Use of Convalescent Plasma Therapy in Two COVID-19 Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Korea

COVID-19 Vaccine: A comprehensive status report

The current COVID-19 pandemic has urged the scientific community internationally to find answers in terms of therapeutics and vaccines to control SARS-CoV-2. Published investigations mostly on SARS-CoV and to some extent on MERS has taught lessons on vaccination strategies to this novel coronavirus. This is attributed to the fact that SARS-CoV-2 uses the same receptor as SARS-CoV on the host cell i.e. human Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2 (hACE2) and is approximately 79% similar genetically to SARS-CoV. Though the efforts on COVID-19 vaccines started very early, initially in China, as soon as the outbreak of novel coronavirus erupted and then world-over as the disease was declared a pandemic by WHO. But we will not be having an effective COVID-19 vaccine before September, 2020 as per very optimistic estimates. This is because a successful COVID-19 vaccine will require a cautious validation of efficacy and adverse reactivity as the target vaccinee population include high-risk individuals over the age of 60, particularly those with chronic co-morbid conditions, frontline healthcare workers and those involved in essentials industries. Various platforms for vaccine development are available namely: virus vectored vaccines, protein subunit vaccines, genetic vaccines, and monoclonal antibodies for passive immunization which are under evaluations for SARS-CoV-2, with each having discrete benefits and hindrances. The COVID-19 pandemic which probably is the most devastating one in the last 100 years after Spanish flu mandates the speedy evaluation of the multiple approaches for competence to elicit protective immunity and safety to curtail unwanted immune-potentiation which plays an important role in the pathogenesis of this virus. This review is aimed at providing an overview of the efforts dedicated to an effective vaccine for this novel coronavirus which has crippled the world in terms of economy, human health and life.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required.  OBJECTIVES: To continually assess, as more evidence becomes available, whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in treatment of people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trial registries to identify completed and ongoing studies on 19 August 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of study design, disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2.0 tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), and the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-controlled NRSIs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at hospital discharge, mortality (time to event), improvement of clinical symptoms (7, 15, and 30 days after transfusion), grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs).

MAIN RESULTS

This is the second living update of our review. We included 19 studies (2 RCTs, 8 controlled NRSIs, 9 non-controlled NRSIs) with 38,160 participants, of whom 36,081 received convalescent plasma. Two completed RCTs are awaiting assessment (published after 19 August 2020). We identified a further 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are randomised (3 reported in a study registry as already being completed, but without results). We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We did not include data from controlled NRSIs in data synthesis because of critical risk of bias. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low, due to study limitations and results including both potential benefits and harms.  Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19  We included results from two RCTs (both stopped early) with 189 participants, of whom 95 received convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.34; 1 RCT, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence).  We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases mortality (time to event) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.25; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may result in little to no difference in improvement of clinical symptoms (i.e. need for respiratory support) at seven days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19; 1 RCT, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may increase improvement of clinical symptoms at up to 15 days (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.11; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence), and at up to 30 days (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43; 2 studies, 188 participants; low-certainty evidence).  No studies reported on quality of life.  Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from two RCTs, eight controlled NRSIs and nine non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of safety data and duration of follow-up was variable. The controlled studies reported on AEs and SAEs only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. Some, but not all, studies included death as a SAE.  The studies did not report the grade of AEs. Fourteen studies (566 participants) reported on AEs of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these AEs were allergic or respiratory events. We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe AEs (very low-certainty evidence).  17 studies (35,944 participants) assessed SAEs for 20,622 of its participants. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (20,000 participants), which reported on SAEs within the first four hours and within an additional seven days after transfusion. There were 63 deaths, 12 were possibly and one was probably related to transfusion. There were 146 SAEs within four hours and 1136 SAEs within seven days post-transfusion. These were predominantly allergic or respiratory, thrombotic or thromboembolic and cardiac events. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy results in a clinically relevant increased risk of SAEs (low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. There was limited information regarding grade 3 and 4 AEs to determine the effect of convalescent plasma therapy on clinically relevant SAEs. In the absence of a control group, we are unable to assess the relative safety of convalescent plasma therapy.  While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies is problematic. The early termination of the first two RCTs investigating convalescent plasma, and the lack of data from 20 studies that have completed or were due to complete at the time of this update illustrate these challenges. Well-designed studies should be prioritised. Moreover, studies should report outcomes in the same way, and should consider the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms.  There are 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are RCTs (three already completed). This is the second living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. Future updates may show different results to those reported here.

Role of ACE2 receptor and the landscape of treatment options from convalescent plasma therapy to the drug repurposing in COVID-19

Since the first case reports in Wuhan, China, the SARS-CoV-2 has caused a pandemic and took lives of > 8,35,000 people globally. This single-stranded RNA virus uses Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) as a receptor for entry into the host cell. Overexpression of ACE2 is mainly observed in hypertensive, diabetic and heart patients that make them prone to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Mitigations strategies were opted globally by the governments to minimize transmission of SARS-CoV-2 via the implementation of social distancing norms, wearing the facemasks, and spreading awareness using digital platforms. The lack of an approved drug treatment regimen, and non-availability of a vaccine, collectively posed a challenge for mankind to fight against the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In this scenario, repurposing of existing drugs and old treatment options like convalescent plasma therapy can be one of the potential alternatives to treat the disease. The drug repurposing provides a selection of drugs based on the scientific rationale and with a shorter cycle of clinical trials, while plasma isolated from COVID-19 recovered patients can be a good source of neutralizing antibody to provide passive immunity. In this review, we provide in-depth analysis on these two approaches currently opted all around the world to treat COVID-19 patients. For this, we used "Boolean Operators" such as AND, OR & NOT to search relevant research articles/reviews from the PUBMED for the repurposed drugs and the convalescent plasma in the COVID-19 treatment. The repurposed drugs like Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine, Tenofovir, Remdesivir, Ribavirin, Darunavir, Oseltamivir, Arbidol (Umifenovir), Favipiravir, Anakinra, and Baricitinib are already being used in clinical trials to treat the COVID-19 patients. These drugs have been approved for a different indication and belong to a diverse category such as anti-malarial/anti-parasitic, anti-retroviral/anti-viral, anti-cancer, or against rheumatoid arthritis. Although, the vaccine would be an ideal option for providing active immunity against the SARS-CoV-2, but considering the current situation, drug repurposing and convalescent plasma therapy and repurposed drugs are the most viable option against SARS-CoV-2.

The efficacy assessment of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19 patients: a multi-center case series

Convalescent plasma (CP) transfusion has been indicated as a promising therapy in the treatment for other emerging viral infections. However, the quality control of CP and individual variation in patients in different studies make it rather difficult to evaluate the efficacy and risk of CP therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to explore the potential efficacy of CP therapy, and to assess the possible factors associated with its efficacy. We enrolled eight critical or severe COVID-19 patients from four centers. Each patient was transfused with 200-400 mL of CP from seven recovered donors. The primary indicators for clinical efficacy assessment were the changes of clinical symptoms, laboratory parameters, and radiological image after CP transfusion. CP donors had a wide range of antibody levels measured by serology tests which were to some degree correlated with the neutralizing antibody (NAb) level. No adverse events were observed during and after CP transfusion. Following CP transfusion, six out of eight patients showed improved oxygen support status; chest CT indicated varying degrees of absorption of pulmonary lesions in six patients within 8 days; the viral load was decreased to a negative level in five patients who had the previous viremia; other laboratory parameters also tended to improve, including increased lymphocyte counts, decreased C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and indicators for liver function. The clinical efficacy might be associated with CP transfusion time, transfused dose, and the NAb levels of CP. This study indicated that CP might be a potential therapy for severe patients with COVID-19.

Convalescent plasma for the treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019: A preliminary report

BACKGROUND

The role of convalescent plasma therapy for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared outcomes in a cohort of critical COVID-19 patients who received standard care (SC Group) and those who, in addition, received convalescent plasma (CP Group).

RESULTS

In total, 40 patients were included in each group. The median patient age was 53.5 years (interquartile range [IQR] 42-60.5), and the majority of patients required invasive ventilation (69, 86.2%). Plasma was harvested from donors after a median of 37 days (IQR 31-46) from the first positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) result and 26 days (IQR 21-32) after documented viral clearance; it was administered after a median of 10 days (IQR 9-10) from the onset of symptoms and 2.5 days (IQR 2-4) from admission to intensive care unit. The primary endpoint of improvement in respiratory support status within 28 days was achieved in 26 patients (65%) in the SC Group and 31 patients (77.5%) in the CP Group (p = .32). The 28-day all-cause mortality (12.5% vs. 2.5%; p = .22) and viral clearance (65% vs. 55%; p = .49) were not significantly different between the two groups. Convalescent plasma was not significantly associated with the primary endpoint (adjusted hazard ratio 0.87; 95% confidence interval 0.51-1.49; p = .62). Adverse events were balanced between the two study groups.

CONCLUSION

In severe COVID-19, convalescent plasma therapy was not associated with clinical benefits. Randomized trials are required to confirm our findings.

Effectiveness of Convalescent Plasma Therapy for COVID-19 Patients in Hunan, China

OBJECTIVE

To investigate clinical efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma (CP) therapy in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.

METHODS

We included 4 severe patients and 3 critical patients. The date of admission to hospital ranged from January 30 to February 19, 2020. We retrospectively collected clinical and outcome data. Relative parameters were compared.

RESULTS

After CP therapy, the symptoms and respiratory functions were improved. Median PaO2/FIO2 increased from 254 (142-331) to 326 (163-364), and dependence of oxygen supply decreased. Median time to lesion's first absorption was 5 (2-7) days, undetectable viral RNA was 11 (3.5-15.7) days. Median lymphocyte count (0.77 × 109/L vs 0.85 × 109/L) and albumin level (31g/L vs 36 g/L) were elevated, C-reactive protein (44 mg/L vs 18 mg/L), D-dimer (5.9 mg/L vs 4 mg/L) and lactate dehydrogenase (263 U/L vs 245 U/L) decreased. No obvious adverse reactions were observed. At the follow-up on June 14, 2020, 6 patients had completely recovered and one died from terminal disease.

CONCLUSION

CP therapy for COVID-19 was effective and safe. Three patients who did not combine with antiviral therapy after CP also obtained viral clearance and clinical improvement. However, CP therapy failed to save the life of a terminally ill patient.

COVID-19: Pathogenesis and Pharmacological Basis for Use of Passive Antibody Therapy

Background:

Coronaviruses (CoVs), having enveloped RNA of positive strand, are mainly responsible for enzootic infections in mammals. The mortality of CoVs has been proved as they can cross the species barrier very easily and infect humans. Most recently, the outbreak of coronavirus induced COVID-19 emerged in the city of Wuhan, Hubei province of China and became the third highly pathogenic coronavirus infecting nearly 230 countries.

Objective:

To review the literature available about pathogenic Coronavirures with emphasis on pathogenesis of COVID-19, and passive antibody therapy prospective.

Methods:

This study reviewed relevant published literature to provide (1) structural similarities between coronaviruses and therapeutic methodologies used on SARS-CoV, MERS treatment which might help scientists in understanding novel COVID-19 infection, (2) understanding COVID-19 pathogenesis that may help in identification of appropriate therapeutic targets to develop specific and effective anti-viral drugs as well as immunizing agents against this novel emerging pathogen and (3) to discuss existing knowledge on the passive immune therapy against similar coronaviruses SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV with emphasis on COVID-19 pandemic treatment.

Conclusion:

COVID 19 coronavirus has shown resemblance to viral infections like SARS-CoV, MERS infection. Historically, it has been proved that the prevention of disease, when exposed to a biological system, is mainly a function of the immune response of that infected individual. To fight against these infections, passive antibody therapy is the only available countermeasure that could provide immediate immunity against infection. Passive antibody results in protection irrespective of the immune status of the host. This therapy can be advantageous in countering the biological attack, post exposure preventions, low toxicity and peculiar activity.

The immune system as a target for therapy of SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review of the current immunotherapies for COVID-19

AIMS

The immune response is essential for the control and resolution of viral infections. Following the outbreak of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), several immunotherapies were applied to modulate the immune responses of the affected patients. In this review, we aimed to describe the role of the immune system in response to COVID-19. We also provide a systematic review to collate and describe all published reports of the using immunotherapies, including convalescent plasma therapy, monoclonal antibodies, cytokine therapy, mesenchymal stem cell therapy, and intravenous immunoglobulin and their important outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A thorough search strategy was applied to identify published research trials in PubMed, Scopus, Medline, and EMBASE from Dec 1, 2019, to May 4, 2020, for studies reporting clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients treated with immunotherapies along with other standard cares.

KEY FINDINGS

From an initial screen of 80 identified studies, 24 studies provided clinical outcome data on the use of immunotherapies for the treatment of COVID-19 patients, including convalescent plasma therapy (33 patients), monoclonal antibodies (55 patients), interferon (31 patients), mesenchymal stem cell therapy (8 patient), and immunoglobulin (63 patients). Except for nine severe patients who died after treatment, most patients were recovered from COVID-19 with improved clinical symptoms and laboratory assessment.

SIGNIFICANCE

Based on the available evidence, it seems that treatment with immunotherapy along with other standard cares could be an effective and safe approach to modulate the immune system and improvement of clinical outcomes.

Clinical efficacy of convalescent plasma for treatment of COVID-19 infections: Results of a multicenter clinical study

Since Dec. 2019 the new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has infected millions and claimed life of several hundred thousand worldwide. However, so far no approved vaccine or drug therapy is available for treatment of virus infection. Convalescent plasma has been considered a potential modality for COVID-19 infection. One hundred eighty-nine COVID-19 positive patients including 115 patients in plasma therapy group and 74 patients in control group, registered in the hospitals with confirmed COVID-19 infection, entered this multi-center clinical study. Comparison of outcomes including all-cause mortality, total hospitalization days and patients' need for intubation between the two patient groups shows that total of 98 (98.2 %) of patients who received convalescent plasma were discharged from hospital which is substantially higher compared to 56 (78.7 %) patients in control group. Length of hospitalization days was significantly lower (9.54 days) in convalescent plasma group compared with that of control group (12.88 days). Only 8 patients (7%) in convalescent plasma group required intubation while that was 20 % in control group. This clinical study provides strong evidence to support the efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients and recommends this treatment for management of these patients. Clinical efficacy, immediate availability and potential cost effectiveness could be considered as main advantages of convalescent plasma therapy.

Treatment of COVID-19 with convalescent plasma: lessons from past coronavirus outbreaks

BACKGROUND

There is currently no treatment known to alter the course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Convalescent plasma has been used to treat a number of infections during pandemics, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and now severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2).

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the existing literature and registered clinical trials on the efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma for treating coronaviruses, and discuss issues of feasibility, and donor and patient selection.

SOURCES

A review of articles published in PubMed was performed on 13 July 2020 to summarize the currently available evidence in human studies for convalescent plasma as a treatment for coronaviruses. The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry and clinicaltrials.gov were searched to summarize the currently registered randomized clinical trials for convalescent plasma in COVID-19.

CONTENT

There were sixteen COVID-19, four MERS and five SARS reports describing convalescent plasma use in humans. There were two randomized control trials, both of which were for COVID-19 and were terminated early. Most COVID-19 reports described a potential benefit of convalescent plasma on clinical outcomes in severe or critically ill patients with few immediate adverse events. However, there were a number of limitations, including the concurrent use of antivirals, steroids and other treatments, small sample sizes, lack of randomization or control groups, and short follow-up time. Data from SARS and COVID-19 suggest that earlier administration probably yields better outcomes. The ideal candidates for recipients and donors are not known. Still, experience with previous coronaviruses tells us that antibodies in convalescent patients are probably short-lived. Patients who had more severe disease and who are earlier in their course of recovery may be more likely to have adequate titres. Finally, a number of practical challenges were identified.

IMPLICATIONS

There is currently no effective treatment for COVID-19, and preliminary trials for convalescent plasma suggest that there may be some benefits. However, research to date is at high risk of bias, and randomized control trials are desperately needed to determine the efficacy and safety of this therapeutic option.

Perspectives on the Early Quality of Evidence Guiding the Therapeutic Management of SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak is a serious health concern. Repurposing of existing drugs indicated for other conditions seems to be the first choice for immediate therapeutic management. The quality of early evidence favoring the different treatment options needs to be apprised for informed decision-making.

METHODS

In this systematic literature review, we apprised the quality of available evidence for different therapeutic options and also the basis for different treatment guidelines. To include all studies that are in different stages of publication, we also included studies from the preprint servers BioRxiv and MedRxiv and published studies from PubMed.

RESULTS

We retrieved 5621 articles and included 22 studies for the systematic review. Based on our study, chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, remdesivir, corticosteroids, convalescent sera, ritonavir/lopinavir, tocilizumab and arbidol were evaluated as therapeutic options. The data from different study designs reveal contradictory findings except for convalescent sera for which the evidence available is only from case series. Based on this early evidence, various national guidelines recommend remdesivir, convalescent sera, corticosteroids and hydroxychloroquine in different subsets of patients.

CONCLUSION

Establishing consensus with respect to the end points to be assessed for respiratory viruses may enhance the quality of evidence in case of future pandemics. The systematic review highlighted the lacuna and methodologic deficiency in early clinical evidence and included an update on different therapeutic management guidelines. Further clinical evidence from the ongoing trials may lead to evolution of treatment guidelines with the addition of more therapeutic options.

Immunology of COVID-19: Mechanisms, clinical outcome, diagnostics, and perspectives-A report of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)

With the worldwide spread of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) resulting in declaration of a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020, the SARS‐CoV‐2‐induced coronavirus disease‐19 (COVID‐19) has become one of the main challenges of our times. The high infection rate and the severe disease course led to major safety and social restriction measures worldwide. There is an urgent need of unbiased expert knowledge guiding the development of efficient treatment and prevention strategies. This report summarizes current immunological data on mechanisms associated with the SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and COVID‐19 development and progression to the most severe forms. We characterize the differences between adequate innate and adaptive immune response in mild disease and the deep immune dysfunction in the severe multiorgan disease. The similarities of the human immune response to SARS‐CoV‐2 and the SARS‐CoV and MERS‐CoV are underlined. We also summarize known and potential SARS‐CoV‐2 receptors on epithelial barriers, immune cells, endothelium and clinically involved organs such as lung, gut, kidney, cardiovascular, and neuronal system. Finally, we discuss the known and potential mechanisms underlying the involvement of comorbidities, gender, and age in development of COVID‐19. Consequently, we highlight the knowledge gaps and urgent research requirements to provide a quick roadmap for ongoing and needed COVID‐19 studies.

A compendium answering 150 questions on COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2

In December 2019, China reported the first cases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This disease, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has developed into a pandemic. To date, it has resulted in ~9 million confirmed cases and caused almost 500 000 related deaths worldwide. Unequivocally, the COVID-19 pandemic is the gravest health and socioeconomic crisis of our time. In this context, numerous questions have emerged in demand of basic scientific information and evidence-based medical advice on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. Although the majority of the patients show a very mild, self-limiting viral respiratory disease, many clinical manifestations in severe patients are unique to COVID-19, such as severe lymphopenia and eosinopenia, extensive pneumonia, a "cytokine storm" leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome, endothelitis, thromboembolic complications, and multiorgan failure. The epidemiologic features of COVID-19 are distinctive and have changed throughout the pandemic. Vaccine and drug development studies and clinical trials are rapidly growing at an unprecedented speed. However, basic and clinical research on COVID-19-related topics should be based on more coordinated high-quality studies. This paper answers pressing questions, formulated by young clinicians and scientists, on SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, and allergy, focusing on the following topics: virology, immunology, diagnosis, management of patients with allergic disease and asthma, treatment, clinical trials, drug discovery, vaccine development, and epidemiology. A total of 150 questions were answered by experts in the field providing a comprehensive and practical overview of COVID-19 and allergic disease.

Convalescent Plasma Therapy in Four Critically Ill Pediatric Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Case Series

Coronavirus disease 2019 is a pandemic with no specific therapeutic agents or vaccination. Small published case series on critically ill adults suggest improvements in clinical status with minimal adverse events when patients receive coronavirus disease 2019 convalescent plasma, but data on critically ill pediatric patients are lacking. We report a series of four critically ill pediatric patients with acute respiratory failure who received coronavirus disease 2019 convalescent plasma as a treatment strategy for severe disease.

CASE SUMMARY

Patients ranged in age from 5 to 16 years old. All patients received coronavirus disease 2019 convalescent plasma within the first 26 hours of hospitalization. Additional disease modifying agents were also used. All patients made a full recovery and were discharged home off of oxygen support. No adverse events occurred from the coronavirus disease 2019 convalescent plasma transfusions.

CONCLUSION

Coronavirus disease 2019 convalescent plasma is a feasible therapy for critically ill pediatric patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Well-designed clinical trials are necessary to determine overall safety and efficacy of coronavirus disease 2019 convalescent plasma and additional treatment modalities in pediatric patients.

Antibody-dependent enhancement and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies

Antibody-based drugs and vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are being expedited through preclinical and clinical development. Data from the study of SARS-CoV and other respiratory viruses suggest that anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies could exacerbate COVID-19 through antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). Previous respiratory syncytial virus and dengue virus vaccine studies revealed human clinical safety risks related to ADE, resulting in failed vaccine trials. Here, we describe key ADE mechanisms and discuss mitigation strategies for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies in development. We also outline recently published data to evaluate the risks and opportunities for antibody-based protection against SARS-CoV-2.

Perspectives on mesenchymal stem/progenitor cells and their derivates as potential therapies for lung damage caused by COVID-19

The new coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), which emerged in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, has reached worldwide pandemic proportions, causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The clinical manifestations of COVID-19 vary from an asymptomatic disease course to clinical symptoms of acute respiratory distress syndrome and severe pneumonia. The lungs are the primary organ affected by SARS-CoV-2, with a very slow turnover for renewal. SARS-CoV-2 enters the lungs via angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors and induces an immune response with the accumulation of immunocompetent cells, causing a cytokine storm, which leads to target organ injury and subsequent dysfunction. To date, there is no effective antiviral therapy for COVID-19 patients, and therapeutic strategies are based on experience treating previously recognized coronaviruses. In search of new treatment modalities of COVID-19, cell-based therapy with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and/or their secretome, such as soluble bioactive factors and extracellular vesicles, is considered supportive therapy for critically ill patients. Multipotent MSCs are able to differentiate into different types of cells of mesenchymal origin, including alveolar epithelial cells, lung epithelial cells, and vascular endothelial cells, which are severely damaged in the course of COVID-19 disease. Moreover, MSCs secrete a variety of bioactive factors that can be applied for respiratory tract regeneration in COVID-19 patients thanks to their trophic, anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, anti-apoptotic, pro-regenerative, and proangiogenic properties.

Convalescent Plasma: The Relay Baton in the Race for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Treatment

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Most infected people have mild or moderate symptoms and recover without the need for extensive treatment. However, for seriously ill patients, no specific treatments are currently available. Convalescent plasma therapy (CPT), a passive immunotherapy, involves infusing plasma from recovered people into actively infected people, and is thought to be a specific intervention to improve outcome in patients with severe COVID-19. The presumed mechanism involves neutralizing antibodies and antibody dependent cytotoxicity/phagocytosis. Previous CPT trials showed an effect in SARS and pilot studies suggest CPT is an effective and safe strategy for seriously ill COVID-19 patients. CPT is currently being tested in large randomized clinical trials. Herein, we critically review the mechanism, applications and the challenges for CPT in the treatment of severe COVID-19, paving the way toward vaccine and immunotherapy development.

Evaluation of current medical approaches for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Because of the lack of vaccination, it is urgent to find effective antiviral agents for COVID-19 treatment.

METHOD

Online databases were searched for articles published before or on 22 June 2020. Studies reporting the effectiveness and safety of antiviral agents for COVID-19 were analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 42 studies were included in this analysis. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was not associated with the incidence of death (risk ratio (RR)=1.08; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.44) and severe cases (RR=1.05; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.81). Patients treated with HCQ obtained few benefits with respect to the clearance of viral RNA and were more likely to have adverse reactions. HCQ treatment could shorten the body temperature recovery time (weighted mean difference = -1.04; 95% CI -1.64 to -0.45). Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) (RR=0.90; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.07) and Arbidol (RR=1.09; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.29) were not associated with the negative conversion rate. Integrative Chinese-Western medicine alleviated clinical symptoms and decreased the incidence of severe cases (RR=0.38; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.59). Remdesivir treatment reduced the 14-day mortality rate of patients with severe COVID-19 (RR=0.64; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.94). Convalescent plasma (CP) tended to increase the negative conversion rate (RR=2.47; 95% CI 1.70 to 3.57).

CONCLUSION

HCQ, LPV/r and Arbidol bring little benefit in COVID-19 treatment. Integrative Chinese-Western medicine improved the clinical symptoms of patients with COVID-19. Remdesivir and CP might be the potential treatments for patients with severe COVID-19. However, large-scale clinical randomised trials are needed to validate our conclusions.

Convalescent Plasma Therapy for COVID-19: State of the Art

Convalescent plasma (CP) therapy has been used since the early 1900s to treat emerging infectious diseases; its efficacy was later associated with the evidence that polyclonal neutralizing antibodies can reduce the duration of viremia. Recent large outbreaks of viral diseases for which effective antivirals or vaccines are still lacking has renewed the interest in CP as a life-saving treatment. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has led to the scaling up of CP therapy to unprecedented levels. Compared with historical usage, pathogen reduction technologies have now added an extra layer of safety to the use of CP, and new manufacturing approaches are being explored. This review summarizes historical settings of application, with a focus on betacoronaviruses, and surveys current approaches for donor selection and CP collection, pooling technologies, pathogen inactivation systems, and banking of CP. We additionally list the ongoing registered clinical trials for CP throughout the world and discuss the trial results published thus far.

Convalescent Plasma Therapy for Coronavirus Disease 2019

Convalescent plasma has been used for decades to prevent and treat a wide range of infectious diseases for which no specific treatment is available. The use of convalescent plasma involves transfusing plasma collected from patients who have recovered from a viral illness, in an attempt to transfer virus-neutralizing antibodies and confer passive immunity. In addition to the antiviral mechanisms of neutralizing antibodies, the immunomodulatory effects of plasma components could have benefits. Several small and large-scale studies have shown the effects of convalescent plasma for the treatment of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In addition to transfusion-related side effects, unexpected side effects such as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) may occur during convalescent plasma therapy, but early safety studies have not found any cases of ADE among more than 5,000 participants. With historical precedents and recent clinical studies, convalescent plasma therapy should be considered as a candidate therapy for COVID-19 given the limited effectiveness of antiviral drugs and lack of a vaccine. A system to secure safe collection and use of convalescent plasma should be developed as a response to the pandemic. Further clinical trials should be conducted to determine the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy concurrently with its clinical use.

Treatment Options for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, and Coronavirus Disease 2019: a Review of Clinical Evidence

Coronaviruses have caused serious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreaks, and only remdesivir has been recently indicated for the treatment of COVID-19. In the line of therapeutic options for SARS and MERS, this study aims to summarize the current clinical evidence of treatment options for COVID-19. In general, the combination of antibiotics, ribavirin, and corticosteroids was considered as a standard treatment for patients with SARS. The addition of this conventional treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir, interferon, and convalescent plasma showed potential clinical improvement. For patients with MERS, ribavirin, lopinavir/ritonavir, interferon, and convalescent plasma were continuously recommended. However, a high-dose of corticosteroid was suggested for severe cases only. The use of lopinavir/ritonavir and convalescent plasma was commonly reported. There was limited evidence for the effect of corticosteroids, other antiviral drugs like ribavirin, and favipiravir. Monoclonal antibody of tocilizumab and antimalarial agents of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were also introduced. Among antibiotics for infection therapy, azithromycin was suggested. In conclusion, this study showed the up-to-date evidence of treatment options for COVID-19 that is helpful for the therapy selection and the development of further guidelines and recommendations. Updates of on-going clinical trials and observational studies may confirm the current findings.

Overview of management of children with COVID-19

The widespread and contagious coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has become a burden in the global health domain. The subsequent discovery of the virus features and pathogenesis, and prompt and adequate management are still lacking and remain inconclusive. Children usually present milder symptoms than adults, and management focuses on providing symptomatic and respiratory supports. Several treatment modalities, including the utilization of mechanical ventilation (MV), antivirals, immune-modulating drugs, or other agents, may present promising results in reducing the symptoms of COVID-19, particularly in severe cases. Although no randomized clinical trials have been published to date, it is interesting to explore potential modalities for treating COVID-19 in children, based on review articles, case reports, and recent guidelines.

A potentially effective treatment for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of convalescent plasma therapy in treating severe infectious disease

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma (CP) has been used successfully to treat many types of infectious disease, and has shown initial effects in the treatment of the emerging 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, its curative effects and feasibility have yet to be confirmed by formal evaluation and well-designed clinical trials. To explore the effectiveness of treatment and predict the potential effects of CP with COVID-19, studies of different types of infectious disease treated with CP were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Related studies were obtained from databases and screened according to the inclusion criteria. The data quality was assessed, and the data were extracted and pooled for analysis.

RESULTS

40 studies on CP treatment for infectious diseases were included. Our study found that CP treatment could reduce the risk of mortality, with a low incidence of adverse events, promote the production of antibodies, lead to a decline in viral load, and shorten the disease course. A meta-analysis of 15 controlled studies showed that there was a significantly lower mortality rate in the group treated with CP (pooled OR=0.32; 95% CI=0.19-0.52; p<0.001, I²=54%) compared with the control groups. Studies were mostly of low or very low quality, with a moderate or high risk of bias. The sources of clinical and methodological heterogeneity were identified. The exclusion of heterogeneity indicated that the results were stable.

CONCLUSIONS

CP therapy has some curative effect and is well tolerated in treating infectious diseases. It is a potentially effective treatment for COVID-19.

Patients with Prolonged Positivity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA Benefit from Convalescent Plasma Therapy: A Retrospective Study

Convalescent plasma therapy has been implemented in a few cases of severe coronavirus disease 2019. No report about convalescent plasma therapy in treating patients with prolonged positivity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been published. In this study, we conducted a retrospective observational study in 27 patients with prolonged positivity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, the clinical benefit of convalescent plasma therapy were analyzed. qRT-PCR test of SARS-CoV-2 RNA turned negative (≤ 7 days) in a part of patients (early negative group, n = 15) after therapy, others (late negative group, n = 12) turned negative in more than 7 days. Pulmonary imaging improvement was confirmed in 7 patients in early negative group and 8 in late negative group after CP therapy. Viral load decreased in early negative group compared with late negative group at day 3, 5, 7 after implementing convalescent plasma therapy. Patients in early negative group had a shorter median length of hospital stay. In conclusion, convalescent plasma therapy might help eliminate virus and shorten length of hospital stay in patients with prolonged positivity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

Quantifying absolute neutralization titers against SARS-CoV-2 by a standardized virus neutralization assay allows for cross-cohort comparisons of COVID-19 sera

The global COVID-19 pandemic has mobilized efforts to develop vaccines and antibody-based therapeutics, including convalescent plasma therapy, that inhibit viral entry by inducing or transferring neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) against the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein (CoV2-S). However, rigorous efficacy testing requires extensive screening with live virus under onerous BSL3 conditions which limits high throughput screening of patient and vaccine sera. Myriad BSL-2 compatible surrogate virus neutralization assays (VNAs) have been developed to overcome this barrier. Yet, there is marked variability between VNAs and how their results are presented, making inter-group comparisons difficult. To address these limitations, we developed a standardized VNA using VSVΔG-based CoV-2-S pseudotyped particles (CoV2pp) that can be robustly produced at scale and generate accurate neutralizing titers within 18 hours post-infection. Our standardized CoV2pp VNA showed a strong positive correlation with CoV2-S ELISA and live virus neutralizations in confirmed convalescent patient sera. Three independent groups subsequently validated our standardized CoV2pp VNA (n>120). Our data show that absolute (abs) IC50, IC80, and IC90 values can be legitimately compared across diverse cohorts, highlight the substantial but consistent variability in neutralization potency across these cohorts, and support the use of absIC80 as a more meaningful metric for assessing the neutralization potency of vaccine or convalescent sera. Lastly, we used our CoV2pp in a screen to identify ultra-permissive 293T clones that stably express ACE2 or ACE2+TMPRSS2. When used in combination with our CoV2pp, we can now produce CoV2pp sufficient for 150,000 standardized VNA/week.

SARS-CoV-2 serology and virology trends in donors and recipients of convalescent plasma

SARS-CoV-2 has infected millions worldwide. The virus is novel, and currently there is no approved treatment. Convalescent plasma may offer a treatment option. We evaluated trends of IgM/IgG antibodies/plasma viral load in donors and recipients of convalescent plasma. 114/139 (82 %) donors had positive IgG antibodies. 46/114 donors tested positive a second time by NP swab. Among those retested, the median IgG declined (p < 0.01) between tests. 25/139 donors with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 were negative for IgG antibodies. This suggests that having had the infection does not necessarily convey immunity, or there is a short duration of immunity associated with a decline in antibodies. Plasma viral load obtained on 35/39 plasma recipients showed 22 (62.9 %) had non-detectable levels on average 14.5 days from positive test versus 6.2 days in those with detectable levels (p < 0.01). There was a relationship between IgG and viral load. IgG was higher in those with non-detectable viral loads. There was no relationship between viral load and blood type (p = 0.87) or death (0.80). Recipients with detectable viral load had lower IgG levels; there was no relationship between viral load, blood type or death.

Clinical and Analytical Performance of an Automated Serological Test That Identifies S1/S2-Neutralizing IgG in COVID-19 Patients Semiquantitatively

In the coronavirus (CoV) disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, highly selective serological testing is essential to define exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome CoV 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Many tests have been developed, yet with variable speeds to first results, and are of unknown quality, particularly when considering the prediction of neutralizing capacity. The LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay was designed to measure antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 native S1/S2 proteins in a standardized automated chemiluminescence assay.

In the coronavirus (CoV) disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, highly selective serological testing is essential to define exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome CoV 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Many tests have been developed, yet with variable speeds to first results, and are of unknown quality, particularly when considering the prediction of neutralizing capacity. The LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay was designed to measure antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 native S1/S2 proteins in a standardized automated chemiluminescence assay. The clinical and analytical performances of the test were validated in an observational study using residual samples (>1,500) with a positive or negative COVID-19 diagnosis. The LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay proved to be highly selective and specific and offered semiquantitative measures of serum or plasma levels of anti-S1/S2 IgG with neutralizing activity. The assay’s diagnostic sensitivities were 91.3% and 95.7% at >5 or ≥15 days from diagnosis, respectively, and 100% when assessed against a neutralizing assay. The assay’s specificity ranged between 97% and 98.5%. The average imprecision of the assay was a <5% coefficient of variation. Assay performance at 2 different cutoffs was evaluated to optimize predictive values. The automated LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay brings efficient, sensitive, specific, and precise serological testing to the laboratory, with the capacity to test large amounts of samples per day; first results are available within 35 min, with a throughput of 170 tests/hour. The semiquantitative results provided by the test also associate with the presence of neutralizing antibodies and may provide a useful tool for the large-scale screening of convalescent-phase plasma for safe therapeutic use.

Novel Antiviral Strategies in the Treatment of COVID-19: A Review

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS–CoV-2), is still a global public health problem for humans. It has caused more than 10,000,000 infections and more than 500,000 deaths in the world so far. Many scientists have tried their best to discover safe and effective drugs for the treatment of this disease; however, there are still no approved standard therapeutics or effective antiviral drugs on the market. Many new drugs are being developed, and several traditional drugs that were originally indicated or proposed for other diseases are likely to be effective in treating COVID-19, but their safety and efficacy are controversial, under study, or in clinical trial phases. Fortunately, some novel antiviral strategies, such as convalescent plasma, clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), and mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy, potentially offer an additional or alternative option or compassionate use for the people suffering from COVID-19, especially for critically ill patients, although their safety and efficacy are also under study. In this review, we explore the applications, possible mechanisms, and efficacy in successful cases using convalescent plasma, CRISPR, and MSC therapy for COVID-19 treatment, respectively. Furthermore, the perspectives and limitations of these novel antiviral strategies are evaluated.

COVID-19 Presentation in Association with Myasthenia Gravis: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

Currently, there are scarce data on how COVID-19 affects people with myasthenia gravis. Theoretically, there is a higher risk of experiencing severe manifestations of COVID-19 due to the common use of immunosuppressive drugs and potential respiratory failure in relation to respiratory muscle weakness. This is one of the early cases of COVID-19 reported in association with myasthenia gravis. Here, we highlight the prognosis, discuss the pathophysiological mechanisms, and prompt the consideration of convalescent plasma therapy in myasthenia gravis patients with concomitant COVID-19.

COVID-19: etiology, clinical picture, treatment

Whereas the XX century marked the history of acute respiratory disease investigation as a period for generating in-depth system of combating influenza viruses (Articulavirales: Orthomyxoviridae, Alpha-/Betainfluenzavirus) (based on environmental and virological monitoring of influenza A virus in its natural reservoir — aquatic and semi-aquatic birds — to supervising epidemic influenza), a similar system is necessary to build up in the XXI century with regard to especially dangerous betacoronaviruses (Nidovirales: Coronaviridae, Betacoronavirus): Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-CoV) (subgenus Sarbecovirus), Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARSCoV-2) (Sarbecovirus), Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (MERS-CoV) (Merbecovirus). This became particularly evident after pandemic potential has been revealed in 2020 by the SARS-CoV-2. This review provides an insight into the historic timeline of discovering this virus, its current taxonomy, ecology, virion morphology, life cycle, molecular biology, pathogenesis and clinical picture of the etiologically related COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease 2019) as well as data available in the scientific literature on the anti-SARS-CoV-2-effectiveness of passive immunotherapy and most debated drugs used to treat COVID-19: Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine, Nitazoxanide, Ivermectin, Lopinavir and Ritonavir, Camostat mesilate, Remdesivir, Ribavirin, Tocilizumab, Anakinra, corticosteroids, and type I interferons. The pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection implicates decreased efficacy of artificial respiration, which, in this case might be replaced by more efficient extracorporeal membrane blood oxygenation supplemented with nitrogen oxide and/or Heliox inhalations.

Medication therapy strategies for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): recent progress and challenges

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has spread globally since it outbroke in December 2019. The urgent pandemic presents an unprecedented challenge to develop and identify effective medication therapy strategies to combat the COVID-19.

AREAS COVERED

Here, we summarized and evaluated the current treatment drugs and regimens, and put forward the treatment recommendations, including using the potential repurposed or experimental drugs against COVID-19, e.g. chloroquine (CQ), hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), remdesivir (RDV), and favipiravir (FPV). We also analyzed the specific drugs and vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 ongoing development and formulated the comprehensive treatment regimens based on condition of patients, diseases and drugs as well as concomitant medications.

EXPERT OPINION

No drugs and vaccines have been proven to be particularly effective against SARS-CoV-2 up to now. The recommended comprehensive medication therapy strategies have already displayed favorable effect in the fight against COVID-19. Research should be focused on the development of anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs and vaccines based on high-quality clinical trial evidence, treatment guidelines and expert consensus.

Antibody-based immunotherapeutics and use of convalescent plasma to counter COVID-19: advances and prospects

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread to several countries globally. Currently, there is no specific drug or vaccine available for managing COVID-19. Antibody-based immunotherapeutic strategies using convalescent plasma, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), neutralizing antibodies (NAbs), and intravenous immunoglobulins have therapeutic potential.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides the current status of the development of various antibody-based immunotherapeutics such as convalescent plasma, mAbs, NAbs, and intravenous immunoglobulins against COVID-19. The review also highlights their advantages, disadvantages, and clinical utility for the treatment of COVID-19 patients.

EXPERT OPINION

In a pandemic situation such as COVID-19, the development of new drugs should focus on and expedite the strategies where safety and efficacy are proven. Antibody-based immunotherapeutic approaches such as convalescent plasma, intravenous immunoglobulins, and mAbs have a proven record of safety and efficacy and are in use for decades. Some of them are already being used to manage COVID-19 patients and found to be useful. However, the mAbs with virus neutralization potential is the need of the hour during this COVID-19 pandemic to be more specific and virus targeted. The research and investment need to be accelerated to bring them into clinical use for prophylactic and therapeutic purposes against COVID-19.

Convalescent Plasma Therapy and Its Effects On COVID-19 Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Current Literature

Started in late 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly turned into a global pandemic. Considering there is no proven therapy for COVID-19 infection, there is a need to propose potential treatment options. The use of convalescent plasma is one such option as convalescent plasma has previously been used for treating outbreaks of Ebola, influenza, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV), and severe acute respiratory (SAR) viruses. Therefore, we carried out an early systematic review to evaluate the efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) therapy and its effects on COVID-19 patient outcomes. A structured and rigorous systematic review was carried out that included all studies conducted on this topic between December 2019 and June 2020. A total of 10 studies containing a mix of case reports, case series, observational studies, and randomized control trials were identified. Most of the studies lacked randomization and included only small groups of patients. Considering the limitations in the design of current studies, it is difficult to draw a definitive conclusion. However, our results showed that plasma therapy produces notable improvements in patients' clinical symptoms and radiological and biochemical parameters associated with COVID-19 infection. Based on the available information, it is difficult to draw a tangible conclusion about whether plasma therapy improves patient mortality. Until we have concrete evidence to prove otherwise, convalescent plasma therapy may be used as adjuvant therapy for treating COVID-19 infection in critically ill patients.

COVID-19 in Kidney Transplantation: Epidemiology, Management Considerations, and the Impact on Kidney Transplant Practice

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was identified in the late 2019 as the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), an acute respiratory viral illness. Patients with chronic underlying conditions may have an increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. Kidney transplant recipients may be at a uniquely increased risk of serious complications from COVID-19 as compared to the general population because of a chronically immunosuppressed state and a high prevalence of comorbidities like diabetes, heart disease, and lung disease. Early data suggest that the mortality of patients on dialysis may be comparable to those with kidney transplants, although more research is needed. This concise review aims to describe the epidemiology of COVID-19 in kidney transplant recipients, manifestations, appropriate management, and clinical outcomes based on the available literature. Current evidence on many of the specific antiviral measures against COVID-19 has not shown a clear-cut benefit in smaller studies and the results of several ongoing larger clinical trials are awaited. In addition, we also highlight the impact of COVID-19 on kidney transplant center practice and volumes; potential living or deceased donors, recipients; and induction immunosuppression and surgical strategies.

Diabetes and COVID-19: Global and regional perspectives

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has been designated as a highly contagious infectious disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) since December 2019, when an outbreak of pneumonia cases emerged in Wuhan, China. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a global health crisis, devastating the social, economic and political aspects of life. Many clinicians, health professionals, scientists, organizations, and governments have actively defeated COVID-19 and shared their experiences of the SARS-CoV2. Diabetes is one of the major risk factors for fatal outcomes from COVID-19. Patients with diabetes are vulnerable to infection because of hyperglycemia; impaired immune function; vascular complications; and comorbidities such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular disease. In addition, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is a receptor for SARS-CoV-2 in the human body. Hence, the use of angiotensin-directed medications in patients with diabetes requires attention. The severity and mortality from COVID-19 was significantly higher in patients with diabetes than in those without. Thus, the patients with diabetes should take precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, we review the current knowledge of COVID-19 including the global and regional epidemiology, virology, impact of diabetes on COVID-19, treatment of COVID-19, and standard of care in the management of diabetes during this critical period.

Inactivation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in plasma and platelet products using a riboflavin and ultraviolet light-based photochemical treatment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Severe acute respiratory distress syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is a member of the coronavirus family. Coronavirus infections in humans are typically associated with respiratory illnesses; however, viral RNA has been isolated in serum from infected patients. Coronaviruses have been identified as a potential low-risk threat to blood safety. The Mirasol Pathogen Reduction Technology (PRT) System utilizes riboflavin and ultraviolet (UV) light to render blood-borne pathogens noninfectious, while maintaining blood product quality. Here, we report on the efficacy of riboflavin and UV light against the pandemic virus SARS-CoV-2 when tested in both plasma and platelets units.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Stock SARS-CoV-2 was grown in Vero cells and inoculated into either plasma or platelet units. Those units were then treated with riboflavin and UV light. The infectious titres of SARS-CoV-2 were determined by plaque assay using Vero cells. A total of five (n = 5) plasma and three (n = 3) platelet products were evaluated in this study.

RESULTS

In both experiments, the measured titre of SARS-CoV-2 was below the limit of detection following treatment with riboflavin and UV light. The mean log reductions in the viral titres were ≥3·40 and ≥4·53 for the plasma units and platelet units, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Riboflavin and UV light effectively reduced the titre of SARS-CoV-2 in both plasma and platelet products to below the limit of detection in tissue culture. The data suggest that the process would be effective in reducing the theoretical risk of transfusion transmitted SARS-CoV-2.

Treatment of COVID-19: Perspective on Convalescent Plasma Transfusion

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has continued its global spread since the first documented case in late 2019 in Wuhan, China. With over 10 million cases and 500 thousand deaths reported worldwide, the need for an effective treatment regimen is evident. Historically, convalescent plasma (CP) has been utilized in the treatment of viral respiratory pathogens. Critically ill patients with COVID-19 in China and South Korea have been treated with CP given the ineffectiveness of experimental therapies with antivirals alone. This commentary explores the importance of published experience and the pending establishment of efficacy to facilitate an informed decision regarding the therapeutic use of CP. With increasing mortality around the world from COVID-19 infection, the need for alternative, effective treatment regimens is critical.

Neutralizing Antibody Production in Asymptomatic and Mild COVID-19 Patients, in Comparison with Pneumonic COVID-19 Patients

Objectives: To investigate antibody production in asymptomatic and mild COVID-19 patients. Methods: Sera from asymptomatic to severe COVID-19 patients were collected. Microneutralization (MN), fluorescence immunoassay (FIA), and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) were performed. Results: A total of 70 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients were evaluated, including 15 asymptomatic/anosmia, 49 mild symptomatic, and 6 pneumonia patients. The production of the neutralizing antibody was observed in 100% of pneumonia, 93.9% of mild symptomatic, and 80.0% of asymptomatic/anosmia groups. All the patients in the pneumonia group showed high MN titer (≥1:80), while 36.7% of mild symptomatic and 20.0% of asymptomatic/anosmia groups showed high titer (p < 0.001). Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies could be more sensitively detected by FIA IgG (98.8%) and ELISA (97.6%) in overall. For the FIA IgG test, all patients in the pneumonia group exhibited a high COI value (≥15.0), while 89.8% of mild symptomatic and 73.3% of asymptomatic/anosmia groups showed a high value (p = 0.049). For the ELISA test, all patients in the pneumonia group showed a high optical density (OD) ratio (≥3.0), while 65.3% of mild symptomatic and 53.3% of asymptomatic/anosmia groups showed a high ratio (p = 0.006). Conclusions: Most asymptomatic and mild COVID-19 patients produced the neutralizing antibody, although the titers were lower than pneumonia patients. ELISA and FIA sensitively detected anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Clinical application of rapid diagnostic test kit for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies into the field of patient care

Clinical applicability of rapid diagnostic test kit for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was evaluated. The kit detected antibodies from day 9–56 of illness. IgG bands were observed up to 1: 1000 dilutions. The kit could detect 90.5% of IgG and 61.9% of IgM antibodies of mild febrile patients without pneumonia.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required.  OBJECTIVES: To continually assess, as more evidence becomes available, whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in treatment of people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trial registries to identify completed and ongoing studies on 4 June 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of study design, disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), and the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-controlled NRSIs.  MAIN RESULTS: This is the first living update of our review. We included 20 studies (1 RCT, 3 controlled NRSIs, 16 non-controlled NRSIs) with 5443 participants, of whom 5211 received convalescent plasma, and identified a further 98 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 50 are randomised. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. Overall risk of bias of included studies was high, due to study design, type of participants, and other previous or concurrent treatments. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19  We included results from four controlled studies (1 RCT (stopped early) with 103 participants, of whom 52 received convalescent plasma; and 3 controlled NRSIs with 236 participants, of whom 55 received convalescent plasma) to assess effectiveness of convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge (1 controlled NRSI, 21 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma has any effect on all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.31; very low-certainty evidence). Time to death (1 RCT, 103 participants; 1 controlled NRSI, 195 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma prolongs time to death (RCT: hazard ratio (HR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.82; controlled NRSI: HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96; very low-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical symptoms, assessed by need for respiratory support (1 RCT, 103 participants; 1 controlled NRSI, 195 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma has any effect on improvement of clinical symptoms at seven days (RCT: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19), 14 days (RCT: RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.77; controlled NRSI: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.29), and 28 days (RCT: RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.81; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life No studies reported this outcome.  Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from 1 RCT, 3 controlled NRSIs and 10 non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of adverse events and serious adverse events was variable. The controlled studies reported on adverse events and serious adverse events only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. The duration of follow-up varied. Some, but not all, studies included death as a serious adverse event.  Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (13 studies, 201 participants) The studies did not report the grade of adverse events. Thirteen studies (201 participants) reported on adverse events of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these adverse events were allergic or respiratory events. We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe adverse events (very low-certainty evidence).  Serious adverse events (14 studies, 5201 participants)  Fourteen studies (5201 participants) reported on serious adverse events. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (5000 participants), which reported only on serious adverse events limited to the first four hours after convalescent plasma transfusion. This study included death as a serious adverse event; they reported 15 deaths, four of which they classified as potentially, probably or definitely related to transfusion. Other serious adverse events reported in all studies were predominantly allergic or respiratory in nature, including anaphylaxis, transfusion-associated dyspnoea, and transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI). We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma affects the number of serious adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. For safety outcomes we also included non-controlled NRSIs. There was limited information regarding adverse events. Of the controlled studies, none reported on this outcome in the control group. There is only very low-certainty evidence for safety of convalescent plasma for COVID-19.  While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, problems with recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies are conceivable. The early termination of the first RCT investigating convalescent plasma, and the multitude of studies registered in the past months illustrate this. It is therefore necessary to critically assess the design of these registered studies, and well-designed studies should be prioritised. Other considerations for these studies are the need to report outcomes for all study arms in the same way, and the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms.  There are 98 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 50 are RCTs. This is the first living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. These updates may show different results to those reported here.

Convalescent Plasma Therapy in Coronavirus Disease 2019: a Case Report and Suggestions to Overcome Obstacles

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is rapidly spreading around the world, causing much morbidity and mortality everywhere. However, effective treatments or vaccines are still not available. Although convalescent plasma (CP) therapy can be useful in the treatment of COVID-19, it has not been widely used in Korea because of the concerns about adverse effects and the difficulty in matching patients to donors. The use of ABO-incompatible plasma is not contraindicated in treatment, but can be hesitated due to the lack of experience of physicians. Here, we describe a 68-year old man with COVID-19 who was treated ABO-incompatible plasma therapy; additionally, we comment on the acute side effects associated with ABO mismatch transfusion. To overcome the obstacles of donor-recipient connections (schedule and distance), we propose the storage of frozen plasma, modification of the current Blood Management Law, and the establishment of a CP bank. We suggest that experience gained in CP therapy will be useful for not only the treatment of COVID-19, but also for coping with new emerging infectious diseases.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 specific neutralising antibodies in blood donors from the Lodi Red Zone in Lombardy, Italy, as at 06 April 2020

We evaluated SARS-CoV-2 RNA and neutralising antibodies in blood donors (BD) residing in the Lodi Red Zone, Italy. Of 390 BDs recruited after 20 February 2020 − when the first COVID-19 case in Lombardy was identified, 91 (23%) aged 19–70 years were antibody positive. Viral RNA was detected in an additional 17 (4.3%) BDs, yielding ca 28% (108/390) with evidence of virus exposure. Five stored samples collected as early as 12 February were seropositive.