Convalescent plasma associates with reduced mortality and improved clinical trajectory in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

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.

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.

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.

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.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Respiratory Failure Due to COVID-19: A Multicenter Matched Cohort Study

Mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure due to COVID-19 is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is an attractive management option. This study sought to determine the effect of ECMO on hospital mortality and discharge condition in this population. We conducted a retrospective multicenter study to emulate a pragmatic targeted trial comparing ECMO to mechanical ventilation without ECMO for severe COVID-19. Data were gathered from a large hospital network database in the US. Adults admitted with COVID-19 were included if they were managed with ECMO or mechanical ventilation for severe hypoxemia and excluded if they had significant comorbidities or lacked functional independence on admission. The groups underwent coarsened exact matching on multiple clinical variables. The primary outcome was adjusted in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes included ventilator days, intensive care days, and discharge destination. A total of 278 ECMO patients were matched to 2,054 comparison patients. Adjusted in-hospital mortality was significantly less in the ECMO group (38.8% vs. 60.1%, p < 0.001). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was associated with higher rates of liberation from mechanical ventilation, intensive care discharge, and favorable discharge destination. These findings support the use of ECMO for well-selected patients with severe acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19.

Inborn Errors of Immunity and Autoimmune Disease

Autoimmunity may be a manifestation of inborn errors of immunity, specifically as part of the subgroup of primary immunodeficiency known as primary immune regulatory disorders. However, although making a single gene diagnosis can have important implications for prognosis and management, picking patients to screen can be difficult, against a background of a high prevalence of autoimmune disease in the population. This review compares the genetics of common polygenic and rare monogenic autoimmunity, and explores the molecular mechanisms, phenotypes, and inheritance of autoimmunity associated with primary immune regulatory disorders, highlighting the emerging importance of gain-of-function and non-germline somatic mutations. A novel framework for identifying rare monogenic cases of common diseases in children is presented, highlighting important clinical and immunologic features that favor single gene disease and guides clinicians in selecting appropriate patients for genomic screening. In addition, there will be a review of autoimmunity in non-genetically defined primary immunodeficiency such as common variable immunodeficiency, and of instances where primary autoimmunity can result in clinical phenocopies of inborn errors of immunity.

Convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19: Unravelling the data using the principles of antibody therapy

INTRODUCTION

When the COVID-19 pandemic struck no specific therapies were available and many turned to COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP), a form of antibody therapy. The literature provides mixed evidence for CCP efficacy.

AREAS COVERED

PubMed was searched using the words COVID-19 and convalescent plasma and individual study designs were evaluated for adherence to the three principles of antibody therapy, i.e. that plasma 1) contain specific antibody; 2) have enough specific antibody to mediate a biological effect; and 3) be administered early in the course of disease. Using this approach, a diverse and seemingly contradictory collection of clinical findings was distilled into a consistent picture whereby CCP was effective when used according to the above principles of antibody therapy. In addition, CCP therapy in immunocompromised patients is useful at any time in the course of disease.

EXPERT OPINION

CCP is safe and effective when used appropriately. Today, most of humanity has some immunity to SARS-CoV-2 from vaccines and infection, which has lessened the need for CCP in the general population. However, COVID-19 in immunocompromised patients is a major therapeutic challenge, and with the deauthorization of all SARS-CoV-2-spike protein-directed monoclonal antibodies, CCP is the only antibody therapy available for this population.

Use of Structured Template and Reporting Tool for Real-World Evidence for Critical Appraisal of the Quality of Reporting of Real-World Evidence Studies: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Real-world evidence (RWE) studies are increasingly being used to support healthcare decisions. Various frameworks, tools, and checklists exist for ensuring quality of real-world data, designing robust studies, and assessing potential for bias. In January 2021, Structured Template and Reporting Tool for RWE (STaRT-RWE) was released to further reduce ambiguity, assumptions, and misinterpretation while planning, implementing, and reporting RWE studies of the safety and effectiveness of treatments. The objective of this study was to identify gaps in the reporting quality of published RWE studies by using this template for critical appraisal.

METHODS

Two reviewers conducted a keyword search on PubMed for free-full-text research articles using real-world data, RWE design, and safety with or without effectiveness outcomes of a medicinal product or intervention in humans of any age or gender, published in English between January 13, 2021, and January 13, 2022. Assessment of risk of bias was done using Assessment of Real-World Observational Studies critical appraisal tool. Deficiencies in methods and findings as per STaRT-RWE template were reported as frequencies.

RESULTS

A total of 54 of 2374 retrieved studies were included in the review. Based on the STaRT-RWE template, the studies inadequately reported empirically defined covariates, power and sample size calculation, attrition, sensitivity analyses, index date (day 0) defining criterion, predefined covariates, outcome, metadata about data source and software, objective, inclusion and exclusion criteria, analysis specifications, and follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of STaRT-RWE template along with its tables, design diagram, and library of published studies has a potential of improving robustness of RWE studies.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma (CCP) During the Pandemic Era: A Literature Review

Worldwide pandemic with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) was caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). As November 2, 2022, World Health Organization (WHO) received 628,035,553 reported incidents on COVID-19, with 6,572,800 mortalities and, with a total 12,850,970,971 vaccine doses have been delivered as of October 31, 2022. The infection can cause mild or self-limiting symptoms of pulmonary and severe infections or death may be caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Simultaneously, antivirals, corticosteroids, immunological treatments, antibiotics, and anticoagulants have been proposed as potential medicines to cure COVID-19 affected patients. Among these initial treatments, COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP), which was retrieved from COVID-19 recovered patients to be used as passive immune therapy, in which antibodies from cured patients were given to infected patients to prevent illness. Such treatment has yielded the best results in earlier with preventative or early stages of illness. Convalescent plasma (CP) is the first treatment available when infectious disease initially appears, although few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to evaluate its effectiveness. The historical record suggests with potential benefit for other respiratory infections, as coronaviruses like Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-CoV-I (SARS-CoV-I) and Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), though the analysis of such research is constrained by some non-randomized experiments (NREs). Rigorous studies on CP are made more demanding by the following with the immediacy of the epidemics, CP use may restrict the ability to utilize it for clinical testing, non-homogenous nature of product, highly decentralized manufacturing process; constraints with capacity to measure biologic function, ultimate availability of substitute therapies, as antivirals, purified immune globulins, or monoclonal antibodies. Though, it is still not clear how effectively CCP works among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The current review tries to focus on its efficiency and usage in clinical scenarios and identifying existing benefits of implementation during pandemic or how it may assist with future pandemic preventions.

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"

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.

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

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

COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma and Clinical Trials: Understanding Conflicting Outcomes

Convalescent plasma (CP) recurs as a frontline treatment in epidemics because it is available as soon as there are survivors. The COVID-19 pandemic represented the first large-scale opportunity to shed light on the mechanisms of action, safety, and efficacy of CP using modern evidence-based medicine approaches. Studies ranging from observational case series to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported highly variable efficacy results for COVID-19 CP (CCP), resulting in uncertainty. We analyzed variables associated with efficacy, such as clinical settings, disease severity, CCP SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) antibody levels and function, dose, timing of administration (variously defined as time from onset of symptoms, molecular diagnosis, diagnosis of pneumonia, or hospitalization, or by serostatus), outcomes (defined as hospitalization, requirement for ventilation, clinical improvement, or mortality), CCP provenance and time for collection, and criteria for efficacy. The conflicting trial results, along with both recent WHO guidelines discouraging CCP usage and the recent expansion of the FDA emergency use authorization (EUA) to include outpatient use of CCP, create confusion for both clinicians and patients about the appropriate use of CCP. A review of 30 available RCTs demonstrated that signals of efficacy (including reductions in mortality) were more likely if the CCP neutralizing titer was >160 and the time to randomization was less than 9 days. The emergence of the Omicron variant also reminds us of the benefits of polyclonal antibody therapies, especially as a bridge to the development and availability of more specific therapies.

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

DESCRIPTION

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

METHODS

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

RECOMMENDATION 1 (OUTPATIENT)

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

RECOMMENDATION 2 (INPATIENT)

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

RECOMMENDATION 3 (INPATIENT)

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

RECOMMENDATION 4 (INPATIENT)

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

RECOMMENDATION 5 (PROPHYLAXIS)

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

GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE STATEMENT

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

Multi-center matched cohort study of convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients with COVID-19

Background

Although frequently used in the early pandemic, data on the effectiveness of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) remain mixed. We investigated the effectiveness and safety of CCP in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in real-world practices during the first two waves of the pandemic in a multi-hospital healthcare system in Texas.

Methods and findings

Among 11,322 hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection from July 1, 2020 to April 15, 2021, we included patients who received CCP and matched them with those who did not receive CCP within ±2 days of the transfusion date across sites within strata of sex, age groups, days and use of dexamethasone from hospital admission to the match date, and oxygen requirements 4–12 hours prior to the match date. Cox proportional hazards model estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effectiveness outcomes in a propensity score 1:1 matched cohort. Pre-defined safety outcomes were described. We included 1,245 patients each in the CCP treated and untreated groups. Oxygen support was required by 93% of patients at the baseline. The pre-defined primary effectiveness outcome of 28-day in-hospital all-cause mortality (HR = 0.85; 95%CI: 0.66,1.10) were similar between treatment groups. Sensitivity and stratified analyses found similar null results. CCP-treated patients were less likely to be discharged alive (HR = 0.82; 95%CI: 0.74, 0.91), and more likely to receive mechanical ventilation (HR = 1.48; 95%CI: 1.12, 1.96). Safety outcomes were rare and similar between treatment groups.

Conclusion

The findings in this large, matched cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and mostly requiring oxygen support at the time of treatment, do not support a clinical benefit in 28-day in-hospital all-cause mortality for CCP. Future studies should assess the potential benefits with specifically high-titer units in perhaps certain subgroups of patients (e.g. those with early disease or immunocompromised).

The efficiency of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials

The objective of this study was to assess whether convalescent plasma therapy could offer survival advantages for patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). An electronic search of Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane library and MedRxiv was performed from January 1st, 2020 to April 1st, 2022. We included studies containing patients with COVID-19 and treated with CCP. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers and synthesized with a random-effect analysis model. The primary outcome was 28-d mortality. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, ventilation-free days, 14-d mortality, improvements of symptoms, progression of diseases and requirements of mechanical ventilation. Safety outcomes included the incidence of all adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). The Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool 2.0 was used to assess the potential risk of bias in eligible studies. The heterogeneity of results was assessed by I^2 test and Q statistic test. The possibility of publication bias was assessed by conducting Begg and Egger test. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method were used for quality of evidence. This study had been registered on PROSPERO, CRD42021273608. 32 RCTs comprising 21478 patients with Covid-19 were included. Compared to the control group, COVID-19 patients receiving CCP were not associated with significantly reduced 28-d mortality (CCP 20.0% vs control 20.8%; risk ratio 0.94; 95% CI 0.87-1.02; p = 0.16; I² = 8%). For all secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between CCP group and control group. The incidence of AEs (26.9% vs 19.4%,; risk ratio 1.14; 95% CI 0.99-01.31; p = 0.06; I² = 38%) and SAEs (16.3% vs 13.5%; risk ratio 1.03; 95% CI 0.87-1.20; p = 0.76; I² = 42%) tended to be higher in the CCP group compared to the control group, while the differences did not reach statistical significance. In all, CCP therapy was not related to significantly improved 28-d mortality or symptoms recovery, and should not be viewed as a routine treatment for COVID-19 patients.

Trial registration number

CRD42021273608. Registration on February 28, 2022.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, Identifier CRD42022313265.

Thromboprophylaxis in people hospitalized with COVID-19: Assessing intermediate or standard doses in a retrospective cohort study

Background and Objectives

Current clinical guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), yet it is unknown whether higher doses of thromboprophylaxis offer benefits beyond standard doses.

Methods

We studied electronic health records from 50 091 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 in the United States between February 2020 and February 2021. We compared standard (enoxaparin 30 or 40 mg/day, fondaparinux 2.5 mg, or heparin 5000 units twice or thrice per day) versus intermediate (enoxaparin 30 or 40 mg twice daily, or up to 1.2 mg/kg of body weight daily, heparin 7500 units thrice per day or heparin 10 000 units twice or thrice per day) thromboprophylaxis. We separately examined risk of escalation to therapeutic anticoagulation, severe disease (first occurrence of high-flow nasal cannula, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation), and death. To summarize risk, we present hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using adjusted time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression models.

Results

People whose first dose was high intensity were younger, more often obese, and had greater oxygen support requirements. Intermediate dose thromboprophylaxis was associated with increased risk of therapeutic anticoagulation (HR, 3.39; 95% CI, 3.22-3.57), severe disease (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.17-1.28), and death (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.21-1.55). Increased risks associated with intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis persisted in subgroup and sensitivity analyses varying populations and definitions of exposures, outcomes, and covariates.

Conclusions

Our findings do not support routine use of intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis to prevent clinical worsening, severe disease, or death among adults hospitalized with COVID-19.

Antibodies from convalescent plasma promote SARS-CoV-2 clearance in individuals with and without endogenous antibody response

BACKGROUNDNeutralizing antibodies are considered a key correlate of protection by current SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. The manner in which human infections respond to therapeutic SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, including convalescent plasma therapy, remains to be fully elucidated.METHODSWe conducted a proof-of-principle study of convalescent plasma therapy based on a phase I trial in 30 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with a median interval between onset of symptoms and first transfusion of 9 days (IQR, 7-11.8 days). Comprehensive longitudinal monitoring of the virological, serological, and disease status of recipients allowed deciphering of parameters on which plasma therapy efficacy depends.RESULTSIn this trial, convalescent plasma therapy was safe as evidenced by the absence of transfusion-related adverse events and low mortality (3.3%). Treatment with highly neutralizing plasma was significantly associated with faster virus clearance, as demonstrated by Kaplan-Meier analysis (P = 0.034) and confirmed in a parametric survival model including viral load and comorbidity (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.1-8.1; P = 0.026). The onset of endogenous neutralization affected viral clearance, but even after adjustment for their pretransfusion endogenous neutralization status, recipients benefitted from plasma therapy with high neutralizing antibodies (hazard ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.1-11; P = 0.034).CONCLUSIONOur data demonstrate a clear impact of exogenous antibody therapy on the rapid clearance of viremia before and after onset of the endogenous neutralizing response, and point beyond antibody-based interventions to critical laboratory parameters for improved evaluation of current and future SARS-CoV-2 therapies.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT04869072.FUNDINGThis study was funded via an Innovation Pool project by the University Hospital Zurich; the Swiss Red Cross Glückskette Corona Funding; Pandemiefonds of the UZH Foundation; and the Clinical Research Priority Program "Comprehensive Genomic Pathogen Detection" of the University of Zurich.

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

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

Prospective individual patient data meta-analysis of two randomized trials on convalescent plasma for COVID-19 outpatients

Data on convalescent plasma (CP) treatment in COVID-19 outpatients are scarce. We aimed to assess whether CP administered during the first week of symptoms reduced the disease progression or risk of hospitalization of outpatients. Two multicenter, double-blind randomized trials (NCT04621123, NCT04589949) were merged with data pooling starting when <20% of recruitment target was achieved. A Bayesian-adaptive individual patient data meta-analysis was implemented. Outpatients aged ≥50 years and symptomatic for ≤7days were included. The intervention consisted of 200-300mL of CP with a predefined minimum level of antibodies. Primary endpoints were a 5-point disease severity scale and a composite of hospitalization or death by 28 days. Amongst the 797 patients included, 390 received CP and 392 placebo; they had a median age of 58 years, 1 comorbidity, 5 days symptoms and 93% had negative IgG antibody-test. Seventy-four patients were hospitalized, 6 required mechanical ventilation and 3 died. The odds ratio (OR) of CP for improved disease severity scale was 0.936 (credible interval (CI) 0.667-1.311); OR for hospitalization or death was 0.919 (CI 0.592-1.416). CP effect on hospital admission or death was largest in patients with ≤5 days of symptoms (OR 0.658, 95%CI 0.394-1.085). CP did not decrease the time to full symptom resolution.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04621123 and NCT04589949.

REGISTRATION

NCT04621123 and NCT04589949 on https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

How do I implement an outpatient program for the administration of convalescent plasma for COVID-19?

Convalescent plasma, collected from donors who have recovered from a pathogen of interest, has been used to treat infectious diseases, particularly in times of outbreak, when alternative therapies were unavailable. The COVID-19 pandemic revived interest in the use of convalescent plasma. Large observational studies and clinical trials that were executed during the pandemic provided insight into how to use convalescent plasma, whereby high levels of antibodies against the pathogen of interest and administration early within the time course of the disease are critical for optimal therapeutic effect. Several studies have shown outpatient administration of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) to be both safe and effective, preventing clinical progression in patients when administered within the first week of COVID-19. The United States Food and Drug Administration expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) to allow for the administration of CCP in an outpatient setting in December 2021, at least for immunocompromised patients or those on immunosuppressive therapy. Outpatient transfusion of CCP and infusion of monoclonal antibody therapies for a highly transmissible infectious disease introduces nuanced challenges related to infection prevention. Drawing on our experiences with the clinical and research use of CCP, we describe the logistical considerations and workflow spanning procurement of qualified products, infrastructure, staffing, transfusion, and associated management of adverse events. The purpose of this description is to facilitate the efforts of others intent on establishing outpatient transfusion programs for CCP and other antibody-based therapies.

Severe COVID-19 represents an undiagnosed primary immunodeficiency in a high proportion of infected individuals

Since the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, a key challenge has been to define risk factors, other than age and pre-existing comorbidities, that predispose some people to severe disease, while many other SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals experience mild, if any, consequences. One explanation for intra-individual differences in susceptibility to severe COVID-19 may be that a growing percentage of otherwise healthy people have a pre-existing asymptomatic primary immunodeficiency (PID) that is unmasked by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Germline genetic defects have been identified in individuals with life-threatening COVID-19 that compromise local type I interferon (IFN)-mediated innate immune responses to SARS-CoV-2. Remarkably, these variants - which impact responses initiated through TLR3 and TLR7, as well as the response to type I IFN cytokines - may account for between 3% and 5% of severe COVID-19 in people under 70 years of age. Similarly, autoantibodies against type I IFN cytokines (IFN-α, IFN-ω) have been detected in patients' serum prior to infection with SARS-CoV-2 and were found to cause c. 20% of severe COVID-19 in the above 70s and 20% of total COVID-19 deaths. These autoantibodies, which are more common in the elderly, neutralise type I IFNs, thereby impeding innate antiviral immunity and phenocopying an inborn error of immunity. The discovery of PIDs underlying a significant percentage of severe COVID-19 may go some way to explain disease susceptibility, may allow for the application of targeted therapies such as plasma exchange, IFN-α or IFN-β, and may facilitate better management of social distancing, vaccination and early post-exposure prophylaxis.

Efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in the patient with COVID-19: a randomised control trial (COPLA-II trial)

IMPORTANCE

No proven treatment is available for severely ill COVID-19. Therapeutic use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (COPLA) is under investigation.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of COPLA with standard medical therapy (SMT) alone in severe COVID-19 patients.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A multicentric, open-labelled, phase-III randomised controlled trial conducted at two treatment centres with COPLA collected at the third dedicated centre in North-India, the coordinating centre during trial from June 2020 to December 2020. The study population comprised 400 participants in the ratio of 1:1 in each treatment group.

INTERVENTION

One group received COPLA with SMT (n=200), and another group received SMT only (n=200).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was time to clinical improvement measured by a two-point reduction in the ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included duration of O₂ therapy, the proportion of patients on mechanical ventilation at day-7, mortality, SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels, cytokine levels and incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

The median time to a two-point reduction in the ordinal scale in both groups was 9 days (IQR=7-13) (p=0.328). The median duration of O₂ therapy was 8 days (IQR=6-12) in COPLA and 10 days (IQR=6-12) in SMT group (p=0.64). The PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio showed significant improvement at 7 days in COPLA group(p=0.036). There was no difference in mortality till 28 days in both groups (p=0.62). However, if COPLA was given within 3 days of hospital admission, a significant reduction in ordinal scale was observed (p=0.04). Neutralising antibody titres in COPLA group (80 (IQR 80-80)) were higher than SMT group (0 (IQR 0-80)) at 48 hours (p=0.001). COPLA therapy led to a significant reduction in TNF-α levels at 48 hours (p=0.048) and D-dimer at 7 days (p=0.02). Mild allergic reactions were observed in 3 (1.5%) patients in COPLA group.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Convalescent plasma with adequate antibody titres should be transfused in COVID-19 patients along with SMT in the initial 3 days of hospitalisation for better clinical outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04425915.

Immunotherapy and CRISPR Cas Systems: Potential Cure of COVID-19?

The COVID-19 has plunged the world into a pandemic that affected millions. The continually emerging new variants of concern raise the question as to whether the existing vaccines will continue to provide sufficient protection for individuals from SARS-CoV-2 during natural infection. This narrative review aims to briefly outline various immunotherapeutic options and discuss the potential of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR Cas system technology against COVID-19 treatment as specific cure. As the development of vaccine, convalescent plasma, neutralizing antibodies are based on the understanding of human immune responses against SARS-CoV-2, boosting human body immune responses in case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, immunotherapeutics seem feasible as specific cure against COVID-19 if the present challenges are overcome. In cell based therapeutics, apart from the high costs, risks and side effects, there are technical problems such as the production of sufficient potent immune cells and antibodies under limited time to treat the COVID-19 patients in mild conditions prior to progression into a more severe case. The CRISPR Cas technology could be utilized to refine the specificity and safety of CAR-T cells, CAR-NK cells and neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 during various stages of the COVID-19 disease progression in infected individuals. Moreover, CRISPR Cas technology are proposed in hypotheses to degrade the viral RNA in order to terminate the infection caused by SARS-CoV-2. Thus personalized cocktails of immunotherapeutics and CRISPR Cas systems against COVID-19 as a strategy might prevent further disease progression and circumvent immunity escape.

COVID-19 and the impact on blood availability and transfusion practices in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND/CASE STUDIES

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted the global blood supply. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) already experienced blood supply deficits that preceded the pandemic. We sought to characterize the challenges experienced during the pandemic, and adaptations, such as COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP).

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS

A cross-sectional survey explored blood availability, challenges, and adaptations. The survey contained 31 questions, e-mailed in English, French, or Spanish, to selected LMIC blood transfusion practitioners. Data acquisition occurred between October 28 and December 28, 2020. A mixed methods analysis followed.

RESULTS/FINDINGS

A total of 31 responses from 111 invitations represented 26 LMIC countries. Languages included English (22, 71%), Spanish (7, 22.6%), and French (2, 6.4%). Most respondents (29/31, 93.5%) collected blood; 58% also transfused blood (18/31). The supply of blood came from hospital-based blood donations (61%, 11/18); blood suppliers (17%, 3/18); and both sources (22%, 4/18). Collectively, 77.4% (24/31) of respondents experienced a decline in blood availability, ranging from 10% to 50%. Contributing factors included public fear of COVID-19 (21/24); stay-at-home measures (18/24); logistics (14/24); and canceled blood drives (16/24). Adaptations included increased collaboration within and between institutions (17/27), donor eligibility changes (21/31); social media or phone promotion (22/39); and replacement donation (3/27). Fifteen of 31 responses reported CCP donation (48.4%); CCP transfusion occurred in 6 (19.4%). The primary barrier was engaging recovered patients for donation (7/15).

CONCLUSION

Our survey describes challenges experienced by LMIC blood systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. While the decline in blood supplies was severe, adaptive measures included collaboration, outreach, and CCP programs.

A guide to immunotherapy for COVID-19

Immune dysregulation is an important component of the pathophysiology of COVID-19. A large body of literature has reported the effect of immune-based therapies in patients with COVID-19, with some remarkable successes such as the use of steroids or anti-cytokine therapies. However, challenges in clinical decision-making arise from the complexity of the disease phenotypes and patient heterogeneity, as well as the variable quality of evidence from immunotherapy studies. This Review aims to support clinical decision-making by providing an overview of the evidence generated by major clinical trials of host-directed therapy. We discuss patient stratification and propose an algorithm to guide the use of immunotherapy strategies in the clinic. This will not only help guide treatment decisions, but may also help to design future trials that investigate immunotherapy in other severe infections.

Coagulation profile of human COVID-19 convalescent plasma

Convalescent plasma is used to treat COVID-19. There are theoretical concerns about the impact of pro-coagulant factors in convalescent plasma on the coagulation cascade particularly among patients with severe COVID-19. The aim of this study was to evaluate the coagulation profile of COVID-19 convalescent plasma. Clotting times and coagulation factor assays were compared between fresh frozen plasma, COVID-19 convalescent plasma, and pathogen-reduced COVID-19 convalescent plasma. Measurements included prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, thrombin time, fibrinogen, D-dimer, von Willebrand factor activity, von Willebrand factor antigen, coagulation factors II, V, VII-XII, protein S activity, protein C antigen, and alpha-2 plasmin inhibitor. Clotting times and coagulation factor assays were not different between COVID-19 convalescent plasma and fresh frozen plasma, except for protein C antigen. When compared to fresh frozen plasma and regular convalescent plasma, pathogen reduction treatment increased activated partial thromboplastin time and thrombin time, while reducing fibrinogen, coagulation factor II, V, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, protein S activity, and alpha-2 plasmin inhibitor. The coagulation profiles of human COVID-19 convalescent plasma and standard fresh frozen plasma are not different. Pathogen reduced COVID-19 convalescent plasma is associated with reduction of coagulation factors and a slight prolongation of coagulation times, as anticipated. A key limitation of the study is that the COVID-19 disease course of the convalesced donors was not characterized.

Randomisierte Studien zum Einsatz von Rekonvaleszentenplasma bei COVID-19: eine Standortbestimmung

Plasma von genesenen Spendern mit COVID-19 (COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma, CCP) wurde als Behandlungsoption für Patienten mit COVID-19 in Betracht gezogen. In der ersten Phase der Pandemie wurden mehrere Fallberichte und Fallkontrollstudien mit Hinweisen auf eine therapeutische Wirkung veröffentlicht. Inzwischen liegen die Ergebnisse zahlreicher randomisierter Studien vor. Die Studien unterscheiden sich in vielen Aspekten, u. a. in den Patientenpopulationen, die von ambulanten Patienten mit mildem COVID-19 bis zu kritisch Kranken reichten, wie auch den Endpunkten. Ebenso war der Behandlungsstandard innerhalb der klinischen Studien sehr unterschiedlich. Vor allem aber unterschied sich das Prüfpräparat CCP erheblich in Bezug auf das Behandlungsschema, das Volumen und den Gehalt an Antikörpern. Im Folgenden werden wir die Ergebnisse der bisher publizierten randomisierten Studien diskutieren. Aus den bisher veröffentlichten Ergebnissen lässt sich eine Wirksamkeit von CCP ableiten, sofern es sehr hohe Titer neutralisierender Antikörper enthält und früh im Krankheitsverlauf verabreicht wird. COVID-19-Rekonvaleszenten-Plasma ist noch keine Routinebehandlung und sollte möglichst weiter in klinischen Studien untersucht werden. Neu konzipierte Studien sollten sich auf die frühe Anwendung von CCP mit einem hohen Gehalt an neutralisierenden Antikörpern bei Patienten mit hohem Risiko für eine Progression zu einer schweren COVID-19-Erkrankung konzentrieren und wichtige Begleitmedikationen kontrollieren.

Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 Variants to Neutralization by Convalescent Sera and a VH3-30 Monoclonal Antibody

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused a global pandemic of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Though vaccines and neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been developed to fight COVID-19 in the past year, one major concern is the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs). Indeed, SARS-CoV-2 VOCs such as B.1.1.7 (UK), B.1.351 (South Africa), P.1 (Brazil), and B.1.617.1 (India) now dominate the pandemic. Herein, we found that binding activity and neutralizing capacity of sera collected from convalescent patients in early 2020 for SARS-CoV-2 VOCs, but not non-VOC variants, were severely blunted. Furthermore, we observed evasion of SARS-CoV-2 VOCs from a VH3-30 mAb 32D4, which was proved to exhibit highly potential neutralization against wild-type (WT) SARS-CoV-2. Thus, these results indicated that SARS-CoV-2 VOCs might be able to spread in convalescent patients and even harbor resistance to medical countermeasures. New interventions against these SARS-CoV-2 VOCs are urgently needed.