Human Immunodeficiency Virus Status, Tenofovir Exposure, and the Risk of Poor Coronavirus Disease 19 Outcomes: Real-World Analysis From 6 United States Cohorts Before Vaccine Rollout.

BACKGROUND: People with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (PWH) may be at increased risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes. We examined HIV status and COVID-19 severity, and whether tenofovir, used by PWH for HIV treatment and people without HIV (PWoH) for HIV prevention, was associated with protection. METHODS: Within 6 cohorts of PWH and PWoH in the United States, we compared the 90-day risk of any hospitalization, COVID-19 hospitalization, and mechanical ventilation or death by HIV status and by prior exposure to tenofovir, among those with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection between 1 March and 30 November 2020. Adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) were estimated by targeted maximum likelihood estimation, with adjustment for demographics, cohort, smoking, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, calendar period of first infection, and CD4 cell counts and HIV RNA levels (in PWH only). RESULTS: Among PWH (n = 1785), 15% were hospitalized for COVID-19 and 5% received mechanical ventilation or died, compared with 6% and 2%, respectively, for PWoH (n = 189 351). Outcome prevalence was lower for PWH and PWoH with prior tenofovir use. In adjusted analyses, PWH were at increased risk compared with PWoH for any hospitalization (aRR, 1.31 [95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.44]), COVID-19 hospitalizations (1.29 [1.15-1.45]), and mechanical ventilation or death (1.51 [1.19-1.92]). Prior tenofovir use was associated with reduced hospitalizations among PWH (aRR, 0.85 [95% confidence interval, .73-.99]) and PWoH (0.71 [.62-.81]). CONCLUSIONS: Before COVID-19 vaccine availability, PWH were at greater risk for severe outcomes than PWoH. Tenofovir was associated with a significant reduction in clinical events for both PWH and PWoH.

Design and Implementation of the All of Us Research Program COVID-19 Participant Experience (COPE) Survey.

In response to the rapidly evolving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the All of Us Research Program longitudinal cohort study developed the COVID-19 Participant Experience (COPE) survey to better understand the pandemic experiences and health impacts of COVID-19 on diverse populations within the United States. Six survey versions were deployed between May 2020 and March 2021, covering mental health, loneliness, activity, substance use, and discrimination, as well as COVID-19 symptoms, testing, treatment, and vaccination. A total of 104,910 All of Us Research Program participants, of whom over 73% were from communities traditionally underrepresented in biomedical research, completed 275,201 surveys; 9,693 completed all 6 surveys. Response rates varied widely among demographic groups and were lower among participants from certain racial and ethnic minority populations, participants with low income or educational attainment, and participants with a Spanish language preference. Survey modifications improved participant response rates between the first and last surveys (13.9% to 16.1%, P < 0.001). This paper describes a data set with longitudinal COVID-19 survey data in a large, diverse population that will enable researchers to address important questions related to the pandemic, a data set that is of additional scientific value when combined with the program's other data sources.

Telemedicine Use Among People With HIV in 2021: The Hybrid-Care Environment.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine use for the care of people with HIV (PWH) significantly expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic. During 2021, vaccine uptake increased and patients were encouraged to resume in-person care, resulting in a mixture of in-person and telemedicine visits. We studied how different patient populations used telemedicine in this hybrid-care environment. METHODS: Using observational data from patients enrolled in the Johns Hopkins HIV Clinical Cohort, we analyzed all in-person and telemedicine HIV primary care visits completed in an HIV clinic from January 1st, 2021, to December 31st, 2021. We used log-binomial regression to investigate the association between patient characteristics and the probability of completing a telemedicine versus in-person visit and the probability of completing a video versus telephone visit. RESULTS: A total of 5518 visits were completed by 1884 patients; 4282 (77.6%) visits were in-person, 800 (14.5%) by phone, and 436 (7.9%) by video. The relative risk (RR) of completing telemedicine vs. in-person visits was 0.65 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.47, 0.91) for patients age 65 years or older vs. age 20-39 years; 0.84 (95% CI: 0.72, 0.98) for male patients vs. female patients; 0.81 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.99) for Black vs. White patients; 0.62 (95% CI: 0.49, 0.79) for patients in the highest vs. lowest quartile of Area Deprivation Index; and 1.52 (95% CI: 1.26, 1.84) for patients >15 miles vs. <5 miles from clinic. CONCLUSIONS: In the second year of the pandemic, overall in-person care was used more than telemedicine and significant differences persist across subgroups in telemedicine uptake.

Guidance on the Use of Convalescent Plasma to Treat Immunocompromised Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19 in immunocompromised (IC) patients. IC patients have a higher risk of persistent infection, severe disease, and death from COVID-19. Despite the continued clinical use of CCP to treat IC patients, the optimal dose, frequency/schedule, and duration of CCP treatment has yet to be determined, and related best practices guidelines are lacking. A group of individuals with expertise spanning infectious diseases, virology and transfusion medicine was assembled to render an expert opinion statement pertaining to the use of CCP for IC patients. For optimal effect, CCP should be recently and locally collected to match circulating variant. CCP should be considered for the treatment of IC patients with acute and protracted COVID-19; dosage depends on clinical setting (acute vs protracted COVID-19). CCP containing high-titer severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies, retains activity against circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants, which have otherwise rendered monoclonal antibodies ineffective.

Symptom Duration and Resolution With Early Outpatient Treatment of Convalescent Plasma for Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) reduces hospitalizations among outpatients treated early after symptom onset. It is unknown whether CCP reduces time to symptom resolution among outpatients. METHODS: We evaluated symptom resolution at day 14 by trial arm using an adjusted subdistribution hazard model, with hospitalization as a competing risk. We also assessed the prevalence of symptom clusters at day 14 between treatments. Clusters were defined based on biologic clustering, impact on ability to work, and an algorithm. RESULTS: Among 1070 outpatients followed up after transfusion, 381 of 538 (70.8%) receiving CCP and 381 of 532 (71.6%) receiving control plasma were still symptomatic (P = .78) at day 14. Associations between CCP and symptom resolution by day 14 did not differ significantly from those in controls after adjustment for baseline characteristics (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.99; P = .62). The most common cluster consisted of cough, fatigue, shortness of breath, and headache and was found in 308 (57.2%) and 325 (61.1%) of CCP and control plasma recipients, respectively (P = .16). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial of outpatients with early COVID-19, CCP was not associated with faster resolution of symptoms compared with control. Overall, there were no differences by treatment in the prevalence of each symptom or symptom clusters at day 14. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04373460.

Analysis of Clinical Outcomes of Pregnant Patients Treated With Nirmatrelvir and Ritonavir for Acute SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Importance: Pregnant people are at increased risk of poor outcomes due to infection with SARS-CoV-2, and there are limited therapeutic options available. Objective: To evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with nirmatrelvir and ritonavir used to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case series included pregnant patients who were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, received nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, and delivered their offspring within the Johns Hopkins Health System between December 22, 2021, and August 20, 2022. Exposures: Treatment with nirmatrelvir and ritonavir for SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical characteristics and outcomes were ascertained through manual record review. Results: Forty-seven pregnant patients (median [range] age, 34 [22-43] years) were included in the study, and the median (range) gestational age of their offspring was 28.4 (4.3-39.6) weeks. Medication was initiated at a median (range) of 1 (0-5) day after symptom onset, and only 2 patients [4.3%] did not complete the course of therapy because of adverse effects. Thirty patients (63.8%) treated with nirmatrelvir and ritonavir had a comorbidity in addition to pregnancy that could be a risk factor for developing severe COVID-19. Twenty-five patients [53.2%] delivered after treatment with nirmatrelvir and ritonavir. Twelve of these patients [48.0%] underwent cesarean delivery, 9 [75.0%] of which were scheduled. Two of 47 patients [4.3%] were hospitalized for conditions related to preexisting comorbidities. Conclusions and Relevance: In this case series, pregnant patients who were treated with nirmatrelvir and ritonavir tolerated treatment well, although there was an unexpectedly high rate of cesarean deliveries. The lack of an increase in serious adverse effects affecting pregnant patients or offspring suggests that clinicians can use this drug combination to treat pregnant patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The Potential Role of Passive Antibody-Based Therapies as Treatments for Monkeypox.

Monkeypox, a zoonosis caused by the orthopox monkeypox virus (MPXV) that is endemic to Central and West Africa, was previously linked to sporadic outbreaks and rare, travel-associated cases. An outbreak of monkeypox in 2022 has spurred a public health emergency of international concern, and this outbreak is unprecedented in terms of its scale and epidemiology. The outbreak has been focused overwhelmingly in men who have sex with men; however, the trajectory of the outbreak remains uncertain, with spread now being reported in women and children. The mortality has been low (<1%), yet the morbidity is high. Vaccines and oral antiviral agents that have been developed to protect against smallpox are available for use against monkeypox. However, the supply has been unable to match the demand during the outbreak. Passive antibody-based therapies, such as hyperimmune globulin (HIG), monoclonal antibodies, and convalescent plasma (CP), have been used against a diverse array of infectious diseases, culminating in their extensive use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Passive antibody-based therapies could play a role in the treatment of monkeypox, either as a temporizing role amid a shortfall in vaccines and antivirals or a complementary role to direct-acting antivirals. Drawing on the collective experience to date, there are regulatory, administrative, and logistical challenges to the implementation of antibody-based therapies. Their efficacy is contingent upon early administration and the presence of high-titer antibodies against the targeted pathogen. Research is needed to address questions pertaining to how to qualify HIG and CP and to determine their relative efficacy against MPXV, compared to antecedent therapies and preventative strategies. IMPORTANCE Monkeypox is an infection caused by the monkeypox virus (MPXV). The clinical findings in monkeypox include fever and rash. Historically, most cases of human monkeypox were reported in Africa. This changed in 2022, with a massive escalation in the number of cases across multiple countries, mainly affecting men who have sex with men. Although vaccines and oral antiviral medications are available for the treatment of monkeypox, their supply has been overwhelmed by the unprecedented number of cases. Antibody-based therapies (ABTs) have long been used to treat infectious diseases. They are produced in a laboratory or from plasma that has been collected from individuals who have recovered from an infection or have been vaccinated against that infection (in this case, monkeypox). ABTs could play a role in the treatment of monkeypox, either while awaiting oral medications or as a complementary treatment for patients that are at risk of severe disease.

Analysis of Severe Illness After Postvaccination COVID-19 Breakthrough Among Adults With and Without HIV in the US.

Importance: Understanding the severity of postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 (ie, COVID-19) breakthrough illness among people with HIV (PWH) can inform vaccine guidelines and risk-reduction recommendations. Objective: To estimate the rate and risk of severe breakthrough illness among vaccinated PWH and people without HIV (PWoH) who experience a breakthrough infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, the Corona-Infectious-Virus Epidemiology Team (CIVET-II) collaboration included adults (aged ≥18 years) with HIV who were receiving care and were fully vaccinated by June 30, 2021, along with PWoH matched according to date fully vaccinated, age group, race, ethnicity, and sex from 4 US integrated health systems and academic centers. Those with postvaccination COVID-19 breakthrough before December 31, 2021, were eligible. Exposures: HIV infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was severe COVID-19 breakthrough illness, defined as hospitalization within 28 days after a breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection with a primary or secondary COVID-19 discharge diagnosis. Discrete time proportional hazards models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% CIs of severe breakthrough illness within 28 days of breakthrough COVID-19 by HIV status adjusting for demographic variables, COVID-19 vaccine type, and clinical factors. The proportion of patients who received mechanical ventilation or died was compared by HIV status. Results: Among 3649 patients with breakthrough COVID-19 (1241 PWH and 2408 PWoH), most were aged 55 years or older (2182 patients [59.8%]) and male (3244 patients [88.9%]). The cumulative incidence of severe illness in the first 28 days was low and comparable between PWoH and PWH (7.3% vs 6.7%; risk difference, -0.67%; 95% CI, -2.58% to 1.23%). The risk of severe breakthrough illness was 59% higher in PWH with CD4 cell counts less than 350 cells/µL compared with PWoH (aHR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.99 to 2.46; P = .049). In multivariable analyses among PWH, being female, older, having a cancer diagnosis, and lower CD4 cell count were associated with increased risk of severe breakthrough illness, whereas previous COVID-19 was associated with reduced risk. Among 249 hospitalized patients, 24 (9.6%) were mechanically ventilated and 20 (8.0%) died, with no difference by HIV status. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the risk of severe COVID-19 breakthrough illness within 28 days of a breakthrough infection was low among vaccinated PWH and PWoH. PWH with moderate or severe immune suppression had a higher risk of severe breakthrough infection and should be included in groups prioritized for additional vaccine doses and risk-reduction strategies.

Concordance of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Results during a Period of Low Prevalence.

Accurate, highly specific immunoassays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are needed to evaluate seroprevalence. This study investigated the concordance of results across four immunoassays targeting different antigens for sera collected at the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the United States. Specimens from All of Us participants contributed between January and March 2020 were tested using the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG (immunoglobulin G) assay (Abbott) and the EuroImmun SARS-CoV-2 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (EI). Participants with discordant results, participants with concordant positive results, and a subset of concordant negative results by Abbott and EI were also tested using the Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 (IgG) test (Roche) and the Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics Vitros anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG test (Ortho). The agreement and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for paired assay combinations. SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations were quantified for specimens with at least two positive results across four immunoassays. Among the 24,079 participants, the percent agreement for the Abbott and EI assays was 98.8% (95% confidence interval, 98.7%, 99%). Of the 490 participants who were also tested by Ortho and Roche, the probability-weighted percentage of agreement (95% confidence interval) between Ortho and Roche was 98.4% (97.9%, 98.9%), that between EI and Ortho was 98.5% (92.9%, 99.9%), that between Abbott and Roche was 98.9% (90.3%, 100.0%), that between EI and Roche was 98.9% (98.6%, 100.0%), and that between Abbott and Ortho was 98.4% (91.2%, 100.0%). Among the 32 participants who were positive by at least 2 immunoassays, 21 had quantifiable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations by research assays. The results across immunoassays revealed concordance during a period of low prevalence. However, the frequency of false positivity during a period of low prevalence supports the use of two sequentially performed tests for unvaccinated individuals who are seropositive by the first test. IMPORTANCE What is the agreement of commercial SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) assays during a time of low coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevalence and no vaccine availability? Serological tests produced concordant results in a time of low SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and no vaccine availability, driven largely by the proportion of samples that were negative by two immunoassays. The CDC recommends two sequential tests for positivity for future pandemic preparedness. In a subset analysis, quantified antinucleocapsid and antispike SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies do not suggest the need to specify the antigen targets of the sequential assays in the CDC's recommendation because false positivity varied as much between assays targeting the same antigen as it did between assays targeting different antigens.

Time Between Viral Loads for People With HIV During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients experienced significant care disruptions, including laboratory monitoring. We investigated changes in the time between viral load (VL) checks for people with HIV (PWH) associated with the pandemic. SETTING AND METHODS: This was an observational analysis of VLs of PWH in routine care at a large subspecialty clinic. At pandemic onset, the clinic temporarily closed its onsite laboratory. The exposure was time period (time varying): prepandemic (January 1, 2019-March 15, 2020); pandemic laboratory closed (March 16-July 12, 2020); and pandemic laboratory open (July 13-December 31, 2020). We estimated time from an index VL to a subsequent VL, stratified by whether the index VL was suppressed (≤200 copies/mL). We also calculated cumulative incidence of a nonsuppressed VL following a suppressed index VL, and of resuppression following a loss of viral suppression. RESULTS: Compared with prepandemic, hazard ratios for next VL check were 0.34 (95% CI: 0.30 to 0.37, laboratory-closed) and 0.73 (CI: 0.68 to 0.78, laboratory-open) for suppressed patients, and 0.56 (CI: 0.42 to 0.79, laboratory-closed) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.76 to 1.10, laboratory-open) for nonsuppressed patients. The 12-month cumulative incidence of loss of suppression was the same in the pandemic laboratory-open (4%) and prepandemic (4%) period. The hazard of resuppression following the loss of suppression was lower during the pandemic laboratory-open versus the prepandemic period (hazard ratio: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.50 to 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Early pandemic restrictions and laboratory closure significantly delayed VL monitoring. Once the laboratory reopened, nonsuppressed patients resumed normal monitoring. Suppressed patients still had a delay but no significant loss of suppression.

Analysis of Postvaccination Breakthrough COVID-19 Infections Among Adults With HIV in the United States.

Importance: Recommendations for additional doses of COVID-19 vaccines for people with HIV (PWH) are restricted to those with advanced disease or unsuppressed HIV viral load. Understanding SARS-CoV-2 infection risk after vaccination among PWH is essential for informing vaccination guidelines. Objective: To estimate the rate and risk of breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated PWH and people without HIV (PWoH) in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used the Corona-Infectious-Virus Epidemiology Team (CIVET)-II (of the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design [NA-ACCORD], which is part of the International Epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS [IeDEA]), collaboration of 4 prospective, electronic health record-based cohorts from integrated health systems and academic health centers. Adult PWH who were fully vaccinated prior to June 30, 2021, were matched with PWoH on date of full vaccination, age, race and ethnicity, and sex and followed up through December 31, 2021. Exposures: HIV infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: COVID-19 breakthrough infections, defined as laboratory evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 diagnosis after a patient was fully vaccinated. Results: Among 113 994 patients (33 029 PWH and 80 965 PWoH), most were 55 years or older (80 017 [70%]) and male (104 967 [92%]); 47 098 (41%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 43 218 (38%) were non-Hispanic White. The rate of breakthrough infections was higher in PWH vs PWoH (55 [95% CI, 52-58] cases per 1000 person-years vs 43 [95% CI, 42-45] cases per 1000 person-years). Cumulative incidence of breakthroughs 9 months after full vaccination was low (3.8% [95% CI, 3.7%-3.9%]), albeit higher in PWH vs PWoH (4.4% vs 3.5%; log-rank P < .001; risk difference, 0.9% [95% CI, 0.6%-1.2%]) and within each vaccine type. Breakthrough infection risk was 28% higher in PWH vs PWoH (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.19-1.37]). Among PWH, younger age (<45 y vs 45-54 y), history of COVID-19, and not receiving an additional dose (aHR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.58-0.88]) were associated with increased risk of breakthrough infections. There was no association of breakthrough with HIV viral load suppression, but high CD4 count (ie, ≥500 cells/mm3) was associated with fewer breakthroughs among PWH. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, COVID-19 vaccination, especially with an additional dose, was effective against infection with SARS-CoV-2 strains circulating through December 31, 2021. PWH had an increased risk of breakthrough infections compared with PWoH. Expansion of recommendations for additional vaccine doses to all PWH should be considered.

Convalescent plasma with a high level of virus-specific antibody effectively neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern.

The ongoing evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants severely limits available effective monoclonal antibody therapies. Effective drugs are also supply limited. COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) qualified for high antibody levels effectively reduces immunocompetent outpatient hospitalization. The Food and Drug Administration currently allows outpatient CCP for the immunosuppressed. Viral-specific antibody levels in CCP can range 10- to 100-fold between donors, unlike the uniform viral-specific monoclonal antibody dosing. Limited data are available on the efficacy of polyclonal CCP to neutralize variants. We examined 108 pre-δ/pre-ο donor units obtained before March 2021, 20 post-δ COVID-19/postvaccination units, and 1 pre-δ/pre-ο hyperimmunoglobulin preparation for variant-specific virus (vaccine-related isolate [WA-1], δ, and ο) neutralization correlated to Euroimmun S1 immunoglobulin G antibody levels. We observed a two- to fourfold and 20- to 40-fold drop in virus neutralization from SARS-CoV-2 WA-1 to δ or ο, respectively. CCP antibody levels in the upper 10% of the 108 donations as well as 100% of the post-δ COVID-19/postvaccination units and the hyperimmunoglobulin effectively neutralized all 3 variants. High-titer CCP neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 variants despite no previous donor exposure to the variants.

Early Outpatient Treatment for Covid-19 with Convalescent Plasma.

BACKGROUND: Polyclonal convalescent plasma may be obtained from donors who have recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). The efficacy of this plasma in preventing serious complications in outpatients with recent-onset Covid-19 is uncertain. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of Covid-19 convalescent plasma, as compared with control plasma, in symptomatic adults (≥18 years of age) who had tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, regardless of their risk factors for disease progression or vaccination status. Participants were enrolled within 8 days after symptom onset and received a transfusion within 1 day after randomization. The primary outcome was Covid-19-related hospitalization within 28 days after transfusion. RESULTS: Participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, through October 1, 2021. A total of 1225 participants underwent randomization, and 1181 received a transfusion. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a transfusion, the primary outcome occurred in 17 of 592 participants (2.9%) who received convalescent plasma and 37 of 589 participants (6.3%) who received control plasma (absolute risk reduction, 3.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 1.0 to 5.8; P = 0.005), which corresponded to a relative risk reduction of 54%. Evidence of efficacy in vaccinated participants cannot be inferred from these data because 53 of the 54 participants with Covid-19 who were hospitalized were unvaccinated and 1 participant was partially vaccinated. A total of 16 grade 3 or 4 adverse events (7 in the convalescent-plasma group and 9 in the control-plasma group) occurred in participants who were not hospitalized. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with Covid-19, most of whom were unvaccinated, the administration of convalescent plasma within 9 days after the onset of symptoms reduced the risk of disease progression leading to hospitalization. (Funded by the Department of Defense and others; CSSC-004 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04373460.).

How do I implement an outpatient program for the administration of convalescent plasma for COVID-19?

Convalescent plasma, collected from donors who have recovered from a pathogen of interest, has been used to treat infectious diseases, particularly in times of outbreak, when alternative therapies were unavailable. The COVID-19 pandemic revived interest in the use of convalescent plasma. Large observational studies and clinical trials that were executed during the pandemic provided insight into how to use convalescent plasma, whereby high levels of antibodies against the pathogen of interest and administration early within the time course of the disease are critical for optimal therapeutic effect. Several studies have shown outpatient administration of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) to be both safe and effective, preventing clinical progression in patients when administered within the first week of COVID-19. The United States Food and Drug Administration expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) to allow for the administration of CCP in an outpatient setting in December 2021, at least for immunocompromised patients or those on immunosuppressive therapy. Outpatient transfusion of CCP and infusion of monoclonal antibody therapies for a highly transmissible infectious disease introduces nuanced challenges related to infection prevention. Drawing on our experiences with the clinical and research use of CCP, we describe the logistical considerations and workflow spanning procurement of qualified products, infrastructure, staffing, transfusion, and associated management of adverse events. The purpose of this description is to facilitate the efforts of others intent on establishing outpatient transfusion programs for CCP and other antibody-based therapies.

Antibodies to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in All of Us Research Program Participants, 2 January to 18 March 2020.

BACKGROUND: With limited severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) testing capacity in the United States at the start of the epidemic (January-March 2020), testing was focused on symptomatic patients with a travel history throughout February, obscuring the picture of SARS-CoV-2 seeding and community transmission. We sought to identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the early weeks of the US epidemic. METHODS: All of Us study participants in all 50 US states provided blood specimens during study visits from 2 January to 18 March 2020. Participants were considered seropositive if they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies with the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 ELISA in a sequential testing algorithm. The sensitivity and specificity of these ELISAs and the net sensitivity and specificity of the sequential testing algorithm were estimated, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The estimated sensitivities of the Abbott and EUROIMMUN assays were 100% (107 of 107 [95% CI: 96.6%-100%]) and 90.7% (97 of 107 [83.5%-95.4%]), respectively, and the estimated specificities were 99.5% (995 of 1000 [98.8%-99.8%]) and 99.7% (997 of 1000 [99.1%-99.9%]), respectively. The net sensitivity and specificity of our sequential testing algorithm were 90.7% (97 of 107 [95% CI: 83.5%-95.4%]) and 100.0% (1000 of 1000 [99.6%-100%]), respectively. Of the 24 079 study participants with blood specimens from 2 January to 18 March 2020, 9 were seropositive, 7 before the first confirmed case in the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings identified SARS-CoV-2 infections weeks before the first recognized cases in 5 US states.

Adaptive immune responses in vaccinated patients with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Alpha infection.

Benchmarks for protective immunity from infection or severe disease after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are still being defined. Here, we characterized virus neutralizing and ELISA antibody levels, cellular immune responses, and viral variants in 4 separate groups: healthy controls (HCs) weeks (early) or months (late) following vaccination in comparison with symptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 after partial or full mRNA vaccination. During the period of the study, most symptomatic breakthrough infections were caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant. Neutralizing antibody levels in the HCs were sustained over time against the vaccine parent virus but decreased against the Alpha variant, whereas IgG titers and T cell responses against the parent virus and Alpha variant declined over time. Both partially and fully vaccinated patients with symptomatic infections had lower virus neutralizing antibody levels against the parent virus than the HCs, similar IgG antibody titers, and similar virus-specific T cell responses measured by IFN-γ. Compared with HCs, neutralization activity against the Alpha variant was lower in the partially vaccinated infected patients and tended to be lower in the fully vaccinated infected patients. In this cohort of breakthrough infections, parent virus neutralization was the superior predictor of breakthrough infections with the Alpha variant of SARS-CoV-2.

Telemedicine and visit completion among people with HIV during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic compared with prepandemic.

OBJECTIVES: Telemedicine became the primary mode of delivering care during the COVID-19 pandemic. We describe the impact of telemedicine on access to care for people with HIV (PWH) by comparing the proportion of PWH engaged in care prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted an observational analysis of patients enrolled in the Johns Hopkins HIV Clinical Cohort, a single-center cohort of patients at an urban HIV subspecialty clinic affiliated with an academic center. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the clinic transitioned from in-person to mostly telemedicine visits. We compared patients receiving care in two time periods. The prepandemic period included 2010 people with at least one visit scheduled between 1 September 2019 and 15 March 2020. The pandemic period included 1929 people with at least one visit scheduled between 16 March 2020 and 30 September 2020. We determined the proportion of patients completing at least one of their scheduled visits during each period. RESULTS: Visit completion increased significantly from 88% prepandemic to 91% during the pandemic (P = 0.008). Visit completion improved significantly for patients age 20-39 (82 to 92%, P < 0.001), women (86 to 93%, P < 0.001), Black patients (88 to 91%, P = 0.002) and patients with detectable viremia (77 to 85%, P = 0.06) during the pandemic. Only 29% of people who completed at least one telemedicine visit during the pandemic did so as a video (versus telephone) visit. CONCLUSION: During the pandemic when care was widely delivered via telemedicine, visit completion improved among groups with lower prepandemic engagement but most were limited to telephone visits.