients' variant-specific - CP titres suggested benefits for hHCP. We encourage similar re-analysis of ongoing/previous larger CP studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinTrials.gov identifier: NCT0473040.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- T Khawaja
- Meilahti Vaccine Research Center, MeVac, Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
- Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
- Human Microbiome Research Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- FIMAR, Multidisciplinary Center of Excellence in Antimicrobial Resistance Research, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - M Kajova
- Meilahti Vaccine Research Center, MeVac, Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
- Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
- Human Microbiome Research Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- FIMAR, Multidisciplinary Center of Excellence in Antimicrobial Resistance Research, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - I Levonen
- Meilahti Vaccine Research Center, MeVac, Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
- Human Microbiome Research Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - J P Pietilä
- Meilahti Vaccine Research Center, MeVac, Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
- Human Microbiome Research Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- FIMAR, Multidisciplinary Center of Excellence in Antimicrobial Resistance Research, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - H Välimaa
- Meilahti Vaccine Research Center, MeVac, Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
- Department of Virology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - J Paajanen
- Meilahti Vaccine Research Center, MeVac, Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
- Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Heart and Lung Center, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - S H Pakkanen
- Meilahti Vaccine Research Center, MeVac, Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
- Human Microbiome Research Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- FIMAR, Multidisciplinary Center of Excellence in Antimicrobial Resistance Research, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - A Patjas
- Meilahti Vaccine Research Center, MeVac, Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
- Human Microbiome Research Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- FIMAR, Multidisciplinary Center of Excellence in Antimicrobial Resistance Research, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - R Montonen
- Department of Virology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - S Miettinen
- Department of Virology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- Department of Veterinary Biosciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - J Virtanen
- Department of Virology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- Department of Veterinary Biosciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - T Smura
- Department of Virology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - T Sironen
- Department of Virology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- Department of Veterinary Biosciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - R Fagerlund
- Department of Virology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - H Ugurlu
- Department of Virology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - R Iheozor-Ejiofor
- Department of Virology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- Department of Veterinary Biosciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - K Saksela
- Department of Virology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- HUS Diagnostic Centre, HUSLAB, Clinical Microbiology, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - T Vahlberg
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | - A Ranki
- Department of Dermatology, Allergology and Venereology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - A Vierikko
- Finnish Red Cross Blood Service, Helsinki, Finland
| | - J Ihalainen
- Finnish Red Cross Blood Service, Helsinki, Finland
| | - O Vapalahti
- Department of Virology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- Department of Veterinary Biosciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- HUS Diagnostic Centre, HUSLAB, Clinical Microbiology, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
| | - A Kantele
- Meilahti Vaccine Research Center, MeVac, Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
- Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
- Human Microbiome Research Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- FIMAR, Multidisciplinary Center of Excellence in Antimicrobial Resistance Research, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Yang X. Passive antibody therapy in emerging infectious diseases. Front Med 2023; 17:1117-1134. [PMID: 38040914 DOI: 10.1007/s11684-023-1021-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/06/2023] [Accepted: 07/20/2023] [Indexed: 12/03/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiaoming Yang
- National Engineering Technology Research Center for Combined Vaccines, Wuhan, 430207, China.
- Wuhan Institute of Biological Products Co., Ltd., Wuhan, 430207, China.
- China National Biotec Group Company Limited, Beijing, 100029, China.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Senefeld JW, Gorman EK, Johnson PW, Moir ME, Klassen SA, Carter RE, Paneth NS, Sullivan DJ, Morkeberg OH, Wright RS, Fairweather D, Bruno KA, Shoham S, Bloch EM, Focosi D, Henderson JP, Juskewitch JE, Pirofski LA, Grossman BJ, Tobian AA, Franchini M, Ganesh R, Hurt RT, Kay NE, Parikh SA, Baker SE, Buchholtz ZA, Buras MR, Clayburn AJ, Dennis JJ, Diaz Soto JC, Herasevich V, Klompas AM, Kunze KL, Larson KF, Mills JR, Regimbal RJ, Ripoll JG, Sexton MA, Shepherd JR, Stubbs JR, Theel ES, van Buskirk CM, van Helmond N, Vogt MN, Whelan ER, Wiggins CC, Winters JL, Casadevall A, Joyner MJ. Rates Among Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 Treated With Convalescent Plasma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes 2023; 7:499-513. [PMID: 37859995 PMCID: PMC10582279 DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2023.09.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathon W. Senefeld
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
- Department of Kinesiology and Community Health, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL
| | - Ellen K. Gorman
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Patrick W. Johnson
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL
| | - M. Erin Moir
- Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison
| | - Stephen A. Klassen
- Department of Kinesiology, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada
| | - Rickey E. Carter
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL
| | - Nigel S. Paneth
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Department of Pediatrics and Human Development, Michigan State University, East Lansing
| | - David J. Sullivan
- Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, ML
| | - Olaf H. Morkeberg
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - R. Scott Wright
- Human Research Protection Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | - Katelyn A. Bruno
- Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL
- Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville
| | - Shmuel Shoham
- Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - Evan M. Bloch
- Department of Pathology Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, ML
| | - Daniele Focosi
- North-Western Tuscany Blood Bank, Pisa University Hospital, Italy
| | - Jeffrey P. Henderson
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, MO
- Department of Molecular Microbiology, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, MO
| | | | - Liise-Anne Pirofski
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY
| | - Brenda J. Grossman
- Department of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, MO
| | - Aaron A.R. Tobian
- Department of Pathology Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, ML
| | - Massimo Franchini
- Division of Transfusion Medicine, Carlo Poma Hospital, Mantua, Italy
| | - Ravindra Ganesh
- Department of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Ryan T. Hurt
- Department of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Neil E. Kay
- Division of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
- Department of Immunology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | - Sarah E. Baker
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Zachary A. Buchholtz
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Matthew R. Buras
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | - Andrew J. Clayburn
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Joshua J. Dennis
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Juan C. Diaz Soto
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Vitaly Herasevich
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Allan M. Klompas
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Katie L. Kunze
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
| | | | - John R. Mills
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Riley J. Regimbal
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Juan G. Ripoll
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Matthew A. Sexton
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - John R.A. Shepherd
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - James R. Stubbs
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Elitza S. Theel
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | - Noud van Helmond
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Matthew N.P. Vogt
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Emily R. Whelan
- Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL
| | - Chad C. Wiggins
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Jeffrey L. Winters
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Arturo Casadevall
- Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, ML
| | - Michael J. Joyner
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Mallory M, Munt JE, Narowski TM, Castillo I, Cuadra E, Pisanic N, Fields P, Powers JM, Dickson A, Harris R, Wargowsky R, Moran S, Allabban A, Raphel K, McCaffrey TA, Brien JD, Heaney CD, Lafleur JE, Baric RS, Premkumar L. Longitudinal Analysis of Humoral and Cellular Immune Response Following SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Supports Utilizing Point-Of-Care Tests to Enhance COVID-19 Booster Uptake. MEDRXIV : THE PREPRINT SERVER FOR HEALTH SCIENCES 2023:2023.04.03.23287498. [PMID: 37066219 PMCID: PMC10104219 DOI: 10.1101/2023.04.03.23287498] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/18/2023]
Abstract
Individuals with weaker neutralizing responses show reduced protection with SARS-CoV-2 variants. Booster vaccines are recommended for vaccinated individuals, but the uptake is low. We present the feasibility of utilizing point-of-care tests (POCT) to support evidence-based decision-making around COVID-19 booster vaccinations. Using infectious virus neutralization, ACE2 blocking, spike binding, and TCR sequencing assays, we investigated the dynamics of changes in the breadth and depth of blood and salivary antibodies as well as T-cell clonal response following mRNA vaccination in a cohort of healthcare providers. We evaluated the accuracy of two POCTs utilizing either blood or saliva to identify those in whom humoral immunity was inadequate. >4 months after two doses of mRNA vaccine, SARS-CoV-2 binding and neutralizing Abs (nAbs) and T-cell clones declined 40-80%, and 2/3rd lacked Omicron nAbs. After the third mRNA booster, binding and neutralizing Abs increased overall in the systemic compartment; notably, individuals with previously weak nAbs gained sharply. The third dose failed to stimulate secretory IgA, but salivary IgG closely tracked systemic IgG levels. Vaccine boosting increased Ab breadth against a divergent bat sarbecovirus, SHC014, although the TCR-beta sequence breadth was unchanged. Post 3rd booster dose, Ab avidity increased for the Wuhan and Delta strains, while avidity against Omicron and SHC014 increased to levels seen for Wuhan after the second dose. Negative results on POCTs strongly correlated with a lack of functional humoral immunity. The third booster dose helps vaccinees gain depth and breadth of systemic Abs against evolving SARS-CoV-2 and related viruses. Our findings show that POCTs are useful and easy-to-access tools to inform inadequate humoral immunity accurately. POCTs designed to match the circulating variants can help individuals with booster vaccine decisions and could serve as a population-level screening platform to preserve herd immunity. One Sentence Summary SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care antibody tests are valuable and easy-to-access tools to inform inadequate humoral immunity and to support informed decision-making regarding the current and future booster vaccination.
Collapse
|
6
|
Commentary on "Outcomes of Convalescent Plasma with Defined High versus Lower Neutralizing Antibody Titers against SARS-CoV-2 among Hospitalized Patients: CoronaVirus Inactivating Plasma (CoVIP) Study". mBio 2022; 13:e0265322. [PMID: 36314790 PMCID: PMC9765513 DOI: 10.1128/mbio.02653-22] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
The totality of evidence favors the efficacy of convalescent plasma to treat COVID-19 when high-titer plasma is administered early in the course of disease or to immunocompromised patients. In this commentary, we frame the findings of L. A. Bartelt, A. J. Markmann, B. Nelson, J. Keys, et al. (mBio 13:e01751-22, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01751-22) in the context of the normal approval process for a therapeutic product. We point out that convalescent plasma has taken all of the typical steps associated with approval for a therapeutic product. Additionally, in less than 3 years, the optimal use cases and continued utility of this product to treat COVID-19 have been defined.
Collapse
|
7
|
Evaluation of a COVID-19 convalescent plasma program at a U.S. academic medical center. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0277707. [PMID: 36480499 PMCID: PMC9731422 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277707] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2021] [Accepted: 11/01/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Amidst the therapeutic void at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a critical mass of scientific and clinical interest coalesced around COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). To date, the CCP literature has focused largely on safety and efficacy outcomes, but little on implementation outcomes or experience. Expert opinion suggests that if CCP has a role in COVID-19 treatment, it is early in the disease course, and it must deliver a sufficiently high titer of neutralizing antibodies (nAb). Missing in the literature are comprehensive evaluations of how local CCP programs were implemented as part of pandemic preparedness and response, including considerations of the core components and personnel required to meet demand with adequately qualified CCP in a timely and sustained manner. To address this gap, we conducted an evaluation of a local CCP program at a large U.S. academic medical center, the University of North Carolina Medical Center (UNCMC), and patterned our evaluation around the dimensions of the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to systematically describe key implementation-relevant metrics. We aligned our evaluation with program goals of reaching the target population with severe or critical COVID-19, integrating into the structure of the hospital-wide pandemic response, adapting to shifting landscapes, and sustaining the program over time during a compassionate use expanded access program (EAP) era and a randomized controlled trial (RCT) era. During the EAP era, the UNCMC CCP program was associated with faster CCP infusion after admission compared with contemporaneous affiliate hospitals without a local program: median 29.6 hours (interquartile range, IQR: 21.2-48.1) for the UNCMC CCP program versus 47.6 hours (IQR 32.6-71.6) for affiliate hospitals; (P<0.0001). Sixty-eight of 87 CCP recipients in the EAP (78.2%) received CCP containing the FDA recommended minimum nAb titer of ≥1:160. CCP delivery to hospitalized patients operated with equal efficiency regardless of receiving treatment via a RCT or a compassionate-use mechanism. It was found that in a highly resourced academic medical center, rapid implementation of a local CCP collection, treatment, and clinical trial program could be achieved through re-deployment of highly trained laboratory and clinical personnel. These data provide important pragmatic considerations critical for health systems considering the use of CCP as part of an integrated pandemic response.
Collapse
|