Effects of SARS-CoV-2 strain variation on virus neutralisation titres: therapeutic use of convalescent plasma

Correlation between pseudotyped virus and authentic virus neutralisation assays, a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

Background

The virus neutralization assay is a principal method to assess the efficacy of antibodies in blocking viral entry. Due to biosafety handling requirements of viruses classified as hazard group 3 or 4, pseudotyped viruses can be used as a safer alternative. However, it is often queried how well the results derived from pseudotyped viruses correlate with authentic virus. This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to comprehensively evaluate the correlation between the two assays.

Methods

Using PubMed and Google Scholar, reports that incorporated neutralisation assays with both pseudotyped virus, authentic virus, and the application of a mathematical formula to assess the relationship between the results, were selected for review. Our searches identified 67 reports, of which 22 underwent a three-level meta-analysis.

Results

The three-level meta-analysis revealed a high level of correlation between pseudotyped viruses and authentic viruses when used in an neutralisation assay. Reports that were not included in the meta-analysis also showed a high degree of correlation, with the exception of lentiviral-based pseudotyped Ebola viruses.

Conclusion

Pseudotyped viruses identified in this report can be used as a surrogate for authentic virus, though care must be taken in considering which pseudotype core to use when generating new uncharacterised pseudotyped viruses.

A systematic review of the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma or immunoglobulin treatment for people with severe respiratory viral infections due to coronaviruses or influenza

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the safety and effectiveness of convalescent plasma (CP) or hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIVIG) in severe respiratory disease caused by coronaviruses or influenza, in patients of all ages requiring hospital admission.

METHODS

We searched multiple electronic databases for all publications to 12th October 2020, and RCTs only to 28th June 2021. Two reviewers screened, extracted, and analysed data. We used Cochrane ROB (Risk of Bias)1 for RCTs, ROBINS-I for non-RCTs, and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

Data from 30 RCTs and 2 non-RCTs showed no overall difference between groups for all-cause mortality and adverse events in four comparisons. Certainty of the evidence was downgraded for high ROB and imprecision. (1) CP versus standard care (SoC) (20 RCTS, 2 non-RCTs, very-low to moderate-high certainty); (2) CP versus biologically active control (6 RCTs, very-low certainty); (3) hIVIG versus SoC (3 RCTs, very-low certainty); (4) early CP versus deferred CP (1 RCT, very-low certainty). Subgrouping by titre improved precision in one outcome (30-day mortality) for the 'COVID high-titre' category in Comparison 1 (no difference, high certainty) and Comparison 2 (favours CP, very-low certainty). Post hoc analysis suggests a possible benefit of CP in patients testing negative for antibodies at baseline, compared with those testing positive.

CONCLUSION

A minimum titre should be established and ensured for a positive biological response to the therapy. Further research on the impact of CP/hIVIG in patients who have not yet produced antibodies to the virus would be useful to target therapies at groups who will potentially benefit the most.

Convalescent plasma donors show enhanced cross-reactive neutralising antibody response to antigenic variants of SARS-CoV-2 following immunisation

Background

The therapeutic benefit of convalescent plasma (CP) therapy to treat COVID‐19 may derive from neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) to SARS‐CoV‐2. To investigate the effects of antigenic variation on neutralization potency of CP, we compared nAb titers against prototype and recently emerging strains of SARS‐CoV‐2, including Delta and Omicron, in CP donors previously infected with SARS‐CoV‐2 before and after immunization.

Methods and Materials

Samples were assayed from previously SARS‐CoV‐2 infected donors before (n = 17) and after one (n = 43) or two (n = 71) doses of Astra‐Zeneca or Pfizer vaccinations. Ab titers against Wuhan/wild type (WT), Alpha, Beta, and Delta SARS‐CoV‐2 strains were determined by live virus microneutralization assay while titers to Omicron used a focus reduction neutralization test. Anti‐spike antibody was assayed by Elecsys anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 quantitative spike assay (Roche).

Results

Unvaccinated donors showed a geometric mean titer (GMT) of 148 against WT, 80 against Alpha but mostly failed to neutralize Beta, Delta, and Omicron strains. Contrastingly, high GMTs were observed in vaccinated donors against all SARS‐CoV‐2 strains after one vaccine dose (WT:703; Alpha:692; Beta:187; Delta:215; Omicron:434). By ROC analysis, reactivity in the Roche quantitative Elecsys spike assay of 20,000 U/mL was highly predictive of donations with nAb titers of ≥1:640 against Delta (90% sensitivity; 97% specificity) and ≥1:320 against Omicron (89% sensitivity; 81% specificity).

Discussion

Vaccination of previously infected CP donors induced high levels of broadly neutralizing antibodies against circulating antigenic variants of SARS‐CoV‐2. High titer donations could be reliably identified by automated quantitative anti‐spike antibody assay, enabling large‐scale preselection of high‐titer convalescent plasma.

Modified Hemagglutination Tests for COVID-19 Serology in Resource-Poor Settings: Ready for Prime-Time?

During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, serology has suffered several manufacturing and budget bottlenecks. Kode technology exposes exogenous antigens on the surface of cells; in the case of red blood cells, modified cells are called kodecytes, making antibody–antigen reactions detectable by the old-fashioned hemagglutination test. In this commentary, we review evidence supporting the utility of SARS-CoV-2 Spike kodecytes for clinical diagnostic purposes and serosurveys in resource-poor settings.

Are convalescent plasma stocks collected during former COVID-19 waves still effective against current SARS-CoV-2 variants?

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) was among the few frontline therapies used to treat COVID-19. After large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relying on late use in hospitalized patients and/or low antibody titres failed to meet their predefined primary endpoint, the infectious disease community reduced usage of CCP in favour of monoclonal antibodies. Consequently, there are CCP stocks at most transfusion centres worldwide, although scattered usage continues. Further, better designed RCTs are also being launched. The urgent question here is: should we use CCP units collected months before given the largely changed viral variant landscape? We review here in vitro evidence that discourages usage of such CCP units against Delta and other variants of concern. CCP collections should be continued in order to update the armamentarium of therapeutics against vaccine breakthrough infections or in unvaccinated patients and is especially relevant in next-generation RCTs.