Effect of Convalescent Plasma on Organ Support-Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Understanding the challenges to COVID-19 vaccines and treatment options, herd immunity and probability of reinfection

Unlike pandemics in the past, the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which rapidly spread worldwide, was met with a different approach to control and measures implemented across affected countries. The lack of understanding of the fundamental nature of the outbreak continues to make COVID-19 challenging to manage for both healthcare practitioners and the scientific community. Challenges to vaccine development and evaluation, current therapeutic options, convalescent plasma therapy, herd immunity, and the emergence of reinfection and new variants remain the major obstacles to combating COVID-19. This review discusses these challenges in the management of COVID-19 at length and highlights the mechanisms needed to provide better understanding of this pandemic.

ASCOT ADAPT study of COVID-19 therapeutics in hospitalised patients: an international multicentre adaptive platform trial

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a significant risk of hospitalisation, death, and prolonged impact on quality of life. Evaluation of new treatment options and optimising therapeutic management of people hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 infection remains essential, but rapid changes in pandemic conditions and potential therapies have limited the utility of traditional approaches to randomised controlled trials.

METHODS

ASCOT ADAPT is an international, investigator-initiated, adaptive platform, randomised controlled trial of therapeutics for non-critically ill patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The study design is open label and pragmatic. Potential participants are hospitalised adults with PCR confirmed, symptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 infection, within 14 days of symptom onset. Domains include antiviral, antibody and anticoagulant interventions, with a composite primary outcome of 28-day mortality or progression to intensive-care level respiratory or haemodynamic support. Initial interventions include intravenous nafamostat and variable dose anticoagulation. A range of secondary endpoints, and substudies for specific domains and interventions are outlined.

DISCUSSION

This paper presents the trial protocol and management structure, including international governance, remote site monitoring and biobanking activities and provides commentary on ethical and pragmatic considerations in establishing the ASCOT ADAPT trial under pandemic conditions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12620000445976) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04483960).

Implementation and Extended Evaluation of the Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG Assay and Its Contribution to the United Kingdom's COVID-19 Public Health Response

In March 2020, the Rare and Imported Pathogens Laboratory at the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) (formerly Public Health England [PHE]) Porton Down, was tasked by the Department of Health and Social Care with setting up a national surveillance laboratory facility to study SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses and population-level sero-surveillance in response to the growing SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. In the following 12 months, the laboratory tested more than 160,000 samples, facilitating a wide range of research and informing UKHSA, DHSC, and UK government policy. Here we describe the implementation and use of the Euroimmun anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay and provide an extended evaluation of its performance. We present a markedly improved overall sensitivity of 91.39% (≥14 days 92.74%, ≥21 days 93.59%) compared to our small-scale early study, and a specificity of 98.56%. In addition, we detail extended characteristics of the Euroimmun assay: intra- and interassay precision, correlation to neutralization, and assay linearity. IMPORTANCE Serology assays have been useful in determining those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in a wide range of research and serosurveillance projects. However, assays vary in their sensitivity at detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Here, we detail an extended evaluation and characterization of the Euroimmun anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay, one that has been widely used within the United Kingdom on over 160,000 samples to date.

Convalescent plasma may not be an effective treatment for severe and critically ill covid-19 patients: A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma treatment for severe and critically ill Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical improvement and mortality risk of convalescent plasma treatment in patients with severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in the electronic databases for the randomized controlled studies about convalescent plasma therapy in severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients. Two reviewers independently extracted relevant data. The primary outcomes were clinical improvement and mortality risk of severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients that were therapied by convalescent plasma.

RESULTS

A total of 14 randomized controlled trials with 4543 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to control, no significant difference was observed for either clinical improvement (6 studies, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.17, p = 0.16, moderate certainty) or mortality risk (14 studies, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03, p= 0.18, low certainty) in patients of convalescent plasma therapy group.

CONCLUSION

Convalescent plasma did not increase the clinical improvement or reduce the mortality risk in the severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Passive immune therapies: another tool against COVID-19

Passive immune therapy consists of several different therapies, convalescent plasma, hyperimmune globulin, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) neutralizing monoclonal antibodies. Although these treatments were not part of any pandemic planning prior to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), due to the absence of high-quality evidence demonstrating benefit in other severe respiratory infections, a large amount of research has now been performed to demonstrate their benefit or lack of benefit in different patient groups. This review summarizes the evidence up to July 2021 on their use and also when they should not be used or when additional data are required. Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is the most important method of preventing severe and fatal COVID-19 in people who have an intact immune system. Passive immune therapy should only be considered for patients at high risk of severe or fatal COVID-19. The only therapy that has received full regulatory approval is the casirivimab/imdevimab monoclonal cocktail; all other treatments are being used under emergency use authorizations. In Japan, it has been licensed to treat patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, and in the United Kingdom, it has also been licensed to prevent infection.

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.

Antibody and cellular therapies for treatment of covid-19: a living systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).

DESIGN

Living systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data.

DATA SOURCES

WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021).

STUDY SELECTION

Trials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate.

METHODS

After duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm.

RESULTS

As of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative.

CONCLUSION

In patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement.

FUNDING

This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321).

READERS' NOTE

This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).