Intravenous immunoglobulin-based adjuvant therapy for severe COVID-19: a single-center retrospective cohort study

Intravenous immunoglobulin for treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: an evidence mapping and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment for COVID-19 remain controversial. This study aimed to map the current status and gaps of available evidence, and conduct a meta-analysis to further investigate the benefit of IVIg in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs), primary studies with control groups, reporting on the use of IVIg in patients with COVID-19. A random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup analyses regarding study design and patient disease severity was performed. Our outcomes of interest determined by the evidence mapping, were mortality, length of hospitalization (days), length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (days), number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and adverse events.

RESULTS

We included 34 studies (12 SR/MAs, 8 prospective and 14 retrospective studies). A total of 5571 hospitalized patients were involved in 22 primary studies. Random-effects meta-analyses of very low to moderate evidence showed that there was little or no difference between IVIg and standard care or placebo in reducing mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.91; 95% CI 0.78-1.06; risk difference [RD] 3.3% fewer), length of hospital (mean difference [MD] 0.37; 95% CI - 2.56, 3.31) and ICU (MD 0.36; 95% CI - 0.81, 1.53) stays, mechanical ventilation use (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.68-1.24; RD 2.8% fewer), and adverse events (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.84-1.14; RD 0.5% fewer) of patients with COVID-19. Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effects model indicated that IVIg may reduce mortality (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.60-0.97), and increase length of hospital stay (MD 0.68; 95% CI 0.09-1.28).

CONCLUSION

Very low to moderate certainty of evidence indicated IVIg may not improve the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Given the discrepancy between the random- and fixed-effects model results, further large-scale and well-designed RCTs are warranted.

Efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and purpose

Though controversial, many clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) in COVID-19 cases. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis have been performed to evaluate the efficacy of IVIG in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.

Experimental approach

A systematic search was performed in electronic databases and preprint servers up to November 20, 2021. Since substantial heterogeneity was expected, a random-effects model was applied to pool effect size from included studies to calculate the standardized mean differences (SMDs) for the continuous variables and relative risks (RRs) for the dichotomous variable with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Findings/Results

Five randomized clinical trials and seven cohort studies were analyzed among the 12 eligible studies with a total of 2,156 patients. The pooled RR of mortality was 0.77 (CI 0.59-1.01, P-value = 0.06), and of mechanical ventilation was 1.50 (CI 0.29-7.83; P-value = 0.63) in the IVIG group compared with the standard care group. The pooled SMD of hospital length of stay was 0.84 (CI -0.43-2.11; P-value = 0.20) and of ICU length of stay was -0.07 (CI -0.92-0.78; P-value = 0.86) in the IVIG group compared with the standard care group.

Conclusion and implications

This meta-analysis found that the IVIG therapy was not statistically different from the standard care group. Mortality, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay, and length of ICU stay were not significantly improved among IVIG recipients. However, statistical indifference is not equal to clinical indifference.

Intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) in severe/critical COVID-19 adult patients

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become a huge obstacle to the health system due to the high rate of contagion. It is postulated that intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) can lower the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-related inflammation and prevent the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The main advantages of IVIG treatment might be targeting cytokine storm in severe and critical COVID-19 by influences on complement, innate immune cells, effector T-cells, and Tregs. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs evaluating the safety and efficacy of IVIG in patients with severe/critical COVID-19 were performed. It seems that early administration of high-dose IVIG (in the acceleration phase of the disease) in severe or especially critical COVID-19 may be an effective therapeutic option, but there are no strong data to use it routinely. The results regarding mortality reduction are inconclusive. Additionally, IVIG treatment carries a risk of complications that should be considered when initiating treatment. However, given the COVID-19 mortality rate and limited therapeutic options, the use of IVIG is worth considering. This review summarizes the development and highlights recent advances in treatment with IVIG of severe/critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Review of therapeutic mechanisms and applications based on SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies

COVID-19 pandemic is a global public health emergency. Despite extensive research, there are still few effective treatment options available today. Neutralizing-antibody-based treatments offer a broad range of applications, including the prevention and treatment of acute infectious diseases. Hundreds of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody studies are currently underway around the world, with some already in clinical applications. The development of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody opens up a new therapeutic option for COVID-19. We intend to review our current knowledge about antibodies targeting various regions (i.e., RBD regions, non-RBD regions, host cell targets, and cross-neutralizing antibodies), as well as the current scientific evidence for neutralizing-antibody-based treatments based on convalescent plasma therapy, intravenous immunoglobulin, monoclonal antibodies, and recombinant drugs. The functional evaluation of antibodies (i.e., in vitro or in vivo assays) is also discussed. Finally, some current issues in the field of neutralizing-antibody-based therapies are highlighted.

Benefits of high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin on mortality in patients with severe COVID-19: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The clinical benefits of high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) in treating COVID-19 remained controversial.

Methods

We systematically searched databases up to February 17, 2022, for studies examining the efficacy of IVIg compared to routine care. Meta-analyses were conducted using the random-effects model. Subgroup analysis, meta-regression, and trial series analysis w ere performed to explore heterogeneity and statistical significance.

Results

A total of 4,711 hospitalized COVID-19 patients (1,925 IVIg treated and 2786 control) were collected from 17 studies, including five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 cohort studies. The application of IVIg was not associated with all-cause mortality (RR= 0.89 [0.63, 1.26], P= 0.53; I² = 75%), the length of hospital stays (MD= 0.29 [-3.40, 6.44] days, P= 0.88; I2 = 96%), the needs for mechanical ventilation (RR= 0.93 ([0.73, 1.19], P= 0.31; I2 = 56%), or the incidence of adverse events (RR= 1.15 [0.99, 1.33], P= 0.06; I2 = 20%). Subgroup analyses showed that overall mortality among patients with severe COVID-19 was reduced in the high-dose IVIg subgroup (RR= 0.33 [0.13, 0.86], P= 0.02, I² = 68%; very low certainty).

Conclusions

Results of this study suggest that severe hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with high-dose IVIg would have a lower risk of death than patients with routine care.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021231040, identifier CRD42021231040.

Effect of asthma, COPD, and ACO on COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

The prevalence of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and asthma-COPD overlap (ACO) in patients with COVID-19 varies, as well as their risks of mortality. The present study aimed to assess the prevalence of asthma, COPD, and ACO as comorbidities, and to determine their risks of mortality in patients with COVID-19 using a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

We systematically reviewed clinical studies that reported the comorbidities of asthma, COPD, and ACO in patients with COVID-19. We searched various databases including PubMed (from inception to 27 September 2021) for eligible studies written in English. A meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model for measuring the prevalence of asthma, COPD, and ACO as comorbidities, and the mortality risk of asthma, COPD, and ACO in patients with COVID-19 was estimated. A stratified analysis was conducted according to country.

Results

One hundred one studies were eligible, and 1,229,434 patients with COVID-19 were identified. Among them, the estimated prevalence of asthma, COPD, and ACO using a meta-analysis was 10.04% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.79–11.30), 8.18% (95% CI, 7.01–9.35), and 3.70% (95% CI, 2.40–5.00), respectively. The odds ratio for mortality of pre-existing asthma in COVID-19 patients was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.55–1.4; p = 0.630), while that in pre-existing COPD in COVID-19 patients was 3.79 (95% CI, 2.74–5.24; p<0.001). France showed the highest prevalence of asthma followed by the UK, while that of COPD was highest in the Netherlands followed by India.

Conclusion

Pre-existing asthma and COPD are associated with the incidence of COVID-19. Having COPD significantly increases the risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19. These differences appear to be influenced by the difference of locations of disease pathophysiology and by the daily diagnosis and treatment policy of each country.

Passive Immunotherapy Against SARS-CoV-2: From Plasma-Based Therapy to Single Potent Antibodies in the Race to Stay Ahead of the Variants

The COVID-19 pandemic is now approaching 2 years old, with more than 440 million people infected and nearly six million dead worldwide, making it the most significant pandemic since the 1918 influenza pandemic. The severity and significance of SARS-CoV-2 was recognized immediately upon discovery, leading to innumerable companies and institutes designing and generating vaccines and therapeutic antibodies literally as soon as recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein sequence was available. Within months of the pandemic start, several antibodies had been generated, tested, and moved into clinical trials, including Eli Lilly's bamlanivimab and etesevimab, Regeneron's mixture of imdevimab and casirivimab, Vir's sotrovimab, Celltrion's regdanvimab, and Lilly's bebtelovimab. These antibodies all have now received at least Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) and some have received full approval in select countries. To date, more than three dozen antibodies or antibody combinations have been forwarded into clinical trials. These antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 all target the receptor-binding domain (RBD), with some blocking the ability of the RBD to bind human ACE2, while others bind core regions of the RBD to modulate spike stability or ability to fuse to host cell membranes. While these antibodies were being discovered and developed, new variants of SARS-CoV-2 have cropped up in real time, altering the antibody landscape on a moving basis. Over the past year, the search has widened to find antibodies capable of neutralizing the wide array of variants that have arisen, including Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron. The recent rise and dominance of the Omicron family of variants, including the rather disparate BA.1 and BA.2 variants, demonstrate the need to continue to find new approaches to neutralize the rapidly evolving SARS-CoV-2 virus. This review highlights both convalescent plasma- and polyclonal antibody-based approaches as well as the top approximately 50 antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, their epitopes, their ability to bind to SARS-CoV-2 variants, and how they are delivered. New approaches to antibody constructs, including single domain antibodies, bispecific antibodies, IgA- and IgM-based antibodies, and modified ACE2-Fc fusion proteins, are also described. Finally, antibodies being developed for palliative care of COVID-19 disease, including the ramifications of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), are described.

Efficacy of High-Dose Polyclonal Intravenous Immunoglobulin in COVID-19: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Although several therapeutic strategies have been investigated, the optimal treatment approach for patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) remains to be elucidated. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of polyclonal intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) therapy in COVID-19.

METHODS

A systematic literature search using appropriate medical subject heading (MeSH) terms was performed through Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, SCOPUS, OVID and Cochrane Library electronic databases. The main outcomes considered were mortality and safety of IVIG versus placebo/standard of care. This review was carried out in accordance with Cochrane methodology including the risk bias assessment and grading of the quality of evidence. Measures of treatment effect were mean differences (MD) together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous outcome measures and risk ratio (RR) or MD for binary outcomes. Two reviewers independently extracted data from individual studies, and disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer.

RESULTS

A total of 2401 COVID-19 patients from 10 studies (four randomized controlled trials (RCT) and six non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs)) were included in the analysis. Participants received IVIG or placebo/standard of care. The use of IVIG was not associated with a significantly reduced risk of death (RR 0.50, 95% CIs 0.18-1.36, p = 0.17 for RCTs; RR 0.95, 95% CIs 0.61-1.58, p = 0.94 for non-RCTs; low certainty of evidence). IVIG significantly reduced the length of hospital stay (MD -2.24, 95% CIs -3.20/-1.27; p = 0.00001; low certainty of evidence), although this difference was significant only for studies evaluating moderate COVID-19 patients. No significant difference was observed in the incidence of overall and serious adverse events between IVIG recipients and controls (very low certainty of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence from the literature does not support the use of IVIG in COVID-19 patients.

Intravenous immunoglobulin as an important adjunct in the prevention and therapy of coronavirus 2019 disease

The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) challenged globally with its morbidity and mortality. A small percentage of affected patients (20%) progress into the second stage of the disease clinically presenting with severe or fatal involvement of lung, heart and vascular system, all contributing to multiple-organ failure. The so-called 'cytokines storm' is considered the pathogenic basis of severe disease and it is a target for treatment with corticosteroids, immunotherapies and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg). We provide an overview of the role of IVIg in the therapy of adult patients with COVID-19 disease. After discussing the possible underlying mechanisms of IVIg immunomodulation in COVID-19 disease, we review the studies in which IVIg was employed. Considering the latest evidence that show a link between new coronavirus and autoimmunity, we also discuss the use of IVIg in COVID-19 and anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination related autoimmune diseases and the post-COVID-19 syndrome. The benefit of high-dose IVIg is evident in almost all studies with a rapid response, a reduction in mortality and improved pulmonary function in critically ill COVID-19 patients. It seems that an early administration of IVIg is crucial for a successful outcome. Studies' limitations are represented by the small number of patients, the lack of control groups in some and the heterogeneity of included patients. IVIg treatment can reduce the stay in ICU and the demand for mechanical ventilation, thus contributing to attenuate the burden of the disease.

Novel phenotypes of coronavirus disease: a temperature-based trajectory model

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease has heterogeneous clinical features; however, the reasons for the heterogeneity are poorly understood. This study aimed to identify clinical phenotypes according to patients' temperature trajectory.

METHOD

A retrospective review was conducted in five tertiary hospitals in Hubei Province from November 2019 to March 2020. We explored potential temperature-based trajectory phenotypes and assessed patients' clinical outcomes, inflammatory response, and response to immunotherapy according to phenotypes.

RESULTS

A total of 1580 patients were included. Four temperature-based trajectory phenotypes were identified: normothermic (Phenotype 1); fever, rapid defervescence (Phenotype 2); gradual fever onset (Phenotype 3); and fever, slow defervescence (Phenotype 4). Compared with Phenotypes 1 and 2, Phenotypes 3 and 4 had a significantly higher C-reactive protein level and neutrophil count and a significantly lower lymphocyte count. After adjusting for confounders, Phenotypes 3 and 4 had higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio and 95% confidence interval 2.1, 1.1-4.0; and 3.3, 1.4-8.2, respectively), while Phenotype 2 had similar mortality, compared with Phenotype 1. Corticosteroid use was associated with significantly higher in-hospital mortality in Phenotypes 1 and 2, but not in Phenotypes 3 or 4 (p for interaction < 0.01). A similar trend was observed for gamma-globulin.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with different temperature-trajectory phenotypes had different inflammatory responses, clinical outcomes, and responses to corticosteroid therapy.