Clinical and laboratory evaluation of patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia treated with high-titer convalescent plasma

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.

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.

Molecular and Clinical Epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 Infection among Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Individuals in a Large Healthcare Organization from New Jersey

New Jersey was among the first states impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, with one of the highest overall death rates in the nation. Nevertheless, relatively few reports have been published focusing specifically on New Jersey. Here we report on molecular, clinical, and epidemiologic observations, from the largest healthcare network in the state, in a cohort of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. We conducted molecular surveillance of SARS-CoV-2-positive nasopharyngeal swabs collected in nine hospitals from December 2020 through June 2022, using both whole genome sequencing (WGS) and a real-time RT-PCR screening assay targeting spike protein mutations found in variants of concern (VOCs) within our region. De-identified clinical data were obtained retrospectively, including demographics, COVID-19 vaccination status, ICU admission, ventilator support, mortality, and medical history. Statistical analyses were performed to identify associations between SARS-CoV-2 variants, vaccination status, clinical outcomes, and medical risk factors. A total of 5007 SARS-CoV-2-positive nasopharyngeal swabs were successfully screened and/or sequenced. Variant screening identified three predominant VOCs, including Alpha (n = 714), Delta (n = 1877), and Omicron (n = 1802). Omicron isolates were further sub-typed as BA.1 (n = 899), BA.2 (n = 853), or BA.4/BA.5 (n = 50); the remaining 614 isolates were classified as "Other". Approximately 31.5% (1577/5007) of the samples were associated with vaccine breakthrough infections, which increased in frequency following the emergence of Delta and Omicron. Severe clinical outcomes included ICU admission (336/5007 = 6.7%), ventilator support (236/5007 = 4.7%), and mortality (430/5007 = 8.6%), with increasing age being the most significant contributor to each (p < 0.001). Unvaccinated individuals accounted for 79.7% (268/336) of ICU admissions, 78.3% (185/236) of ventilator cases, and 74.4% (320/430) of deaths. Highly significant (p < 0.001) increases in mortality were observed in individuals with cardiovascular disease, hypertension, cancer, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia, but not with obesity, thyroid disease, or respiratory disease. Significant differences (p < 0.001) in clinical outcomes were also noted between SARS-CoV-2 variants, including Delta, Omicron BA.1, and Omicron BA.2. Vaccination was associated with significantly improved clinical outcomes in our study, despite an increase in breakthrough infections associated with waning immunity, greater antigenic variability, or both. Underlying comorbidities contributed significantly to mortality in both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, with increasing risk based on the total number of comorbidities. Real-time RT-PCR-based screening facilitated timely identification of predominant variants using a minimal number of spike protein mutations, with faster turnaround time and reduced cost compared to WGS. Continued evolution of SARS-CoV-2 variants will likely require ongoing surveillance for new VOCs, with real-time assessment of clinical impact.

Evaluation of a COVID-19 convalescent plasma program at a U.S. academic medical center

Amidst the therapeutic void at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a critical mass of scientific and clinical interest coalesced around COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). To date, the CCP literature has focused largely on safety and efficacy outcomes, but little on implementation outcomes or experience. Expert opinion suggests that if CCP has a role in COVID-19 treatment, it is early in the disease course, and it must deliver a sufficiently high titer of neutralizing antibodies (nAb). Missing in the literature are comprehensive evaluations of how local CCP programs were implemented as part of pandemic preparedness and response, including considerations of the core components and personnel required to meet demand with adequately qualified CCP in a timely and sustained manner. To address this gap, we conducted an evaluation of a local CCP program at a large U.S. academic medical center, the University of North Carolina Medical Center (UNCMC), and patterned our evaluation around the dimensions of the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to systematically describe key implementation-relevant metrics. We aligned our evaluation with program goals of reaching the target population with severe or critical COVID-19, integrating into the structure of the hospital-wide pandemic response, adapting to shifting landscapes, and sustaining the program over time during a compassionate use expanded access program (EAP) era and a randomized controlled trial (RCT) era. During the EAP era, the UNCMC CCP program was associated with faster CCP infusion after admission compared with contemporaneous affiliate hospitals without a local program: median 29.6 hours (interquartile range, IQR: 21.2-48.1) for the UNCMC CCP program versus 47.6 hours (IQR 32.6-71.6) for affiliate hospitals; (P<0.0001). Sixty-eight of 87 CCP recipients in the EAP (78.2%) received CCP containing the FDA recommended minimum nAb titer of ≥1:160. CCP delivery to hospitalized patients operated with equal efficiency regardless of receiving treatment via a RCT or a compassionate-use mechanism. It was found that in a highly resourced academic medical center, rapid implementation of a local CCP collection, treatment, and clinical trial program could be achieved through re-deployment of highly trained laboratory and clinical personnel. These data provide important pragmatic considerations critical for health systems considering the use of CCP as part of an integrated pandemic response.

Improved Survival of Lymphoma Patients with COVID-19 in the Modern Treatment and Vaccination Era

Simple Summary

Patients with lymphoma are at greater risk of complications from COVID-19 infection. However, limited data exists on COVID-19-related outcomes in lymphoma patients since the use of COVID-19 vaccines and treatments began. Our study reports the real-world outcomes of 68 lymphoma or CLL patients who developed COVID-19 infection during the omicron surge in the US. We found that 34% of patients were hospitalized due to COVID-19 infection. The COVID-19-associated death rate was 9% (6/68) in all patients and 26% (6/23) in hospitalized patients, which was much lower compared to rates earlier in the pandemic prior to the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines and treatments. In 30 patients with data available, 60% did not make antibodies after COVID-19 vaccination. Most patients (74%, 17/23) who were hospitalized did not receive COVID-19 monoclonal antibody treatment. Our results pointed to important differences and the need for a new approach to treating cancer patients with COVID-19 infection.

Abstract

Lymphoma patients are at greater risk of severe consequences from COVID-19 infection, yet most reports of COVID-19-associated outcomes were published before the advent of COVID-19 vaccinations and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). In this retrospective study, we report the real-world outcomes of 68 lymphoma or CLL patients who developed COVID-19 infection during the omicron surge in the US. We found that 34% of patients were hospitalized as a result of COVID-19 infection. The death rate due to COVID-19 was 9% (6/68) in the overall population and 26% (6/23) in hospitalized patients. During the preintervention COVID-19 era, the mortality rate reported in cancer patients was 34%, which increased to 60.2% in hospitalized patients. Thus, the death rates in our study were much lower when compared to those in cancer patients earlier in the pandemic, and may be attributed to modern interventions. In our study, 60% (18/30) of patients with serology data available did not develop anti-COVID-19 spike protein antibodies following vaccination. Most patients (74%, 17/23) who were hospitalized due to COVID-19 infection did not receive COVID-19 mAb treatment. Our results pointed to the importance of humoral immunity and the protective effect of COVID-19 mAbs in improving outcomes in lymphoma patients.

Characterization of Pathogen Inactivated COVID ‐19 Convalescent Plasma and Responses in Transfused Patients

Background

Efficacy of donated COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (dCCP) is uncertain and may depend on antibody titers, neutralizing capacity, timing of administration, and patient characteristics.

Study Design and Methods

In a single‐center hypothesis‐generating prospective case–control study with 1:2 matched dCCP recipients to controls according to disease severity at day 1, hospitalized adults with COVID‐19 pneumonia received 2 × 200 ml pathogen‐reduced treated dCCP from 2 different donors. We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) antibodies in COVID‐19 convalescent plasma donors and recipients using multiple antibody assays including a Coronavirus antigen microarray (COVAM), and binding and neutralizing antibody assays. Outcomes were dCCP characteristics, antibody responses, 28‐day mortality, and dCCP ‐related adverse events in recipients.

Results

Eleven of 13 dCCPs (85%) contained neutralizing antibodies (nAb). PRT did not affect dCCP antibody activity. Fifteen CCP recipients and 30 controls (median age 64 and 65 years, respectively) were enrolled. dCCP recipients received 2 dCCPs from 2 different donors after a median of one hospital day and 11 days after symptom onset. One dCCP recipient (6.7%) and 6 controls (20%) died (p = 0.233). We observed no dCCP‐related adverse events. Transfusion of unselected dCCP led to heterogeneous SARS CoV‐2 antibody responses. COVAM clustered dCCPs in 4 distinct groups and showed endogenous immune responses to SARS‐CoV‐2 antigens over 14–21 days post dCCP in all except 4 immunosuppressed recipients.

Discussion

PRT did not impact dCCP anti‐virus neutralizing activity. Transfusion of unselected dCCP did not impact survival and had no adverse effects. Variable dCCP antibodies and post‐transfusion antibody responses indicate the need for controlled trials using well‐characterized dCCP with informative assays.

Early administration of COVID-19 convalescent plasma with high titer antibody content by live viral neutralization assay is associated with modest clinical efficacy

The efficacy of COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) as a treatment for hospitalized patients with COVID‐19 remains somewhat controversial; however, many studies have not evaluated CCP documented to have high neutralizing antibody titer by a highly accurate assay. To evaluate the correlation of the administration of CCP with titer determined by a live viral neutralization assay with 7‐ and 28‐day death rates during hospitalization, a total of 23 118 patients receiving a single unit of CCP were stratified into two groups: those receiving high titer CCP (>250 50% inhibitory dilution, ID50; n = 13 636) or low titer CCP (≤250 ID50; n = 9482). Multivariable Cox regression was performed to assess risk factors. Non‐intubated patients who were transfused with high titer CCP showed 1.1% and 1.7% absolute reductions in overall 7‐ and 28‐day death rates, respectively, compared to those non‐intubated patients receiving low titer CCP. No benefit of CCP was observed in intubated patients. The relative benefit of high titer CCP was confirmed in multivariable Cox regression. Administration of CCP with high titer antibody content determined by live viral neutralization assay to non‐intubated patients is associated with modest clinical efficacy. Although shown to be only of modest clinical benefit, CCP may play a role in the future should viral variants develop that are not neutralized by other available therapeutics.

A Randomized Trial of Combination Therapy, Sitagliptin and Spironolactone, in Hospitalized Adult Patients with COVID-19

Context

COVID-19 may cause respiratory distress syndrome and death. Treatment of COVID-19 to prevent complications remains a priority.

Objective

Our investigation sought to determine whether combination of spironolactone and sitagliptin could reduce mortality for inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Methods

This single-blind, 4-arm, prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted at Shiraz and Bushehr University of Medical Sciences hospitals between December 2020 and April 2021. We randomized hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia into 4 groups: control, combination therapy, sitagliptin add-on, or spironolactone add-on. The primary outcome was the clinical improvement of the patients in the hospital as measured on an 8-point numerical scale. The secondary outcomes included intubation, ICU admission, end organ damages, CT findings, and paraclinical information.

Results

A total of 263 admitted patients were randomly assigned to control group (87 patients), combination group (60 patients), sitagliptin group (66 patients), and spironolactone group (50 patients). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics, except for higher age in control group. The intervention groups, especially combination therapy, had better clinical outcomes (clinical score on fifth day of admission: 3.11 ± 2.45 for controls, 1.33 ± 0.50 for combination, 1.68 ± 1.02 for sitagliptin, and 1.64 ± 0.81 for spironolactone; P = 0.004). However, the mortality rate was lower in patients who received spironolactone (21.84% control, 13.33% combination, 13.64% sitagliptin, 10.00% spironolactone; P = 0.275). Our intervention reduced lung infiltration but not the area of involvement in lungs.

Conclusion

Sitagliptin and spironolactone can potentially improve clinical outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

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.

Elevated cytokines and chemokines in peripheral blood of patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia treated with high-titer convalescent plasma

The global SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic continues to be devastating in many areas. Treatment options have been limited and convalescent donor plasma has been used by many centers to transfer passive neutralizing antibodies to patients with respiratory involvement. The results often vary by institution and are complicated by the nature and quality of the donor plasma itself, the timing of administration and the clinical aspects of the recipients. SARS-CoV-2 infection is known to be associated with an increase in the blood concentrations of several inflammatory cytokines/chemokines, as part of the overall immune response to the virus and consequential to mediated lung pathology. Some of these correlates contribute to the cytokine storm syndrome and acute respiratory distress syndrome, often resulting in fatality. A Phase IIa clinical trial at our institution using high neutralizing titer convalescent plasma transfer gave us the unique opportunity to study the elevations of correlates in the first 10 days after infusion. Plasma recipients were divided into hospitalized COVID-19 pneumonia patients who did not (Track 2) or did (Track 3) require mechanical ventilation. Several cytokines were elevated in the patients of each Track and some continued to rise through Day 10, while others initially increased and then subsided. Furthermore, elevations in MIP-1α, MIP-1β and CRP correlated with disease progression of Track 2 recipients. Overall, our observations serve as a foundation for further study of these correlates and the identification of potential biomarkers to improve upon convalescent plasma therapy and to drive more successful patient outcomes.

COVID-19, the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has a varied clinical course with limited treatment options. While some patients mount a productive immune response leading to recovery, others progress to rapid respiratory deterioration that may require hospitalization and mechanical ventilation. Our institution conducted a clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) to treat patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. In this arm of the study, we sought to examine immune analytes in donor plasma as well as evaluate the recipients’ plasma before CPT infusion, and at Day 3 and Day 10 post-CPT infusion. We found some analytes to be elevated in plasma donors, compared to healthy controls, even after recovery. Plasma composition in CPT recipients prior to infusion showed elevations in several analytes associated with immune activation. Some significant differences were seen in plasma composition in patients in our Track 2 cohort (hospitalized without mechanical ventilation) compared to the Track 3 cohort (hospitalized with mechanical ventilation). In addition, we obtained plasma samples for hospitalized COVID-19 patients that did not receive CPT and noted several differences in the course of immune analyte production over time compared to the CPT-treated patients.

Effect of time and titer in convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19

The clinical benefit of convalescent plasma (CP) for patients with coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 is still debated. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we selected 10 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 15 non-randomized studies (total number of patients = 22,591) of CP treatment and evaluated two different scenarios: (1) disease stage of plasma recipients and (2) donated plasma antibody titer, considering all-cause mortality at the latest follow-up. Our results show that, when provided at early stages of the disease, CP significantly reduced mortality: risk ratio (RR) 0.72 (0.68, 0.77), p < 0.00001, while provided in severe or critical conditions, it did not (RR: 0.94 [0.86, 1.04], p = 0.22). On the other hand, the benefit on mortality was not increased by using plasma with a high-antibody titer compared with unselected plasma. This meta-analysis might promote CP usage in patients with early-stage COVID-19 in further RCTs to maximize its benefit in decreasing mortality, especially in less affluent countries.

•

The benefit of convalescent plasma (CP) for patients with COVID-19 is still debated

•

Only when provided at early disease stages, CP reduced COVID-19 mortality

•

CP benefit on mortality does not increase when selecting high-antibody titers

•

Early treatment with CP may maximize its clinical benefit

Antifungal Drug Susceptibility and Genetic Characterization of Fungi Recovered from COVID-19 Patients

Fungal infections are common complications of respiratory viral infections and are associated with the increased need for intensive care and elevated mortality. Data regarding microbiological and molecular characteristics of such infections in COVID-19 patients are scarce. Here, we performed a comprehensive analysis, including species identification, antifungal susceptibility testing, molecular resistance determinants analysis, typing, and retrospective clinical data review, of fungal isolates recovered from 19 COVID-19 patients, who were hospitalized at the Hackensack University Medical Center (HUMC) in Hackensack, New Jersey, USA, in the initial phase of the pandemic from April–May 2020. In total, 17 Candida albicans, two C. parapsilosis, and two Aspergillus fumigatus were analyzed. All Candida spp. isolates were susceptible to micafungin and azole drugs (fluconazole, voriconazole, posaconazole, itraconazole, isavuconazole). A. fumigatus isolates were susceptible to micafungin and all triazole drugs except fluconazole (intrinsic resistance). Multilocus sequence typing (MLST) of C. albicans isolates revealed 15 different sequence types (STs), which clustered below the clade-defining limit of p-distance < 0.04. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) karyotyping revealed no chromosomal rearrangements in these isolates. A. fumigatus isolates were of different, non-related genotypes. We speculate that virus- and drug-induced immunosuppression (94.7% of the patients received corticosteroids), together with prolonged hospital stay (median duration of 29 days) and mechanical ventilation (median duration of 24 days) likely increased the susceptibility to secondary respiratory and bloodstream infections in the studied patient population. The presence of fungi in blood or respiratory tract fluid was a prognosticator for poor clinical outcome, which presented as an 89.5% 30-day mortality in our patient cohort.

Convalescent Plasma Therapy for COVID-19: A Graphical Mosaic of the Worldwide Evidence

Convalescent plasma has been used worldwide to treat patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and prevent disease progression. Despite global usage, uncertainty remains regarding plasma efficacy, as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have provided divergent evidence regarding the survival benefit of convalescent plasma. Here, we argue that during a global health emergency, the mosaic of evidence originating from multiple levels of the epistemic hierarchy should inform contemporary policy and healthcare decisions. Indeed, worldwide matched-control studies have generally found convalescent plasma to improve COVID-19 patient survival, and RCTs have demonstrated a survival benefit when transfused early in the disease course but limited or no benefit later in the disease course when patients required greater supportive therapies. RCTs have also revealed that convalescent plasma transfusion contributes to improved symptomatology and viral clearance. To further investigate the effect of convalescent plasma on patient mortality, we performed a meta-analytical approach to pool daily survival data from all controlled studies that reported Kaplan-Meier survival plots. Qualitative inspection of all available Kaplan-Meier survival data and an aggregate Kaplan-Meier survival plot revealed a directionally consistent pattern among studies arising from multiple levels of the epistemic hierarchy, whereby convalescent plasma transfusion was generally associated with greater patient survival. Given that convalescent plasma has a similar safety profile as standard plasma, convalescent plasma should be implemented within weeks of the onset of future infectious disease outbreaks.

Characterization of neutralizing versus binding antibodies and memory B cells in COVID-19 recovered individuals from India

India is one of the most affected countries by COVID-19 pandemic; but little is understood regarding immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 in this region. Herein we examined SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies, IgG, IgM, IgA and memory B cells in COVID-19 recovered individual from India. While a vast majority of COVID-19 recovered individuals showed SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific IgG, IgA and IgM antibodies (38/42, 90.47%; 21/42, 50%; 33/42, 78.57% respectively), only half of them had appreciable neutralizing antibody titers. RBD-specific IgG, but not IgA or IgM titers, correlated with neutralizing antibody titers and RBD-specific memory B cell frequencies. These findings have timely significance for identifying potential donors for plasma therapy using RBD-specific IgG assays as surrogate measurement for neutralizing antibodies in India. Further, this study provides useful information needed for designing large-scale studies towards understanding of inter-individual variation in immune memory to SARS CoV-2 natural infection for future vaccine evaluation and implementation efforts.

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

BACKGROUND

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Convalescent Plasma Transfusion for the Treatment of COVID-19 in Adults: A Global Perspective

More than one year into the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, healthcare systems across the world continue to be overwhelmed with soaring daily cases. The treatment spectrum primarily includes ventilation support augmented with repurposed drugs and/or convalescent plasma transfusion (CPT) from recovered COVID-19 patients. Despite vaccine variants being recently developed and administered in several countries, challenges in global supply chain logistics limit their timely availability to the wider world population, particularly in developing countries. Given the measured success of conventional CPT in treating several infections over the past decade, recent studies have reported its effectiveness in decreasing the duration and severity of COVID-19 symptoms. In this review, we conduct a literature search of published studies investigating the use of CPT to treat COVID-19 patients from January 2020 to January 2021. The literature search identified 181 records of which 39 were included in this review. A random-effects model was used to aggregate data across studies, and mortality rates of 17 vs. 32% were estimated for the CPT and control patient groups, respectively, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.49. The findings indicate that CPT shows potential in reducing the severity and duration of COVID-19 symptoms. However, early intervention (preferably within 3 days), recruitment of donors, and plasma potency introduce major challenges for its scaled-up implementation. Given the low number of existing randomized clinical trials (RCTs, four with a total of 319 patients), unanticipated risks to CPT recipients are highlighted and discussed. Nevertheless, CPT remains a promising COVID-19 therapeutic option that merits internationally coordinated RCTs to achieve a scientific risk-benefit consensus.

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

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

Convalescent Plasma Use in the United States was inversely correlated with COVID-19 Mortality: Did Plasma Hesitancy cost lives?

BACKGROUND

The US Food and Drug Administration authorized Convalescent Plasma (CCP) therapy for hospitalized COVID-19 patients via the Expanded Access Program (EAP) and the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), leading to use in about 500,000 patients during the first year of the pandemic for the US.

METHODS

We tracked the number of CCP units dispensed to hospitals by blood banking organizations and correlated that usage with hospital admission and mortality data.

RESULTS

CCP usage per admission peaked in Fall 2020, with more than 40% of inpatients estimated to have received CCP between late September and early November 2020. However, after randomized controlled trials failed to show a reduction in mortality, CCP usage per admission declined steadily to a nadir of less than 10% in March 2021. We found a strong inverse correlation (r = -0.52, P = 0.002) between CCP usage per hospital admission and deaths occurring two weeks after admission, and this finding was robust to examination of deaths taking place one, two or three weeks after admission. Changes in the number of hospital admissions, SARS-CoV-2 variants, and age of patients could not explain these findings. The retreat from CCP usage might have resulted in as many as 29,000 excess deaths from mid-November 2020 to February 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

A strong inverse correlation between CCP use and mortality per admission in the USA provides population level evidence consistent with the notion that CCP reduces mortality in COVID-19 and suggests that the recent decline in usage could have resulted in excess deaths.

A Phase II Study on the Use of Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Severe COVID-19- A Propensity Score-Matched Control Analysis

COVID-19 is a global pandemic associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Convalescent plasma (CP) infusion is a strategy of potential therapeutic benefit. We conducted a multicenter phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CP in patients with COVID-19, grade 4 or higher. To evaluate the efficacy of CP, a matched propensity score analysis was used comparing the intervention (n = 59) to a control group (n = 59). Sixty patients received CP within a median time of 7 days from symptom onset. During a median follow-up of 28.5 days, 56/60 patients fully recovered and 1 patient remained in the ICU. The death rate in the CP group was 3.4% vs. 13.6% in the control group. By multivariate analysis, CP recipients demonstrated a significantly reduced risk of death [HR: 0.04 (95% CI: 0.004–0.36), p: 0.005], significantly better overall survival by Kaplan–Meir analysis (p < 0.001), and increased probability of extubation [OR: 30.3 (95% CI: 2.64–348.9), p: 0.006]. Higher levels of antibodies in the CP were independently associated with significantly reduced risk of death. CP infusion was safe with only one grade 3 adverse event (AE), which easily resolved. CP used early may be a safe and effective treatment for patients with severe COVID-19 (trial number NCT04408209).

Mortality Benefit of Convalescent Plasma in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance/Background: With a scarcity of high-grade evidence for COVID-19 treatment, researchers and health care providers across the world have resorted to classical and historical interventions. Immunotherapy with convalescent plasma (CPT) is one such therapeutic option. Methods: A systematized search was conducted for articles published between December 2019 and 18th January 2021 focusing on convalescent plasma efficacy and safety in COVID-19. The primary outcomes were defined as mortality benefit in patients treated with convalescent plasma compared to standard therapy/placebo. The secondary outcome was pooled mortality rate and the adverse event rate in convalescent plasma-treated patients. Results: A total of 27,706 patients were included in the qualitative analysis, and a total of 3,262 (2,127 in convalescent plasma-treated patients and 1,135 in the non-convalescent plasma/control group) patients died. The quantitative synthesis in 23 studies showed that the odds of mortality in patients who received plasma therapy were significantly lower than those in patients who did not receive plasma therapy [odds ratio (OR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.80, p < 0.0001, I 2 = 15%). The mortality benefit remains the same even for 14 trials/prospective studies (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43-0.81, p = 0.001, I 2 = 22%) as well as for nine case series/retrospective observational studies (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-0.94, p = 0.01, I 2 = 0%). However, in a subgroup analysis for 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), there was no statistically significant reduction in mortality between the CPT group compared to the non-CPT group (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53-1.08, p = 0.13, I 2 = 7%). Furthermore, the sensitivity analysis of 10 RCTs, excluding the study with the highest statistical weight, displayed a lower mortality rate compared to that of non-CPT COVID-19 patients (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42-0.97, p = 0.04, I 2 = 0%). The observed pooled mortality rate was 12.9% (95% CI 9.7-16.9%), and the pooled adverse event rate was 6.1% (95% CI 3.2-11.6), with significant heterogeneity. Conclusions and Relevance: Our systemic review and meta-analysis suggests that CPT could be an effective therapeutic option with promising evidence on the safety and reduced mortality in concomitant treatment for COVID-19 along with antiviral/antimicrobial drugs, steroids, and other supportive care. Future exploratory studies could benefit from more standardized reporting, especially in terms of the timing of interventions and clinically relevant outcomes, like days until discharge from the hospital and improvement of clinical symptoms.

Current views on the potentials of convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) as Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on recent studies and previous respiratory pandemics

Convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) has been investigated as a treatment for COVID-19. This review evaluates CPT in COVID-19 and other viral respiratory diseases, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and influenza. PubMed and Google scholar databases were used to collect eligible publications until 8 December 2020. Meta-analysis used Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and pooled analysis for individual patient data with inverse variance weighted average. The study is registered at PROSPERO with the number of CRD4200270579. Forty-four studies with 36,716 participants were included in the pooled analysis and 20 studies in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed reduction of mortality (RR 0.57, 95% CI [0.43, 0.76], z = 3.86 [p < 0.001], I²  = 44% [p = 0.03]) and higher number of discharged patients (RR 2.53, 95% CI [1.72, 3.72], z = 4.70 [p < 0.001], I²  = 3% [p = 0.39]) in patients receiving CPT compared to standard care alone. A possible mechanism of action is prompt reduction in viral titre. Serious transfusion-related adverse events were reported to be less than 1% of cases, suggesting the overall safety of CPT; nevertheless, the number of patients participating in the studies was still limited. It is also important to notice that in all the studies, the majority of patients were also given other medications, such as antivirals, antibiotics and corticosteroid; furthermore, randomized controlled studies involving more patients and in combination with other treatment modalities are urgently needed.

Treatment of severe COVID-19 with convalescent plasma in Bronx, NYC

Convalescent plasma with severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies (CCP) may hold promise as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We compared the mortality and clinical outcome of patients with COVID-19 who received 200 mL of CCP with a spike protein IgG titer ≥ 1:2430 (median 1:47,385) within 72 hours of admission with propensity score-matched controls cared for at a medical center in the Bronx, between April 13 and May 4, 2020. Matching criteria for controls were age, sex, body mass index, race, ethnicity, comorbidities, week of admission, oxygen requirement, D-dimer, lymphocyte counts, corticosteroid use, and anticoagulation use. There was no difference in mortality or oxygenation between CCP recipients and controls at day 28. When stratified by age, compared with matched controls, CCP recipients less than 65 years had 4-fold lower risk of mortality and 4-fold lower risk of deterioration in oxygenation or mortality at day 28. For CCP recipients, pretransfusion spike protein IgG, IgM, and IgA titers were associated with mortality at day 28 in univariate analyses. No adverse effects of CCP were observed. Our results suggest CCP may be beneficial for hospitalized patients less than 65 years, but data from controlled trials are needed to validate this finding and establish the effect of aging on CCP efficacy.

The role and uses of antibodies in COVID-19 infections: a living review

Coronavirus disease 2019 has generated a rapidly evolving field of research, with the global scientific community striving for solutions to the current pandemic. Characterizing humoral responses towards SARS-CoV-2, as well as closely related strains, will help determine whether antibodies are central to infection control, and aid the design of therapeutics and vaccine candidates. This review outlines the major aspects of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody research to date, with a focus on the various prophylactic and therapeutic uses of antibodies to alleviate disease in addition to the potential of cross-reactive therapies and the implications of long-term immunity.

Treatment of Severe COVID-19 with Convalescent Plasma in the Bronx, NYC

Convalescent plasma with severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies (CCP) may hold promise as treatment for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). We compared the mortality and clinical outcome of patients with COVID-19 who received 200mL of CCP with a Spike protein IgG titer ≥1:2,430 (median 1:47,385) within 72 hours of admission to propensity score-matched controls cared for at a medical center in the Bronx, between April 13 to May 4, 2020. Matching criteria for controls were age, sex, body mass index, race, ethnicity, comorbidities, week of admission, oxygen requirement, D-dimer, lymphocyte counts, corticosteroids, and anticoagulation use. There was no difference in mortality or oxygenation between CCP recipients and controls at day 28. When stratified by age, compared to matched controls, CCP recipients <65 years had 4-fold lower mortality and 4-fold lower deterioration in oxygenation or mortality at day 28. For CCP recipients, pre-transfusion Spike protein IgG, IgM and IgA titers were associated with mortality at day 28 in univariate analyses. No adverse effects of CCP were observed. Our results suggest CCP may be beneficial for hospitalized patients <65 years, but data from controlled trials is needed to validate this finding and establish the effect of ageing on CCP efficacy.