A randomized double-blind controlled trial of convalescent plasma in adults with severe COVID-19

Investigational pharmacological agents for the treatment of ARDS

INTRODUCTION

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is a heterogeneous form of lung injury with severe hypoxemia and bilateral infiltrates after an inciting event that results in diffuse lung inflammation with a high mortality rate. While research in COVID-related ARDS has resulted in several pharmacotherapeutic agents that have undergone successful investigation, non-COVID ARDS studies have not resulted in many widely accepted pharmacotherapeutic agents despite exhaustive research.

AREAS COVERED

The aim of this review is to discuss adjuvant pharmacotherapies targeting non-COVID Acute Lung Injury (ALI)/ARDS and novel therapeutics in COVID associated ALI/ARDS. In ARDS, variable data may support selective use of neuromuscular blocking agents, corticosteroids and neutrophil elastase inhibitors, but are not yet universally used. COVID-ALI/ARDS has data supporting the use of IL-6 monoclonal antibodies, corticosteroids, and JAK inhibitor therapy.

EXPERT OPINION

Although ALI/ARDS modifying pharmacological agents have been identified in COVID-related disease, the data in non-COVID ALI/ARDS has been less compelling. The increased use of more specific molecular phenotyping based on physiologic parameters and biomarkers, will ensure equipoise between groups, and will likely allow more precision in confirming pharmacological agent efficacy in future studies.

Interventions reducing mortality in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review of randomized evidence

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 pandemic changed the way medical research is published, possibly forever. As the need for rapidity led to the rise of preprint servers, the undeniable drop in the overall quality of scientific publications requires an in-depth review of all available evidence. The present manuscript aims to identify and summarize all treatments which have been reported to reduce mortality in randomized trials in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Independent investigators searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases to identify all randomized trials of any intervention influencing mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients up to August 18th, 2022. Articles were selected only when they fulfilled all the following: randomized trial design; dealing with any kind of interventions in adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients; and statistically significant reduction in mortality.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We identified 28 interventions (42 manuscripts) reducing mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. About 60% of the studies (26/42) were multicentric, for a total of 1140 centers involved worldwide. Several of these studies were published in high-ranked, peer-reviewed journals. Interventions with randomized evidence of mortality reduction in hospitalized COVID-19 patients belonged to 5 domains: corticosteroids, immunomodulators, antimicrobials, supportive therapies, and other drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Many interventions have the potential to reduce mortality in COVID-19 hospitalized patients. The correct treatment of future pandemics relies on large, multicentric randomized clinical trials for further evaluation of these promising strategies.

The II Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 Joint Guidelines of the Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia and Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia

OBJECTIVE

To update the recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil.

METHODS

Experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method.

RESULTS

Twenty-one recommendations were generated, including strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen and conditional recommendations for the use of tocilizumab and baricitinib for patients on supplemental oxygen or on noninvasive ventilation and anticoagulants to prevent thromboembolism. Due to suspension of use authorization, it was not possible to make recommendations regarding the use of casirivimab + imdevimab. Strong recommendations against the use of azithromycin in patients without suspected bacterial infection, hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, and lopinavir + ritonavir and conditional recommendations against the use of ivermectin and remdesivir were made.

CONCLUSION

New recommendations for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were generated, such as those for tocilizumab and baricitinib. Corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are still recommended, the latter with conditional recommendation. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and to promote resource economy.

The impact of early anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody production on the length of hospitalization stay among COVID-19 patients

IMPORTANCE

The study provides valuable insights into the sociodemographic characteristics, clinical outcomes, and humoral immune response of those affected by the virus that has devastated every field of human life since 2019; the COVID-19 patients. Firstly, the association among clinical manifestations, comorbidities, and the production of neutralizing antibodies (Nabs) against SARS-CoV-2 is explored. Secondly, varying levels of Nabs among patients are revealed, and a significant correlation between the presence of Nabs and a shorter duration of hospitalization is identified, which highlights the potential role of Nabs in predicting clinical outcomes. Lastly, a follow-up conducted 7 months later demonstrates the progression and persistence of Nabs production in recovered unvaccinated individuals. The study contributes essential knowledge regarding the characteristics of the study population, the early humoral immune response, and the dynamics of Nabs production over time. These findings have significant implications for understanding the immune response to COVID-19 and informing clinical management approaches.

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.

Use of covid-19 convalescent plasma to treat patients admitted to hospital for covid-19 with or without underlying immunodeficiency: open label, randomised clinical trial

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of covid-19 convalescent plasma to treat patients admitted to hospital for moderate covid-19 disease with or without underlying immunodeficiency (CORIPLASM trial).

Design

Open label, randomised clinical trial.

Setting

CORIMUNO-19 cohort (publicly supported platform of open label, randomised controlled trials of immune modulatory drugs in patients admitted to hospital with moderate or severe covid-19 disease) based on 19 university and general hospitals across France, from 16 April 2020 to 21 April 2021.

Participants

120 adults (n=60 in the covid-19 convalescent plasma group, n=60 in the usual care group) admitted to hospital with a positive SARS-CoV2 test result, duration of symptoms <9 days, and World Health Organization score of 4 or 5. 49 patients (n=22, n=27) had underlying immunosuppression.

Interventions

Open label randomisation to usual care or four units (200-220 mL/unit, 2 units/day over two consecutive days) of covid-19 convalescent plasma with a seroneutralisation titre >40.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcomes were proportion of patients with a WHO Clinical Progression Scale score of ≥6 on the 10 point scale on day 4 (higher values indicate a worse outcome), and survival without assisted ventilation or additional immunomodulatory treatment by day 14. Secondary outcomes were changes in WHO Clinical Progression Scale scores, overall survival, time to discharge, and time to end of dependence on oxygen supply. Predefined subgroups analyses included immunosuppression status, duration of symptoms before randomisation, and use of steroids.

Results

120 patients were recruited and assigned to covid-19 convalescent plasma (n=60) or usual care (n=60), including 22 (covid-19 convalescent plasma) and 27 (usual care) patients who were immunocompromised. 13 (22%) patients who received convalescent plasma had a WHO Clinical Progression Scale score of ≥6 at day 4 versus eight (13%) patients who received usual care (adjusted odds ratio 1.88, 95% credible interval 0.71 to 5.24). By day 14, 19 (31.6%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and 20 (33.3%) patients in the usual care group needed ventilation, additional immunomodulatory treatment, or had died. For cumulative incidence of death, three (5%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and eight (13%) in the usual care group died by day 14 (adjusted hazard ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 1.53), and seven (12%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and 12 (20%) in the usual care group by day 28 (adjusted hazard ratio 0.51, 0.20 to 1.32). In a subgroup analysis performed in patients who were immunocompromised, transfusion of covid-19 convalescent plasma was associated with mortality (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 1.10).

Conclusions

In this study, covid-19 convalescent plasma did not improve early outcomes in patients with moderate covid-19 disease. The efficacy of convalescent plasma in patients who are immunocompromised should be investigated further.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04345991.

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.

Pathophysiology and clinical management of coronavirus disease (COVID-19): a mini-review

An unprecedented global pandemic caused by a novel coronavirus named SARS-CoV-2 has created a severe healthcare threat and become one of the biggest challenges to human health and the global economy. As of July 2023, over 767 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 have been diagnosed, including more than 6.95 million deaths. The S protein of this novel coronavirus binds to the ACE2 receptor to enter the host cells with the help of another transmembrane protease TMPRSS2. Infected subjects that can mount an appropriate host immune response can quickly inhibit the spread of infection into the lower respiratory system and the disease may remain asymptomatic or a mild infection. The inability to mount a strong initial response can allow the virus to replicate unchecked and manifest as severe acute pneumonia or prolonged disease that may manifest as systemic disease manifested as viremia, excessive inflammation, multiple organ failure, and secondary bacterial infection among others, leading to delayed recovery, hospitalization, and even life-threatening consequences. The clinical management should be targeted to specific pathogenic mechanisms present at the specific phase of the disease. Here we summarize distinct phases of COVID-19 pathogenesis and appropriate therapeutic paradigms associated with the specific phase of COVID-19.

Convalescent plasma and all-cause mortality of COVID-19 patients: systematic review and meta-analysis

Insight into the clinical potential of convalescent plasma in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is important given the severe clinical courses in unvaccinated and seronegative individuals. The aim of the study was to investigate whether there is a survival benefit of convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients. The authors independently assessed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified by the search strategy for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The binary primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Risk ratio (RR) of the convalescent plasma treatment (vs. best standard care) and its associated standard error (effect size) were calculated. A random-effects model was employed to statistically pool the effect sizes of the selected studies. We included 19 RCTs with 17,021 patients. The random-effects model resulted in an estimated pooled RR of 0.94 (95% CI 0.81-1.08, p = 0.33), showing no statistical evidence of the benefit of convalescent plasma therapy on all-cause mortality. Convalescent plasma therapy was not found to be effective in reducing all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients. Further studies are needed to determine in which patients convalescent plasma therapy may lead to a reduction in mortality.

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.

Early, very high-titre convalescent plasma therapy in clinically vulnerable individuals with mild COVID-19 (COVIC-19): protocol for a randomised, open-label trial

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is a possible treatment option for COVID-19. A comprehensive number of clinical trials on CCP efficacy have already been conducted. However, many aspects of CCP treatment still require investigations: in particular (1) Optimisation of the CCP product, (2) Identification of the patient population in need and most likely to benefit from this treatment approach, (3) Timing of administration and (4) CCP efficacy across viral variants in vivo. We aimed to test whether high-titre CCP, administered early, is efficacious in preventing hospitalisation or death in high-risk patients.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

COVIC-19 is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, adaptive superiority phase III trial comparing CCP with very high neutralising antibody titre administered within 7 days of symptom onset plus standard of care versus standard of care alone. We will enrol patients in two cohorts of vulnerable patients [(1) elderly 70+ years, or younger with comorbidities; (2) immunocompromised patients]. Up to 1020 participants will be enrolled in each cohort (at least 340 with a sample size re-estimation after reaching 102 patients). The primary endpoint is the proportion of participants with (1) Hospitalisation due to progressive COVID-19, or (2) Who died by day 28 after randomisation. Principal analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been granted by the University of Ulm ethics committee (#41/22) (lead ethics committee for Germany), Comité de protection des personnes Sud-Est I (CPP Sud-Est I) (#2022-A01307-36) (ethics committee for France), and ErasmusMC ethics committee (#MEC-2022-0365) (ethics committee for the Netherlands). Signed informed consent will be obtained from all included patients. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant stakeholder conferences and meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials.gov (NCT05271929), EudraCT (2021-006621-22).

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of convalescents boosts neutralization capacity against Omicron subvariants BA.1, BA.2 and BA.5 and can be predicted by anti-S antibody concentrations in serological assays

Background

Recent data on immune evasion of new SARS-CoV-2 variants raise concerns about the efficacy of antibody-based COVID-19 therapies. Therefore, in this study the in-vitro neutralization capacity against SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1 and the Omicron subvariants BA.1, BA.2 and BA.5 of sera from convalescent individuals with and without boost by vaccination was assessed.

Methods and findings

The study included 313 serum samples from 155 individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, divided into subgroups without (n=25) and with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (n=130). We measured anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations by serological assays (anti-SARS-CoV-2-QuantiVac-ELISA (IgG) and Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S) and neutralizing titers against B.1, BA.1, BA.2 and BA.5 in a pseudovirus neutralization assay. Sera of the majority of unvaccinated convalescents did not effectively neutralize Omicron sublineages BA.1, BA.2 and BA.5 (51.7%, 24.1% and 51.7%, resp.). In contrast, 99.3% of the sera of superimmunized individuals (vaccinated convalescents) neutralized the Omicron subvariants BA.1 and BA.5 and 99.6% neutralized BA.2. Neutralizing titers against B.1, BA.1, BA.2 and BA.5 were significantly higher in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated convalescents (p<0.0001) with 52.7-, 210.7-, 141.3- and 105.4-fold higher geometric mean of 50% neutralizing titers (NT50) in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated convalescents. 91.4% of the superimmunized individuals showed neutralization of BA.1, 97.2% of BA.2 and 91.5% of BA.5 with a titer ≥ 640. The increase in neutralizing titers was already achieved by one vaccination dose. Neutralizing titers were highest in the first 3 months after the last immunization event. Concentrations of anti-S antibodies in the anti-SARS-CoV-2-QuantiVac-ELISA (IgG) and Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assays predicted neutralization capacity against B.1 and Omicron subvariants BA.1, BA.2 and BA.5.

Conclusions

These findings confirm substantial immune evasion of the Omicron sublineages, which can be overcome by vaccination of convalescents. This informs strategies for choosing of plasma donors in COVID-19 convalescent plasma programs that shall select specifically vaccinated convalescents with very high titers of anti-S antibodies.

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.

Clinical application of SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection and monoclonal antibody therapies against COVID-19

The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical application of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) specific antibody detection and anti-SARS-CoV-2 specific monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in the treatment of coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19). The dynamic changes of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies during COVID-19 were studied. Immunoglobulin M (IgM) appeared earlier and lasted for a short time, while immunoglobulin G (IgG) appeared later and lasted longer. IgM tests can be used for early diagnosis of COVID-19, and IgG tests can be used for late diagnosis of COVID-19 and identification of asymptomatic infected persons. The combination of antibody testing and nucleic acid testing, which complement each other, can improve the diagnosis rate of COVID-19. Monoclonal anti-SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies can be used to treat hospitalized severe and critically ill patients and non-hospitalized mild to moderate COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 convalescent plasma, highly concentrated immunoglobulin, and anti-SARS-CoV-2 specific mAbs are examples of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody products. Due to the continuous emergence of mutated strains of the novel coronavirus, especially omicron, its immune escape ability and infectivity are enhanced, making the effects of authorized products reduced or invalid. Therefore, the optimal application of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody products (especially anti-SARS-CoV-2 specific mAbs) is more effective in the treatment of COVID-19 and more conducive to patient recovery.

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.

Convalescent Plasma Therapy for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: While passive immunotherapy has been considered beneficial for patients with severe respiratory viral infections, the treatment of COVID-19 cases with convalescent plasma produced mixed results. Thus, there is a lack of certainty and consensus regarding its effectiveness. This meta-analysis aims to assess the role of convalescent plasma treatment on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients enrolled in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed database (end-of-search: 29 December 2022) for RCTs on convalescent plasma therapy compared to supportive care\standard of care. Pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated with random-effects models. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were also performed, in order to address heterogeneity and examine any potential association between the factors that varied, and the outcomes reported. The present meta-analysis was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: A total of 34 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Per overall analysis, convalescent plasma treatment was not associated with lower 28-day mortality [RR = 0.98, 95% CI (0.91, 1.06)] or improved 28-day secondary outcomes, such as hospital discharge [RR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.97, 1.03)], ICU-related or score-related outcomes, with effect estimates of RR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.98, 1.05) and RR = 1.06, 95% CI (0.95, 1.17), respectively. However, COVID-19 outpatients treated with convalescent plasma had a 26% less risk of requiring hospital care, when compared to those treated with the standard of care [RR = 0.74, 95% CI (0.56, 0.99)]. Regarding subgroup analyses, COVID-19 patients treated with convalescent plasma had an 8% lower risk of ICU-related disease progression when compared to those treated with the standard of care (with or without placebo or standard plasma infusions) [RR = 0.92, 95% CI (0.85, 0.99)] based on reported outcomes from RCTs carried out in Europe. Finally, convalescent plasma treatment was not associated with improved survival or clinical outcomes in the 14-day subgroup analyses. Conclusions: Outpatients with COVID-19 treated with convalescent plasma had a statistically significantly lower risk of requiring hospital care when compared to those treated with placebo or the standard of care. However, convalescent plasma treatment was not statistically associated with prolonged survival or improved clinical outcomes when compared to placebo or the standard of care, per overall analysis in hospitalized populations. This hints at potential benefits, when used early, to prevent progression to severe disease. Finally, convalescent plasma was significantly associated with better ICU-related outcomes in trials carried out in Europe. Well-designed prospective studies could clarify its potential benefit for specific subpopulations in the post-pandemic era.

Reduced Mortality among COVID-19 ICU Patients after Treatment with HemoClear Convalescent Plasma in Suriname

Convalescent plasma is a promising therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its efficacy in intensive care unit (ICU) patients in low- and middle-income country settings such as Suriname is unknown. Bedside plasma separation using the HemoClear device made convalescent plasma therapy accessible as a treatment option in Suriname. Two hundred patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring intensive care were recruited. Fifty eight patients (29%) received COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) treatment in addition to standard of care (SOC). The CCP treatment and SOC groups were matched by age, sex, and disease severity scores. Mortality in the CCP treatment group was significantly lower than that in the SOC group (21% versus 39%; Fisher's exact test P = 0.0133). Multivariate analysis using ICU days showed that CCP treatment reduced mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.66; P = 0.001), while complication of acute renal failure (creatinine levels, >110 mol/L; HR, 4.45; 95% CI, 2.54 to 7.80; P < 0.0001) was independently associated with death. Decrease in chest X-ray score in the CCP treatment group (median -3 points, interquartile range [IQR] -4 to -1) was significantly greater than that in the SOC group (median -1 point, IQR -3 to 1, Mann-Whitney test P = 0.0004). Improvement in the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio was also significantly greater in the CCP treatment group (median 83, IQR 8 to 140) than in the SOC group (median 35, IQR -3 to 92, Mann-Whitney P = 0.0234). Further research is needed for HemoClear-produced CCP as a therapy for SARS-CoV-2 infection together with adequately powered, randomized controlled trials. IMPORTANCE This study compares mortality and other endpoints between intensive care unit COVID-19 patients treated with convalescent plasma plus standard of care (CCP), and a control group of patients hospitalized in the same medical ICU facility treated with standard of care alone (SOC) in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC) setting using bedside donor whole blood separation by gravity (HemoClear) to produce the CCP. It demonstrates a significant 65% survival improvement in HemoClear-produced CCP recipients (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.66; P = 0.001). Although this is an exploratory study, it clearly shows the benefit of using the HemoClear-produced CCP in ICU patients in the Suriname LMIC setting. Additional studies could further substantiate our findings and their applicability for both LMICs and high-income countries and the use of CCP as a prepared readiness method to combat new viral pandemics.

Effect of convalescent plasma transfusion on outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019: a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

The aim of this review was to update evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma transfusion (CPT) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing CPT plus standard treatment versus standard treatment only in adults with COVID-19. Primary outcome measures were mortality and need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Twenty-Six RCT involving 19,816 patients were included in meta-analysis for mortality. Quantitative synthesis showed no statistically significant benefit of adding CPT to standard treatment (RR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.92 to 1.02) with unimportant heterogeneity (Q(25) = 26.48, p = .38, I² = 0.00%). Trim-and-fill-adjusted effect size was unimportantly changed and level of evidence was graded as high. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) indicated information size was adequate and CPT was futile. Seventeen trials involving 16,083 patients were included in meta-analysis for need of IMV. There was no statistically significant effect of CPT (RR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.10) with unimportant heterogeneity (Q(16) = 9.43, p = .89, I² = 3.30%). Trim-and-fill-adjusted effect size was trivially changed and level of evidence was graded as high. TSA showed information size was adequate and indicated futility of CPT. It is concluded with high level of certainty that CPT added to standard treatment of COVID-19 is not associated with reduced mortality or need of IMV compared with standard treatment alone. In view of these findings, further trials on efficacy of CPT in COVID-19 patients are probably not needed.

High-Throughput Neutralization and Serology Assays Reveal Correlated but Highly Variable Humoral Immune Responses in a Large Population of Individuals Infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the US between March and August 2020

The ability to measure neutralizing antibodies on large scale can be important for understanding features of the natural history and epidemiology of infection, as well as an aid in determining the efficacy of interventions, particularly in outbreaks such as the current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Because of the assay's rapid scalability and high efficiency, serology measurements that quantify the presence rather than function of serum antibodies often serve as proxies of immune protection. Here, we report the development of a high-throughput, automated fluorescence-based neutralization assay using SARS-CoV-2 virus to quantify neutralizing antibody activity in patient specimens. We performed large-scale testing of over 19,000 COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) samples from patients who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 between March and August 2020 across the United States. The neutralization capacity of the samples was moderately correlated with serological measurements of anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG levels. The neutralizing antibody levels within these convalescent-phase serum samples were highly variable against the original USA-WA1/2020 strain with almost 10% of individuals who had had PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection having no detectable antibodies either by serology or neutralization, and ~1/3 having no or low neutralizing activity. Discordance between neutralization and serology measurements was mainly due to the presence of non-IgG RBD isotypes. Meanwhile, natural infection with the earliest SARS-CoV-2 strain USA-WA1/2020 resulted in weaker neutralization of subsequent B.1.1.7 (alpha) and the B.1.351 (beta) variants, with 88% of samples having no activity against the BA.1 (omicron) variant. IMPORTANCE The ability to directly measure neutralizing antibodies on live SARS-CoV-2 virus in individuals can play an important role in understanding the efficacy of therapeutic interventions or vaccines. In contrast to functional neutralization assays, serological assays only quantify the presence of antibodies as a proxy of immune protection. Here, we have developed a high-throughput, automated neutralization assay for SARS-CoV-2 and measured the neutralizing activity of ~19,000 COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) samples collected across the United States between March and August of 2020. These data were used to support the FDA's interpretation of CCP efficacy in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and their issuance of emergency use authorization of CCP in 2020.

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.

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.

Comparison of Preprint Postings of Randomized Clinical Trials on COVID-19 and Corresponding Published Journal Articles: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on COVID-19 are increasingly being posted as preprints before publication in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal.

OBJECTIVE

To assess time to journal publication for COVID-19 RCT preprints and to compare differences between pairs of preprints and corresponding journal articles.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This systematic review used a meta-epidemiologic approach to conduct a literature search using the World Health Organization COVID-19 database and Embase to identify preprints published between January 1 and December 31, 2021. This review included RCTs with human participants and research questions regarding the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. For each preprint, a literature search was done to locate the corresponding journal article. Two independent reviewers read the full text, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Time to publication was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Differences between preprint and journal article pairs in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were described. Statistical analysis was performed on October 17, 2022.

FINDINGS

This study included 152 preprints. As of October 1, 2022, 119 of 152 preprints (78.3%) had been published in journals. The median time to publication was 186 days (range, 17-407 days). In a multivariable model, larger sample size and low risk of bias were associated with journal publication. With a sample size of less than 200 as the reference, sample sizes of 201 to 1000 and greater than 1000 had hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.23 (95% CI, 0.80-1.91) and 2.19 (95% CI, 1.36-3.53) for publication, respectively. With high risk of bias as the reference, medium-risk articles with some concerns for bias had an HR of 1.77 (95% CI, 1.02-3.09); those with a low risk of bias had an HR of 3.01 (95% CI, 1.71-5.30). Of the 119 published preprints, there were differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions in 65 studies (54.6%). The main conclusion in the preprint contradicted the conclusion in the journal article for 2 studies (1.7%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that there is a substantial time lag from preprint posting to journal publication. Preprints with smaller sample sizes and high risk of bias were less likely to be published. Finally, although differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were observed for preprint and journal article pairs in most studies, the main conclusion remained consistent for the majority of studies.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody-containing plasma improves outcome in patients with hematologic or solid cancer and severe COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial

Patients with cancer are at high risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with high morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, impaired humoral response renders severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines less effective and treatment options are scarce. Randomized trials using convalescent plasma are missing for high-risk patients. Here, we performed a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001632-10/DE ) in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 (n = 134) within four risk groups ((1) cancer (n = 56); (2) immunosuppression (n = 16); (3) laboratory-based risk factors (n = 36); and (4) advanced age (n = 26)) randomized to standard of care (control arm) or standard of care plus convalescent/vaccinated anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma (plasma arm). No serious adverse events were observed related to the plasma treatment. Clinical improvement as the primary outcome was assessed using a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to discharge and overall survival. For the four groups combined, those receiving plasma did not improve clinically compared with those in the control arm (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.29; P = 0.205). However, patients with cancer experienced a shortened median time to improvement (HR = 2.50; P = 0.003) and superior survival with plasma treatment versus the control arm (HR = 0.28; P = 0.042). Neutralizing antibody activity increased in the plasma cohort but not in the control cohort of patients with cancer (P = 0.001). Taken together, convalescent/vaccinated plasma may improve COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer who are unable to intrinsically generate an adequate immune response.

Absence of pathogenic viruses in COVID-19 convalescent plasma

BACKGROUND

It is important to maintain the safety of blood products by avoiding the transfusion of units with known and novel viral pathogens. It is unknown whether COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) may contain pathogenic viruses (either newly acquired or reactivated) that are not routinely screened for by blood centers.

METHODS

The DNA virome was characterized in potential CCP donors (n = 30) using viral genome specific PCR primers to identify DNA plasma virome members of the Herpesviridae [Epstein Barr Virus (EBV), cytomegalovirus (CMV), human herpesvirus 6A/B, human herpesvirus 7] and Anelloviridae [Torque teno viruses (TTV), Torque teno mini viruses (TTMV), and Torque teno midi viruses (TTMDV)] families. In addition, the RNA plasma virome was characterized using unbiased metagenomic sequencing. Sequencing was done on a HiSeq2500 using high output mode with a read length of 2X100 bp. The sequencing reads were taxonomically classified using Kraken2. CMV and EBV seroprevalence were evaluated using a chemiluminescent immunoassay.

RESULTS

TTV and TTMDV were detected in 12 (40%) and 4 (13%) of the 30 study participants, respectively; TTMDV was always associated with infection with TTV. We did not observe TTMV DNAemia. Despite CMV and EBV seroprevalences of 33.3% and 93.3%, respectively, we did not detect Herpesviridae DNA among the study participants. Metagenomic sequencing did not reveal any human RNA viruses in CCP, including no evidence of circulating SARS-CoV-2.

DISCUSSION

There was no evidence of pathogenic viruses, whether newly acquired or reactivated, in CCP despite the presence of non-pathogenic Anelloviridae. These results confirm the growing safety data supporting CCP.

Inflammatory markers and auto-Abs to type I IFNs in COVID-19 convalescent plasma cohort study

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) contains neutralising anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies that may be useful as COVID-19 passive immunotherapy in patients at risk of developing severe disease. Such plasma from convalescent patients may also have additional immune-modulatory properties when transfused to COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

CCP (n = 766) was compared to non-convalescent control plasma (n = 166) for soluble inflammatory markers, ex-vivo inflammatory bioactivity on endothelial cells, neutralising auto-Abs to type I IFNs and reported adverse events in the recipients.

FINDINGS

CCP exhibited a statistically significant increase in IL-6 and TNF-alpha levels (0.531 ± 0.04 vs 0.271 ± 0.04; (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07371-0.4446; p = 0.0061) and 0.900 ± 0.07 vs 0.283 ± 0.07 pg/mL; (95% [CI], 0.3097-0.9202; p = 0.0000829) and lower IL-10 (0.731 ± 0.07 vs 1.22 ± 0.19 pg/mL; (95% [CI], -0.8180 to -0.1633; p = 0.0034) levels than control plasma. Neutralising auto-Abs against type I IFNs were detected in 14/766 (1.8%) CCPs and were not associated with reported adverse events when transfused. Inflammatory markers and bioactivity in CCP with or without auto-Abs, or in CCP whether or not linked to adverse events in transfused patients, did not differ to a statistically significant extent.

INTERPRETATION

Overall, CCP exhibited moderately increased inflammatory markers compared to the control plasma with no discernible differences in ex-vivo bioactivity. Auto-Abs to type I IFNs detected in a small fraction of CCP were not associated with reported adverse events or differences in inflammatory markers. Additional studies, including careful clinical evaluation of patients treated with CCP, are required in order to further define the clinical relevance of these findings.

FUNDING

French National Blood Service-EFS, the Association "Les Amis de Rémi" Savigneux, France, the "Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale (Medical Research Foundation)-REACTing 2020".

One-year follow-up of the CAPSID randomized trial for high-dose convalescent plasma in severe COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUNDResults of many randomized trials on COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) have been reported, but information on long-term outcome after CCP treatment is limited. The objectives of this extended observation of the randomized CAPSID trial are to assess long-term outcome and disease burden in patients initially treated with or without CCP.METHODSOf 105 randomized patients, 50 participated in the extended observation. Quality of life (QoL) was assessed by questionnaires and a structured interview. CCP donors (n = 113) with asymptomatic to moderate COVID-19 were included as a reference group.RESULTSThe median follow-up of patients was 396 days, and the estimated 1-year survival was 78.7% in the CCP group and 60.2% in the control (P = 0.08). The subgroup treated with a higher cumulative amount of neutralizing antibodies showed a better 1-year survival compared with the control group (91.5% versus 60.2%, P = 0.01). Medical events and QoL assessments showed a consistent trend for better results in the CCP group without reaching statistical significance. There was no difference in the increase in neutralizing antibodies after vaccination between the CCP and control groups.CONCLUSIONThe trial demonstrated a trend toward better outcome in the CCP group without reaching statistical significance. A predefined subgroup analysis showed a significantly better outcome (long-term survival, time to discharge from ICU, and time to hospital discharge) among those who received a higher amount of neutralizing antibodies compared with the control group. A substantial long-term disease burden remains after severe COVID-19.Trial registrationEudraCT 2020-001310-38 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04433910.FundingBundesministerium für Gesundheit (German Federal Ministry of Health).

A data-informed system to manage scarce blood product allocation in a randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma

BACKGROUND

Equitable allocation of scarce blood products needed for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is a complex decision-making process within the blood supply chain. Strategies to improve resource allocation in this setting are lacking.

METHODS

We designed a custom-made, computerized system to manage the inventory and allocation of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in a multi-site RCT, CONCOR-1. A hub-and-spoke distribution model enabled real-time inventory monitoring and assignment for randomization. A live CCP inventory system using REDCap was programmed for spoke sites to reserve, assign, and order CCP from hospital hubs. A data-driven mixed-integer programming model with supply and demand forecasting was developed to guide the equitable allocation of CCP at hubs across Canada (excluding Québec).

RESULTS

18/38 hospital study sites were hubs with a median of 2 spoke sites per hub. A total of 394.5 500-ml doses of CCP were distributed; 349.5 (88.6%) doses were transfused; 9.5 (2.4%) were wasted due to mechanical damage sustained to the blood bags; 35.5 (9.0%) were unused at the end of the trial. Due to supply shortages, 53/394.5 (13.4%) doses were imported from Héma-Québec to Canadian Blood Services (CBS), and 125 (31.7%) were transferred between CBS regional distribution centers to meet demand. 137/349.5 (39.2%) and 212.5 (60.8%) doses were transfused at hubs and spoke sites, respectively. The mean percentages of total unmet demand were similar across the hubs, indicating equitable allocation, using our model.

CONCLUSION

Computerized tools can provide efficient and immediate solutions for equitable allocation decisions of scarce blood products in RCTs.

Convalescent or standard plasma versus standard of care in the treatment of COVID-19 patients with respiratory impairment: short and long-term effects. A three-arm randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of early treatment with convalescent plasma in patients with COVID-19 is debated. Nothing is known about the potential effect of other plasma components other than anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

METHODS

To determine whether convalescent or standard plasma would improve outcomes for adults in early phase of Covid19 respiratory impairment we designed this randomized, three-arms, clinical trial (PLACO COVID) blinded on interventional arms that was conducted from June 2020 to August 2021. It was a multicentric trial at 19 Italian hospitals. We enrolled 180 hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia within 5 days from the onset of respiratory distress. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to standard of care (n = 60) or standard of care + three units of standard plasma (n = 60) or standard of care + three units of high-titre convalescent plasma (n = 60) administered on days 1, 3, 5 after randomization. Primary outcome was 30-days mortality. Secondary outcomes were: incidence of mechanical ventilation or death at day 30, 6-month mortality, proportion of days with mechanical ventilation on total length of hospital stay, IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion, viral clearance from plasma and respiratory tract samples, and variations in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. The trial was analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

180 patients (133/180 [73.9%] males, mean age 66.6 years [IQR 57-73]) were enrolled a median of 8 days from onset of symptoms. At enrollment, 88.9% of patients showed moderate/severe respiratory failure. 30-days mortality was 20% in Control arm, 23% in Convalescent (risk ratio [RR] 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-2.13, P = 0.694) and 25% in Standard plasma (RR 1.23; 95%CI, 0.63-2.37, P = 0.544). Time to viral clearance from respiratory tract was 21 days for Convalescent, 28 for Standard plasma and 23 in Control arm but differences were not statistically significant. No differences for other secondary endpoints were seen in the three arms. Serious adverse events were reported in 1.7%, 3.3% and 5% of patients in Control, Standard and Convalescent plasma arms respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither high-titer Convalescent nor Standard plasma improve outcomes of COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04428021. First posted: 11/06/2020.

The clinical outcomes of high neutralizing antibodies titer convalescent plasma therapy in early developed severe COVID-19 patients; a case-control study

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes life-threatening pneumonia. Convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) is expected to be the effective COVID-19 treatment for passive immunity. The high neutralizing antibodies titer of CPT is needed to prove the benefit in early developed severe COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE

This case-control study evaluated transfusion efficacy and adverse events with high-titer (≥ 1:320) COVID-19 convalescent plasma compared with standard care alone in severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

RESULTS

Among 107 severe COVID-19 patients, 55 received CPT plus standard care, and 52 received standard care alone. All-cause mortality was 15.3% in the CPT group compared with 85.4% in the standard care group (p < 0.001). Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed reduced mortality with CPT (HR 0.14; 95% CI 0.07-0.31; p < 0.001 and HR 0.26; 95% CI 0.08-0.79; p = 0.018, respectively). CPT resulted in decreased use of mechanical ventilation, duration of supplemental oxygen, and high-flow oxygen requirement. Clinical and radiological outcomes improved.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate high neutralizing antibody titer CPT is safe and reduces mortality in early developed severe COVID-19 patients. The benefit of CPT in the early course of illness is challenging and requires additional study. Trial registration Thai clinical trials registry (TCTR) no. 20220101003.

Nucleocapsid-specific antibody function is associated with therapeutic benefits from COVID-19 convalescent plasma therapy

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP), a passive polyclonal antibody therapeutic agent, has had mixed clinical results. Although antibody neutralization is the predominant approach to benchmarking CCP efficacy, CCP may also influence the evolution of the endogenous antibody response. Using systems serology to comprehensively profile severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) functional antibodies of hospitalized people with COVID-19 enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of CCP (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04397757), we find that the clinical benefits of CCP are associated with a shift toward reduced inflammatory Spike (S) responses and enhanced nucleocapsid (N) humoral responses. We find that CCP has the greatest clinical benefit in participants with low pre-existing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody function and that CCP-induced immunomodulatory Fc glycan profiles and N immunodominant profiles persist for at least 2 months. We highlight a potential mechanism of action of CCP associated with durable immunomodulation, outline optimal patient characteristics for CCP treatment, and provide guidance for development of a different class of COVID-19 hyperinflammation-targeting antibody therapeutic agents.

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.

Therapeutic Strategies in the Fight against COVID-19: From Bench to Bedside

In December 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in China. This virus rapidly spread worldwide and was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2020. High incidence, long incubation period, and diverse clinical signs of the disease posed a huge challenge globally. The efforts of health systems have been focused on repurposing existing drugs or developing innovative therapies to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2. In addition, most of the large pharmaceutical companies are intensely working on vaccine development to swiftly deliver safe and effective vaccines to prevent further spread of the virus. In this review, we will discuss the latest data on therapeutic strategies undergoing clinical trials. Additionally, we will provide a summary of vaccines currently under development.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Hospitalized Patients-An Open-Label Phase II Clinical Trial

Background: COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is an important antiviral option for selected patients with COVID-19. Materials and Methods: In this open-label, phase 2, clinical trial conducted from 30 April 2020 till 10 May 2021 in the Republic of North Macedonia, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of CCP in hospitalized patients. Treatment was with a single unit of CCP having an anti-RBD IgG concentration higher than 5 AU/mL. Results: There were 189 patients that completed the study, of which 65 (34.4%) had WHO 8-point clinical progression scale score of 3 (requiring hospital care but not oxygen support), 65 (34.4%) had a score of 4 (hospitalized and requiring supplemental oxygen by mask or nasal prongs), and 59 (31.2%) had a score of 5 (hospitalized and requiring supplemental oxygen by non-invasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen). Mean age was 57 years (range 22−94), 78.5% were males, 80.4% had elevated body mass index, and 70.9% had comorbidity. Following CCP transfusion, we observed clinical improvement with increase rates in oxygenation-free days of 32.3% and 58.5% at 24 h and seven days after CCP transfusion, a decline in WHO scores, and reduced progression to severe disease (only one patient was admitted to ICU after CCP transfusion). Mortality in the entire cohort was 11.6% (22/189). We recorded 0% mortality in WHO score 3 (0/65) and in patients that received CCP transfusion in the first seven days of disease, 4.6% mortality in WHO score 4 (3/65), and 30.5% mortality in WHO score 5 (18/59). Mortality correlated with WHO score (Chi-square 19.3, p < 0.001) and with stay in the ICU (Chi-square 55.526, p ≤ 0.001). No severe adverse events were reported. Conclusions: This study showed that early administration of CCP to patients with moderate disease was a safe and potentially effective treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04397523).

Efficacy and Safety of Convalescence Plasma Therapy in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has outbroken into a global pandemic. The death rate for hospital patients varied between 11% and 15%. Although COVID-19 is extremely contagious and has a high fatality rate, the amount of knowledge available in the published literature and public sources is rapidly growing. The efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) therapy for COVID-19 is controversial.

Objective

This meta-analysis was designed to assess the efficacy of CP therapy for COVID-19 through a literature survey.

Methods

Until August 30, 2021, a literature search was undertaken in Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlling Trials (Central), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases. The Risk Ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a fixed or random effect model in dichotomous data. Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a fixed or random effect model in continuous data. Studies with missing or unsuitable data were presented descriptively in the outcomes.

Results

In total, thirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected for the present meta-analysis, which included a total of 13232 participants. Our results revealed that the CP group has lower mortality compared to the control group, and there was a statistically significant difference (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.55, 0.89, Z = 2.92, P = 0.004 < 0.01); other secondary outcomes such as the shortness of breath symptom improved significantly in CP group (RR:1.48, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.93, Z = 2.85, P = 0.004 < 0.01), as well as Interleukin-6 (IL-6) (MD: -4.46, 95% CI: -8.28, -0.63, Z = 2.28, P = 0.02 < 0.05) and Ferritin (MD: -447.68, 95% CI: -501.75, -393.6, Z = 16.23, P < 0.00001) are reduced significantly in CP group. However, there was no statistically significant change in the ventilator withdrawal rate, imaging results improvement, or days to hospital discharge. There was also no substantial difference in viral nucleic acid negative conversion rate and neutralizing antibody-positive conversion rate, as well as the incidence of adverse reactions.

Conclusions

The safety and potential efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy offer a promising treatment strategy for COVID-19. CP therapy can reduce mortality and improve breath and inflammatory cytokines IL-6 and Ferritin in COVID-19 with no significant increase in adverse reactions. However, it does not affect improving virology indicators. In summary, more high-quality clinical trials are needed to verify the conclusion of the present study.

Cytokine levels associated with favorable clinical outcome in the CAPSID randomized trial of convalescent plasma in patients with severe COVID-19

Objectives

To determine the profile of cytokines in patients with severe COVID-19 who were enrolled in a trial of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP).

Methods

Patients were randomized to receive standard treatment and 3 CCP units or standard treatment alone (CAPSID trial, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04433910). The primary outcome was a dichotomous composite outcome (survival and no longer severe COVID-19 on day 21). Time to clinical improvement was a key secondary endpoint. The concentrations of 27 cytokines were measured (baseline, day 7). We analyzed the change and the correlation between serum cytokine levels over time in different subgroups and the prediction of outcome in receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses and in multivariate models.

Results

The majority of cytokines showed significant changes from baseline to day 7. Some were strongly correlated amongst each other (at baseline the cluster IL-1ß, IL-2, IL-6, IL-8, G-CSF, MIP-1α, the cluster PDGF-BB, RANTES or the cluster IL-4, IL-17, Eotaxin, bFGF, TNF-α). The correlation matrix substantially changed from baseline to day 7. The heatmaps of the absolute values of the correlation matrix indicated an association of CCP treatment and clinical outcome with the cytokine pattern. Low levels of IP-10, IFN-γ, MCP-1 and IL-1ß on day 0 were predictive of treatment success in a ROC analysis. In multivariate models, low levels of IL-1ß, IFN-γ and MCP-1 on day 0 were significantly associated with both treatment success and shorter time to clinical improvement. Low levels of IP-10, IL-1RA, IL-6, MCP-1 and IFN-γ on day 7 and high levels of IL-9, PDGF and RANTES on day 7 were predictive of treatment success in ROC analyses. Low levels of IP-10, MCP-1 and high levels of RANTES, on day 7 were associated with both treatment success and shorter time to clinical improvement in multivariate models.

Conclusion

This analysis demonstrates a considerable dynamic of cytokines over time, which is influenced by both treatment and clinical course of COVID-19. Levels of IL-1ß and MCP-1 at baseline and MCP-1, IP-10 and RANTES on day 7 were associated with a favorable outcome across several endpoints. These cytokines should be included in future trials for further evaluation as predictive factors.

Platelets and Sera from Donors of Convalescent Plasma after Mild COVID-19 Show No Procoagulant Phenotype

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased thromboembolic complications. Long-term alteration in the coagulation system after acute COVID-19 infection is still a subject of research. Furthermore, the effect of sera from convalescent subjects on platelets is not known. In this study, we investigated platelet phenotype, coagulation, and fibrinolysis in COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) donors and analyzed convalescent sera-induced effects on platelets. We investigated CCP donors who had a history of mild COVID-19 infection and donors who did not have COVID-19 were used as controls. We analyzed phosphatidylserine (PS) externalization, CD62p expression, and glycoprotein VI (GPVI) shedding both in platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and after incubation of washed healthy platelets with donors' sera using flow cytometry. Coagulation and fibrinolysis systems were assessed with thromboelastometry. Forty-seven CCP donors (22 males, 25 females; mean age (±SD): 41.4 ± 13.7 years) with a history of mild COVID-19 infection were included. Median duration after acute COVID-19 infection was 97 days (range, 34–401). We did not find an increased PS externalization, CD62p expression, or GPVI shedding in platelets from CCP donors. Sera from CCP donors did not induce PS externalization or GPVI shedding in healthy platelets. Sera-induced CD62p expression was slightly, albeit statistically significantly, lower in CCP donors than in plasma donors without a history of COVID-19. One patient showed increased maximum clot firmness and prolonged lysis time in thromboelastometry. Our findings suggest that procoagulant platelet phenotype is not present after mild COVID-19. Furthermore, CCP sera do not affect the activation status of platelets.

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.

Decrease in Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme activity but not concentration in plasma/lungs in COVID-19 patients offers clues for diagnosis/treatment

Although several therapeutics are used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, there is still no definitive metabolic marker to evaluate disease severity and recovery or a quantitative test to end quarantine. Because severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infects human cells via the angiotensin-converting-enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor and COVID-19 is associated with renin-angiotensin system dysregulation, we evaluated soluble ACE2 (sACE2) activity in the plasma/saliva of 80 hospitalized COVID-19 patients and 27 non-COVID-19 volunteers, and levels of ACE2/Ang (1-7) in plasma or membrane (mACE2) in lung autopsy samples. sACE2 activity was markedly reduced (p < 0.0001) in COVID-19 plasma (n = 59) compared with controls (n = 27). Nadir sACE2 activity in early hospitalization was restored during disease recovery, irrespective of patient age, demographic variations, or comorbidity; in convalescent plasma-administered patients (n = 45), restoration was statistically higher than matched controls (n = 22, p = 0.0021). ACE2 activity was also substantially reduced in the saliva of COVID-19 patients compared with controls (p = 0.0065). There is a strong inverse correlation between sACE2 concentration and sACE2 activity and Ang (1-7) levels in participant plasmas. However, there were no difference in membrane ACE2 levels in lungs of autopsy tissues of COVID-19 (n = 800) versus other conditions (n = 300). These clinical observations suggest sACE2 activity as a potential biomarker and therapeutic target for COVID-19.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials.

OBJECTIVE

Develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

Based on the most recent search conducted on May 31, 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 30 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were done which provided much needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved which we hope future trials can answer.

Clinical Practice Guidelines From the Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB): COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma

DESCRIPTION

Coronavirus disease 2019 convalescent plasma (CCP) has emerged as a potential treatment of COVID-19. However, meta-analysis data and recommendations are limited. The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB) developed clinical practice guidelines for the appropriate use of CCP.

METHODS

These guidelines are based on 2 living systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CCP from 1 January 2019 to 26 January 2022. There were 33 RCTs assessing 21 916 participants. The results were summarized using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. An expert panel reviewed the data using the GRADE framework to formulate recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION 1 (OUTPATIENT)

The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for outpatients with COVID-19 who are at high risk for disease progression (weak recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 2 (INPATIENT)

The AABB recommends against CCP transfusion for unselected hospitalized persons with moderate or severe disease (strong recommendation, high-certainty evidence). This recommendation does not apply to immunosuppressed patients or those who lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.

RECOMMENDATION 3 (INPATIENT)

The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detected at admission (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 4 (INPATIENT)

The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting immunosuppression (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 5 (PROPHYLAXIS)

The AABB suggests against prophylactic CCP transfusion for uninfected persons with close contact exposure to a person with COVID-19 (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).

GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE STATEMENT

CCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers to infected patients early after symptom onset.

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.