Longer intervals between SARS-CoV-2 infection and mRNA-1273 doses improve the neutralization of different variants of concern.

The humoral immune response against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern elicited by vaccination was evaluated in COVID-19 recovered individuals (Rec) separated 1-3 months (Rec2m) or 4-12 months (Rec9m) postinfection and compared to the response in naïve participants. Antibody-mediated immune responses were assessed in 66 participants by three commercial immunoassays and a SARS-CoV-2 lentiviral-based pseudovirus neutralization assay. Immunoglobulin (Ig) levels against SARS-CoV-2 spike were lower in naïve participants after two doses than in Rec after a single dose (p < 0.05). After two doses in Rec, levels of total Ig to receptor-binding domain were significantly increased in Rec9m compared to Rec2m (p < 0.001). The neutralizing potency observed in Rec9m was consistently higher than in Rec2m against variants of concern (VOCs) Alpha, Beta, Delta, and BA.1 sublineage of Omicron with 2.2-2.8-fold increases. Increasing the interval between SARS-CoV-2 infection and the vaccination with messenger RNA-based vaccines to more than 3 months generates a more efficient heterologous humoral immune response against VOCs by allowing enough time to mount a strong recall memory B cell response.

Pathogen reduction with methylene blue does not have an impact on the clinical effectiveness of COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a concern about a possible deleterious effect of pathogen reduction (PR) with methylene blue (MB) on the function of immunoglobulins of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). We have evaluated whether MB-treated CCP is associated with a poorer clinical response compared to other inactivation systems at the ConPlas-19 clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an ad hoc sub-study of the ConPlas-19 clinical trial comparing the proportion of patients transfused with MB-treated CCP who had a worsening of respiration versus those treated with amotosalen (AM) or riboflavin (RB). RESULTS: One-hundred and seventy-five inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were transfused with a single CCP unit. The inactivation system of the CCP units transfused was MB in 90 patients (51.4%), RB in 60 (34.3%) and AM in 25 (14.3%). Five out of 90 patients (5.6%) transfused with MB-treated CCP had worsening respiration compared to 9 out of 85 patients (10.6%) treated with alternative PR methods (p = 0.220). Of note, MB showed a trend towards a lower rate of respiratory progressions at 28 days (risk ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-1.50). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that MB-treated CCP does not provide a worse clinical outcome compared to the other PR methods for the treatment of COVID-19.

Development and Validation of a Treatment Benefit Index to Identify Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 Who May Benefit From Convalescent Plasma.

Importance: Identifying which patients with COVID-19 are likely to benefit from COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) treatment may have a large public health impact. Objective: To develop an index for predicting the expected relative treatment benefit from CCP compared with treatment without CCP for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 using patients' baseline characteristics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study used data from the COMPILE study, ie, a meta-analysis of pooled individual patient data from 8 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating CCP vs control in adults hospitalized for COVID-19 who were not receiving mechanical ventilation at randomization. A combination of baseline characteristics, termed the treatment benefit index (TBI), was developed based on 2287 patients in COMPILE using a proportional odds model, with baseline characteristics selected via cross-validation. The TBI was externally validated on 4 external data sets: the Expanded Access Program (1896 participants), a study conducted under Emergency Use Authorization (210 participants), and 2 RCTs (with 80 and 309 participants). Exposure: Receipt of CCP. Main Outcomes and Measures: World Health Organization (WHO) 11-point ordinal COVID-19 clinical status scale and 2 derivatives of it (ie, WHO score of 7-10, indicating mechanical ventilation to death, and WHO score of 10, indicating death) at day 14 and day 28 after randomization. Day 14 WHO 11-point ordinal scale was used as the primary outcome to develop the TBI. Results: A total of 2287 patients were included in the derivation cohort, with a mean (SD) age of 60.3 (15.2) years and 815 (35.6%) women. The TBI provided a continuous gradation of benefit, and, for clinical utility, it was operationalized into groups of expected large clinical benefit (B1; 629 participants in the derivation cohort [27.5%]), moderate benefit (B2; 953 [41.7%]), and potential harm or no benefit (B3; 705 [30.8%]). Patients with preexisting conditions (diabetes, cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases), with blood type A or AB, and at an early COVID-19 stage (low baseline WHO scores) were expected to benefit most, while those without preexisting conditions and at more advanced stages of COVID-19 could potentially be harmed. In the derivation cohort, odds ratios for worse outcome, where smaller odds ratios indicate larger benefit from CCP, were 0.69 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.48-1.06) for B1, 0.82 (95% CrI, 0.61-1.11) for B2, and 1.58 (95% CrI, 1.14-2.17) for B3. Testing on 4 external datasets supported the validation of the derived TBIs. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that the CCP TBI is a simple tool that can quantify the relative benefit from CCP treatment for an individual patient hospitalized with COVID-19 that can be used to guide treatment recommendations. The TBI precision medicine approach could be especially helpful in a pandemic.

Association of Convalescent Plasma Treatment With Clinical Status in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Meta-analysis.

Importance: COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is a potentially beneficial treatment for COVID-19 that requires rigorous testing. Objective: To compile individual patient data from randomized clinical trials of CCP and to monitor the data until completion or until accumulated evidence enables reliable conclusions regarding the clinical outcomes associated with CCP. Data Sources: From May to August 2020, a systematic search was performed for trials of CCP in the literature, clinical trial registry sites, and medRxiv. Domain experts at local, national, and international organizations were consulted regularly. Study Selection: Eligible trials enrolled hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19, not receiving mechanical ventilation, and randomized them to CCP or control. The administered CCP was required to have measurable antibodies assessed locally. Data Extraction and Synthesis: A minimal data set was submitted regularly via a secure portal, analyzed using a prespecified bayesian statistical plan, and reviewed frequently by a collective data and safety monitoring board. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prespecified coprimary end points-the World Health Organization (WHO) 11-point ordinal scale analyzed using a proportional odds model and a binary indicator of WHO score of 7 or higher capturing the most severe outcomes including mechanical ventilation through death and analyzed using a logistic model-were assessed clinically at 14 days after randomization. Results: Eight international trials collectively enrolled 2369 participants (1138 randomized to control and 1231 randomized to CCP). A total of 2341 participants (median [IQR] age, 60 [50-72] years; 845 women [35.7%]) had primary outcome data as of April 2021. The median (IQR) of the ordinal WHO scale was 3 (3-6); the cumulative OR was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.74-1.19; posterior probability of OR <1 of 71%). A total of 352 patients (15%) had WHO score greater than or equal to 7; the OR was 0.94 (95% CrI, 0.69-1.30; posterior probability of OR <1 of 65%). Adjusted for baseline covariates, the ORs for mortality were 0.88 at day 14 (95% CrI, 0.61-1.26; posterior probability of OR <1 of 77%) and 0.85 at day 28 (95% CrI, 0.62-1.18; posterior probability of OR <1 of 84%). Heterogeneity of treatment effect sizes was observed across an array of baseline characteristics. Conclusions and Relevance: This meta-analysis found no association of CCP with better clinical outcomes for the typical patient. These findings suggest that real-time individual patient data pooling and meta-analysis during a pandemic are feasible, offering a model for future research and providing a rich data resource.

A multicenter randomized open-label clinical trial for convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia.

BACKGROUNDPassive immunotherapy with convalescent plasma (CP) is a potential treatment for COVID-19. Evidence from controlled clinical trials is inconclusive.METHODSWe conducted a randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trial at 27 hospitals in Spain. Patients had to be admitted for COVID-19 pneumonia within 7 days from symptom onset and not on mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen devices. Patients were randomized 1:1 to treatment with CP in addition to standard of care (SOC) or to the control arm receiving only SOC. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients in categories 5 (noninvasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen), 6 (invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), or 7 (death) at 14 days. Primary analysis was performed in the intention-to-treat population.RESULTSBetween April 4, 2020, and February 5, 2021, 350 patients were randomly assigned to either CP (n = 179) or SOC (n = 171). At 14 days, proportion of patients in categories 5, 6, or 7 was 11.7% in the CP group versus 16.4% in the control group (P = 0.205). The difference was greater at 28 days, with 8.4% of patients in categories 5-7 in the CP group versus 17.0% in the control group (P = 0.021). The difference in overall survival did not reach statistical significance (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19-1.14, log-rank P = 0.087).CONCLUSIONCP showed a significant benefit in preventing progression to noninvasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen, invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO, or death at 28 days. The effect on the predefined primary endpoint at 14 days and the effect on overall survival were not statistically significant.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicaltrials.gov, NCT04345523.FUNDINGGovernment of Spain, Instituto de Salud Carlos III.

Efficacy and Safety of Sarilumab in patients with COVID19 Pneumonia: A Randomized, Phase III Clinical Trial (SARTRE Study).

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia is often associated with hyper-inflammation. The cytokine-storm-like is one of the targets of current therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). High Interleukin-6 (IL6) blood levels have been identified in severe COVID-19 disease, but there are still uncertainties regarding the actual role of anti-IL6 antagonists in COVID-19 management. Our hypothesis was that the use of sarilumab plus corticosteroids at an early stage of the hyper-inflammatory syndrome would be beneficial and prevent progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: We randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) COVID-19 pneumonia hospitalized patients under standard oxygen therapy and laboratory evidence of hyper-inflammation to receive sarilumab plus usual care (experimental group) or usual care alone (control group). Corticosteroids were given to all patients at a 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone for at least 3 days. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients progressing to severe respiratory failure (defined as a score in the Brescia-COVID19 scale ≥ 3) up to day 15. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients underwent randomization: 99 patients in the sarilumab group and 102 patients in the control group. The rate of patients progressing to severe respiratory failure (Brescia-COVID scale score ≥ 3) up to day 15 was 16.16% in the Sarilumab group versus 15.69% in the control group (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.48-2.20). No relevant safety issues were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized patients with Covid-19 pneumonia, who were under standard oxygen therapy and who presented analytical inflammatory parameters, an early therapeutic intervention with sarilumab plus standard of care (including corticosteroids) was not shown to be more effective than current standard of care alone. The study was registered at EudraCT with number: 2020-002037-15.

Evaluation of convalescent plasma versus standard of care for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients: study protocol for a phase 2 randomized, open-label, controlled, multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and causes substantial morbidity and mortality. At the time this clinical trial was planned, there were no available vaccine or therapeutic agents with proven efficacy, but the severity of the condition prompted the use of several pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. It has long been hypothesized that the use of convalescent plasma (CP) from infected patients who have developed an effective immune response is likely to be an option for the treatment of patients with a variety of severe acute respiratory infections (SARI) of viral etiology. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma in adult patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS/DESIGN: The ConPlas-19 study is a multicenter, randomized, open-label controlled trial. The study has been planned to include 278 adult patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 infection not requiring mechanical ventilation (invasive or non-invasive). Subjects are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio (139 per treatment arm), stratified by center, to receive intravenously administered CP (single infusion) plus SOC or SOC alone, and are to be followed for 30 days. The primary endpoint of the study is the proportion of patients that progress to category 5, 6, or 7 (on the 7-point ordinal scale proposed by the WHO) at day 15. Interim analyses for efficacy and/or futility will be conducted once 20%, 40%, and 60% of the planned sample size are enrolled and complete D15 assessment. DISCUSSION: This clinical trial is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of passive immunotherapy with convalescent plasma for the treatment of adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The results of this study are expected to contribute to establishing the potential place of CP in the therapeutics for a new viral disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04345523 . Registered on 30 March, 2020. First posted date: April 14, 2020.

Sarilumab versus standard of care for the early treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia in hospitalized patients: SARTRE: a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: In some patients, acute, life-threatening respiratory injury produced by viruses such as SARS-CoV and other viral pneumonia are associated with an over-exuberant cytokine release. Elevated levels of blood IL-6 had been identified as a one of the risk factors associated with severe COVID-19 disease. Anti-IL6 inhibitors are among the therapeutic armamentarium for preventing the fatal consequences of acute respiratory and multi organ failure in around 20% of the COVID-19 infected patients. At present, their use is prioritized to patients with severe interstitial pneumonia (Brescia-COVID Scale-COVID 2-3) with hyperinflammation as determined by the presence of elevated IL6 and/or d-dimer, or progressive d-dimer increase, in patients who otherwise are subsidiary to ICU admission. However, many uncertainties remain on the actual role of anti-IL6 inhibitors in this setting, and whether current use and timing is the right one. There is the hypothesis that the use of anti-IL6 inhibitors at an earlier state during the hyperinflammatory syndrome would be beneficial and may avoid progressing to ARDS. On the other hand, the standard of care has changed and nowadays the use of corticosteroids has become part of the SOC in the treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia. Our limited experience suggests that better treatment outcomes can be achieved when combining IL6-inhibitors (e.g. sarilumab) with corticosteroids. The aim of the present study is to evaluate if an earlier therapeutic intervention with sarilumab plus SOC (including corticosteroids) may be more effective than current standard of care alone, in preventing progression to respiratory failure in COVID-19 infected patients with interstitial pneumonia. This study will also provide supportive evidence to that provided by currently ongoing studies on the efficacy and safety of sarilumab in this clinical context. TRIAL DESIGN: A phase two multi-center randomised controlled trial (RCT) with two parallel arms (1:1 ratio). PARTICIPANTS: They will be hospitalized patients, of at least 18 years of age, with severe COVID-19 who have positive RT-PCR test and have radiographic evidence of pulmonary infiltrates by imaging or rales/crackles on exam and SpO2 ≤ 94% on room air that requires supplemental oxygen. Patients must present elevation of inflammatory parameters (IL-6 > 40 pg/mL or d-dimer >1.0 mcg/ml) or, alternatively, progressive worsening in at least two of these inflammatory parameters in the prior 24-48h: CRP, LDH, serum ferritin, lymphopenia, or d-dimer. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: high oxygen requirements (including face mask with reservoir, non-invasive mechanical ventilation or high flow nasal cannula, or mechanical ventilation), admission to ICU, pregnancy or lactation, allergy or hypersensitivity to sarilumab or corticoesteroids, immunosuppressive antibody therapy within the past 5 months, AST/ALT values > 10 x ULN, neutropenia (< 0.5 x 109/L), severe thrombocytopenia (< 50 x 109/L), sepsis caused by an alternative pathogen, diverticulitis with risk of perforation or ongoing infectious dermatitis. The study will be conducted in several hospitals in Spain. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Patients randomised to the experimental arm will receive sarilumab + methylprednisolone plus SOC for COVID-19. Patients included in the control arm will receive methylprednisolone plus SOC for COVID-19. Corticosteroids will be given to all patients at a 1mg/kg/d of methylprednisolone for at least 3 days. Clinical follow-up visits will be performed at 3, 5, and 15 days after treatment randomization. Patients in the control group (SOC group without sarilumab) progressing to Brescia- COVID 2-3 plus inflammatory markers, will be given the option to be rescued with sarilumab at the same doses and, in that case, be included in an open-label phase and be followed up for additional weeks (with visits at 3, 7 and 15 days after sarilumab rescue administration). Patients randomly assigned to sarilumab therapy at baseline progressing to Brescia-COVID 2-3 will be rescued according to local clinical practice protocols. A final follow-up visit will be conducted for all patients at day 29 from randomization, regardless of initial treatment assignment. MAIN OUTCOMES: Primary end point is the proportion of patients progressing to either severe respiratory failure (Brescia-COVID ≥2), ICU admission, or death. RANDOMIZATION: Randomization codes were produced by means of the PROC PLAN of the SAS system, with a 1:1 assignment ratio, stratifying by centre and using blocks multiple of 2 elements. The randomization schedule will be managed through the eCRF in a concealed manner. BLINDING (MASKING): All study drugs will be administered as open label. No blinding methods will be used in this trial. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SIMPLE SIZE): The target sample size will be 200 COVID-19 patients, who will be allocated randomly to control arm (100) and treatment arm (100). TRIAL STATUS: Protocol Code: SARTRE Protocol Date: May 05th 2020. Version: 2.0 The study has been approved by the Spanish Competent Authority (AEMPS) as a low intervention clinical trial. Start of recruitment: August, 2020 End of recruitment: May, 2021 TRIAL REGISTRATION: Identifier: EudraCT Number: 2020-002037-15 ; Registration date: 26 May 2020. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).

A Retrospective Controlled Cohort Study of the Impact of Glucocorticoid Treatment in SARS-CoV-2 Infection Mortality.

Evidence to support the use of steroids in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia is lacking. We aim to determine the impact of steroid use for COVID-19 pneumonia on hospital mortality. We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study in a university hospital in Madrid, Spain, during March of 2020. To determine the role of steroids in in-hospital mortality, patients admitted with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia and treated with steroids were compared to patients not treated with steroids, and we adjusted with a propensity score for patients on steroid treatment. Survival times were compared using the log rank test. Different steroid regimens were compared and adjusted with a second propensity score. During the study period, 463 out of 848 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia fulfilled inclusion criteria. Among them, 396 (46.7%) patients were treated with steroids and 67 patients were not. Global mortality was 15.1%. The median time to steroid treatment from symptom onset was 10 days (interquartile range [IQR], 8 to 13 days). In-hospital mortality was lower in patients treated with steroids than in controls (13.9% [55/396] versus 23.9% [16/67]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.51 [95% confidence interval, 0.27 to 0.96]; P = 0.044). Steroid treatment reduced mortality by 41.8% relative to the mortality with no steroid treatment (relative risk reduction, 0.42 [95% confidence interval, 0.048 to 0.65]). Initial treatment with 1 mg/kg of body weight/day of methylprednisolone versus steroid pulses was not associated with in-hospital mortality (13.5% [42/310] versus 15.1% [13/86]; odds ratio [OR], 0.880 [95% confidence interval, 0.449 to 1.726]; P = 0.710). Our results show that the survival of patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia is higher in patients treated with glucocorticoids than in those not treated. Rates of in-hospital mortality were not different between initial regimens of 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone and glucocorticoid pulses.