Prolonged viral shedding in a lymphoma patient with COVID-19 infection receiving convalescent plasma

Clearance of persistent SARS-CoV-2 associates with increased neutralizing antibodies in advanced HIV disease post-ART initiation

SARS-CoV-2 clearance requires adaptive immunity but the contribution of neutralizing antibodies and T cells in different immune states is unclear. Here we ask which adaptive immune responses associate with clearance of long-term SARS-CoV-2 infection in HIV-mediated immunosuppression after suppressive antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation. We assembled a cohort of SARS-CoV-2 infected people in South Africa (n = 994) including participants with advanced HIV disease characterized by immunosuppression due to T cell depletion. Fifty-four percent of participants with advanced HIV disease had prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infection (>1 month). In the five vaccinated participants with advanced HIV disease tested, SARS-CoV-2 clearance associates with emergence of neutralizing antibodies but not SARS-CoV-2 specific CD8 T cells, while CD4 T cell responses were not determined due to low cell numbers. Further, complete HIV suppression is not required for clearance, although it is necessary for an effective vaccine response. Persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection led to SARS-CoV-2 evolution, including virus with extensive neutralization escape in a Delta variant infected participant. The results provide evidence that neutralizing antibodies are required for SARS-CoV-2 clearance in HIV-mediated immunosuppression recovery, and that suppressive ART is necessary to curtail evolution of co-infecting pathogens to reduce individual health consequences as well as public health risk linked with generation of escape mutants.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Stem Cell Transplant Patients during the COVID-19 Era: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to identify the outcomes of stem cell transplant (SCT) patients during the COVID-19 era. Pooled event rates (PER) were calculated, and meta-regression was performed. A random effects model was utilized. In total, 36 eligible studies were included out of 290. The PER of COVID-19-related deaths and COVID-19-related hospital admissions were 21.1% and 55.2%, respectively. The PER of the use of hydroxychloroquine was 53.27%, of the receipt of immunosuppression it was 39.4%, and of the use of antivirals, antibiotics, and steroids it was 71.61%, 37.94%, and 18.46%, respectively. The PER of the time elapsed until COVID-19 infection after SCT of more than 6 months was 85.3%. The PER of fever, respiratory symptoms, and gastrointestinal symptoms were 70.9, 76.1, and 19.3%, respectively. The PER of acute and chronic GvHD were 40.2% and 60.9%, respectively. SCT patients are at a higher risk of severe COVID-19 infection and mortality. The use of dexamethasone improves the survival of hospitalized SCT patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen or ventilation. The SCT patient group is a heterogeneous group with varying characteristics. The quality of reporting on these patients when infected with COVID-19 is not uniform and further prospective or registry studies are needed to better guide clinical care in this unique setting.

The lived experiences of hematology healthcare providers during and beyond the COVID-19 crisis: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare providers (HCPs) of hematology patients face unique challenges due to the vulnerability of their patients. This study explores the lived experiences of these providers during and beyond the crisis.

METHODS

Twenty-one Australian HCPs caring for hematology patients completed semi-structured interviews exploring their experiences and needs during the COVID-19 pandemic, adequacy of support and information provided by healthcare organizations, impact on hematology patients, and the benefits and challenges of telehealth care. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Four themes were identified: (1) Managing an initial state of flux (unsettling uncertainty and fear, unique needs of hematology patients, getting on with the job together); (2) Concerns about care provision (questioning care efficacy, burden of compassion); (3) Disconnect between HCP needs and system-level responses (burnout, isolation, and poor work-life balance, broadcast fatigue, protecting mental health), and; (4) Reflecting on the future (ongoing challenges for hematology patients, higher staff turnover and heavier workloads, innovation in the healthcare field).

CONCLUSION

This study sheds light on the challenges that hematology HCPs face during and beyond the COVID-19 crisis, impacting their wellbeing. Addressing these challenges is paramount for the healthcare system at large. Provider-led peer support programs may be beneficial for addressing moral distress and building resilience. Additionally, specific consideration for the ongoing vulnerability of hematology patients could have positive impacts on providers' professional satisfaction.

Utility of Bronchoalveolar Lavage for the Diagnosis and Management of COVID-19 in Patients With Cancer

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), remains the most reliable and practical test to diagnose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Current literature is sparse regarding the rates of discordance between NPS and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) in patients with cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with cancer who had BAL samples tested for SARS-CoV-2 at a comprehensive cancer center. Patients without NPS PCR for SARS-CoV-2 before BAL were excluded.

RESULTS

In a cohort of 345 patients, 12% and 17% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on NPS and BAL, respectively. There was a 6.3% NPS-/BAL+ discordance rate and a 9.5% NPS+/BAL- discordance rate. Patients with lymphoma (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 4.06; P = .007) and Hispanic patients (aOR = 3.76; P = .009) were more likely to have NPS-/BAL+ discordance on multivariate analysis. Among patients with NPS- /BAL- for SARS-CoV-2, an alternate infectious (23%) and a noninfectious etiology (16%) were identified in BAL.

CONCLUSIONS

Our discordance rates between NPS and BAL were sufficient to recommend BAL in certain patients with cancer with a high clinical suspicion of COVID-19. BAL has value in identifying alternative etiologies of illness in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

Recurrent COVID-19 Infection in a Refractory/Classical Hodgkin's Lymphoma Patient Undergoing Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation: A Case Report

Patients with challenging hematological malignancies like classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) can be further complicated when affected by a concurrent coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) infection and often face unique and complex management and outcomes. In this case report, we describe a refractory or relapsed classic Hodgkin lymphoma patient with a recurrent infection of COVID-19 three times preceding chemotherapy. A 52-year-old female presented to our hospital with a second incidence of COVID-19 and a complaint of fever, anorexia, night sweats, and abdominal lymphadenopathy, for which she was diagnosed with mixed cellularity classic Hodgkin lymphoma. Three weeks later, in consideration of her manifestation of lung disease, which was due to her past medical history of airway hypersensitivity and abnormal pulmonary function test along with testing positive for COVID-19, she was started with the first-line chemotherapy of the brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine chemotherapy regimen, commonly referred to as Bv-AVD, without bleomycin. After six cycles of chemotherapy, at the end of treatment, positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) revealed the progression of nodes in the abdomen and the development of new lymphadenopathy in the chest and right supraclavicular region. Hence, it was considered refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma, and the patient was referred for salvage therapy. She was started on salvage chemotherapy with brentuximab/bendamustine (BvB). Follow-up evaluations after two cycles of BvB continued to show newer lesions in the right sub-diaphragmatic area, internal mammary, and supraclavicular lymph nodes. Therefore, the patient was switched to pembrolizumab immunotherapy, a PD-1 inhibitor. After four cycles of pembrolizumab monotherapy, PET/CT showed significant improvement with a complete molecular response (CMR). Then, she was admitted for high-dose therapy/autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT/ASCT) after collecting stem cells. PET/CT: three months post-ASCT, she continued to be in a CMR with a Deauville score of 1. The patient was continued on pembrolizumab maintenance for six months afterward. Currently, the patient is healthy and doing well. COVID-19 patients with hematological malignancies may experience compromised viral elimination and a prolonged period of viral infection, which may also worsen the symptoms and outcomes and entitle them to comprehensive and extended care.

Successful dual antiviral therapy with remdesivir and ensitrelvir in a case of prolonged COVID-19 following B-cell depleting immunotherapy for malignant lymphoma

Prolonged COVID-19 following B-cell depleting immunotherapy for malignant lymphoma is characterized by repeated cycles of remission followed by symptom recurrence, persistent detection of SARS-CoV-2, and profound humoral immunodeficiency. To the best of our knowledge, the present report is the first to describe dual antiviral therapy with remdesivir and ensitrelvir for prolonged COVID-19 following B-cell depleting immunotherapy for malignant lymphoma. A 59-year-old, female patient with a history of follicular lymphoma treated with obinutuzumab and bendamustine contracted COVID-19 despite receiving a single course of standard remdesivir therapy. She received dual antiviral therapy with remdesivir following a five-day course of oral ensitrelvir, which improved her clinical symptoms and chest radiology findings and cleared SARS-CoV-2 from respiratory samples. Dual antiviral therapy with remdesivir and ensitrelvir may be sufficient to stop viral replication and promote clinical resolution in prolonged COVID-19 following B-cell depleting immunotherapy for malignant lymphoma.

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

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have very-low to low certainty evidence for most primary outcomes and moderate certainty for hospital admission or death. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

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

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have low certainty evidence for our primary outcomes. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

SARS-CoV-2 escape from cytotoxic T cells during long-term COVID-19

Evolution of SARS-CoV-2 in immunocompromised hosts may result in novel variants with changed properties. While escape from humoral immunity certainly contributes to intra-host evolution, escape from cellular immunity is poorly understood. Here, we report a case of long-term COVID-19 in an immunocompromised patient with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who received treatment with rituximab and lacked neutralizing antibodies. Over the 318 days of the disease, the SARS-CoV-2 genome gained a total of 40 changes, 34 of which were present by the end of the study period. Among the acquired mutations, 12 reduced or prevented the binding of known immunogenic SARS-CoV-2 HLA class I antigens. By experimentally assessing the effect of a subset of the escape mutations, we show that they resulted in a loss of as much as ~1% of effector CD8 T cell response. Our results indicate that CD8 T cell escape represents a major underappreciated contributor to SARS-CoV-2 evolution in humans.

COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Immunocompromised Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Patients who are immunocompromised have increased risk for morbidity and mortality associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) because they less frequently mount antibody responses to vaccines. Although neutralizing anti-spike monoclonal-antibody treatment has been widely used to treat COVID-19, evolutions of SARS-CoV-2 have been associated with monoclonal antibody-resistant SARS-CoV-2 variants and greater virulence and transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2. Thus, the therapeutic use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma has increased on the presumption that such plasma contains potentially therapeutic antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 that can be passively transferred to the plasma recipient.

Objective

To assess the growing number of reports of clinical experiences of patients with COVID-19 who are immunocompromised and treated with specific neutralizing antibodies via COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion.

Data Sources

On August 12, 2022, a systematic search was performed for clinical studies of COVID-19 convalescent plasma use in patients who are immunocompromised.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials, matched cohort studies, and case report or series on COVID-19 convalescent plasma use in patients who are immunocompromised were included. The electronic search yielded 462 unique records, of which 199 were considered for full-text screening.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data were extracted by 3 independent reviewers in duplicate and pooled.

Main Outcomes and Meaures

The prespecified end point was all-cause mortality after COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion; exploratory subgroup analyses were performed based on putative factors associated with the potential mortality benefit of convalescent plasma.

Results

This systematic review and meta-analysis included 3 randomized clinical trials enrolling 1487 participants and 5 controlled studies. Additionally, 125 case series or reports enrolling 265 participants and 13 uncontrolled large case series enrolling 358 participants were included. Separate meta-analyses, using models both stratified and pooled by study type (ie, randomized clinical trials and matched cohort studies), demonstrated that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with the control cohort for the amalgam of both randomized clinical trials and matched cohort studies (risk ratio [RR], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.50-0.79]).

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma is associated with mortality benefit for patients who are immunocompromised and have COVID-19.

Serum Proteomic Analysis for New Types of Long-Term Persistent COVID-19 Patients in Wuhan

The emergence of a new type of COVID-19 patients, who were retested positive after hospital discharge with long-term persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection but without COVID-19 clinical symptoms (hereinafter, LTPPs), poses novel challenges to COVID-19 treatment and prevention. Why was there such a contradictory phenomenon in LTPPs? To explore the mechanism underlying this phenomenon, we performed quantitative proteomic analyses using the sera of 12 LTPPs (Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital), with the longest carrying history of 132 days, and mainly focused on 7 LTPPs without hypertension (LTPPs-NH). The results showed differential serum protein profiles between LTPPs/LTPPs-NH and health controls. Further analysis identified 174 differentially-expressed-proteins (DEPs) for LTPPs, and 165 DEPs for LTPPs-NH, most of which were shared. GO and KEGG analyses for these DEPs revealed significant enrichment of "coagulation" and "immune response" in both LTPPs and LTPPs-NH. A unity of contradictory genotypes in the 2 aspects were then observed: some DEPs showed the same dysregulated expressed trend as that previously reported for patients in the acute phase of COVID-19, which might be caused by long-term stimulation of persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection in LTPPs, further preventing them from complete elimination; in contrast, some DEPs showed the opposite expression trend in expression, so as to retain control of COVID-19 clinical symptoms in LTPPs. Overall, the contrary effects of these DEPs worked together to maintain the balance of LTPPs, further endowing their contradictory steady-state with long-term persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection but without symptoms. Additionally, our study revealed some potential therapeutic targets of COVID-19. Further studies on these are warranted. IMPORTANCE This study reported a new type of COVID-19 patients and explored the underlying molecular mechanism by quantitative proteomic analyses. DEPs were significantly enriched in "coagulation" and "immune response". Importantly, we identified 7 "coagulation system"- and 9 "immune response"-related DEPs, the expression levels of which were consistent with those previously reported for patients in the acute phase of COVID-19, which appeared to play a role in avoiding the complete elimination of SARS-CoV-2 in LTPPs. On the contrary, 6 "coagulation system"- and 5 "immune response"-related DEPs showed the opposite trend in expression. The 11 inconsistent serum proteins seem to play a key role in the fight against long-term persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection, further retaining control of COVID-19 clinical symptom of LTPPs. The 26 proteins can serve as potential therapeutic targets and are thus valuable for the treatment of LTPPs; further studies on them are warranted.

Effectiveness of Convalescent Plasma Therapy in COVID-19 Patients with Hematological Malignancies: A Systematic Review

Background: Immunocompromised patients, including those with hematological malignancies, are at a high risk of developing severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) complications. Currently, there is a limited number of systematic reviews into the efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) use in the treatment of COVID-19 patients with hematological malignancies. Therefore, the aim of this review was to systematically appraise the current evidence for the clinical benefits of this therapy in COVID-19 patients with hematological malignancies. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted up to April 2022, using four databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Scopus. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the included studies. Data collection analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel 365 and GraphPad Prism software. Results: 18 studies met the inclusion criteria; these records included 258 COVID-19 patients who had hematological malignancies and were treated with CPT. The main findings from the reviewed data suggest that CPT may be associated with improved clinical outcomes, including (a) higher survival rate, (b) improved SARS-CoV-2 clearance and presence of detectable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies post CP transfusion, and (c) improved hospital discharge time and recovery after 1 month of CPT. Furthermore, treatment with convalescent plasma was not associated with the development of adverse events. Conclusions: CPT appears to be an effective supportive therapeutic option for hematological malignancy patients infected with COVID-19. To our knowledge, this is one of the first systematic reviews of the clinical benefits of CPT in COVID-19 patients with hematological malignancies.

Treatment of COVID-19 with convalescent plasma in patients with humoral immunodeficiency - Three consecutive cases and review of the literature

Patients lacking humoral response have been suggested to develop a less severe COVID-19, but there are some reports with a prolonged, relapsing or deadly course. From April 2020, there is growing evidence on the benefits of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) for patients with humoral immunodeficiency. Most of them had a congenital primary immunodeficiency or were on treatment with anti CD20 antibodies. We report on three patients treated in our hospital and review thirty-one more cases described in the literature. All patients but three resolved clinical picture with CCP. A dose from 200 to 800ml was enough in most cases. Antibody levels after transfusion were negative or low, suggesting consumption of them in SARS-CoV-2 neutralization. These patients have a protracted clinical course shortened after CCP. CCP could be helpful for patients with humoral immunodeficiency. It avoid relapses and chronification. CCP should be transfused as early as possible in patients with COVID-19 and humoral immunodeficiency.

COVID-19 in patients with B cell immune deficiency

This article aims to describe the clinical manifestations and management of COVID-19 in patients with primary and secondary B cell deficient states. We describe the epidemiologic and clinical features as well as unique management paradigm including isolation precautions with COVID-19. We then focus upon primary and secondary preventive approaches including vaccination and pre- as well as post-exposure prophylaxis. Further, we elaborate upon the important disease specific risk factors in these patients and the need to conduct prospective clinical trials to develop individualized management strategies in this population.

Lack of efficacy of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients with concomitant hematological malignancies: An Italian retrospective study

A multicenter retrospective study was designed to assess clinical outcome of COVID-19 in patients with hematological malignancies (HM) following treatment with anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma (CP) or standard of care therapy. To this aim, a propensity score matching was used to assess the role of non-randomized administration of CP in this high-risk cohort of patients from the Italian Hematology Alliance on COVID-19 (ITA-HEMA-COV) project, now including 2049 untreated control patients. We investigated 30- and 90-day mortality, rate of admission to intensive care unit, proportion of patients requiring mechanical ventilatory support, hospitalization time, and SARS-CoV-2 clearance in 79 CP recipients and compared results with 158 propensity score-matched controls. Results indicated a lack of efficacy of CP in the study group compared with the untreated group, thus confirming the negative results obtained from randomized studies in immunocompetent individuals with COVID-19. In conclusion, this retrospective analysis did not meet the primary and secondary end points in any category of immunocompromized patients affected by HM.

A case report of prolonged COVID ‐19‐positive RT‐PCR for five months

The COVID‐19 gold standard assessment tool remained the RT‐PCR of upper respiratory tract specimen extracted by the nasopharyngeal swab. A positive result would decrease through a three‐week course and eventually be undetectable. The maximum duration of viral shedding is 83 days. Besides, COVID‐19 RT‐PCR remained positive for 74 days in a patient suffering from lymphoma. In this study, we have presented a 56‐year‐old male patient, a known case of lymphoma since 2015, who experienced many episodes of chemotherapy with a five‐month positive RT‐PCR COVID‐19 laboratory test and finally was intubated and then died of opportunistic pulmonary infections. COVID‐19 patients with concurrent lymphoma failed to remove the virus thoroughly, despite providing appropriate treatment regimens.

Patients with underlying disorders affecting immune system competency would fail to remove viruses thoroughly, and viral shedding may last long enough to cause disastrous outcomes.

Potential use of convalescent plasma for SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis and treatment in immunocompromised and vulnerable populations

INTRODUCTION

: The ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is a serious threat for the health of immunocompromised patients. Among neutralizing antibody-based therapeutics, convalescent plasma containing polyclonal anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulins has promising results in both congenital and iatrogenic immunodeficiencies in oncohematological and transplant patients.

AREAS COVERED

: This article discusses case reports, case series and controlled studies detailing the efficacy of convalescent plasma in immunocompromised patients.

EXPERT OPINION

: Convalescent plasma, when administered at high neutralizing antibody titers, is a safe and effective treatment for frail immunocompromised patients. Genetic monitoring of refractory patients is recommended to intercept intra-host emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Factors Associated with Prolonged RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 Positive Testing in Patients with Mild and Moderate Forms of COVID-19: A Retrospective Study

Background and objectives: This article aims to evaluate the number of days necessary for patients with mild and moderate forms of COVID-19 to reach undetectable levels of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the upper respiratory tract specimens. As a secondary objective, we sought to establish a correlation between different conditions associated with longer viral load as this could result in a longer period of contagion and infectivity. Materials and Methods: It is a retrospective study. A total of 70 patients with confirmed mild and moderate forms of COVID-19 were enrolled in our study. Results: Number of days with traceable viral load was 25.93 (±6.02) days in patients with mild COVID-19 and 26.97 (±8.30) in moderate form (p = 0.72). Age, male gender, and obesity, along with several chronic conditions (cardiac, liver, renal, and neurological disease), were associated with prolonged positive RT-PCR test from the nasal swab (therefore prolonged viral load). These are in general, risk factors for severe forms of COVID-19. Conclusions: There are several conditions associated with prolonged positive RT-PCR in mild and moderate forms of COVID-19. As to why and what is the significance of it remains to be studied.

Persistence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Severely Immunocompromised Patients With Complete Remission B-Cell Lymphoma and Anti-CD20 Monoclonal Antibody Therapy: A Case Report of Two Cases

Immunosuppressant conditions such as hematological malignancies increase the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. It has been described in the literature that patients on anti-CD20 maintenance therapies for lymphoid malignancies are susceptible to having recurrent flares together with viral replication or reinfections, although these cases are scarce. These patients are not well represented in randomized controlled trials, and as a consequence, the evidence for the use of certain treatments in this scenario is lacking. We present two cases of patients with B-cell lymphoma on remission and treated with rituximab on maintenance. They developed at least 1 flare of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after acute infection and always after receiving rituximab. RT-PCR was positive in the nasopharyngeal swab and also in plasma. Patients were treated during flares with remdesivir, hyperimmune plasma, and corticosteroids. These two cases showed the unresolved problem of COVID-19 in immunosuppressant patients and showed that despite the vast amount of information available on SARS-CoV-2, information in this subgroup of patients is lacking.

A Portrait of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Patients Undergoing Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: A Systematic Review of the Literature

The management of COVID-19 in hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients represents a special challenge given the variable states of immune dysregulation and altered vaccine efficacy in this population. A systematic search (Ovid Medline and Embase on 1 June 2021) was needed to better understand the presenting features, prognostic factors, and treatment options. Of 897 records, 29 studies were identified in our search. Most studies reporting on adults and pediatric recipients described signs and symptoms that were typical of COVID-19. Overall, the mortality rates were high, with 21% of adults and 6% of pediatric HCT recipients succumbing to COVID-19. The factors reported to be associated with increased mortality included age (HR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.03-1.43, p = 0.02), ICU admission (HR = 4.42, 95% CI 2.25-8.65, p < 0.001 and HR = 2.26, 95% CI 1.22-4.20, p = 0.01 for allogeneic and autologous HCT recipients), and low platelet count (OR = 21.37, 95% CI 1.71-267.11, p = 0.01). Performance status was associated with decreased mortality (HR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.93, p = 0.001). A broad range of treatments was described, although no controlled studies were identified. The risk of bias, using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, was low. Patients undergoing HCT are at a high risk of severe morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19. Controlled studies investigating potential treatments are required to determine the efficacy and safety in this population.

Prolonged viral positivity induced recurrent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia in patients receiving anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody treatment: Case reports

INTRODUCTION

The outbreak of novel coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), which causes the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is the most important current health problem. The number of patients is increasing worldwide. Pneumonia is the most life-threatening complication of the disease. Prolonged viral shedding in hematological patients with COVID-19 has been demonstrated; however, data on COVID-19 patients receiving anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy are limited. Accordingly, focusing on humoral immunity, herein, we present 4 COVID-19 patients who were on anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody treatment and had prolonged pneumonia.

PATIENT CONCERNS

Two of 4 patients were on rituximab and the other 2 were on obinutuzumab therapy.

DIAGNOSIS

The polymerase chain reaction test results for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 were positive for all 4 patients and their COVID pneumonia lasted for >50 days.

INTERVENTIONS

Although all patients were treated with an adequate amount of convalescent plasma, prolonged polymerase chain reaction positivity and prolonged pneumonia were possibly due to the lack of ability of the immune system to initiate its antibody response.

OUTCOMES

Despite the administration of standard therapies, recurrent pneumonia observed in the present case series of non-neutropenic patients, in whom primary malignancies were under control.

CONCLUSIONS

It is suggested that further investigations should be performed to understand the underlying pathophysiology.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in the stem cell transplant recipient - clinical spectrum and outcome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Focusing on large multicenter cohorts reported over the last months, this review aims at summarizing the available evidence by July 2021 on the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients in terms of epidemiology, clinical features, and outcome.

RECENT FINDINGS

The incidence of COVID-19 in institutional cohorts varied according to different regions and study periods from 0.4% to 8.3%. Clinical presentation was overall comparable to other immunocompromised hosts and the general population. Microbiologically confirmed superinfection occurred in 13-25% of recipients, with most episodes due to hospital-acquired bacteria and few reported cases of COVID-19-associated aspergillosis. Prolonged nasopharyngeal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 shedding has been demonstrated for as long as 210 days. Mortality rates were similar across studies (14.8-28.4%) and did not markedly differ from those observed in nontransplant hematological patients during the first wave. Older age and shorter time from transplantation were associated with mortality, as well as underlying disease status and amount of immunosuppression. No outcome differences were found in most studies between allogeneic and autologous procedures.

SUMMARY

Considerable advances have been achieved in the characterization of COVID-19 in the HSCT population, although uncertainties remain in the optimal therapeutic management.

Therapeutic Use of Convalescent Plasma in COVID-19 Infected Patients with Concomitant Hematological Disorders

The use of convalescent plasma (CP) from individuals recovered from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a promising therapeutic modality for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). CP has been in use for at least a century to provide passive immunity against a number of diseases, and was recently proposed by the World Health Organization for human Ebola virus infection. Only a few small studies have so far been published on patients with COVID-19 and concomitant hematological malignancies (HM). The Italian Hematology Alliance on HM and COVID-19 has found that HM patients with COVID-19 clinically perform more poorly than those with either HM or COVID-19 alone. A COVID-19 infection in patients with B-cell lymphoma is associated with impaired generation of neutralizing antibody titers and lowered clearance of SARS-CoV-2. Treatment with CP was seen to increase antibody titers in all patients and to improve clinical response in 80% of patients examined. However, a recent study has reported impaired production of SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies in an immunosuppressed individual treated with CP, possibly supporting the notion of virus escape, particularly in immunocompromised individuals where prolonged viral replication occurs. This may limit the efficacy of CP treatment in at least some HM patients. More recently, it has been shown that CP may provide a neutralising effect against B.1.1.7 and other SARS-CoV-2 variants, thus expanding its application in clinical practice. More extensive studies are needed to further assess the use of CP in COVID-19-infected HM patients.

Recovery from severe persistent COVID-19 without evidence of an anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response in a man with mantle cell lymphoma treated with rituximab

Lymphoma has been reported to worsen the prognosis of COVID-19 partly because it disturbs the normal production of antibodies. We treated a man with mantle cell lymphoma treated with rituximab, who developed severe COVID-19 with viral shedding that lasted for 78 days. He stayed in the intensive care unit for 28 days and did not respond to any treatment against COVID-19. His increased oxygen demand at rest eventually resolved despite the absence of anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG. This case illustrates that recovery from COVID-19 can occur without antibody production, and that even patients with an inability to produce antibodies can recover from severe COVID-19. It also illustrates that lymphoma patients who develop severe COVID-19 while on rituximab therapy can recover from a prolonged viral shedding state if the acute lung injury can be overcome.

AIDS patient with severe T cell depletion achieved control but not clearance of SARS-CoV-2 infection

A late presenter AIDS patient with severe T cell depletion presented non-severe COVID-19 symptoms, with prolonged viral shedding. Our case report supports the hypothesis that an effective T cell response may be dispensable for the control of COVID-19 progression to severe forms, while it may be necessary for SARS-CoV-2 clearance.

Effects of COVID-19 in lymphoid malignancies

I will have a couple of comments on the issues elaborated in the article titled as ‘Impact of COVID-19 in patients with lymphoid malignancies’. First, the author did not emphasize and overlook the prolonged persistence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with hematological malignancies. Second, the rise of a chronic lymphoid leukemia clone in COVID-19 was not mentioned by the authors. Third, achieving a complete remission in asymptomatic COVID-19 patients with follicular lymphoma in partial remission after bendamustine-based therapy is not specific to this lymphoma subtype. Fourth, follicular lymphoma does not always undergo complete remission with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our aim is to help the authors to discuss and clarify these issues a little more in COVID-19 patients with hematological malignancies.

Increased Incidence of Thrombosis in a Cohort of Cancer Patients with COVID-19

Background

Increased rates of thromboembolism (TE) have been reported in patients with COVID-19, even without prior predisposition to thrombosis. Cancer patients are already predisposed to a hypercoagulable state. This study was designed to assess the TE incidence in COVID-19+ patients with active cancer and its impact on survival.

Methods

Data from cancer patients with documented COVID-19 during the dates March 15th–April 10th, 2020, were retrospectively reviewed. Active cancer was defined as disease treated within the past year. Diagnosis and evaluation of thrombosis were done at the clinicians' discretion. All imaging studies' reports within 30 days of the COVID-19 positive test were reviewed for identification of new arterial and/or venous TE. Patients were followed for 30 days from the date of COVID-19+ test for development of TE, hospital length of stay (LOS), and mortality.

Results

Of 90 patients, 11 (12.2%) were found to have 13 new TE within 30 days of COVID-19+ test: 8 (8.9%) arterial and 5 (5.6%) venous. Arterial TE was primarily new strokes and/or microvascular cerebral disease (7) with 1 splenic infarct. Venous TE was superficial (1) and deep (3) venous thromboses with 1 pulmonary embolism. Peak D-dimer (DD) values were numerically higher in the TE group versus those with no TE, median peak DD, 7.7 versus 3.2 μg/mL, p = 0.25. Kidney disease was more frequent among patients with TE (72.7%) versus those without TE (31.6%), p = 0.02. Prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation (AC) in the inpatient setting was more common among those without TE, any AC, TE versus no TE, 9.1% versus 79.0%, p < 0.0001. Only 1 patient on enoxaparin prophylaxis developed TE. Mortality was higher in the TE group than in those without TE (hazard ratio: 2.6; 95% CI [1.2–5.6], p = 0.009). Cancer type, presence of metastases, administration of prior chemotherapy, patient setting (inpatient, intensive care unit, outpatient, emergency department visit), LOS, and ventilation did not correlate with increased incidence of TE.

Conclusion

Cancer patients with COVID-19 have high overall TE rates with a significant incidence of arterial events. TE was associated with worse survival outcomes.

Are Hematologic Patients Trojan Horse for COVID-19?

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which is caused by severe acute respiratory distress syndrome virus (SARS-CoV-2) continues to affect people all around the world. This study aimed to compare the SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding time between patients diagnosed with hematologic diseases (HD) and a control group. A total of 110 patients were enrolled in this retrospective study; 55 patients with a diagnosis of HD and 55 sex and comorbidity matched controls without a diagnosis of HD, who caught COVID-19 at the same period. Thirty-eight patients were hospitalized in each group. Viral shedding time, COVID-19 severity, need for intensive care unit support, and mortality rates were compared between groups. Median viral shedding time was 24 days in hospitalized HD patients and 12 days in the hospitalized control group (p < 0.01) as 20 days in outpatient HD patients and 10 days in the outpatient control group (p = 0.02). Viral shedding time was longer in severe + critical COVID-19 cases in the whole cohort (median 22 days in severe + critical, and 12 days in mild + moderate) (p < 0.01). Severe + critical COVID-19 was more common in the HD group than the control group (47.2% versus 25.4%, respectively) (p = 0.017). Twenty-five patients were dead in the whole cohort. One patient was in the control group and 24 patients were in the HD group, therefore the mortality rate for the HD group was 43.6%. Because of statistically significant longer viral shedding time, longer-term isolation may be necessary for hematologic patients diagnosed with COVID-19.

Year-long COVID-19 infection reveals within-host evolution of SARS-CoV-2 in a patient with B cell depletion

Background

B-cell depleting therapies may lead to protracted disease and prolonged viral shedding in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2. Viral persistence in the setting of immunosuppression raises concern for viral evolution.

Methods

Amplification of sub-genomic transcripts for the E gene (sgE) was done on nasopharyngeal samples over the course of 355 days in a patient infected with SARS-CoV-2 who had previously undergone CAR T cell therapy and had persistently positive SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swabs. Whole genome sequencing was performed on samples from the patient's original presentation and 10 months later.

Results

Over the course of almost a year, the virus accumulated a unique in-frame deletion in the amino-terminal domain of the spike protein, and complete deletion of ORF7b and ORF8, the first report of its kind in an immunocompromised patient. Also, minority variants that were identified in the early samples-reflecting the heterogeneity of the initial infection-were found to be fixed late in the infection. Remdesivir and high-titer convalescent plasma treatment were given, and the infection was eventually cleared after 335 days of infection.

Conclusions

The unique viral mutations found in this study highlight the importance of analyzing viral evolution in protracted SARS-CoV-2 infection, especially in immunosuppressed hosts, and the implication of these mutations in the emergence of viral variants.

Summary

We report an immunocompromised patient with persistent symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection for 335 days. During this time, the virus accumulated a unique in-frame deletion in the spike, and a complete deletion of ORF7b and ORF8 which is the first report of its kind in an immunocompromised patient.

Prolonged in-hospital stay and higher mortality after Covid-19 among patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma treated with B-cell depleting immunotherapy

Prolonged Covid-19 is an emerging issue for patients with lymphoma or immune deficiency. We aimed to examine prolonged length of in-hospital stay (LOS) due to Covid-19 among patients with lymphoma and assess its determinants and outcomes. Adult patients with lymphoma admitted for Covid-19 to 16 French hospitals in March and April, 2020 were included. Length of in-hospital stay was analyzed as a competitor vs death. The study included 111 patients. The median age was 65 years (range, 19-92). Ninety-four patients (85%) had B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Within the 12 months prior to hospitalization for Covid-19, 79 patients (71%) were treated for their lymphoma. Among them, 63 (57%) received an anti-CD20 therapy. Fourteen patients (12%) had relapsed/refractory disease. The median LOS was 14 days (range, 1-235). After a median follow-up of 191 days (3-260), the 6-month overall survival was 69%. In multivariable analyses, recent administration of anti-CD20 therapy was associated with prolonged LOS (subdistribution hazard ratio 2.26, 95% confidence interval 1.42-3.6, p < 0.001) and higher risk of death (hazard ratio 2.17, 95% confidence interval 1.04-4.52, p = 0.039). An age ≥ 70 years and relapsed/refractory lymphoma were also associated with prolonged LOS and decreased overall survival. In conclusion, an age ≥ 70 years, a relapsed/refractory lymphoma and recent administration of anti-CD20 therapy are risk factors for prolonged LOS and death for lymphoma patients hospitalized for Covid-19. These findings may contribute to guide the management of lymphoma during the pandemic, support evaluating specific therapeutic approaches, and raise questions on the efficacy and timing of vaccination of this particular population.

Use of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients with immunosuppression

In the absence of effective countermeasures, human convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the causative agent of novel coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), including among patients with innate or acquired immunosuppression. However, the association between COVID-19-associated mortality in patients with immunosuppression and therapeutic use of convalescent plasma is unknown. We review 75 reports, including one large matched-control registry study of 143 COVID-19 patients with hematological malignancies, and 51 case reports and 23 case series representing 238 COVID-19 patients with immunosuppression. We review clinical features and treatment protocols of COVID-19 patients with immunosuppression after treatment with human convalescent plasma. We also discuss the time course and clinical features of recovery. The available data from case reports and case series provide evidence suggesting a mortality benefit and rapid clinical improvement in patients with several forms of immunosuppression following COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion. The utility of convalescent plasma or other forms of antibody therapy in immune-deficient and immune-suppressed patients with COVID-19 warrants further investigation.

Resolution of One-Year Persisting COVID-19 Pneumonia and Development of Immune Thrombocytopenia in a Follicular Lymphoma Patient With Preceding Rituximab Maintenance Therapy: A follow-up Report and Literature Review of Cases With Prolonged Infections

Background

We previously reported elsewhere of a follicular lymphoma patient suffering from persistent COVID-19 pneumonia that was still ongoing at 2 months after onset.

Materials and Methods

We provide a follow-up report of the case along with a literature review of immunocompromised lymphoma patients experiencing prolonged COVID-19 infections.

Results

Although requiring a full 1 year, the presented case eventually achieved spontaneous resolution of COVID-19 pneumonia. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies could not be detected throughout the disease course, but COVID-19-directed T-cell response was found to be intact. The patient also developed secondary immune thrombocytopenia subsequent to COVID-19 pneumonia. We found 19 case reports of immunocompromised lymphoma patients with prolonged COVID-19 infections in the literature. All 5 patients who died did not receive convalescent plasma therapy, whereas resolution of COVID-19 infection was achieved in 8 out of 9 patients who received convalescent plasma therapy.

Conclusions

We demonstrate through the presented case that while time-consuming, resolution of COVID-19 infections may be achieved without aid from humoral immunity if cellular immunity is intact. Immunocompromised lymphoma patients are at risk of a prolonged disease course of COVID-19, and convalescent plasma therapy may be a promising approach in such patients.

Low Innate Immunity and Lagged Adaptive Immune Response in the Re-Tested Viral RNA Positivity of a COVID-19 Patient

Recent studies have highlighted observations regarding re-tested positivity (RP) of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in discharged COVID-19 patients, however, the immune mechanisms underlying SARS-CoV-2 RNA RP in immunocompetent patients remain elusive. Herein, we describe the case of an immunocompetent COVID-19 patient with moderate symptoms who was twice re-tested as positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and the period between first and third viral RNA positivity was 95 days, longer than previously reported (18–25 days). The chest computed tomography findings, plasma anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody, neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) titer, and whole blood transcriptic characteristics in the viral RNA RP patient and other COVID-19 patients were analyzed. During the SARS-CoV-2 RNA RP period, new lung lesions were observed. The COVID-19 patient with viral RNA RP had delayed seroconversion of anti-spike/receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgA antibody and NAbs and were accompanied with disappearance of the lung lesions. Further experimental data validated that NAbs titer was significantly associated with anti-RBD IgA and IgG, and anti-spike IgG. The RP patient had lower interferon-, T cells- and B cell-related genes expression than non-RP patients with mild-to-moderate symptoms, and displayed lower cytokines and chemokines gene expression than severe patients. Interestingly, the RP patient had low expression of antigen presentation-related genes and low B cell counts which might have contributed to the delayed anti-RBD specific antibody and low CD8+ cell response. Collectively, delayed antigen presentation-related gene expression was found related to delayed adaptive immune response and contributed to the SARS-CoV-2 RNA RP in this described immunocompetent patient.

Hyperimmune plasma infusion in an immunocompromised Covid-19 patient previously treated for follicular lymphoma

Covid-19 in immunocompromised patients shows a prolonged course and may lead to a poor prognosis. Although data on hyperimmune plasma for treatment of Covid-19 suggest an improved outcome in immunocompetent patients, limited data are currently available in immunocompromised patients. We present the case of a 62-year-old Caucasian woman, who was previously treated with obinutuzumab and bendamustine for follicular lymphoma and showed a prolonged positive test for Covid-19. Since no improvement was observed with standard of care (including remdesivir), the possibility of hyperimmune plasma infusion was discussed. A first dose of hyperimmune plasma was administered, with subsequent onset of fever, increasing inflammatory indexes and worsening radiological findings. Three days later a second dose of plasma was administered. Within twelve hours cough and fever disappeared, and oxygen at rest was discontinued. The patient was discharged 5 days later, and nasopharyngeal swabs resulted negative 16 days after discharge.

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 being investigated as potential therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of these interventions is required.  OBJECTIVES: Using a living systematic review approach, to assess whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform, and trial registries. Searches were done on 17 March 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. For safety assessments, we also included non-controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) if 500 or more participants were included. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of Bias 2' tool for RCTs, and for NRSIs, the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer. We rated the certainty of evidence, using the GRADE approach, for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, improvement and worsening of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), development of severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms (for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease), quality of life (including fatigue and functional independence), grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies (12 RCTs, 1 NRSI) with 48,509 participants, of whom 41,880 received convalescent plasma. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We identified a further 100 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, and 33 studies reporting as being completed or terminated. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease Eleven RCTs and one NRSI investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 48,349 participants with moderate to severe disease. Nine RCTs compared convalescent plasma to placebo treatment or standard care alone, and two compared convalescent plasma to standard plasma (results not included in abstract). Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We included data on nine RCTs (12,875 participants) to assess the effectiveness of convalescent plasma compared to placebo or standard care alone.  Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 12,646 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on clinical improvement for all participants when assessed by liberation from respiratory support (RR not estimable; 8 RCTs, 12,682 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on the chance of being weaned or liberated from invasive mechanical ventilation for the subgroup of participants requiring invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.93; 2 RCTs, 630 participants; low-certainty evidence). It does not reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.08; 4 RCTs, 11,765 participants; high-certainty evidence). We did not identify any subgroup differences.  We did not identify any studies reporting quality of life, and therefore, do not know whether convalescent plasma has any impact on quality of life. One RCT assessed resolution of fatigue on day 7, but we are very uncertain about the effect (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.42; 309 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Safety of convalescent plasma We included results from eight RCTs, and one NRSI, to assess the safety of convalescent plasma. Some of the RCTs reported on safety data only for the convalescent plasma group.  We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma increases or reduces the risk of grade 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.41; 4 RCTs, 905 participants; low-certainty evidence), and serious adverse events (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.90; 2 RCTs, 414 participants; low-certainty evidence).  A summary of reported events of the NRSI (reporting safety data for 20,000 of 35,322 transfused participants), and four RCTs reporting safety data only for transfused participants (6125 participants) are included in the full text. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and asymptomatic or mild disease We identified one RCT reporting on 160 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo treatment (saline).  Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We are very uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on all-cause mortality (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.65; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on developing severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR not estimable; low-certainty evidence).  We identified no study reporting quality of life.  Safety of convalescent plasma We do not know whether convalescent plasma is associated with a higher risk of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (very low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). This is a living systematic review. We search weekly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have high certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for the treatment of individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on measures of clinical improvement. We are uncertain about the adverse effects of convalescent plasma. While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, heterogeneous reporting of outcomes is still problematic. There are 100 ongoing studies and 33 studies reporting in a study registry as being completed or terminated. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around hyperimmune immunoglobulin therapy for people with any disease severity, and convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Prolonged SARS-CoV2 Viral Shedding in an Elderly Patient

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been devastating to the elderly population, especially due to a lack of clear guidelines for treatment. Corticosteroids have been the mainstay in treating the cytokine storm caused by the virus. In the past, prolonged viral shedding of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) was noted in patients treated with high-dose corticosteroids. It is unclear whether this also holds true for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV2). To our knowledge, this case report highlights the longest reported disease course of SARS-CoV2, lasting approximately 210 days.

Overview of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adults living with HIV

Around 2·5 million deaths and more than 110 million COVID-19 cases have been reported globally. Although it initially appeared that HIV infection was not a risk factor for COVID-19 or more severe disease, more recent large studies suggest that people living with HIV (particularly with low CD4 cell counts or untreated HIV infection) might have a more severe clinical course than those who are HIV-negative. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted HIV prevention and treatment services worldwide, creating huge challenges to the continuity of essential activities. We have reviewed the most relevant features of COVID-19 in people living with HIV and highlighted topics where further research is required.

The Effect of Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Mortality Among Patients With COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

To determine the effect of COVID-19 convalescent plasma on mortality, we aggregated patient outcome data from 10 randomized clinical trials, 20 matched control studies, 2 dose-response studies, and 96 case reports or case series. Studies published between January 1, 2020, and January 16, 2021, were identified through a systematic search of online PubMed and MEDLINE databases. Random effects analyses of randomized clinical trials and matched control data demonstrated that patients with COVID-19 transfused with convalescent plasma exhibited a lower mortality rate compared with patients receiving standard treatments. Additional analyses showed that early transfusion (within 3 days of hospital admission) of higher titer plasma is associated with lower patient mortality. These data provide evidence favoring the efficacy of human convalescent plasma as a therapeutic agent in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Convalescent Plasma for the Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by a novel coronavirus termed SARS-CoV-2, has spread quickly worldwide. Convalescent plasma (CP) obtained from patients following recovery from COVID-19 infection and development of antibodies against the virus is an attractive option for either prophylactic or therapeutic treatment, since antibodies may have direct or indirect antiviral activities and immunotherapy has proven effective in principle and in many clinical reports.

OBJECTIVE

We seek to characterize the latest advances and evidence in the use of CP for COVID-19 through a systematic review and quantitative analysis, identify knowledge gaps in this setting, and offer recommendations and directives for future research.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were continuously searched for studies assessing the use of CP for COVID-19, including clinical studies, commentaries, reviews, guidelines or protocols, and in vitro testing of CP antibodies. The screening process and data extraction were performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Quality appraisal of all clinical studies was conducted using a universal tool independent of study designs. A meta-analysis of case-control and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Substantial literature has been published covering various aspects of CP therapy for COVID-19. Of the references included in this review, a total of 243 eligible studies including 64 clinical studies, 79 commentary articles, 46 reviews, 19 guidance and protocols, and 35 in vitro testing of CP antibodies matched the criteria. Positive results have been mostly observed so far when using CP for the treatment of COVID-19. There were remarkable heterogeneities in the CP therapy with respect to patient demographics, donor antibody titers, and time and dose of CP administration. The studies assessing the safety of CP treatment reported low incidence of adverse events. Most clinical studies, in particular case reports and case series, had poor quality. Only 1 RCT was of high quality. Randomized and nonrandomized data were found in 2 and 11 studies, respectively, and were included for meta-analysis, suggesting that CP could reduce mortality and increase viral clearance. Despite promising pilot studies, the benefits of CP treatment can only be clearly established through carefully designed RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

There is developing support for CP therapy, particularly for patients who are critically ill or mechanically ventilated and resistant to antivirals and supportive care. These studies provide important lessons that should inform the planning of well-designed RCTs to generate more robust knowledge for the efficacy of CP in patients with COVID-19. Future research is necessary to fill the knowledge gap regarding prevention and treatment for patients with COVID-19 with CP while other therapeutics are being developed.

Autologous hematopoietic transplantation following COVID-19 infection

Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation following induction therapy is standard of care for most patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (N Engl J Med 2017, 376; 1311). Though active COVID-19 infection is typically a contraindication to aggressive therapy, little is known about the safety of autologous transplantation after resolution of acute symptoms and undetectable pathogen by nasopharyngeal PCR.

COVID-19 in immunocompromised patients: A systematic review of cancer, hematopoietic cell and solid organ transplant patients

BACKGROUND

The clinical impact of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), in immunocompromised patients has not been systematically evaluated.

METHODS

We reviewed current literature reporting on COVID-19 in cancer (CA), hematopoietic cell (HCT), and solid organ transplant (SOT) patients and compared their clinical data and outcomes to the general population. For adult CA, HCT and SOT patients, an extensive search strategy retrieved all articles published until July 20, 2020 by combining the terms coronavirus, coronavirus infection, COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2 in PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science, and following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. For the pediatric CA cohort, a global COVID-19 registry was used. For the general population cohort, a large meta-analysis was used to compare pooled prevalence estimates, and two large meta-analyses were utilized to serve as pooled comparators for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

FINDINGS

Compared to the general population, adult CA and SOT patients with COVID-19 had higher comorbidities, greater levels of inflammatory markers at diagnosis, and higher rates of intensive care and hospital mortality. Pediatric CA patients and HCT patients with COVID-19 tended to have clinical presentations and outcomes similar to the general population.

INTERPRETATION

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review evaluating COVID-19 phenotype and outcomes in immunocompromised patients and comparing them to the general population, which shows that hospital outcomes appear to be worse in adult CA and SOT patients, potentially due to their higher co-morbidity burden.

FUNDING

None.

Persistence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a male with metabolic syndrome for 72 days: A case report

Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) was first identified in Wuhan, China, and spread gradually throughout the world. There are multiple reports of prolonged viral shedding in people infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2); however, such findings have not been documented in Bangladesh. Herein, we present a case of metabolic syndrome that remained positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA over a prolonged period. On clinical and laboratory examination, the patient was diagnosed with obesity, raised blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and uncontrolled glycemia. However, upon taking appropriate measures and controlling the plasma sugar level, he tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA on the 72nd day since illness onset. We observed that COVID-19 patients with several comorbidities, such as metabolic syndrome, may shed the virus over a prolonged period. Therefore, strict public health measures and isolation rules should be followed by a high-risk population.

SARS-CoV-2 RNA in plasma samples of COVID-19 affected individuals: a cross-sectional proof-of-concept study

BACKGROUND

Recent studies showed that plasma SARS-CoV-2 RNA seems to be associated with worse COVID-19 outcome. However, whether specific population can be at higher risk of viremia are to date unexplored.

METHODS

This cross-sectional proof-of-concept study included 41 SARS-CoV-2-positive adult individuals (six affected by haematological malignancies) hospitalized at two major hospital in Milan, for those demographic, clinical and laboratory data were available. SARS-CoV-2 load was quantified by ddPCR in paired plasma and respiratory samples. To assess significant differences between patients with and patients without viremia, Fisher exact test and Wilcoxon test were used for categorical and continuous variables, respectively.

RESULTS

Plasma SARS-CoV-2 RNA was found in 8 patients (19.5%), with a median (IQR) value of 694 (209-1023) copies/mL. Viremic patients were characterized by an higher mortality rate (50.0% vs 9.1%; p = 0.018) respect to patients without viremia. Viremic patients were more frequently affected by haematological malignancies (62.5% vs. 3.0%; p < 0.001), and had higher viral load in respiratory samples (9,404,000 [586,060-10,000,000] vs 1560 [312-25,160] copies/mL; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Even if based on a small sample population, this proof-of-concept study poses the basis for an early identification of patients at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 viremia, and therefore likely to develop severe COVID-19, and supports the need of a quantitative viral load determination in blood and respiratory samples of haematologic patients with COVID-19 in order to predict prognosis and consequently to help their further management.

Treatment of COVID-19 with convalescent plasma in patients with humoral immunodeficiency - Three consecutive cases and review of the literature

Patients lacking humoral response have been suggested to develop a less severe COVID-19, but there are some reports with a prolonged, relapsing or deadly course. From April 2020, there is growing evidence on the benefits of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) for patients with humoral immunodeficiency. Most of them had a congenital primary immunodeficiency or were on treatment with anti CD20 antibodies. We report on three patients treated in our hospital and review thirty-one more cases described in the literature. All patients but three resolved clinical picture with CCP. A dose from 200 to 800ml was enough in most cases. Antibody levels after transfusion were negative or low, suggesting consumption of them in SARS-CoV-2 neutralization. These patients have a protracted clinical course shortened after CCP. CCP could be helpful for patients with humoral immunodeficiency. It avoid relapses and chronification. CCP should be transfused as early as possible in patients with COVID-19 and humoral immunodeficiency.

Convalescent plasma may be a possible treatment for COVID-19: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has spread globally. Therapeutic options including antivirals, anti-inflammatory compounds, and vaccines are still under study. Convalescent plasma(CP) immunotherapy was an effective method for fighting against similar viral infections such as SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV. In the epidemic of COVID-19, a large number of literatures reported the application of CP. However, there is controversy over the efficacy of CP therapy for COVID-19. This systematic review was designed to evaluate the existing evidence and experience related to CP immunotherapy for COVID-19.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted on Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Clinical Key, Wanfang Database; China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI) were used to search for the proper keywords such as SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, plasma, serum, immunoglobulins, blood transfusion, convalescent, novel coronavirus, immune and the related words for publications published until 15.10.2020. Other available resources were also used to identify relevant articles. The present systematic review was performed based on PRISMA protocol. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed by two reviewers.

RESULTS

Based on the inclusions and exclusions criteria, 45 articles were included in the final review. First, meta-analysis results of RCTs showed that, there were no statistically significant differences between CP transfusion and the control group in terms of reducing mortality(OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52-1.19, I2 = 28%) and improving clinical symptoms(OR 1.21, 95%CI 0.68-2.16; I2 = 0%). The results of controlled NRSIs showed that CP therapy may reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients(RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.53-0.66, I2 = 0%). Second, limited safety data suggested that CP is a well-tolerated therapy with a low incidence of adverse events. But, due to lack of safety data for the control group, it is really not easy to determine whether CP transfusion has an impact on moderate to serious AEs. Thirdly, for children, pregnant, elderly, tumor and immunocompromised patients, CP may be a well-tolerated therapy, if the disease cannot be controlled and continues to progress. Studies were commonly of low or very low quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the results of limited RCTs showed that CP cannot significantly reduce mortality, some non-RCTs and case report(series) have found that CP may help patients improve clinical symptoms, clear the virus, and reduce mortality, especially for patients with COVID-19 within ten days of illness. We speculate that CP may be a possible treatment option. High-quality studies are needed for establishing stronger quality of evidence and pharmacists should also be actively involved in the CP treatment process and provide close pharmaceutical care.

COVID-19 neutralizing antibody-based therapies in humoral immune deficiencies: A narrative review

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS−COV-2), generated an unprecedented global health and social emergency. Despite many efforts from clinicians to develop effective anti−COVID-19 treatment protocols, no specific therapy is currently available. Among anti-viral agents, convalescent plasma (CP) from recovered patients is the object of intense research following the first positive reports in severe COVID-19 patients. Passive immunotherapy the rationale to provide higher benefits in COVID-19 patients with humoral immune deficiencies, such as those with solid and hematologic cancers, patients with primary and acquired immunodeficiencies, and recipients of solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplants. The aim of this narrative review will be to critically discuss the literature evidence on CP use in these categories of patients.

A patient affected by critical COVID-19 pneumonia, successfully treated with convalescent plasma

We present a critically ill patient affected by COVID-19, whose chest computed tomography (CT) scan featured lung consolidations and severe patchy ground-glass opacitie. On day 3 since hospital admission the patient was placed on convalescent plasma treatment. A combined treatment with supportive care, hemoperfusion and convalescent plasma successfully managed to save the patient's life. Convalescent plasma probably contributed to heal this patient and should always be considered in the management of critically ill COVID-19 cases.

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.