High-titre methylene blue-treated convalescent plasma as an early treatment for outpatients with COVID-19: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial

COVID-19 therapeutics

SUMMARYSince the emergence of COVID-19 in 2020, an unprecedented range of therapeutic options has been studied and deployed. Healthcare providers have multiple treatment approaches to choose from, but efficacy of those approaches often remains controversial or compromised by viral evolution. Uncertainties still persist regarding the best therapies for high-risk patients, and the drug pipeline is suffering fatigue and shortage of funding. In this article, we review the antiviral activity, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, and safety of COVID-19 antiviral therapies. Additionally, we summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials on efficacy and safety of the various COVID-19 antivirals and discuss unmet needs which should be addressed.

Cytokine, Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody, and Neutralizing Antibody Levels in Conventional Blood Donors Who Have Recovered from COVID-19

Background

At the beginning of the pandemic, COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was suggested as a source of therapy. In the last 3 years, many trials have demonstrated the limited usefulness of CCP therapy. This led us to the hypothesis that CCP could contain other elements, along with the desired neutralizing antibodies, which could potentially prevent it from having a therapeutic effect, among them cytokines, chemokines, growth factors, clotting factors, and autoantibodies.

Methods

In total, 39 cytokines were analyzed in the plasma of 190 blood donors, and further research focused on the levels of 23 different cytokines in CCP (sCD40L, eotaxin, FGF-2, FLT-3L, ractalkine, GRO-α, IFNα2, IL-1β, IL-1RA, IL-5, IL-6, IL-8, IL-12, IL-13, IL-15, IL-17E, IP-10, MCP-1, MIP-1b, PDGF-AA, TGFα, TNFα, and TRAIL). Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and neutralizing antibodies were detected in CCP.

Results

We found no significant differences between CCP taken within a maximum of 180 days from the onset of the first COVID-19 symptoms and the controls. We also made a comparison of the cytokine levels between the low neutralizing antibodies (<160) group and the high neutralizing antibodies (≥160) group and found there were no differences between the groups. Our research also showed no correlation either to levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG Ab or to the levels of neutralizing antibodies. There were also no significant changes in cytokine levels based on the period after the start of COVID-19 symptoms.

Conclusions

No elements which could potentially be responsible for preventing CCP from having a therapeutic effect were found.

The relationship between viral clearance rates and disease progression in early symptomatic COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

Effective antiviral drugs accelerate viral clearance in acute COVID-19 infections; the relationship between accelerating viral clearance and reducing severe clinical outcomes is unclear.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antiviral therapies in early symptomatic COVID-19, where viral clearance data were available. Treatment benefit was defined clinically as the relative risk of hospitalization/death during follow-up (≥14 days), and virologically as the SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance rate ratio (VCRR). The VCRR is the ratio of viral clearance rates between the intervention and control arms. The relationship between the clinical and virological treatment effects was assessed by mixed-effects meta-regression.

RESULTS

From 57 potentially eligible RCTs, VCRRs were derived for 44 (52 384 participants); 32 had ≥1 clinical endpoint in each arm. Overall, 9.7% (R2) of the variation in clinical benefit was explained by variation in VCRRs with an estimated linear coefficient of -0.92 (95% CI: -1.99 to 0.13; P = 0.08). However, this estimate was highly sensitive to the inclusion of the recent very large PANORAMIC trial. Omitting this outlier, half the variation in clinical benefit (R2 = 50.4%) was explained by variation in VCRRs [slope -1.47 (95% CI -2.43 to -0.51); P = 0.003], i.e. higher VCRRs were associated with an increased clinical benefit.

CONCLUSION

Methods of determining viral clearance in COVID-19 studies and the relationship to clinical outcomes vary greatly. As prohibitively large sample sizes are now required to show clinical treatment benefit in antiviral therapeutic assessments, viral clearance is a reasonable surrogate endpoint.

Experiences in the use of multiple doses of convalescent plasma in critically ill patients with COVID-19: An early phase 1 descriptive study

Background

At the beginning of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, transfusion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) emerged as a potential therapeutic strategy to help patients severely afflicted by COVID-19. The efficacy of CCP has been controversial as it depends on many variables pertaining to the plasma donor and the patient with COVID-19, for example, time of convalescence or symptoms onset. This feasibility and descriptive study aimed to assess the safety of multiple doses of CCP in mechanically ventilated, intubated patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19.

Methods

A cohort of 30 patients all experiencing severe respiratory failure and undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit, received up to five doses of 300-600 mL of CCP on alternate days (0, 2, 4, 6, and 8) until extubation, futility, or death.

Results

Nineteen patients received five doses, seven received four, and four received two or three doses. At 28-day follow-up mark, 57% of patients recovered and were sent home, and the long-term mortality rate was 27%. Ten severe adverse events reported in the study were unrelated to CCP transfusion. Independent of the number of transfused doses, most patients had detectable levels of total and neutralizing antibodies in plasma.

Conclusion

This study suggests that transfusion of multiple doses of CCP is safe. This strategy may represent a viable option for future studies, given the potential benefit of CCP transfusions during the early stages of infection in unvaccinated populations and in settings where monoclonal antibodies or antivirals are contraindicated or unavailable.

Hyperimmune Plasma and Immunoglobulins against COVID-19: A Narrative Review

Since late 2019, the new SARS-CoV-2 virus belonging to the Coronaviridae family has been responsible for COVID-19 pandemic, a severe acute respiratory syndrome. Several antiviral therapies, mostly derived from previous epidemics, were initially repurposed to fight this not rarely life-threatening respiratory illness. Among them, however, the only specific antibody-based therapy available against SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first year of the pandemic was represented by COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). CCP, collected from recovered individuals, contains high levels of polyclonal antibodies of different subclasses able to neutralize SARS-CoV-2 infection. Tens of randomized controlled trials have been conducted during the last three years of the pandemic to evaluate the safety and the clinical efficacy of CCP in both hospitalized and ambulatory COVID-19 patients, whose main results will be summarized in this narrative review. In addition, we will present the current knowledge on the development of anti-SARS-CoV-2 hyperimmune polyclonal immunoglobulins.

Application of methylene blue for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19: A narrative review

The newest virus from the SARS family of viruses called acute syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes COVID-19 disease, was identified in China at the end of 2019. In March 2020, after it spread to 29 additional countries, it was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). SARS-CoV-2 infection mainly starts through the respiratory tract and causes a wide spectrum of symptoms from asymptomatic infections to acute respiratory distress syndrome with multi-organ failure and vasoplegic shock. Among the many immunomodulatory and antiviral drugs that have been studied for the treatment of COVID-19, methylene blue (MB) may play an influential role. This article reviews the history of MB applications, the antiviral effects of MB against SARS-CoV-2, and the results of in vivo and in vitro studies of the use of MB in COVID-19. Based on studies, MB can simultaneously affect most of the host's harmful responses caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection due to its multiple properties, including anti-hypoxemia, anti-oxidant, immune system modulator, and antiviral. The use of MB is associated with a reduction in the possibility of getting infection, and mortality, and can be used as a safe, effective, cheap, and available treatment option with minimal side effects for the clinical management of COVID-19.

Efficacy of combined COVID-19 convalescent plasma with oral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase inhibitor treatment versus neutralizing monoclonal antibody therapy in COVID-19 outpatients: a multi-center, non-inferiority, open-label randomized controlled trial (PlasMab)

IMPORTANCE

This pivotal study reveals that high neutralizing titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) combined with favipiravir (FPV) is non-inferior to sotrovimab in preventing hospitalization and severe outcomes in outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and high-risk comorbidities. It underscores the potential of CPT-FPV as a viable alternative to neutralizing monoclonal antibodies like sotrovimab, especially amid emerging variants with spike protein mutations. The study's unique approach, comparing a monoclonal antibody with CPT, demonstrates the efficacy of early intervention using high neutralizing antibody titer CPT, even in populations with a significant proportion of elderly patients. These findings are crucial, considering the alternative treatment challenges, especially in resource-limited countries, posed by the rapidly mutating SARS-CoV-2 virus and the need for adaptable therapeutic strategies.

Blood-derived product therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection and long COVID

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is capable of large-scale transmission and has caused the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Patients with COVID-19 may experience persistent long-term health issues, known as long COVID. Both acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and long COVID have resulted in persistent negative impacts on global public health. The effective application and development of blood-derived products are important strategies to combat the serious damage caused by COVID-19. Since the emergence of COVID-19, various blood-derived products that target or do not target SARS-CoV-2 have been investigated for therapeutic applications. SARS-CoV-2-targeting blood-derived products, including COVID-19 convalescent plasma, COVID-19 hyperimmune globulin, and recombinant anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing immunoglobulin G, are virus-targeting and can provide immediate control of viral infection in the short term. Non-SARS-CoV-2-targeting blood-derived products, including intravenous immunoglobulin and human serum albumin exhibit anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, antioxidant, and anticoagulatory properties. Rational use of these products can be beneficial to patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection or long COVID. With evidence accumulated since the pandemic began, we here summarize the progress of blood-derived product therapies for COVID-19, discuss the effective methods and scenarios regarding these therapies, and provide guidance and suggestions for clinical treatment.

Outpatient randomized controlled trials to reduce COVID-19 hospitalization: Systematic review and meta-analysis

This COVID-19 outpatient randomized controlled trials (RCTs) systematic review compares hospitalization outcomes amongst four treatment classes over pandemic period, geography, variants, and vaccine status. Outpatient RCTs with hospitalization endpoint were identified in Pubmed searches through May 2023, excluding RCTs <30 participants (PROSPERO-CRD42022369181). Risk of bias was extracted from COVID-19-NMA, with odds ratio utilized for pooled comparison. Searches identified 281 studies with 61 published RCTs for 33 diverse interventions analyzed. RCTs were largely unvaccinated cohorts with at least one COVID-19 hospitalization risk factor. Grouping by class, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (OR = 0.31 [95% CI = 0.24-0.40]) had highest hospital reduction efficacy, followed by COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) (OR = 0.69 [95% CI = 0.53-0.90]), small molecule antivirals (OR = 0.78 [95% CI = 0.48-1.33]), and repurposed drugs (OR = 0.82 [95% CI: 0.72-0.93]). Earlier in disease onset interventions performed better than later. This meta-analysis allows approximate head-to-head comparisons of diverse outpatient interventions. Omicron sublineages (XBB and BQ.1.1) are resistant to mAbs Despite trial heterogeneity, this pooled comparison by intervention class indicated oral antivirals are the preferred outpatient treatment where available, but intravenous interventions from convalescent plasma to remdesivir are also effective and necessary in constrained medical resource settings or for acute and chronic COVID-19 in the immunocompromised.

Rates Among Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 Treated With Convalescent Plasma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

To examine the association of COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion with mortality and the differences between subgroups in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Patients and Methods

On October 26, 2022, a systematic search was performed for clinical studies of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in the literature from January 1, 2020, to October 26, 2022. Randomized clinical trials and matched cohort studies investigating COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion compared with standard of care treatment or placebo among hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 were included. The electronic search yielded 3841 unique records, of which 744 were considered for full-text screening. The selection process was performed independently by a panel of 5 reviewers. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data were extracted by 5 independent reviewers in duplicate and pooled using an inverse-variance random effects model. The prespecified end point was all-cause mortality during hospitalization.

Results

Thirty-nine randomized clinical trials enrolling 21,529 participants and 70 matched cohort studies enrolling 50,160 participants were included in the systematic review. Separate meta-analyses reported that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with the control cohort for both randomized clinical trials (odds ratio [OR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.00) and matched cohort studies (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.88). The meta-analysis of subgroups revealed 2 important findings. First, treatment with convalescent plasma containing high antibody levels was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with convalescent plasma containing low antibody levels (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.99). Second, earlier treatment with COVID-19 convalescent plasma was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with the later treatment cohort (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.82).

Conclusion

During COVID-19 convalescent plasma use was associated with a 13% reduced risk of mortality, implying a mortality benefit for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, particularly those treated with convalescent plasma containing high antibody levels treated earlier in the disease course.

Design of VA CoronavirUs Research and Efficacy Studies-1 (VA CURES-1): A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in hospitalized patients with early respiratory compromise

BACKGROUND

Effective therapeutics for severe acute respiratory syndrome CoronaVirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are evolving. Under Emergency Use Authorization, COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) was widely used in individuals hospitalized for COVID-19, but few randomized controlled trials supported its efficacy to limit respiratory failure or death.

METHODS

VA CoronavirUs Research and Efficacy Studies-1 (VA CURES-1) was a double-blind, multi-site, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of CCP with conventional therapy in hospitalized Veterans with SARS-CoV-2 infection and early respiratory compromise (requirement for oxygen). Participants (planned sample size 702) were randomized 1:1 to receive CCP with high titer neutralizing activity or 0.9% saline, stratified by site and age (≥65 versus <65 years old). Participants were followed daily during initial hospitalization and at Days 15, 22 and 28.

OUTCOMES

The composite primary outcome was acute hypoxemic respiratory failure or all-cause death by Day 28. Secondary outcomes by day 28 included time-to-recovery, clinical severity, mortality, rehospitalization for COVID-19, and adverse events. Serial respiratory and blood samples were collected for safety, virologic and immunologic analyses and future studies. Key variables in predicting the success of CURES-1 were: (1) enrollment early in the course of severe infection; (2) use of plasma with high neutralizing activity; (3) reliance on unambiguous, clinically meaningful outcomes. CURES-1 was terminated for futility due to perceived inability to enroll in the lull between the Alpha and Delta waves of the SARS CoV-2 epidemic.

CONCLUSIONS

VA CURES-1 was a large multi-site trial designed to provide conclusive information about the efficacy of CCP in well-characterized patients at risk for progression of COVID-19. It utilized a rigorous study design with relevant initial timing, quality of product and outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04539275.

Transfusion reactions associated with COVID-19 convalescent plasma in outpatient clinical trials

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is an important therapeutic option for outpatients at high risk of hospitalization from SARS-CoV-2 infection. We assessed the safety of outpatient CCP transfusions administered during clinical trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed data pertaining to transfusion-related reactions from two randomized controlled trials in the U.S. that evaluated the efficacy of CCP versus control plasma in various ambulatory settings. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess whether CCP was associated with transfusion reactions, after adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

The combined study reported 79/1351 (5.9%) adverse events during the transfusion visit, with the majority 62/1351 (4.6%) characterized by mild, allergic-type findings of urticaria, and/or pruritus consistent with minor allergic transfusion reactions; the other reported events were attributed to the patients' underlying disease, COVID-19, or vasovagal in nature. We found no difference in the likelihood of allergic transfusion reactions between those receiving CCP versus control plasma (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.43-1.31). Risk of urticaria and/or pruritus increased with a pre-existing diagnosis of asthma (AOR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.16-4.67). We did not observe any CCP-attributed antibody disease enhancement in participants with COVID-19 or increased risk of infection. There were no life-threatening severe transfusion reactions and no patients required hospitalization related to transfusion-associated complications.

DISCUSSION

Outpatient plasma administration was safely performed for nearly 1400 participants. CCP is a safe therapeutic option for outpatients at risk of hospitalization from COVID-19.

Statistical Challenges When Analyzing SARS-CoV-2 RNA Measurements Below the Assay Limit of Quantification in COVID-19 Clinical Trials

Most clinical trials evaluating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapeutics include assessments of antiviral activity. In recently completed outpatient trials, changes in nasal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA levels from baseline were commonly assessed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) or mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM) with single imputation for results below assay lower limits of quantification (LLoQ). Analyzing changes in viral RNA levels with singly imputed values can lead to biased estimates of treatment effects. In this article, using an illustrative example from the ACTIV-2 trial, we highlight potential pitfalls of imputation when using ANCOVA or MMRM methods, and illustrate how these methods can be used when considering values Collapse

Key Words

• COVID-19
• SARS-CoV-2 RNA
• linear regression for censored data
• randomized trial

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Humans
• Antiviral Agents
• Biological Assay
• COVID-19
• RNA, Viral
• SARS-CoV-2/genetics

Collapse

Grants

• UM1 AI069424 NIAID NIH HHS
• UM1 AI068634 NIH HHS
• UM1 AI069481 NIAID NIH HHS
• UM1 AI106701 NIAID NIH HHS
• U01 AI069424 NIAID NIH HHS
• UM1 AI069412 NIAID NIH HHS
• UM1 AI068634 NIAID NIH HHS
• UM1 AI068636 NIAID NIH HHS
• National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
• National Institutes of Health

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Carlee B Moser Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Kara W Chew Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
Mark J Giganti Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Jonathan Z Li Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
Evgenia Aga Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Justin Ritz Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Alexander L Greninger Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
Arzhang Cyrus Javan National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland, USA
Rachel Bender Ignacio Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
Eric S Daar Lundquist Institute at Harbor-University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center, Torrance, California, USA
David A Wohl Department of Medicine, Chapel Hill School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
Judith S Currier Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
Joseph J Eron Department of Medicine, Chapel Hill School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
Davey M Smith Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA
Michael D Hughes Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

Collapse

Outpatient regimens to reduce COVID-19 hospitalisations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

During pandemics, early outpatient treatments reduce the health system burden. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in COVID-19 outpatients have tested therapeutic agents, but no RCT or systematic review has been conducted comparing the efficacy of the main outpatient treatment classes to each other. We aimed in this systematic review of outpatient RCTs in COVID-19 to compare hospitalisation rate reductions with four classes of treatment: convalescent plasma, monoclonal antibodies, small molecule antivirals and repurposed drugs.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all COVID-19 outpatient RCTs that included the endpoint of progression to hospitalisation. We assembled, from multiple published and preprint databases, participant characteristics, hospitalisations, resolution of symptoms and mortality from January 2020 to May 21, 2023. The risk of bias from COVID-NMA was incorporated into the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. We measured heterogeneity with I 2 . Meta-analysis by a random or fixed effect model dependent on significant heterogeneity (I 2 >50%) was performed. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO, CRD42022369181.

Findings

The search identified 281 studies of which 54 RCTs for 30 diverse interventions were included in the final analysis. These trials, performed largely in unvaccinated cohorts during pre-Omicron waves, focused on populations with at least one COVID-19 hospitalisation risk factor. Grouping by class, monoclonal antibodies (OR=0.31 [95% CI=0.24-0.40]) had highest efficacy, followed by COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) (OR=0.69 [95% CI=0.53 to 0.90]) and small molecule antivirals (OR=0.78 [95% CI=0.48-1.33]) for hospital reduction. Repurposed drugs (OR=0.82 [95% CI-0.72-0.93]) had lower efficacy.

Interpretation

Inasmuch as omicron sublineages (XBB and BQ.1.1) are now resistant to monoclonal antibodies, oral antivirals are the preferred treatment in outpatients where available, but intravenous interventions from convalescent plasma to remdesivir are also effective and necessary in constrained medical resource settings or for acute and chronic COVID-19 in the immunocompromised.

Funding

US Department of Defense and National Institute of Health.

Research in context

Evidence before this study: We systematically searched the published and preprint data bases for outpatient randomized clinical trials of treatment of COVID-19 disease with hospitalisation as an endpoint. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have confined the reviews to specific classes such as convalescent plasma, monoclonal antibodies, small molecule antivirals or repurposed drugs. Few comparisons have been made between these therapeutic classes. The trials took place both in the pre-vaccination and the vaccination era, spanning periods with dominance of different COVID variants. We sought to compare efficacy between the four classes of treatments listed above when used in outpatient COVID-19 patients as shown in randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

Added value of this study

This systematic review and meta-analysis brings together trials that assessed hospitalisation rates in diverse COVID-19 outpatient populations varying in age and comorbidities, permitting us to assess the efficacy of interventions both within and across therapeutic classes. While heterogeneity exists within and between these intervention classes, the meta-analysis can be placed in context of trial diverse populations over variant time periods of the pandemic. At present most of the world population has either had COVID-19 or been vaccinated with a high seropositivity rate, indicating that future placebo-controlled trials will be limited because of the sample sizes required to document hospitalisation outcomes.

Implications of all the available evidence

Numerous diverse therapeutic tools need to be ready for a resilient response to changing SARS-CoV-2 variants in both immunocompetent and immunocompromised COVID-19 outpatient populations. To date few head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has compared treatment options for COVID-19 outpatients, making comparisons and treatment choices difficult. This systematic review compares outcomes among RCTs of outpatient therapy for COVID-19, taking into account time between onset of symptoms and treatment administration. We found that small-chemical antivirals, convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies had comparable efficacy between classes and amongst interventions within the four classes. Monoclonals have lost efficacy with viral mutation, and chemical antivirals have contraindications and adverse events, while intravenous interventions like convalescent plasma or remdesivir remain resilient options for the immunocompromised, and, in the case of CCP, in resource constrained settings with limited availability of oral drugs.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Convalescent Plasma Outpatient Therapy to Prevent Outpatient Hospitalization: A Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant Data From 5 Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Outpatient monoclonal antibodies are no longer effective and antiviral treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease remain largely unavailable in many countries worldwide. Although treatment with COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is promising, clinical trials among outpatients have shown mixed results.

METHODS

We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis from outpatient trials to assess the overall risk reduction for all-cause hospitalizations by day 28 in transfused participants. Relevant trials were identified by searching Medline, Embase, medRxiv, World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from January 2020 to September 2022.

RESULTS

Five included studies from 4 countries enrolled and transfused 2620 adult patients. Comorbidities were present in 1795 (69%). The virus neutralizing antibody dilutional titer levels ranged from 8 to 14 580 in diverse assays. One hundred sixty of 1315 (12.2%) control patients were hospitalized, versus 111 of 1305 (8.5%) CCP-treated patients, yielding a 3.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3%-6.0%; P = .001) absolute risk reduction and 30.1% relative risk reduction for all-cause hospitalization. The hospitalization reduction was greatest in those with both early transfusion and high titer with a 7.6% absolute risk reduction (95% CI, 4.0%-11.1%; P = .0001) accompanied by at 51.4% relative risk reduction. No significant reduction in hospitalization was seen with treatment >5 days after symptom onset or in those receiving CCP with antibody titers below the median titer.

CONCLUSIONS

Among outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with CCP reduced the rate of all-cause hospitalization and may be most effective when given within 5 days of symptom onset and when antibody titer is higher.

Protein structure-based in-silico approaches to drug discovery: Guide to COVID-19 therapeutics

With more than 5 million fatalities and close to 300 million reported cases, COVID-19 is the first documented pandemic due to a coronavirus that continues to be a major health challenge. Despite being rapid, uncontrollable, and highly infectious in its spread, it also created incentives for technology development and redefined public health needs and research agendas to fast-track innovations to be translated. Breakthroughs in computational biology peaked during the pandemic with renewed attention to making all cutting-edge technology deliver agents to combat the disease. The demand to develop effective treatments yielded surprising collaborations from previously segregated fields of science and technology. The long-standing pharmaceutical industry's aversion to repurposing existing drugs due to a lack of exponential financial gain was overrun by the health crisis and pressures created by front-line researchers and providers. Effective vaccine development even at an unprecedented pace took more than a year to develop and commence trials. Now the emergence of variants and waning protections during the booster shots is resulting in breakthrough infections that continue to strain health care systems. As of now, every protein of SARS-CoV-2 has been structurally characterized and related host pathways have been extensively mapped out. The research community has addressed the druggability of a multitude of possible targets. This has been made possible due to existing technology for virtual computer-assisted drug development as well as new tools and technologies such as artificial intelligence to deliver new leads. Here in this article, we are discussing advances in the drug discovery field related to target-based drug discovery and exploring the implications of known target-specific agents on COVID-19 therapeutic management. The current scenario calls for more personalized medicine efforts and stratifying patient populations early on for their need for different combinations of prognosis-specific therapeutics. We intend to highlight target hotspots and their potential agents, with the ultimate goal of using rational design of new therapeutics to not only end this pandemic but also uncover a generalizable platform for use in future pandemics.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

COVID-19 convalescent plasma boosts early antibody titer and does not influence the adaptive immune response

Multiple randomized, controlled clinical trials have yielded discordant results regarding the efficacy of convalescent plasma in outpatients, with some showing an approximately 2-fold reduction in risk and others showing no effect. We quantified binding and neutralizing antibody levels in 492 of the 511 participants from the Clinical Trial of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Outpatients (C3PO) of a single unit of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) versus saline infusion. In a subset of 70 participants, peripheral blood mononuclear cells were obtained to define the evolution of B and T cell responses through day 30. Binding and neutralizing antibody responses were approximately 2-fold higher 1 hour after infusion in recipients of CCP compared with saline plus multivitamin, but levels achieved by the native immune system by day 15 were almost 10-fold higher than those seen immediately after CCP administration. Infusion of CCP did not block generation of the host antibody response or skew B or T cell phenotype or maturation. Activated CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were associated with more severe disease outcome. These data show that CCP leads to a measurable boost in anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies but that the boost is modest and may not be sufficient to alter disease course.

Convalescent plasma (hyperimmune immunoglobulin) for COVID-19 management: An update

The pandemic COVID-19 has spread widely throughout the globe and has been responsible for millions of deaths worldwide. Recently, it has been identified that there is no specific and 100% effective treatment available to manage the infection especially for the severe cases. A significant amount of research efforts and clinical trials have been undertaken globally and many more are underway to find the potential treatment option. Earlier, convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin was effectively used in the treatment of many endemic or epidemic viral infections as a part of passive immunization. In this article, we have touched upon the immunopathology of COVID-19 infection, a basic understanding of convalescent plasma, it's manufacturing as well as evaluation, and have reviewed the scientific developments focussing on the potential of convalescent plasma vis-à-vis other modalities for the management of COVID-19. The article also covers various research approaches, clinical trials conducted globally, and the clinical trials which are at various stages for exploring the efficacy and safety of the convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) to predict its future perspective to manage COVID-19.

Simple prediction of COVID-19 convalescent plasma units with high levels of neutralization antibodies

BACKGROUND

Hyperimmune convalescent COVID-19 plasma (CCP) containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) was proposed as a therapeutic option for patients early in the new coronavirus disease pandemic. The efficacy of this therapy depends on the quantity of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) in the CCP units, with titers ≥ 1:160 being recommended. The standard neutralizing tests (NTs) used for determining appropriate CCP donors are technically demanding and expensive and take several days. We explored whether they could be replaced by high-throughput serology tests and a set of available clinical data.

METHODS

Our study included 1302 CCP donors after PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection. To predict donors with high NAb titers, we built four (4) multiple logistic regression models evaluating the relationships of demographic data, COVID-19 symptoms, results of various serological testing, the period between disease and donation, and COVID-19 vaccination status.

RESULTS

The analysis of the four models showed that the chemiluminescent microparticle assay (CMIA) for the quantitative determination of IgG Abs to the RBD of the S1 subunit of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was enough to predict the CCP units with a high NAb titer. CCP donors with respective results > 850 BAU/ml SARS-CoV-2 IgG had a high probability of attaining sufficient NAb titers. Including additional variables such as donor demographics, clinical symptoms, or time of donation into a particular predictive model did not significantly increase its sensitivity and specificity.

CONCLUSION

A simple quantitative serological determination of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies alone is satisfactory for recruiting CCP donors with high titer NAbs.

Statistical Challenges when Analyzing SARS-CoV-2 RNA Measurements Below the Assay Limit of Quantification in COVID-19 Clinical Trials

Most clinical trials evaluating COVID-19 therapeutics include assessments of antiviral activity. In recently completed outpatient trials, changes in nasal SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels from baseline were commonly assessed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) or mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM) with single-imputation for results below assay lower limits of quantification (LLoQ). Analyzing changes in viral RNA levels with singly-imputed values can lead to biased estimates of treatment effects. In this paper, using an illustrative example from the ACTIV-2 trial, we highlight potential pitfalls of imputation when using ANCOVA or MMRM methods, and illustrate how these methods can be used when considering values Collapse

Key Words

• sars-cov-2 rna
• covid-19
• linear regression for censored data
• randomized trial

Collapse

MESH Headings Collapse

Grants

• UM1 AI068634 NIAID NIH HHS
• UM1 AI068636 NIAID NIH HHS
• UM1 AI106701 NIAID NIH HHS

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Carlee B Moser Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, 02115, USA
Kara W Chew Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, 90024, USA
Mark J Giganti Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, 02115, USA
Jonathan Z Li Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, 02139, USA
Evgenia Aga Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, 02115, USA
Justin Ritz Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, 02115, USA
Alexander L Greninger Department of Laboratory Medicine & Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, 98195, USA
Arzhang Cyrus Javan National Institutes of Health, Rockville, 20852, USA Rachel Bender Ignacio, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, 98195, USA
Eric S Daar Lundquist Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, 90502, USA David A Wohl, MD, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, 27599, USA
Judith S Currier Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, 90024, USA
Joseph J Eron Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, 27599, USA
Davey M Smith Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, 92093, USA
Michael D Hughes Department of Biostatistics and Center for Biostatistics in AIDS Research, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, 02115, USA For the ACTIV-2/A5401 Study Team

Collapse

Subcutaneous anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin for prevention of disease in asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIG) can provide standardized and controlled antibody content. Data from controlled clinical trials using hIG for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outpatients have not been reported. We assessed the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin 20% (C19-IG20%) compared to placebo in preventing development of symptomatic COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

We did a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in asymptomatic unvaccinated adults (≥18 years of age) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 5 days between April 28 and December 27, 2021. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a blinded subcutaneous infusion of 10 mL with 1 g or 2 g of C19-IG20%, or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who remained asymptomatic through day 14 after infusion. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of individuals who required oxygen supplementation, any medically attended visit, hospitalisation, or ICU, and viral load reduction and viral clearance in nasopharyngeal swabs. Safety was assessed as the proportion of patients with adverse events. The trial was terminated early due to a lack of potential benefit in the target population in a planned interim analysis conducted in December 2021. ClinicalTrials.gov registry: NCT04847141.

FINDINGS

461 individuals (mean age 39.6 years [SD 12.8]) were randomized and received the intervention within a mean of 3.1 (SD 1.27) days from a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a subcutaneous infusion, the primary outcome occurred in 59.9% (91/152) of participants receiving 1 g C19-IG20%, 64.7% (99/153) receiving 2 g, and 63.5% (99/156) receiving placebo (difference in proportions 1 g C19-IG20% vs. placebo, -3.6%; 95% CI -14.6% to 7.3%, p = 0.53; 2 g C19-IG20% vs placebo, 1.1%; -9.6% to 11.9%, p = 0.85). None of the secondary clinical efficacy endpoints or virological endpoints were significantly different between study groups. Adverse event rate was similar between groups, and no severe or life-threatening adverse events related to investigational product infusion were reported.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings suggested that administration of subcutaneous human hyperimmune immunoglobulin C19-IG20% to asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection was safe but did not prevent development of symptomatic COVID-19.

FUNDING

Grifols.

Pathogen reduction with methylene blue does not have an impact on the clinical effectiveness of COVID-19 convalescent plasma

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is a concern about a possible deleterious effect of pathogen reduction (PR) with methylene blue (MB) on the function of immunoglobulins of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). We have evaluated whether MB-treated CCP is associated with a poorer clinical response compared to other inactivation systems at the ConPlas-19 clinical trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was an ad hoc sub-study of the ConPlas-19 clinical trial comparing the proportion of patients transfused with MB-treated CCP who had a worsening of respiration versus those treated with amotosalen (AM) or riboflavin (RB).

RESULTS

One-hundred and seventy-five inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were transfused with a single CCP unit. The inactivation system of the CCP units transfused was MB in 90 patients (51.4%), RB in 60 (34.3%) and AM in 25 (14.3%). Five out of 90 patients (5.6%) transfused with MB-treated CCP had worsening respiration compared to 9 out of 85 patients (10.6%) treated with alternative PR methods (p = 0.220). Of note, MB showed a trend towards a lower rate of respiratory progressions at 28 days (risk ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-1.50).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that MB-treated CCP does not provide a worse clinical outcome compared to the other PR methods for the treatment of COVID-19.

Immune Plasma for the Treatment of COVID-19: Lessons Learned so far

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been explored as one of the treatment options for COVID-19. Results of many cohort studies and clinical trials have been recently published. At first glance, the results of the CCP studies appear to be inconsistent. However, it became clear that CCP is not beneficial if CCP with low anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations is used, if it is administered late in advanced disease stages, and to patients who already mounted an antibody response against SARS-CoV-2 at the time of CCP transfusion. On the other hand, CCP may prevent progression to severe COVID-19 when very high-titer CCP is given early in vulnerable patients. Immune escape of new variants is a challenge for passive immunotherapy. While new variants of concern developed resistance to most clinically used monoclonal antibodies very rapidly, immune plasma from individuals immunized by both a natural SARS-CoV-2 infection and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination retained neutralizing activity against variants. This review briefly summarizes the evidence on CCP treatment to date and identifies further research needs. Ongoing research on passive immunotherapy is not only relevant for improving care for vulnerable patients in the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, but even more as a model for passive immunotherapy in case of future pandemics with a newly evolving pathogen. Compared to other drugs, which must be newly developed in a pandemic (e.g., monoclonal antibodies, antiviral drugs), convalescent plasma is rapidly available, inexpensive to produce, and can be adaptive to viral evolution by selection of contemporary convalescent donors.

Differential efficacy and safety of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody therapies for the management of COVID-19: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess and compare the relative efficacy and safety of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody regimens for COVID-19.

METHODS

This systematic review and random-effects network meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA-NMA. Literature searches were conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and CNKI up to February 20th, 2022. Interventions were ranked using P scores.

RESULTS

Fifty-five RCTs (N = 45,005) were included in the review. Bamlanivimab + etesevimab (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.77) was associated with a significant reduction in mortality compared to standard of care/placebo. Casirivimab + imdevimab reduced mortality (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50-0.91) in baseline seronegative patients only. Four different regimens led to a significant decrease in the incidence of hospitalization compared to standard of care/placebo with sotrovimab ranking first in terms of efficacy (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.08-0.48). No treatment improved incidence of mechanical ventilation, duration of hospital/ICU stay, and time to viral clearance. Convalescent plasma and anti-COVID IVIg both led to a significant increase in adverse events compared to standard of care/placebo, but no treatment increased the odds of serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs are safe, and could be effective in improving mortality and incidence of hospitalization. Convalescent plasma and anti-COVID IVIg were not efficacious and could increase odds of adverse events. Future trials should further examine the effect of baseline seronegativity, disease severity, patient risk factors, and SARS-CoV-2 strain variation on the efficacy of these regimes.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO-CRD42021289903.

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.

Outpatient convalescent plasma therapy for high-risk patients with early COVID-19: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The potential benefit of convalescent plasma (CP) therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is highest when administered early after symptom onset. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness of CP therapy in improving the disease course of COVID-19 among high-risk outpatients.

METHODS

A multicentre, double-blind randomized trial was conducted comparing 300 mL of CP with non-CP. Patients were ≥50 years, were symptomatic for <8 days, had confirmed RT-PCR or antigen test result for COVID-19 and had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19. The primary endpoint was the highest score on a 5-point ordinal scale ranging from fully recovered (score = 1) or not (score = 2) on day 7, over hospital admission (score = 3), intensive care unit admission (score = 4) and death (score = 5) in the 28 days following randomization. Secondary endpoints were hospital admission, symptom duration and viral RNA excretion.

RESULTS

After the enrolment of 421 patients and the transfusion in 416 patients, recruitment was discontinued when the countrywide vaccination uptake in those aged >50 years was 80%. Patients had a median age of 60 years, symptoms for 5 days, and 207 of 416 patients received CP therapy. During the 28 day follow-up, 28 patients were hospitalized and two died. The OR for an improved disease severity score with CP was 0.86 (95% credible interval, 0.59-1.22). The OR was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.33-1.02) for patients with ≤5 days of symptoms. The hazard ratio for hospital admission was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.28-1.34). No difference was found in viral RNA excretion or in the duration of symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with early COVID-19, CP therapy did not improve the 5-point disease severity score.

The development of COVID-19 treatment

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused a pandemic named coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that has become the greatest worldwide public health threat of this century. Recent studies have unraveled numerous mysteries of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis and thus largely improved the studies of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutic strategies. However, important questions remain regarding its therapy. In this review, the recent research advances on COVID-19 mechanism are quickly summarized. We mainly discuss current therapy strategies for COVID-19, with an emphasis on antiviral agents, neutralizing antibody therapies, Janus kinase inhibitors, and steroids. When necessary, specific mechanisms and the history of therapy are present, and representative strategies are described in detail. Finally, we discuss key outstanding questions regarding future directions of the development of COVID-19 treatment.

Protective roles and protective mechanisms of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 infection and their potential clinical implications

Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) are central players in the humoral immunity that defends the body from SARS-CoV-2 infection by blocking viral entry into host cells and neutralizing their biological effects. Even though NAbs primarily work by neutralizing viral antigens, on some occasions, they may also combat the SARS-CoV-2 virus escaping neutralization by employing several effector mechanisms in collaboration with immune cells like natural killer (NK) cells and phagocytes. Besides their prophylactic and therapeutic roles, antibodies can be used for COVID-19 diagnosis, severity evaluation, and prognosis assessment in clinical practice. Furthermore, the measurement of NAbs could have key implications in determining individual or herd immunity against SARS-CoV-2, vaccine effectiveness, and duration of the humoral protective response, as well as aiding in the selection of suitable individuals who can donate convalescent plasma to treat infected people. Despite all these clinical applications of NAbs, using them in clinical settings can present some challenges. This review discusses the protective functions, possible protective mechanisms against SARS-CoV-2, and potential clinical applications of NAbs in COVID-19. This article also highlights the possible challenges and solutions associated with COVID-19 antibody-based prophylaxis, therapy, and vaccination.

Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 infectivity in platelet concentrates or plasma following treatment with ultraviolet C light or with methylene blue combined with visible light

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is unlikely to be a major transfusion-transmitted pathogen; however, convalescent plasma is a treatment option used in some regions. The risk of transfusion-transmitted infections can be minimized by implementing Pathogen Inactivation (PI), such as THERAFLEX MB-plasma and THERAFLEX UV-Platelets systems. Here we examined the capability of these PI systems to inactivate SARS-CoV-2.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

SARS-CoV-2 spiked plasma units were treated using the THERAFLEX MB-Plasma system in the presence of methylene blue (~0.8 μmol/L; visible light doses: 20, 40, 60, and 120 [standard] J/cm² ). SARS-CoV-2 spiked platelet concentrates (PCs) were treated using the THERAFLEX UV-platelets system (UVC doses: 0.05, 0.10, 0.15, and 0.20 [standard] J/cm² ). Samples were taken prior to the first and after each illumination dose, and viral infectivity was assessed using an immunoplaque assay.

RESULTS

Treatment of spiked plasma with the THERAFLEX MB-Plasma system resulted in an average ≥5.03 log₁₀ reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infectivity at one third (40 J/cm² ) of the standard visible light dose. For the platelet concentrates (PCs), treatment with the THERAFLEX UV-Platelets system resulted in an average ≥5.18 log₁₀ reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infectivity at the standard UVC dose (0.2 J/cm² ).

CONCLUSIONS

SARS-CoV-2 infectivity was reduced in plasma and platelets following treatment with the THERAFLEX MB-Plasma and THERAFLEX UV-Platelets systems, to the limit of detection, respectively. These PI technologies could therefore be an effective option to reduce the risk of transfusion-transmitted emerging pathogens.

Therapeutic advances in COVID-19

Over 2 years have passed since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has claimed millions of lives. Unlike the early days of the pandemic, when management decisions were based on extrapolations from in vitro data, case reports and case series, clinicians are now equipped with an armamentarium of therapies based on high-quality evidence. These treatments are spread across seven main therapeutic categories: anti-inflammatory agents, antivirals, antithrombotics, therapies for acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, anti-SARS-CoV-2 (neutralizing) antibody therapies, modulators of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and vitamins. For each of these treatments, the patient population characteristics and clinical settings in which they were studied are important considerations. Although few direct comparisons have been performed, the evidence base and magnitude of benefit for anti-inflammatory and antiviral agents clearly outweigh those of other therapeutic approaches such as vitamins. The emergence of novel variants has further complicated the interpretation of much of the available evidence, particularly for antibody therapies. Importantly, patients with acute and chronic kidney disease were under-represented in many of the COVID-19 clinical trials, and outcomes in this population might differ from those reported in the general population. Here, we examine the clinical evidence for these therapies through a kidney medicine lens.

Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: Living, Rapid Practice Points From the American College of Physicians (Version 1)

DESCRIPTION

Strategies to manage COVID-19 in the outpatient setting continue to evolve as new data emerge on SARS-CoV-2 variants and the availability of newer treatments. The Scientific Medical Policy Committee (SMPC) of the American College of Physicians (ACP) developed these living, rapid practice points to summarize the best available evidence on the treatment of adults with confirmed COVID-19 in an outpatient setting. These practice points do not evaluate COVID-19 treatments in the inpatient setting or adjunctive COVID-19 treatments in the outpatient setting.

METHODS

The SMPC developed these living, rapid practice points on the basis of a living, rapid review done by the ACP Center for Evidence Reviews at Cochrane Austria at the University for Continuing Education Krems (Danube University Krems). The SMPC will maintain these practice points as living by monitoring and assessing the impact of new evidence.

PRACTICE POINT 1

Consider molnupiravir to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting who are within 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease.

PRACTICE POINT 2

Consider nirmatrelvir-ritonavir combination therapy to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease.

PRACTICE POINT 3

Consider remdesivir to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting who are within 7 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease.

PRACTICE POINT 4

Do not use azithromycin to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

PRACTICE POINT 5

Do not use chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

PRACTICE POINT 6

Do not use ivermectin to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

PRACTICE POINT 7

Do not use nitazoxanide to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

PRACTICE POINT 8

Do not use lopinavir-ritonavir combination therapy to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

PRACTICE POINT 9

Do not use casirivimab-imdevimab combination therapy to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting unless it is considered effective against a SARS-CoV-2 variant or subvariant locally in circulation.

PRACTICE POINT 10

Do not use regdanvimab to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting unless it is considered effective against a SARS-CoV-2 variant or subvariant locally in circulation.

PRACTICE POINT 11

Do not use sotrovimab to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting unless it is considered effective against a SARS-CoV-2 variant or subvariant locally in circulation.

PRACTICE POINT 12

Do not use convalescent plasma to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

PRACTICE POINT 13

Do not use ciclesonide to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

PRACTICE POINT 14

Do not use fluvoxamine to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: A Living, Rapid Review for the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND

Clinicians and patients want to know the benefits and harms of outpatient treatment options for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

PURPOSE

To assess the benefits and harms of 12 different COVID-19 treatments in the outpatient setting.

DATA SOURCES

Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE Platform, searched on 4 April 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori-defined criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared COVID-19 treatments in adult outpatients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

One reviewer extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence (COE). A second reviewer verified data abstraction and assessments.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The 26 included studies collected data before the emergence of the Omicron variant. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduced hospitalizations (1% vs. 6% [1 RCT] and 1% vs. 4% [1 RCT], respectively; moderate COE). Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir probably reduced all-cause mortality (0% vs. 1% [1 RCT]; moderate COE), and regdanvimab probably improved recovery (87% vs. 72% [1 RCT]; moderate COE). Casirivimab-imdevimab reduced time to recovery by a median difference of 4 days (10 vs. 14 median days [1 RCT]; high COE). Molnupiravir may reduce all-cause mortality, sotrovimab may reduce hospitalization, and remdesivir may improve recovery (low COE). Lopinavir-ritonavir and azithromycin may have increased harms, and hydroxychloroquine may result in lower recovery rates (low COE). Other treatments had insufficient evidence or no statistical difference in efficacy and safety versus placebo.

LIMITATION

Many outcomes had few events and small samples.

CONCLUSION

Some antiviral medications and monoclonal antibodies may improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. However, the generalizability of the findings to the currently dominant Omicron variant is limited.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022323440).

COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Outpatient Therapy to Prevent Outpatient Hospitalization: A Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data From Five Randomized Trials

Background

Monoclonal antibody and antiviral treatments for COVID-19 disease remain largely unavailable worldwide, and existing monoclonal antibodies may be less active against circulating omicron variants. Although treatment with COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is promising, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) among outpatients have shown mixed results.

Methods

We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis from all outpatient CCP RCTs to assess the overall risk reduction for all-cause hospitalizations by day 28 in all participants who had transfusion initiated. Relevant trials were identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase, MedRxiv, WHO, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from January 2020 to September 2022.

Results

Five included studies from four countries enrolled and transfused 2,620 adult patients. Comorbidities were present in 1,795 (69%). The anti-Spike or virus neutralizing antibody titer range across all trials was broad. 160 (12.2%) of 1315 control patients were hospitalized, versus 111 (8.5%) of 1305 CCP-treated patients, yielding a 3.7% (95%CI: 1.3%-6.0%; p=.001) ARR and 30.1% RRR for all-cause hospitalization. The effect size was greatest in those with both early transfusion and high titer with a 7.6% ARR (95%CI: 4.0%-11.1%; p=.0001) accompanied by at 51.4% RRR. No significant reduction in hospitalization was seen with treatment > 5 days after symptom onset or in those receiving CCP with antibody titers below the median titer.

Conclusions

Among outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with CCP reduced the rate of all-cause hospitalization. CCP may be most effective when given within 5 days of symptom onset and when antibody titer is higher.

Key Points

While the outpatient COVID-19 randomized controlled trial meta-analysis indicated heterogeneity in participant risk factors and convalescent plasma, the combined CCP efficacy for reducing hospitalization was significant, improving with transfusion within 5 days of symptom onset and high antibody neutralization levels.

How Protective are Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the Main Weapon of the B-Cell Response?

Since the beginning of the Coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 pandemic in December 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been responsible for more than 600 million infections and 6.5 million deaths worldwide. Given the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 and its ability to develop new variants, the implementation of an effective and long-term herd immunity appears to be crucial to overcome the pandemic. While a vast field of research has focused on the role of humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2, a growing body of evidence suggest that antibodies alone only confer a partial protection against infection of reinfection which could be of high importance regarding the strategic development goals (SDG) of the United Nations (UN) and in particular UN SDG3 that aims towards the realization of good health and well being on a global scale in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.In this review, we highlight the role of humoral immunity in the host defense against SARS-CoV-2, with a focus on highly neutralizing antibodies. We summarize the results of the main clinical trials leading to an overall disappointing efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy, variable results of monoclonal neutralizing antibodies in patients with COVID-19 but outstanding results for the mRNA based vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. Finally, we advocate that beyond antibody responses, the development of a robust cellular immunity against SARS-CoV-2 after infection or vaccination is of utmost importance for promoting immune memory and limiting disease severity, especially in case of (re)-infection by variant viruses.

Use of convalescent plasma therapy in hospitalised adult patients with non-critical COVID-19: a focus on the elderly from Hungary

Convalescent plasma therapy might be a feasible option for treatment of novel infections. During the early phases of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, several promising results were published with convalescent plasma therapy, followed by more disappointing findings of randomised controlled trials. In our single-centre, open-label, prospective, cohort study, we assessed the findings of 180 patients treated with convalescent plasma during the first four waves of the pandemic in Hungary. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were clinical improvement and need for intensive care unit admission by day 28. Subgroup analysis comparing elderly and non-elderly (less than 65 years of age) was performed. Twenty (11.4%) patients died by day 28, at significantly higher rates in the elderly subgroup (3 vs. 17, p < 0.01). One hundred twenty-eight (72.7%) patients showed clinical improvement, and 15 (8.5%) were transferred to the intensive care unit until day 28. Non-elderly patients showed clinical improvement by day 28 in significantly higher rates (improvement 74 vs. 54, no improvement 15 vs. 11, worsening or death 4 vs. 18 patients, p < 0.01). In conclusion, we found similar clinical outcome results as randomised controlled trials, and the impact of risk factors for unfavourable clinical outcomes among patients in the elderly population.

Home and Out-of-Hospital Therapy with COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Europe

COVID19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has proven an effective treatment for outpatients, and CCP collected from vaccinated donors is among the few effective therapeutic options for immunocompromised patients. Despite this, most countries are still relying over in-hospital compassionate usages outside clinical trials. Given the need for early treatment, home transfusions are expecially needed. We review here the state of the art for out-of-hospital CCP transfusions and discuss solutions to potential burocratic hurdles.

Drugs for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 and its complications: An update on what we learned in the past 2 years

The COVID-19 Committee of the Lincei Academy has reviewed the scientific evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of existing and new drugs/biologics for the preventing and treating of COVID-19 and its complications. This position paper reports what we have learned in the field in the past 2 years. The focus was on, but not limited to, drugs and neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, anti-SARS-CoV-2 agents, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory drugs, complement inhibitors and anticoagulant agents. We also discuss the risks/benefit of using cell therapies on COVID-19 patients. The report summarizes the available evidence, which supports recommendations from health authorities and panels of experts regarding some drugs and biologics, and highlights drugs that are not recommended, or drugs for which there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against their use. We also address the issue of the safety of drugs used to treat underlying concomitant conditions in COVID-19 patients. The investigators did an enormous amount of work very quickly to understand better the nature and pathophysiology of COVID-19. This expedited the development and repurposing of safe and effective therapeutic interventions, saving an impressive number of lives in the community as well as in hospitals.

Adsorption of Methylene Blue on the Surface of Polymer Membrane; Dependence on the Isotopic Composition of Liquid Matrix

As was found in our previous works, when Nafion swells in water, polymer fibers unwind into the bulk of the surrounding liquid. This effect is controlled by the content of deuterium in water. Here, we present the results of studying the dynamics of methylene blue (MB) adsorption on the Nafion surface for MB solutions based on natural water (deuterium content is 157 ppm, the unwinding effect occurs) and based on deuterium-depleted water (DDW; deuterium content is 3 ppm, there is no unwinding). In addition, we studied the dynamics of water desorption during drying of the Nafion polymer membrane after soaking in MB solution based on natural water and DDW. It turned out that in the case of natural water, the rate of MB adsorption and water desorption is higher than in the case of DDW. It also turned out that the amount of MB adsorbed on the membrane in the case of natural water is greater than in the case of DDW. Finally, it was found that the desorption of water during drying is accompanied by a rearrangement of the absorption spectrum of Nafion. This rearrangement occurs earlier in the case of DDW. Thus, by infinitesimal changes in the deuterium content (from 3 to 157 ppm) in an aqueous solution, in which a polymer membrane swells, we can control the dynamics of adsorption and desorption processes. A qualitative model, which connects the observed effects with the slowing down of diffusion processes inside the layer of unwound fibers, is proposed.

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

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

Early and out-of-hospital use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma: An international assessment of utilization and feasibility

Background and Objectives

The use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) convalescent plasma (CCP) in the treatment of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome‐2 infection has been controversial. Early administration of CCP before hospital admission offers a potential advantage. This manuscript summarizes current trials of early use of CCP and explores the feasibility of this approach in different countries.

Materials and Methods

A questionnaire was distributed to the International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT) CCP working group. We recorded respondents' input on existing trials on early/outpatient CCP and out‐of‐hospital (OOH)/home transfusion (HT) practices in their countries and feedback on challenges in initiating home CCP infusion programmes. In addition, details of existing trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov were summarized.

Results

A total of 31 country representatives participated. Early/OOH CCP transfusion studies were reported in the United States, the Netherlands, Spain and Brazil. There were a total of six published and five ongoing trials on the prophylactic and therapeutic early use of CCP. HT was practised in Australia, the UK, Belgium, France, Japan, Nigeria, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Norway, the United States and some provinces in Canada. Thirty‐four representatives indicated a lack of OOH CCP or HT in their institutions and countries. Barriers to implementation of OOH/HT included existing legislation, lack of policies pertaining to outpatient transfusion, and associated logistical challenges, including lack of staffing and resources.

Conclusion

Early administration of CCP remains a potential option in COVID‐19 management in countries with existing OOH/HT programmes. Legislation and regulatory bodies should consider OOH/HT practice for transfusion in future pandemics.

Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Treatment Using Convalescent Plasma Transfusion: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

This study investigated the efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma (CP) transfusion against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) via a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A total of 5467 articles obtained from electronic databases were assessed; however, only 34 RCTs were eligible after manually screening and eliminating unnecessary studies. The beneficial effect was addressed by assessing the risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) of the meta-analysis. It was demonstrated that CP therapy is not effective in improving clinical outcomes, including reducing mortality with an RR of 0.88 [0.76; 1.03] (I² = 68% and p = 0.10) and length of hospitalization with SMD of -0.47 [-0.95; 0.00] (I² = 99% and p = 0.05). Subgroup analysis provided strong evidence that CP transfusion does not significantly reduce all-cause mortality compared to standard of care (SOC) with an RR of 1.01 [0.99; 1.03] (I² = 70% and p = 0.33). In addition, CP was found to be safe for and well-tolerated by COVID-19 patients as was the SOC in healthcare settings. Overall, the results suggest that CP should not be applied outside of randomized trials because of less benefit in improving clinical outcomes for COVID-19 treatment.

Convalescent Plasma for COVID-19: A Single Center Prospective Experience with Serial Antibody Measurements and Review of the Literature

Background: High-titer convalescent plasma given early for COVID-19 may decrease progression into a severe infection. Here, we reported a study of serial antibody measurements in patients who received CP at our center and performed a systematic review of randomized trials on CP. Methods: Our center participated in the Mayo Clinic Expanded Access Program for COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma. Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 by nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction at our center between April and August 2020 were included in the study if staffing was available for specimen collection. Through a colloidal gold immunochromatography assay, these patients’ IgM and IgG antibody responses were measured at baseline (Day 0) and after transfusion (Day 1, 2, etc.). Donor CP antibody levels were measured as well. Results: 110 serum specimens were obtained from 21 COVID-19 patients, 16 of whom received CP. The median time from developing symptoms to receiving CP was 11 days (range 4−21). In 9 of 14 (64%) cases where both recipient and donor CP antibody levels were tested, donor COVID-19 IgG was lower than that of the recipient. Higher donor antibody levels compared with the recipient (R = 0.71, p < 0.01) and low patient IgG before CP transfusion (p = 0.0108) correlated with increasing patient IgG levels from baseline to Day 1. Among all patients, an increased COVID-19 IgG in the short-term and longitudinally was positively correlated with improved clinical outcomes (ρ = 0.69, p = 0.003 and ρ = 0.58, p < 0.006, respectively). Conclusions: In a real-world setting where donor CP was not screened for the presence of antibodies, CP in donors might have less COVID-19 IgG than in recipients. An increase in patient antibody levels in the short term and longitudinally was associated with improved clinical outcomes.

Outpatient Management of COVID-19: A Primer for the Dermatologist

Purpose of Review

To summarize diagnostic and therapeutic management of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting for dermatologists.

Recent Findings

Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir-ritonavir) is the preferred treatment in patients with mild symptoms at high risk of progression to severe SARS-CoV2 infection. Additional options include monoclonal antibodies (bebtelovimab), remdesivir, and molnupiravir.

Summary

Dermatologists need to be aware of recent developments in diagnostic and therapeutic management of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting, as their patients may rely on dermatologists to provide advice, particularly in cases where treatments for dermatological disease may impact the risk of COVID-19 and/or vaccine efficacy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13671-022-00368-3.

How I treat and prevent COVID-19 in patients with hematologic malignancies and recipients of cellular therapies

Patients with hematologic malignancies and recipients of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) are more likely to experience severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and have a higher risk of morbidity and mortality after infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Compared with the general population, these patients have suboptimal humoral responses to COVID-19 vaccines and subsequently increased risk for breakthrough infections, underscoring the need for additional therapies, including pre- and postexposure prophylaxis, to attenuate clinical progression to severe COVID-19. Therapies for COVID-19 are mostly available for adults and in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Selection and administration of the best treatment options are based on host factors; virus factors, including circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants; and therapeutic considerations, including the clinical efficacy, availability, and practicality of treatment and its associated side effects, including drug-drug interactions. In this paper, we discuss how we approach managing COVID-19 in patients with hematologic malignancies and recipients of HCT and cell therapy.

Antispike monoclonal antibodies for prevention and treatment of coronavirus disease-2019 in solid organ transplant recipients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) disproportionately causes severe outcomes in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR). Antispike monoclonal antibodies have been authorized for therapy and prophylaxis for COVID-19. Here, we review the current state of antispike monoclonal antibodies and their role for SOTRs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Bamlanivimab with or without etesevimab, casirivimab-imdevimab and sotrovimab have reduced the rates of hospitalization and severe disease in high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Multiple retrospective studies have also demonstrated monoclonal antibodies are effective in SOTR populations. However, the evolution of resistant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concerns has resulted in revocation of the authorization of bamlanivimab with or without etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab as treatment and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). Sotrovimab and bebtelovimab are currently authorized for treatment of the predominant circulating SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron), but not as pre or PEP. Tixagevimab-cilgavimab, a long-acting antibody combination preparation, is authorized for preexposure prophylaxis in high-risk immunocompromised populations, including SOTRs, who are less likely to mount an effective immune response following vaccination series and booster.

SUMMARY

Antispike monoclonal antibodies are useful for the prevention and treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in SOTRs. However, their clinical use should be determined by the evolving epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 variants in the community.