Convalescent Plasma Therapy, Therapeutic Formulations of Repurposed Drugs in 20th Century Epidemics against COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Nanoparticles of natural product-derived medicines: Beyond the pandemic

This review explores the synergistic potential of natural products and nanotechnology for viral infections, highlighting key antiviral, immunomodulatory, and antioxidant properties to combat pandemics caused by highly infectious viruses. These pandemics often result in severe public health crises, particularly affecting vulnerable populations due to respiratory complications and increased mortality rates. A cytokine storm is initiated when an overload of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines is released, leading to a systemic inflammatory response. Viral mutations and the limited availability of effective drugs, vaccines, and therapies contribute to the continuous transmission of the virus. The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has sparked renewed interest in natural product-derived antivirals. The efficacy of traditional medicines against pandemic viral infections is examined. Their antiviral, immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant properties are highlighted. This review discusses how nanotechnology enhances the efficacy of herbal medicines in combating viral infections.

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.

COVID-19 in Adult Patients with Hematological Malignancies-Lessons Learned after Three Years of Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic is undoubtedly the most difficult health challenge of the 21st century with more than 600 million laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and over 6.5 million deaths worldwide. The coronavirus pandemic contributed to rapid development of mRNA vaccines, which, along with new antiviral drugs, have been the subject of extensive research for many decades. Nevertheless, elderly, multi-morbid and immunocompromised patients continue to face a more severe clinical course and a higher risk of death from COVID-19, even now that the risk of COVID-19 in the general population is significantly reduced due to the introduction of global vaccination strategies. In this paper, we present the mechanisms of increased susceptibility to infectious complications and the evolution of the clinical course of COVID-19 in patients with hematological malignancies, taking into account the mutation of the virus and the introduction of vaccines and new antiviral drugs. We also present current recommendations for prophylactic and therapeutic management in patients with hematological malignancies.

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

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

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.

Effects of convalescent plasma infusion on the ADAMTS13-von Willebrand factor axis and endothelial integrity in patients with severe and critical COVID-19

Background

Convalescent plasma infusion (CPI) was given to patients with COVID-19 during the early pandemic with mixed therapeutic efficacy. However, the impacts of CPI on the ADAMTS13-von Willebrand factor (VWF) axis and vascular endothelial functions are not known.

Objectives

To determine the impacts of CPI on the ADAMTS13-VWF axis and vascular endothelial functions.

Methods

Sixty hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were enrolled in the study; 46 received CPI and 14 received no CPI. Plasma ADAMTS13 activity, VWF antigen, endothelial syndecan-1, and soluble thrombomodulin (sTM) were assessed before and 24 hours after treatment.

Results

Patients with severe and critical COVID-19 exhibited significantly lower plasma ADAMTS13 activity than the healthy controls. Conversely, these patients showed a significantly increased VWF antigen. This resulted in markedly reduced ratios of ADAMTS13 to VWF in these patients. The levels of plasma ADAMTS13 activity in each patient remained relatively constant throughout hospitalization. Twenty-four hours following CPI, plasma ADAMTS13 activity increased by ∼12% from the baseline in all patients and ∼21% in those who survived. In contrast, plasma levels of VWF antigen varied significantly over time. Patients who died exhibited a significant reduction of plasma VWF antigen from the baseline 24 hours following CPI, whereas those who survived did not. Furthermore, patients with severe and critical COVID-19 showed significantly elevated plasma levels of syndecan-1 and sTM, similar to those found in patients with immune thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. Both syndecan-1 and sTM levels were significantly reduced 24 hours following CPI.

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate the relative deficiency of plasma ADAMTS13 activity and endothelial damage in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, which could be modestly improved following CPI therapy.

Potential links between COVID-19 and periodontitis: a bioinformatic analysis based on GEO datasets

Background

2019 Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The COVID-19 pandemic has already had a serious influence on human existence, causing a huge public health concern for countries all around the world. Because SARS-CoV-2 infection can be spread by contact with the oral cavity, the link between oral illness and COVID-19 is gaining traction. Through bioinformatics approaches, we explored the possible molecular mechanisms linking the COVID-19 and periodontitis to provide the basis and direction for future research.

Methods

Transcriptomic data from blood samples of patients with COVID-19 and periodontitis was downloaded from the Gene Expression Omnibus database. The shared differentially expressed genes were identified. The analysis of Gene Ontology, Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genesand Genomes pathway, and protein–protein interaction network was conducted for the shared differentially expressed genes. Top 5 hub genes were selected through Maximal Clique Centrality algorithm. Then mRNA-miRNA network of the hub genes was established based on miRDB database, miRTarbase database and Targetscan database. The Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression analysis was used to discover possible biomarkers, which were then investigated in relation to immune-related genes.

Results

Fifty-six shared genes were identified through differential expression analysis in COVID-19 and periodontitis. The function of these genes was enriched in regulation of hormone secretion, regulation of secretion by cell. Myozenin 2 was identified through Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression Analysis, which was down-regulated in both COVID-19 and periodontitis. There was a positive correlation between Myozenin 2 and the biomarker of activated B cell, memory B cell, effector memory CD4 T cell, Type 17 helper cell, T follicular helper cell and Type 2 helper cell.

Conclusion

By bioinformatics analysis, Myozenin 2 is predicted to correlate to the pathogenesis and immune infiltrating of COVID-19 and periodontitis. However, more clinical and experimental researches are needed to validate the function of Myozenin 2.

Effectiveness of Comirnaty® Vaccine and Correlates of Immunogenicity and Adverse Reactions: A Single-Center Prospective Case Series Study

The literature suggests that real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of the BNT162b2 vaccine depend on the characteristics of the vaccinated volunteers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate antibody responses and kinetics, established association with sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, and adverse reactions after complete vaccination with the BNT162b2 vaccine. A single-center prospective case series study was conducted with 112 eligible volunteers who were institutionalized elderly and health care workers with had a negative anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG test prior to receiving the first dose of vaccine. At least one serological antibody test after each dose of vaccine was performed. Volunteers with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test before vaccination were excluded. A chemiluminescent immunoassay anti-S1 antibody assay performed a serological evaluation. Both vaccine doses elicited positive IgG antibodies 3799.0 ± 2503.0 AU/mL and 8212.0 ± 4731.0 AU/mL after 20 days of the first and second doses of BNT162b2, respectively. Comirnaty® vaccine induced an immune response with antibody production against SARS-CoV-2 in 100% of participants, regardless of age (Spearman rho = −0.10, p-value = 0.312), body mass index (Spearman rho = 0.05, p-value = 0.640), blood group first dose (p-value for Kruskal−Wallis test = 0.093) and second dose (p-value for Kruskal−Wallis test = 0. 268), number of drugs (Spearman rho = −0.07, p-value = 0.490), and number of chronic diseases first dose (p-value for Kruskal−Wallis test = 0.632) and second dose (p-value for Kruskal−Wallis test = 0.510). IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 were intensely elevated after the second administration of the BNT162b2 vaccine. The higher the titer of anti-peptide IgG antibodies generated after the first dose of vaccine, the higher the titer generated by the second dose of vaccine (Spearman rho = 0.86, p-value < 0.001) and the total antibody titer (Spearman rho = 0.93, p-value < 0.001). Furthermore, no serious adverse effects were reported among participants, although mild to moderate adverse effects (local or systemic) were reported after both doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine, being more frequent after the first dose of the vaccine. No participants showed a positive PCR. The BNT162b2 vaccine induces a robust and rapid antibody response regardless of participant characteristics. The second dose might be especially important because of the increased immunogenicity it produces and the possible temporal distancing of the interval between doses. In general, the vaccines were well tolerated.