Passive Immunity Trial for Our Nation (PassITON): study protocol for a randomized placebo-control clinical trial evaluating COVID-19 convalescent plasma in hospitalized adults

Design of VA CoronavirUs Research and Efficacy Studies-1 (VA CURES-1): A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in hospitalized patients with early respiratory compromise

BACKGROUND

Effective therapeutics for severe acute respiratory syndrome CoronaVirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are evolving. Under Emergency Use Authorization, COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) was widely used in individuals hospitalized for COVID-19, but few randomized controlled trials supported its efficacy to limit respiratory failure or death.

METHODS

VA CoronavirUs Research and Efficacy Studies-1 (VA CURES-1) was a double-blind, multi-site, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of CCP with conventional therapy in hospitalized Veterans with SARS-CoV-2 infection and early respiratory compromise (requirement for oxygen). Participants (planned sample size 702) were randomized 1:1 to receive CCP with high titer neutralizing activity or 0.9% saline, stratified by site and age (≥65 versus <65 years old). Participants were followed daily during initial hospitalization and at Days 15, 22 and 28.

OUTCOMES

The composite primary outcome was acute hypoxemic respiratory failure or all-cause death by Day 28. Secondary outcomes by day 28 included time-to-recovery, clinical severity, mortality, rehospitalization for COVID-19, and adverse events. Serial respiratory and blood samples were collected for safety, virologic and immunologic analyses and future studies. Key variables in predicting the success of CURES-1 were: (1) enrollment early in the course of severe infection; (2) use of plasma with high neutralizing activity; (3) reliance on unambiguous, clinically meaningful outcomes. CURES-1 was terminated for futility due to perceived inability to enroll in the lull between the Alpha and Delta waves of the SARS CoV-2 epidemic.

CONCLUSIONS

VA CURES-1 was a large multi-site trial designed to provide conclusive information about the efficacy of CCP in well-characterized patients at risk for progression of COVID-19. It utilized a rigorous study design with relevant initial timing, quality of product and outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04539275.

Neutralizing COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Blinded, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma has been one of the most common treatments for COVID-19, but most clinical trial data to date have not supported its efficacy.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is rigorously selected COVID-19 convalescent plasma with neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies an efficacious treatment for adults hospitalized with COVID-19?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial among adults hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection and acute respiratory symptoms for < 14 days. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned to receive one unit of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (n = 487) or placebo (n = 473). The primary outcome was clinical status (disease severity) 14 days following study infusion measured with a seven-category ordinal scale ranging from discharged from the hospital with resumption of normal activities (lowest score) to death (highest score). The primary outcome was analyzed with a multivariable ordinal regression model, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) < 1.0 indicating more favorable outcomes with convalescent plasma than with placebo. In secondary analyses, trial participants were stratified according to the presence of endogenous anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies ("serostatus") at randomization. The trial included 13 secondary efficacy outcomes, including 28-day mortality.

RESULTS

Among 974 randomized patients, 960 were included in the primary analysis. Clinical status on the ordinal outcome scale at 14 days did not differ between the convalescent plasma and placebo groups in the overall population (aOR, 1.04; one-seventh support interval [1/7 SI], 0.82-1.33), in patients without endogenous antibodies (aOR, 1.15; 1/7 SI, 0.74-1.80), or in patients with endogenous antibodies (aOR, 0.96; 1/7 SI, 0.72-1.30). None of the 13 secondary efficacy outcomes were different between groups. At 28 days, 89 of 482 (18.5%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and 80 of 465 (17.2%) patients in the placebo group had died (aOR, 1.04; 1/7 SI, 0.69-1.58).

INTERPRETATION

Among adults hospitalized with COVID-19, including those seronegative for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, treatment with convalescent plasma did not improve clinical outcomes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04362176; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

Oxygen-Free Days as an Outcome Measure in Clinical Trials of Therapies for COVID-19 and Other Causes of New-Onset Hypoxemia

Mortality historically has been the primary outcome of choice for acute and critical care clinical trials. However, undue reliance on mortality can limit the scope of trials that can be performed. Large sample sizes are usually needed for trials powered for a mortality outcome, and focusing solely on mortality fails to recognize the importance that reducing morbidity can have on patients' lives. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for rapid, efficient trials to rigorously evaluate new therapies for hospitalized patients with acute lung injury. Oxygen-free days (OFDs) is a novel outcome for clinical trials that is a composite of mortality and duration of new supplemental oxygen use. It is designed to characterize recovery from acute lung injury in populations with a high prevalence of new hypoxemia and supplemental oxygen use. In these populations, OFDs captures two patient-centered consequences of acute lung injury: mortality and hypoxemic lung dysfunction. Power to detect differences in OFDs typically is greater than that for other clinical trial outcomes, such as mortality and ventilator-free days. OFDs is the primary outcome for the Fourth Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV-4) Host Tissue platform, which evaluates novel therapies targeting the host response to COVID-19 among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 and new hypoxemia. This article outlines the rationale for use of OFDs as an outcome for clinical trials, proposes a standardized method for defining and analyzing OFDs, and provides a framework for sample size calculations using the OFD outcome.

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.

Standardized two-step testing of antibody activity in COVID-19 convalescent plasma

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed an urgent need for rapid profiling of neutralizing antibody responses and development of antibody therapeutics. The current Food and Drug Administration-approved serological tests do not measure antibody-mediated viral neutralization, and there is a need for standardized quantitative neutralization assays. We report a high-throughput two-step profiling approach for identifying neutralizing convalescent plasma. Screening and downselection for serum antibody binding to the receptor-binding domain are followed by quantitative neutralization testing using a chimeric vesicular stomatitis virus expressing spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 in a real-time cell analysis assay. This approach enables a predictive screening process for identifying plasma units that neutralize SARS-CoV-2. To calibrate antibody neutralizing activity in serum from convalescent plasma donors, we introduce a neutralizing antibody standard reagent composed of two human antibodies that neutralize SARS-CoV strains, including SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. Our results provide a framework for establishing a standardized assessment of antibody-based interventions against COVID-19.

•

A high-throughput approach enabling antibody activity testing in COVID-19 plasma

•

SARS-CoV-2 IgG binding screen coupled with quantitative neutralization testing

•

Neutralization testing is necessary for profiling COVID-19 convalescent plasma

•

Two broad monoclonal antibodies identified as a neutralization testing standard

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials testing the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Evidence-base for practise and implications for research

BACKGROUND

Despite scientific advances, there is no effective medical therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19.

METHODS

This review was carried out in accordance with Cochrane methodology including risk of bias assessment and grading of the quality of evidence. Only prospective clinical trials randomly assigning COVID-19 patients to convalescent plasma plus standard of care therapy (test arm) versus placebo/standard of care (control arm) were included. Two reviewers independently read each preprint/publication and extracted relevant data from individual studies. Data were pooled using the random-effects model and expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 13 206 patients from 12 randomised controlled trials were included. There was no significant difference in clinical improvement rate (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98-1.02, p = 0.96) or time to clinical improvement (median difference of 1.08 days with 95% CI ranging from -0.15 to +2.30 days) between convalescent plasma versus placebo/standard of care therapy. The use of convalescent plasma was not associated with significantly reduced risk of death (RR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.65-1.02, p = 0.08). Reassuringly, overall incidence of infusion-related serious adverse events was low (3.25%) and not significantly different (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 0.93-1.40, p = 0.22) for convalescent plasma transfusion compared to placebo/standard of care therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

There is low to moderate certainty evidence that the addition of convalescent plasma to current standard of care therapy is generally safe but, does not result in any significant clinical benefit or reduction of mortality in COVID-19.

A Novel Method for the Production of an Autologous Anti-Inflammatory and Anti-Catabolic Product (Cytorich) from Human Blood: A Prospective Treatment for the COVID-19-Induced Cytokine Storm

Background

Autologous blood-derived products can target specific inflammatory molecular pathways and have potentially beneficial therapeutic effects on inflammatory pathologies. The purpose of this study was to assess in vitro the anti-inflammatory and anti-catabolic potential of an autologous blood product as a possible treatment for COVID-19-induced cytokine storm.

Material/Methods

Blood samples from healthy donors and donors who had recovered from COVID-19 were incubated using different techniques and analyzed for the presence of anti-inflammatory, anti-catabolic, regenerative, pro-inflammatory, and procatabolic molecules.

Results

The highest concentrations of therapeutic molecules for targeting inflammatory pathways were found in the blood that had been incubated for 24 h at 37°C, whereas a significant increase was observed after 6 h of incubation in blood from COVID-19-recovered donors. Beneficially, the 6-h incubation process did not downregulate anti-COVID-19 immunoglobulin G concentrations. Unfortunately, increases in matrix metalloproteinase 9, tumor necrosis factor α, and interleukin-1 were detected in the product after incubation; however, these increases could be blocked by adding citric acid, with no effect on the concentration of the target therapeutic molecules. Our data allow for safer and more effective future treatments.

Conclusions

An autologous blood-derived product containing anti-inflammatory and anti-catabolic molecules, which we term Cytorich, has a promising therapeutic role in the treatment of a virus-induced cytokine storm, including that associated with COVID-19.

Convalescent plasma associates with reduced mortality and improved clinical trajectory in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

BACKGROUNDEvidence supporting convalescent plasma (CP), one of the first investigational treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has been inconclusive, leading to conflicting recommendations. The primary objective was to perform a comparative effectiveness study of CP for all-cause, in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19.METHODSThe multicenter, electronic health records-based, retrospective study included 44,770 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in one of 176 HCA Healthcare-affiliated community hospitals. Coarsened exact matching (1:k) was employed, resulting in a sample of 3774 CP and 10,687 comparison patients.RESULTSExamination of mortality using a shared frailty model, controlling for concomitant medications, date of admission, and days from admission to transfusion, demonstrated a significant association of CP with lower mortality risk relative to the comparison group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59-0.86; P < 0.001). Examination of patient risk trajectories, represented by 400 clinico-demographic features from our real-time risk model (RTRM), indicated that patients who received CP recovered more quickly. The stratification of days to transfusion revealed that CP within 3 days after admission, but not within 4 to 7 days, was associated with a significantly lower mortality risk (aHR = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.47-0.60; P < 0.001). CP serology level was inversely associated with mortality when controlling for its interaction with days to transfusion (HR = 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997-0.999; P = 0.013), yet it did not reach univariable significance.CONCLUSIONSThis large, diverse, multicenter cohort study demonstrated that CP, compared with matched controls, is significantly associated with reduced risk of in-hospital mortality. These observations highlight the utility of real-world evidence and suggest the need for further evaluation prior to abandoning CP as a viable therapy for COVID-19.FUNDINGThis research was supported in whole by HCA Healthcare and/or an HCA Healthcare-affiliated entity, including Sarah Cannon and Genospace.

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

BACKGROUND

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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