Effects of treatment of COVID-19 with convalescent plasma in 25 B-cell depleted patients

Multidisciplinary recommendations for the management of CAR-T recipients in the post-COVID-19 pandemic era

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) posed an unprecedented challenge on public health systems. Despite the measures put in place to contain it, COVID-19 is likely to continue experiencing sporadic outbreaks for some time, and individuals will remain susceptible to recurrent infections. Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T recipients are characterized by durable B-cell aplasia, hypogammaglobulinemia and loss of T-cell diversity, which lead to an increased proportion of severe/critical cases and a high mortality rate after COVID-19 infection. Thus, treatment decisions have become much more complex and require greater caution when considering CAR T-cell immunotherapy. Hence, we reviewed the current understanding of COVID-19 and reported clinical experience in the management of COVID-19 and CAR-T therapy. After a panel discussion, we proposed a rational procedure pertaining to CAR-T recipients with the aim of maximizing the benefit of CAR-T therapy in the post COVID-19 pandemic era.

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

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

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

Importance

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

Objective

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

Data Sources

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

Study Selection

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

Data Extraction and Synthesis

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

Main Outcomes and Meaures

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

Results

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

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

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

Antibody response and intra-host viral evolution after plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients pre-exposed or not to B-cell-depleting agents

Administration of plasma therapy may contribute to viral control and survival of COVID-19 patients receiving B-cell-depleting agents that impair humoral immunity. However, little is known on the impact of anti-CD20 pre-exposition on the kinetics of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Here, we evaluated the relationship between anti-spike immunoglobulin G (IgG) kinetics and the clinical status or intra-host viral evolution after plasma therapy in 36 eligible hospitalized COVID-19 patients, pre-exposed or not to B-cell-depleting treatments. The majority of anti-CD20 pre-exposed patients (14/17) showed progressive declines of anti-spike IgG titres following plasma therapy, contrasting with the 4/19 patients who had not received B-cell-depleting agents (p = 0.0006). Patients with antibody decay also depicted prolonged clinical symptoms according to the World Health Organization (WHO) severity classification (p = 0.0267) and SARS-CoV-2 viral loads (p = 0.0032) before complete virus clearance. Moreover, they had higher mutation rates than patients able to mount an endogenous humoral response (p = 0.015), including three patients with one to four spike mutations, potentially associated with immune escape. No relevant differences were observed between patients treated with plasma from convalescent and/or mRNA-vaccinated donors. Our study emphasizes the need for an individualized clinical care and follow-up in the management of COVID-19 patients with B-cell lymphopenia.

Early administration of remdesivir plus convalescent plasma therapy is effective to treat COVID-19 pneumonia in B-cell depleted patients with hematological malignancies

Patients with hematological malignancies (HMs) are at a higher risk of developing severe form and protracted course of COVID-19 disease. We investigated whether the combination of viral replication inhibition with remdesivir and administration of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulins with convalescent plasma (CP) therapy might be sufficient to treat B-cell-depleted patients with COVID-19. We enrolled 20 consecutive patients with various HMs with profound B-cell lymphopenia and COVID-19 pneumonia between December 2020 and May 2021. All patients demonstrated undetectable baseline anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin levels before CP. Each patient received at least a complete course of remdesivir and at least one unit of CP. Previous anti-CD20 therapy resulted in a more prolonged SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity compared to other causes of B-cell lymphopenia (p = 0.004). Timing of CP therapy showed a significant impact on the clinical outcome. Simultaneous use of remdesivir and CP reduced time period for oxygen weaning after diagnosis (p = 0.017), length of hospital stay (p = 0.007), and PCR positivity (p = 0.012) compared to patients who received remdesivir and CP consecutively. In addition, time from the diagnosis to CP therapy affected the length of oxygen dependency (p < 0.001) and hospital stay (p < 0.0001). In those cases where there were at least 10 days from the diagnosis to plasma administration, oxygen dependency was prolonged vs. patients with shorter interval (p = 0.006). In conclusion, the combination of inhibition of viral replication with passive immunization was proved to be efficient and safe. Our results suggest the clear benefit of early, combined administration of remdesivir and CP to avoid protracted COVID-19 disease among patients with HMs and B-cell lymphopenia.

Outcomes of B-Cell-Depleted Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Treated With Antispike Monoclonal Antibodies

Antispike monoclonal antibody treatment of 180 B-cell-depleted patients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) resulted in good outcomes overall, with only 12.2% progressing to severe disease, 9.4% requiring hospitalization, 0.6% requiring mechanical ventilation, no deaths within 30 days, and 1.8% developing persistent COVID-19. Antispike monoclonal antibodies appear effective in this immunocompromised population.

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

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04621123 and NCT04589949.

REGISTRATION

NCT04621123 and NCT04589949 on https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

Case Series: Convalescent Plasma Therapy for Patients with COVID-19 and Primary Antibody Deficiency

Patients with primary antibody deficiency are at risk for severe and in many cases for prolonged COVID-19. Convalescent plasma treatment of immunocompromised individuals could be an option especially in countries with limited access to monoclonal antibody therapies. While studies in immunocompetent COVID19 patients have demonstrated only a limited benefit, evidence for the safety, timing, and effectiveness of this treatment in antibody-deficient patients is lacking. Here, we describe 16 cases with primary antibody deficiency treated with convalescent plasma in four medical centers. In our cohort, treatment was associated with a reduction in viral load and improvement of clinical symptoms, even when applied over a week after onset of infection. There were no relevant side effects besides a short-term fever reaction in one patient. Longitudinal full-genome sequencing revealed the emergence of mutations in the viral genome, potentially conferring an antibody escape in one patient with persistent viral RNA shedding upon plasma treatment. However, he resolved the infection after a second course of plasma treatment. Thus, our data suggest a therapeutic benefit of convalescent plasma treatment in patients with primary antibody deficiency even months after infection. While it appears to be safe, PCR follow-up for SARS-CoV-2 is advisable and early re-treatment might be considered in patients with persistent viral shedding.

Is SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance in nasopharyngeal swabs an appropriate surrogate marker for clinical efficacy of neutralising antibody-based therapeutics?

Viral clearance is likely the best way to assess the efficacy of antibody-based therapies. Although antibodies can mediate a variety of effects that include modulation of inflammation, the demonstration of viral clearance provides an accessible and measurable parameter that can be used to evaluate efficacy and determine dosing. Therefore, it is important to ascertain the ability of monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma to effect viral clearance. For COVID-19, which is caused by the respiratory virus SARS-CoV-2, the most common assay to assess viral clearance is via a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS). However, assessment of antibody efficacy by sampling this site may be misleading because it may not be as accessible to serum antibodies as respiratory secretions or circulating blood. Adding to the complexity of assessing the efficacy of administered antibody, particularly in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enroled patients at different times after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms, viral clearance may also be mediated by endogenous antibody. In this article we critically review available data on viral clearance in RCTs, matched control studies, case series and case reports of antibody therapies in an attempt to identify variables that contribute to antibody efficacy and suggest optimal strategies for future studies.