Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

The Effects of Convalescent Plasma Transfusion on Serum Levels of Macrophage-Associated Inflammatory Biomarkers in Patients with Severe COVID-19

As an antibody-based therapy, plasma therapy has been used as an emergency therapeutic strategy against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 infection. Due to the critical role of macrophages in coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19)-associated hyperinflammation, the main objective of this study was to assess the effect of plasma transfusion on the expression levels of the inflammatory biomarkers involved in activation and pulmonary infiltration of macrophages. The target population included 50 severe hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were randomly assigned into 2 groups, including intervention and control. Serum levels of chemokine (C-C motif) ligand (CCL)-2, CCL-3, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, and interleukin (IL)-6 were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Moreover, quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was carried out to assess the relative expression of nuclear factor (NF)-κB1, NF-κB2, nuclear factor erythroid 2 p45-related factor 2 (NRF-2), and thioredoxin-interacting protein genes. Sampling was done at baseline and 72 h after receiving plasma. The intervention group demonstrated significantly lower serum levels of IL-6, TNF-α, and CCL-3. In addition, real-time PCR data analyses showed that the relative expression of NF-κB2 was significantly declined in the patients who received plasma. The use of convalescent plasma probably has a significant inhibitory effect on the cytokines, chemokines, and inflammatory genes related to macrophage activation, which are closely associated with the worsening of clinical outcomes in severe COVID-19.

Quality of life and cost-effectiveness of convalescent plasma compared to standard care for hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the CONCOR-1 trial

BACKGROUND

The CONvalescent Plasma for Hospitalized Adults With COVID-19 Respiratory Illness (CONCOR-1) trial was a multicenter randomized controlled trial assessing convalescent plasma in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of convalescent plasma and its impact on quality-of-life to provide insight into its potential as an alternative treatment in resource-constrained settings.

METHODS

Individual patient data on health outcomes and resource utilization from the CONCOR-1 trial were used to conduct the analysis from the Canadian public payer's perspective with a time horizon of 30 days post-randomization. Baseline and 30-day EQ-5D-5L were measured to calculate quality-adjusted survival. All costs are presented in 2021 Canadian dollars. The base case assessed the EQ-5D-5L scores of hospitalized inpatients reporting at both timepoints, and a utility score of 0 was assigned for patients who died within 30 days. Costs for all patients enrolled were used. The sensitivity analysis utilizes EQ-5D-5L scores from the same population but only uses costs from this population.

RESULTS

940 patients were randomized: 627 received CCP and 313 received standard care. The total costs were $28,716 (standard deviation, $25,380) and $24,258 ($22,939) for the convalescent plasma and standard care arms respectively. EQ-5D-5L scores were 0.61 in both arms (p = .85) at baseline. At 30 days, EQ-5D-5L scores were 0.63 and 0.64 for patients in the convalescent plasma and standard care arms, respectively (p = .46). The incremental cost was $4458 and the incremental quality-adjusted life day was -0.078.

DISCUSSION

Convalescent plasma was less effective and more costly than standard care in treating hospitalized COVID-19.

Next-generation treatments: Immunotherapy and advanced therapies for COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), emerged in 2019 following prior outbreaks of coronaviruses like SARS and MERS in recent decades, underscoring their high potential of infectivity in humans. Insights from previous outbreaks of SARS and MERS have played a significant role in developing effective strategies to mitigate the global impact of SARS-CoV-2. As of January 7, 2024, there have been 774,075,242 confirmed cases of COVID-19 worldwide. To date, 13.59 billion vaccine doses have been administered, and there have been 7,012,986 documented fatalities (https://www.who.int/) Despite significant progress in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid evolution of SARS-CoV-2 challenges human defenses, presenting ongoing global challenges. The emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 lineages, shaped by mutation and recombination processes, has led to successive waves of infections. This scenario reveals the need for next-generation vaccines as a crucial requirement for ensuring ongoing protection against SARS-CoV-2. This demand calls for formulations that trigger a robust adaptive immune response without leading the acute inflammation linked with the infection. Key mutations detected in the Spike protein, a critical target for neutralizing antibodies and vaccine design -specifically within the Receptor Binding Domain region of Omicron variant lineages (B.1.1.529), currently dominant worldwide, have intensified concerns due to their association with immunity evasion from prior vaccinations and infections. As the world deals with this evolving threat, the narrative extends to the realm of emerging variants, each displaying new mutations with implications that remain largely misunderstood. Notably, the JN.1 Omicron lineage is gaining global prevalence, and early findings suggest it stands among the immune-evading variants, a characteristic attributed to its mutation L455S. Moreover, the detrimental consequences of the novel emergence of SARS-CoV-2 lineages bear a particularly critical impact on immunocompromised individuals and older adults. Immunocompromised individuals face challenges such as suboptimal responses to COVID-19 vaccines, rendering them more susceptible to severe disease. Similarly, older adults have an increased risk of severe disease and the presence of comorbid conditions, find themselves at a heightened vulnerability to develop COVID-19 disease. Thus, recognizing these intricate factors is crucial for effectively tailoring public health strategies to protect these vulnerable populations. In this context, this review aims to describe, analyze, and discuss the current progress of the next-generation treatments encompassing immunotherapeutic approaches and advanced therapies emerging as complements that will offer solutions to counter the disadvantages of the existing options. Preliminary outcomes show that these strategies target the virus and address the immunomodulatory responses associated with COVID-19. Furthermore, the capacity to promote tissue repair has been demonstrated, which can be particularly noteworthy for immunocompromised individuals who stand as vulnerable actors in the global landscape of coronavirus infections. The emerging next-generation treatments possess broader potential, offering protection against a wide range of variants and enhancing the ability to counter the impact of the constant evolution of the virus. Furthermore, advanced therapies are projected as potential treatment alternatives for managing Chronic Post-COVID-19 syndromeand addressing its associated long-term complications.

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.

Convalescent Plasma for Covid-19-Induced ARDS in Mechanically Ventilated Patients

BACKGROUND

Passive immunization with plasma collected from convalescent patients has been regularly used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Minimal data are available regarding the use of convalescent plasma in patients with Covid-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

METHODS

In this open-label trial, we randomly assigned adult patients with Covid-19-induced ARDS who had been receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for less than 5 days in a 1:1 ratio to receive either convalescent plasma with a neutralizing antibody titer of at least 1:320 or standard care alone. Randomization was stratified according to the time from tracheal intubation to inclusion. The primary outcome was death by day 28.

RESULTS

A total of 475 patients underwent randomization from September 2020 through March 2022. Overall, 237 patients were assigned to receive convalescent plasma and 238 to receive standard care. Owing to a shortage of convalescent plasma, a neutralizing antibody titer of 1:160 was administered to 17.7% of the patients in the convalescent-plasma group. Glucocorticoids were administered to 466 patients (98.1%). At day 28, mortality was 35.4% in the convalescent-plasma group and 45.0% in the standard-care group (P = 0.03). In a prespecified analysis, this effect was observed mainly in patients who underwent randomization 48 hours or less after the initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation. Serious adverse events did not differ substantially between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of plasma collected from convalescent donors with a neutralizing antibody titer of at least 1:160 to patients with Covid-19-induced ARDS within 5 days after the initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation significantly reduced mortality at day 28. This effect was mainly observed in patients who underwent randomization 48 hours or less after ventilation initiation. (Funded by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Center; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04558476.).

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.

The Relationship Between SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody Titers and Avidity in Plasma Collected From Convalescent Nonvaccinated and Vaccinated Blood Donors

Convalescent plasma (CP) treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has shown significant therapeutic effect when administered early (eg, Argentinian trial showing reduced hospitalization) but has in general been ineffective (eg, REMAP-CAP trial without improvement during hospitalization). To investigate whether the differences in CP used could explain the different outcomes, we compared neutralizing antibodies, anti-spike IgG, and avidity of CP used in the REMAP-CAP and Argentinian trials and in convalescent vaccinees. We found no difference between the trial plasmas, emphasizing initial patient serostatus as treatment efficacy predictor. By contrast, vaccinee CP showed significantly higher titers and avidity, being preferable for future CP treatment. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT02735707 and NCT04479163.

Quality assessment and harmonization of laboratories across Europe for multiple SARS-CoV-2 serology assays

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is a need for conversion of SARS-CoV-2 serology data from different laboratories to a harmonized international unit. We aimed to compare the performance of multiple SARS-CoV-2 antibody serology assays among 25 laboratories across 12 European countries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To investigate this we have distributed to all participating laboratories a panel of 15 SARS-CoV-2 plasma samples and a single batch of pooled plasma calibrated to the WHO IS 20/136 standard.

RESULTS

All assays showed excellent discrimination between SARS-CoV-2 seronegative plasma samples and pre-vaccinated seropositive plasma samples but differed substantially in raw antibody titres. Titres could be harmonized to binding antibody units per millilitre by calibration in relation to a reference reagent.

CONCLUSION

The standardization of antibody quantification is of paramount importance to allow interpretation and comparison of serology data reported in clinical trials in order to identify donor cohorts from whom the most effective convalescent plasma can be collected.

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

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

Risk Factors Related to the Death of Admitted COVID-19 Patients: A Buffalo Study

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may result in a severe acute respiratory syndrome that leads to a worldwide pandemic. Despite the increasing understanding of COVID-19 disease, the mortality rate of hospitalized COVID-19 patients remains high.

Objective

To investigate the risk factors related to the mortality of admitted COVID-19 patients during the peak of the epidemic from August 2021 to October 2021 in Vietnam.

Methods

This is a prospective cohort study performed at the Hospital for Rehabilitation-Professional diseases. The baseline and demographic data, medical history, clinical examination, the laboratory results were recorded for patients admitted to the hospital with confirmed COVID-19. A radiologist and a pulmonologist will read the chest radiographs on admission and calculate the Brixia scores to classify the severity of lung abnormalities. Patients were followed up until beingrecovered or their death. Comparison of clinical and subclinical characteristics between recovery and death groups to find out risk factors related to the death of COVID-19 patients.

Results

Among 104 admitted COVID-19 patients, men accounted for 42.3%, average age of 61.7 ± 13.7. The most common symptoms were fever 76.9%, breathlessness 74%, and fatigue 53.8%. The majority (84.6%) of the study population had at least one co-morbidity, including hypertension (53.8%), diabetes (25.9%), gastritis (19.2%), ischemic heart disease (15.4) %), stroke (9.6%) and osteoarthritis (9.6%). The rate of mild and moderate COVID-19 is 13.4%, severe 32.7%, and critical 40.4%. There are 88 inpatients (84.6%) who needed respiratory support. The median hospital stay was 13 days (IQR 10-17.75 days). The rate of intubated patients with mechanical ventilation was 31.7%. The overall mortality rate was 29.8%. Risk factors related to death included Brixia scores > 9, Urea > 7 mmol/L, Ferrtin > 578 ng/ml, Failure to get vaccinated, Age > 60 years, and Low Oxygen SpO2 < 87% (BUFFALO).

Conclusion

The main result of the study is the independent risk factors related to the death of admitted COVID-19 patients including Brixia scores > 9, Urea > 7 mmol/L, Ferrtin > 578 ng/ml, Failure to get vaccinated, Age > 60 years, and Low Oxygen SpO2 < 87% ((BUFFALO) which suggests that these COVID-19 patients should be closely followed up.

Simple prediction of COVID-19 convalescent plasma units with high levels of neutralization antibodies

BACKGROUND

Hyperimmune convalescent COVID-19 plasma (CCP) containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) was proposed as a therapeutic option for patients early in the new coronavirus disease pandemic. The efficacy of this therapy depends on the quantity of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) in the CCP units, with titers ≥ 1:160 being recommended. The standard neutralizing tests (NTs) used for determining appropriate CCP donors are technically demanding and expensive and take several days. We explored whether they could be replaced by high-throughput serology tests and a set of available clinical data.

METHODS

Our study included 1302 CCP donors after PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection. To predict donors with high NAb titers, we built four (4) multiple logistic regression models evaluating the relationships of demographic data, COVID-19 symptoms, results of various serological testing, the period between disease and donation, and COVID-19 vaccination status.

RESULTS

The analysis of the four models showed that the chemiluminescent microparticle assay (CMIA) for the quantitative determination of IgG Abs to the RBD of the S1 subunit of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was enough to predict the CCP units with a high NAb titer. CCP donors with respective results > 850 BAU/ml SARS-CoV-2 IgG had a high probability of attaining sufficient NAb titers. Including additional variables such as donor demographics, clinical symptoms, or time of donation into a particular predictive model did not significantly increase its sensitivity and specificity.

CONCLUSION

A simple quantitative serological determination of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies alone is satisfactory for recruiting CCP donors with high titer NAbs.

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.

Assessment of the impact of pathogen reduction technologies on the neutralizing activity of COVID-19 convalescent plasma

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) could improve the clinical outcome of COVID-19 patients when high-titer CCP is administered in early stages of disease. However, CCP donors have a risk profile like first-time donors, pathogen reduction treatment (PRT) may mitigate such risk but should not impact CCP quality. The current study aims to assess the impact of PRT-technologies available in Saudi Arabia on the neutralizing activity of CCP. STUDY DESIGN: and Methods: CCP was collected from eligible donors by plasmapheresis. The neutralization titer was determined with an in-house microneutralization assay (MNA) using a local SARS-CoV-2 clinical isolate. Selected units were split and subject to PRT with amotosalen/UVA (AS) or Riboflavin/UVB (RB) (pairwise side-by-side comparison) followed by a second MNA analysis. 51 CCP units were collected, 27 were included in the analysis reaching the minimum MNA titer of 1:40 (4 reached high titer (≥1:250)). 27 CCP units were treated with AS and 14 with RB, the median MNA pre-treatment titer was 1:80 (1:40-640). The impact of AS and RB PRT on CCP neutralizing activity was not significantly different, nor in the total analysis neither in the pairwise comparison (94.6 vs 96.4 % retention, p > 0.05). No correlation of titer and blood group was observed, but a trend for increasing MNA titer with donor age, choosing donors with an age > 45 years would increase the number of high-titer CCP donors. The difference in impact of AS and RB on CCP MNA titer was below the limit of detection of the assay (0.5-fold).

Cardiovascular Complications in Coronavirus Disease 2019-Pathogenesis and Management

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused a devastating impact on morbidity and mortality around the world. Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 has a characteristic tropism for the cardiovascular system by entering the host cells and binding to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, which are expressed in different cells, particularly endothelial cells. This endothelial injury is linked by a direct intracellular viral invasion leading to inflammation, microthrombosis, and angiogenesis. COVID-19 has been associated with acute myocarditis, cardiac arrhythmias, new onset or worsening heart failure, ischemic heart disease, stroke, and thromboembolic disease. This review summarizes key relevant literature regarding the epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and preventive measures related to cardiovascular complications in the setting of COVID-19.

Comparison of allocation strategies of convalescent plasma to reduce excess infections and mortality from SARS-CoV-2 in a US-like population

BACKGROUND

While the use of convalescent plasma (CP) in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has been inconsistent, CP has the potential to reduce excess morbidity and mortality in future pandemics. Given constraints on CP supply, decisions surrounding the allocation of CP must be made.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Using a discrete-time stochastic compartmental model, we simulated implementation of four potential allocation strategies: administering CP to individuals in early hospitalization with COVID-19; administering CP to individuals in outpatient settings; administering CP to hospitalized individuals and administering any remaining CP to outpatient individuals and administering CP in both settings while prioritizing outpatient individuals. We examined the final size of SARS-CoV-2 infections, peak and cumulative hospitalizations, and cumulative deaths under each of the allocation scenarios over a 180-day period. We compared the cost per weighted health benefit under each strategy.

RESULTS

Prioritizing administration to patients in early hospitalization, with remaining plasma administered in outpatient settings, resulted in the highest reduction in mortality, averting on average 15% more COVID-19 deaths than administering to hospitalized individuals alone (95% CI [11%-18%]). Prioritizing administration to outpatients, with remaining plasma administered to hospitalized individuals, had the highest percentage of hospitalizations averted (22% [21%-23%] higher than administering to hospitalized individuals alone).

DISCUSSION

Convalescent plasma allocation strategy should be determined by the relative priority of averting deaths, infections, or hospitalizations. Under conditions considered, mixed allocation strategies (allocating CP to both outpatient and hospitalized individuals) resulted in a larger percentage of infections and deaths averted than administering CP in a single setting.

Establishing COVID-19 trials at scale and pace: Experience from the RECOVERY trial

The Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) Trial was set up in March 2020 to evaluate treatments for people hospitalised with COVID-19. To maximise recruitment it was designed to fit into routine clinical care throughout the UK, and as a result it has enrolled more patients than any other COVID-19 treatment trial. RECOVERY has shown four drugs to be life-saving - dexamethasone, tocilizumab, baricitinib and casirivimab-imdevimab - and a further six have been shown to be of little or no benefit. In each case, results from RECOVERY were clear enough to rapidly influence global practice. Some of the reasons for this success relate to its particular setting in the UK during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, but many are generalisable to other contexts. In particular, its focus on recruiting large numbers of patients to identify or rule out moderate but worthwhile benefits of treatment, and the design decisions that followed from this. Similar large streamlined trials could produce similarly clear answers about the treatment of many other common diseases.

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.

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.

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.

The efficiency of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials

The objective of this study was to assess whether convalescent plasma therapy could offer survival advantages for patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). An electronic search of Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane library and MedRxiv was performed from January 1st, 2020 to April 1st, 2022. We included studies containing patients with COVID-19 and treated with CCP. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers and synthesized with a random-effect analysis model. The primary outcome was 28-d mortality. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, ventilation-free days, 14-d mortality, improvements of symptoms, progression of diseases and requirements of mechanical ventilation. Safety outcomes included the incidence of all adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). The Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool 2.0 was used to assess the potential risk of bias in eligible studies. The heterogeneity of results was assessed by I^2 test and Q statistic test. The possibility of publication bias was assessed by conducting Begg and Egger test. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method were used for quality of evidence. This study had been registered on PROSPERO, CRD42021273608. 32 RCTs comprising 21478 patients with Covid-19 were included. Compared to the control group, COVID-19 patients receiving CCP were not associated with significantly reduced 28-d mortality (CCP 20.0% vs control 20.8%; risk ratio 0.94; 95% CI 0.87-1.02; p = 0.16; I² = 8%). For all secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between CCP group and control group. The incidence of AEs (26.9% vs 19.4%,; risk ratio 1.14; 95% CI 0.99-01.31; p = 0.06; I² = 38%) and SAEs (16.3% vs 13.5%; risk ratio 1.03; 95% CI 0.87-1.20; p = 0.76; I² = 42%) tended to be higher in the CCP group compared to the control group, while the differences did not reach statistical significance. In all, CCP therapy was not related to significantly improved 28-d mortality or symptoms recovery, and should not be viewed as a routine treatment for COVID-19 patients.

Trial registration number

CRD42021273608. Registration on February 28, 2022.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, Identifier CRD42022313265.

Selection of plasma donors for the production of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin-based therapies: Strategies for quantitative antibody measurements

Even after two years of the pandemic, a completely effective treatment against SARS-CoV-2 has not yet been established. Considering this fact and the emergence of successive new viral variants, the development of therapies based on natural polyclonal antibodies recovered from convalescent plasma remains relevant. This study presents a comparison between different methods of screening antibodies in samples of 41 individuals previously diagnosed with COVID-19. We found a significant correlation between Abbot Architect anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and Abbott Allinity SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quantitative assay intensity of reactivity and neutralizing antibody (nAb) titers. Thus, we propose an initial antibody screening with IgG anti-N Abbott Architect test, with an index of, for example, > 3.25 or SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quantitative Abbott Allinity assay > 137.65 AU/mL as good predictors of Nab ≥ 1:80. For the quantitative method, this threshold demonstrated a 100 % sensitivity and 80 % specificity, with 97.3 % accuracy. An interesting observation was the increase in the neutralizing activity of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with the longest interval between the end of the symptoms and the collection, demonstrating that the delay in plasma collection does not affect the achievement of adequate nAbs levels. These results demonstrate the possibility of using faster and more widely available commercial serological tests with a good correlation with viral neutralization tests in culture, allowing for optimized large-scale donor selection, which will be of utmost importance for the development of therapies such as hyperimmune immunoglobulin.

Variant of Concern-Matched COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Usage in Seronegative Hospitalized Patients

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been the only specific anti-viral therapy against SARS-CoV-2 available for more than one year. Following the negative results from most randomized controlled trials on its efficacy in COVID-19 hospitalized patients and the availability of anti-spike monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), the use of CCP has subsequently rapidly faded. However, the continuous appearance of new variants of concern (VOCs), most of which escape mAbs and vaccine-elicited neutralizing antibodies (nAbs), has renewed the interest towards CCP, at least in seronegative immunocompetent patients, and in immunocompromised patients not able to mount a protective immune response. We report here the experience of a single Italian hospital in collecting and transfusing CCP in immunocompromised patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 between October 2021 and March 2022. During this 6-month period, we collected CCP from 32 vaccinated and convalescent regular blood donors, and infused high nAb-titer CCP units (titered against the specific VOC affecting the recipient) to 21 hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19, all of them seronegative at the time of CCP transfusion. Patients’ median age was 66 years (IQR 50–74 years) and approximately half of them (47.6%, 10/21) were immunocompromised. Two patients were rescued after previous failure of mAbs. No adverse reactions following CCP transfusion were recorded. A 28-day mortality rate of 14.3 percent (3/21) was reported, with age, advanced disease stage and late CCP transfusion associated with a worse outcome. This real-life experience also supports the use of CCP in seronegative hospitalized COVID-19 patients during the Delta and Omicron waves.

Pharmacological Studies in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in Belgium: We Could Do Better

Belgium has actively participated in clinical research on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) since the beginning of the pandemic to help identify effective and safe treatments for COVID-19. The objective of this review is to provide a picture of the clinical studies carried out in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Belgium. We collected data on all randomized, interventional trials in patients with COVID-19 that were registered on two recognized clinical trial registers, started enrollment before 31 December 2021, and included at least one patient in a Belgian center. Data were collected concerning the therapies investigated and the nature of the trials performed. Thirty-three hospitals (32% of all Belgian hospitals) participated in at least one of 28 trials (13 sponsored by the industry and 15 by academic centers) on therapeutics for COVID-19 in hospitalized patients: 7 (25%) evaluated antivirals, 17 (61%) immunomodulators, 2 (7%) anti-coagulants, and 1 (3%) nitric oxide to improve respiratory function. Nineteen (68%) were phase II trials. Only three (11%) of the trials were international platform trials. Despite numerous trials, less than 3% of all Belgian patients hospitalized with COVID-19 participated in a clinical trial on therapeutics. As in many other countries, more efforts could have been made to avoid running small, under-powered, mono- or bicenter trials, to create better collaboration between the different Belgian hospitals, and to participate in more international clinical trials, and more specifically in adaptive, platform trials.

Safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma for severe COVID-19: a randomized, single blinded, parallel, controlled clinical study

Background

Convalescent plasma (CP) has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under study. However, the variability in the current clinical trials has averted its wide use in the current pandemic. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CP in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the early stages of the disease.

Methods

A randomized controlled clinical study was conducted on 101 patients admitted to the hospital with confirmed severe COVID-19. Most participants had less than 14 days from symptoms onset and less than seven days from hospitalization. Fifty patients were assigned to receive CP plus standard therapy (ST), and 51 were assigned to receive ST alone. Participants in the CP arm received two doses of 250 mL each, transfused 24 h apart. All transfused plasma was obtained from "super donors" that fulfilled the following criteria: titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG ≥ 1:3200 and IgA ≥ 1:800 antibodies. The effect of transfused anti-IFN antibodies and the SARS-CoV-2 variants at the entry of the study on the overall CP efficacy was evaluated. The primary outcomes were the reduction in viral load and the increase in IgG and IgA antibodies at 28 days of follow-up. The per-protocol analysis included 91 patients.

Results

An early but transient increase in IgG anti-S1-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels at day 4 post-transfusion was observed (Estimated difference [ED], − 1.36; 95% CI, − 2.33 to − 0.39; P = 0.04). However, CP was not associated with viral load reduction in any of the points evaluated. Analysis of secondary outcomes revealed that those patients in the CP arm disclosed a shorter time to discharge (ED adjusted for mortality, 3.1 days; 95% CI, 0.20 to 5.94; P = 0.0361) or a reduction of 2 points on the WHO scale when compared with the ST group (HR adjusted for mortality, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.5; P = 0.0376). There were no benefits from CP on the rates of intensive care unit admission (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.9; P = 0.6399), mechanical ventilation (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.25 to 1.7; P = 0.4039), or mortality (HR, 3.2; 95% CI, 0.64 to 16; P = 0.1584). Anti-IFN antibodies and SARS-CoV-2 variants did not influence these results.

Conclusion

CP was not associated with viral load reduction, despite the early increase in IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. However, CP is safe and could be a therapeutic option to reduce the hospital length of stay.

Trial registration NCT04332835

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-022-07560-7.

Human Identical Sequences, hyaluronan, and hymecromone ─ the new mechanism and management of COVID-19

COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 has created formidable damage to public health and market economy. Currently, SARS-CoV-2 variants has exacerbated the transmission from person-to-person. Even after a great deal of investigation on COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 is still rampaging globally, emphasizing the urgent need to reformulate effective prevention and treatment strategies. Here, we review the latest research progress of COVID-19 and provide distinct perspectives on the mechanism and management of COVID-19. Specially, we highlight the significance of Human Identical Sequences (HIS), hyaluronan, and hymecromone ("Three-H") for the understanding and intervention of COVID-19. Firstly, HIS activate inflammation-related genes to influence COVID-19 progress through NamiRNA-Enhancer network. Accumulation of hyaluronan induced by HIS-mediated HAS2 upregulation is a substantial basis for clinical manifestations of COVID-19, especially in lymphocytopenia and pulmonary ground-glass opacity. Secondly, detection of plasma hyaluronan can be effective for evaluating the progression and severity of COVID-19. Thirdly, spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 may bind to hyaluronan and further serve as an allergen to stimulate allergic reaction, causing sudden adverse effects after vaccination or the aggravation of COVID-19. Finally, antisense oligonucleotides of HIS or inhibitors of hyaluronan synthesis (hymecromone) or antiallergic agents could be promising therapeutic agents for COVID-19. Collectively, Three-H could hold the key to understand the pathogenic mechanism and create effective therapeutic strategies for COVID-19.

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

Coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) represents one of the largest pandemics the world has faced, and it is producing a global health crisis. To date, the availability of drugs to treat COVID-19 infections remains limited to supportive care although therapeutic options are being explored. Some of them are old strategies for treating infectious diseases. convalescent plasma (CP) therapy has been used successfully in other viral outbreaks in the 20th century. In this study, we systematically evaluated the effect and safety of CP therapy on hospitalized COVID-19 patients. A structured search was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using Medline (PubMed), SciELO, Cochrane Library Plus, Web of Science, and Scopus. The search included articles published up to January 2022 and was restricted to English- and Spanish-language publications. As such, investigators identified six randomized controlled trials that met the search criteria. The results determined that in hospitalized COVID-19 patients the administration of CP therapy with a volume between 200-500 mL and a single transfusion performed in 1-2 h, compared to the control group, decreased viral load, symptomatology, the period of infection, and mortality, without serious adverse effects. CP did influence clinical outcomes and may be a possible treatment option, although further studies will be necessary.

Persistence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Severely Immunocompromised Patients With Complete Remission B-Cell Lymphoma and Anti-CD20 Monoclonal Antibody Therapy: A Case Report of Two Cases

Immunosuppressant conditions such as hematological malignancies increase the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. It has been described in the literature that patients on anti-CD20 maintenance therapies for lymphoid malignancies are susceptible to having recurrent flares together with viral replication or reinfections, although these cases are scarce. These patients are not well represented in randomized controlled trials, and as a consequence, the evidence for the use of certain treatments in this scenario is lacking. We present two cases of patients with B-cell lymphoma on remission and treated with rituximab on maintenance. They developed at least 1 flare of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after acute infection and always after receiving rituximab. RT-PCR was positive in the nasopharyngeal swab and also in plasma. Patients were treated during flares with remdesivir, hyperimmune plasma, and corticosteroids. These two cases showed the unresolved problem of COVID-19 in immunosuppressant patients and showed that despite the vast amount of information available on SARS-CoV-2, information in this subgroup of patients is lacking.

High-cited favorable studies for COVID-19 treatments ineffective in large trials

Objectives

Study Design and Setting

Results

Conclusion

Plasma procurement and plasma product safety in light of the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of the plasma industry

This review, written from the perspective of the plasma industry, discusses plasma procurement and plasma product safety in light of the COVID‐19 pandemic. The COVID‐19 pandemic impacted the whole world and, therefore, not unexpectedly, the pharmaceutical industry too. In spite of this, the plasma protein industry has continued to provide life saving therapies to critically ill patients. Moreover, companies have collected COVID convalescent plasma (CP) to support development of investigational therapies, for example, hyperimmune globulins to potentially treat SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, and collaborated with those collecting COVID CP for direct transfusion, which has been made available under emergency use in the United States. For plasma that is fractionated to become a therapy, general knowledge of coronaviruses and numerous new studies on the structure and function of SARS‐CoV‐2 provide reassurance that existing industry precautions, including donor selection, as well as virus inactivation and removal steps during the manufacturing process are sufficient to maintain the high standards of virus safety of plasma products. The pandemic also revealed the vulnerability and inadequacy of the current plasma ecosystem. There is a need for more plasma to be collected around the world to meet the growing need for safe and efficacious plasma‐derived therapies. This requires outdated regulatory and policy restrictions to be realigned with current scientific evidence. More countries around the world should be in a position to contribute to global supply of plasma so that patients with life‐threatening conditions ‐ and often no alternative therapeutic solutions ‐ have better access to care.

Prognostic Factors for Post-COVID-19 Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Evidence shows that a substantial proportion of patients with COVID-19 experiences long-term consequences of the disease, but the predisposing factors are poorly understood. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify factors present during COVID-19 hospitalization associated with an increased risk of exhibiting new or persisting symptoms (Post-COVID-19 Syndrome, PCS). MedLine and WebOfScience were last searched on 30 September 2021. We included English language clinical trials and observational studies investigating prognostic factors for PCS in adults previously hospitalized for COVID-19, reporting at least one individual prospective follow-up of minimum 12 weeks. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias, which was judged generally moderate. Risk factors were included in the analysis if their association with PCS was investigated by at least two studies. To summarize the prognostic effect of each factor (or group of factors), odds ratios were estimated using raw data. Overall, 20 articles met the inclusion criteria, involving 13,340 patients. Associations were statistically significant for two factors: female sex with any symptoms (OR 1.52; 95% CI 1.27–1.82), with mental health symptoms (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.21–2.29) and with fatigue (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.32–1.79); acute disease severity with respiratory symptoms (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.03–2.68). The I² statistics tests were calculated to quantify the degree of study heterogeneity. This is the first meta-analysis measuring the association between factors present during COVID-19 hospitalization and long-term sequelae. The role of female sex and acute disease severity as independent prognostic factors must be confirmed in robust longitudinal studies with longer follow-up. Identifying populations at greatest risk for PCS can enable the development of targeted prevention and management strategies. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021253467.

Convalescent plasma in the treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia: a randomized controlled trial (PROTECT-Patient Trial)

There is a need for effective therapy for COVID-19 pneumonia. Convalescent plasma has antiviral activity and early observational studies suggested benefit in reducing COVID-19 severity. We investigated the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in a population with a high HIV prevalence and where few therapeutic options were available. We performed a double-blinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial in one private and three public sector hospitals in South Africa. Adult participants with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring non-invasive oxygen were randomized 1:1 to receive a single transfusion of 200 mL of either convalescent plasma or 0.9% saline solution. The primary outcome measure was hospital discharge and/or improvement of ≥ 2 points on the World Health Organisation Blueprint Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement by day 28 of enrolment. The trial was stopped early for futility by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board. 103 participants, including 21 HIV positive individuals, were randomized at the time of premature trial termination: 52 in the convalescent plasma and 51 in the placebo group. The primary outcome occurred in 31 participants in the convalescent plasma group and and 32 participants in the placebo group (relative risk 1.03 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.38). Two grade 1 transfusion-related adverse events occurred. Participants who improved clinically received convalescent plasma with a higher median anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titre compared with those who did not (298 versus 205 AU/mL). Our study contributes additional evidence for recommendations against the use of convalescent plasma for COVID-19 pneumonia. Safety and feasibility in this population supports future investigation for other indications.