Losartan in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in North America: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have been hypothesized to benefit patients with COVID-19 via the inhibition of viral entry and other mechanisms. We conducted an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis assessing the effect of starting the ARB losartan in recently hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in January 2021 for U.S./Canada-based trials where an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/ARB was a treatment arm, targeted outcomes could be extrapolated, and data sharing was allowed. Our primary outcome was a 7-point COVID-19 ordinal score measured 13 to 16 days post-enrollment. We analyzed data by fitting multilevel Bayesian ordinal regression models and standardizing the resulting predictions. RESULTS: 325 participants (156 losartan vs 169 control) from 4 studies contributed IPD. Three were randomized trials; one used non-randomized concurrent and historical controls. Baseline covariates were reasonably balanced for the randomized trials. All studies evaluated losartan. We found equivocal evidence of a difference in ordinal scores 13-16 days post-enrollment (model-standardized odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.76-1.71; adjusted OR 1.15, 95% CrI 0.15-3.59) and no compelling evidence of treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Losartan had worse effects for those taking corticosteroids at baseline after adjusting for covariates (ratio of adjusted ORs 0.29, 95% CrI 0.08-0.99). Hypotension serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with losartan. CONCLUSIONS: In this IPD meta-analysis of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, we found no convincing evidence for the benefit of losartan versus control treatment, but a higher rate of hypotension adverse events with losartan.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Convalescent Plasma Outpatient Therapy to Prevent Outpatient Hospitalization: A Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant Data From 5 Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient monoclonal antibodies are no longer effective and antiviral treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease remain largely unavailable in many countries worldwide. Although treatment with COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is promising, clinical trials among outpatients have shown mixed results. METHODS: We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis from outpatient trials to assess the overall risk reduction for all-cause hospitalizations by day 28 in transfused participants. Relevant trials were identified by searching Medline, Embase, medRxiv, World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from January 2020 to September 2022. RESULTS: Five included studies from 4 countries enrolled and transfused 2620 adult patients. Comorbidities were present in 1795 (69%). The virus neutralizing antibody dilutional titer levels ranged from 8 to 14 580 in diverse assays. One hundred sixty of 1315 (12.2%) control patients were hospitalized, versus 111 of 1305 (8.5%) CCP-treated patients, yielding a 3.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3%-6.0%; P = .001) absolute risk reduction and 30.1% relative risk reduction for all-cause hospitalization. The hospitalization reduction was greatest in those with both early transfusion and high titer with a 7.6% absolute risk reduction (95% CI, 4.0%-11.1%; P = .0001) accompanied by at 51.4% relative risk reduction. No significant reduction in hospitalization was seen with treatment >5 days after symptom onset or in those receiving CCP with antibody titers below the median titer. CONCLUSIONS: Among outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with CCP reduced the rate of all-cause hospitalization and may be most effective when given within 5 days of symptom onset and when antibody titer is higher.

Transfusing convalescent plasma as post-exposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection: a double-blinded, phase 2 randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma (CCP) for preventing infection in exposed, uninfected individuals is unknown. CCP might prevent infection when administered before symptoms or laboratory evidence of infection. METHODS: This double-blinded, phase 2 randomized, controlled trial (RCT) compared the efficacy and safety of prophylactic high titer (≥1:320 by Euroimmun ELISA) CCP with standard plasma. Asymptomatic participants aged ≥18 years with close contact exposure to a person with confirmed COVID-19 in the previous 120 hours and negative SARS-CoV-2 test within 24 hours before transfusion were eligible. The primary outcome was new SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: 180 participants were enrolled; 87 were assigned to CCP and 93 to control plasma, and 170 transfused at 19 sites across the United States from June 2020 to March 2021. Two were excluded for screening SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positivity. Of the remaining 168 participants, 12/81 (14·8%) CCP and 13/87 (14·9%) control recipients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection; 6 (7·4%) CCP and 7 (8%) control recipients developed COVID-19 (infection with symptoms). There were no COVID-19-related hospitalizations in CCP and 2 in control recipients. Efficacy by restricted mean infection free time (RMIFT) by 28 days for all SARS-CoV-2 infections (25·3 vs. 25·2 days; p = 0·49) and COVID-19 (26·3 vs. 25·9 days; p = 0·35) was similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of high-titer CCP as post-exposure prophylaxis, while appearing safe, did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Absence of pathogenic viruses in COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

BACKGROUND: It is important to maintain the safety of blood products by avoiding the transfusion of units with known and novel viral pathogens. It is unknown whether COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) may contain pathogenic viruses (either newly acquired or reactivated) that are not routinely screened for by blood centers. METHODS: The DNA virome was characterized in potential CCP donors (n = 30) using viral genome specific PCR primers to identify DNA plasma virome members of the Herpesviridae [Epstein Barr Virus (EBV), cytomegalovirus (CMV), human herpesvirus 6A/B, human herpesvirus 7] and Anelloviridae [Torque teno viruses (TTV), Torque teno mini viruses (TTMV), and Torque teno midi viruses (TTMDV)] families. In addition, the RNA plasma virome was characterized using unbiased metagenomic sequencing. Sequencing was done on a HiSeq2500 using high output mode with a read length of 2X100 bp. The sequencing reads were taxonomically classified using Kraken2. CMV and EBV seroprevalence were evaluated using a chemiluminescent immunoassay. RESULTS: TTV and TTMDV were detected in 12 (40%) and 4 (13%) of the 30 study participants, respectively; TTMDV was always associated with infection with TTV. We did not observe TTMV DNAemia. Despite CMV and EBV seroprevalences of 33.3% and 93.3%, respectively, we did not detect Herpesviridae DNA among the study participants. Metagenomic sequencing did not reveal any human RNA viruses in CCP, including no evidence of circulating SARS-CoV-2. DISCUSSION: There was no evidence of pathogenic viruses, whether newly acquired or reactivated, in CCP despite the presence of non-pathogenic Anelloviridae. These results confirm the growing safety data supporting CCP.

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.

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions. RESULTS: Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

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.

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.

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.

Comparative performance of multiplex salivary and commercially available serologic assays to detect SARS-CoV-2 IgG and neutralization titers.

Oral fluid (hereafter saliva) offers a non-invasive sampling method for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. However, data comparing performance of salivary tests against commercially-available serologic and neutralizing antibody (nAb) assays are lacking. This study compared the performance of a laboratory-developed multiplex salivary SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay targeting antibodies to nucleocapsid (N), receptor binding domain (RBD) and spike (S) antigens to three commercially-available SARS-CoV-2 serologic enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) (Ortho Vitros, Euroimmun, and BioRad) and nAb. Paired saliva and plasma samples were collected from 101 eligible COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) donors >14 days since PCR+ confirmed diagnosis. Concordance was evaluated using positive (PPA) and negative (NPA) percent agreement, and Cohen's kappa coefficient. The range between salivary and plasma EIAs for SARS-CoV-2-specific N was PPA: 54.4-92.1% and NPA: 69.2-91.7%, for RBD was PPA: 89.9-100% and NPA: 50.0-84.6%, and for S was PPA: 50.6-96.6% and NPA: 50.0-100%. Compared to a plasma nAb assay, the multiplex salivary assay PPA ranged from 62.3% (N) and 98.6% (RBD) and NPA ranged from 18.8% (RBD) to 96.9% (S). Combinations of N, RBD, and S and a summary algorithmic index of all three (N/RBD/S) in saliva produced ranges of PPA: 87.6-98.9% and NPA: 50-91.7% with the three EIAs and ranges of PPA: 88.4-98.6% and NPA: 21.9-34.4% with the nAb assay. A multiplex salivary SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay demonstrated variable, but comparable performance to three commercially-available plasma EIAs and a nAb assay, and may be a viable alternative to assist in monitoring population-based seroprevalence and vaccine antibody response.

Response of the trial innovation network to the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic prompted the development and implementation of hundreds of clinical trials across the USA. The Trial Innovation Network (TIN), funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, was an established clinical research network that pivoted to respond to the pandemic. METHODS: The TIN's three Trial Innovation Centers, Recruitment Innovation Center, and 66 Clinical and Translational Science Award Hub institutions, collaborated to adapt to the pandemic's rapidly changing landscape, playing central roles in the planning and execution of pivotal studies addressing COVID-19. Our objective was to summarize the results of these collaborations and lessons learned. RESULTS: The TIN provided 29 COVID-related consults between March 2020 and December 2020, including 6 trial participation expressions of interest and 8 community engagement studios from the Recruitment Innovation Center. Key lessons learned from these experiences include the benefits of leveraging an established infrastructure, innovations surrounding remote research activities, data harmonization and central safety reviews, and early community engagement and involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience highlighted the benefits and challenges of a multi-institutional approach to clinical research during a pandemic.