Convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19: Unravelling the data using the principles of antibody therapy.

INTRODUCTION: When the COVID-19 pandemic struck no specific therapies were available and many turned to COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP), a form of antibody therapy. The literature provides mixed evidence for CCP efficacy. AREAS COVERED: PubMed was searched using the words COVID-19 and convalescent plasma and individual study designs were evaluated for adherence to the three principles of antibody therapy, i.e. that plasma 1) contain specific antibody; 2) have enough specific antibody to mediate a biological effect; and 3) be administered early in the course of disease. Using this approach, a diverse and seemingly contradictory collection of clinical findings was distilled into a consistent picture whereby CCP was effective when used according to the above principles of antibody therapy. In addition, CCP therapy in immunocompromised patients is useful at any time in the course of disease. EXPERT OPINION: CCP is safe and effective when used appropriately. Today, most of humanity has some immunity to SARS-CoV-2 from vaccines and infection, which has lessened the need for CCP in the general population. However, COVID-19 in immunocompromised patients is a major therapeutic challenge, and with the deauthorization of all SARS-CoV-2-spike protein-directed monoclonal antibodies, CCP is the only antibody therapy available for this population.

Plasma after both SARS-CoV-2 boosted vaccination and COVID-19 potently neutralizes BQ.1.1 and XBB.1.

Recent 2022 SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants, have acquired resistance to most neutralizing anti-Spike monoclonal antibodies authorized, and the BQ.1.* sublineages are notably resistant to all authorized monoclonal antibodies. Polyclonal antibodies from individuals both vaccinated and recently recovered from Omicron COVID-19 (VaxCCP) could retain new Omicron neutralizing activity. Here we reviewed BQ.1.* virus neutralization data from 920 individual patient samples from 43 separate cohorts defined by boosted vaccinations (Vax) with or without recent Omicron COVID-19, as well as infection without vaccination (CCP) to determine level of BQ.1.* neutralizing antibodies and percent of plasma samples with neutralizing activity. More than 90 % of the plasma samples from individuals in the recently (within 6 months) boosted VaxCCP study cohorts neutralized BQ.1.1, and BF.7 with 100 % neutralization of WA-1, BA.4/5, BA.4.6 and BA.2.75. The geometric mean of the geometric mean 50 % neutralizing titres (GM (GMT50) were 314, 78 and 204 for BQ.1.1, XBB.1 and BF.7, respectively. Compared to VaxCCP, plasma sampled from COVID-19 naïve subjects who also recently (within 6 months) received at least a third vaccine dose had about half of the GM (GMT50) for all viral variants. Boosted VaxCCP characterized by either recent vaccine dose or infection event within 6 months represents a robust, variant-resilient, neutralizing antibody source against the new Omicron BQ.1.1, XBB.1 and BF.7 variants.

COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Immunocompromised Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Patients who are immunocompromised have increased risk for morbidity and mortality associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) because they less frequently mount antibody responses to vaccines. Although neutralizing anti-spike monoclonal-antibody treatment has been widely used to treat COVID-19, evolutions of SARS-CoV-2 have been associated with monoclonal antibody-resistant SARS-CoV-2 variants and greater virulence and transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2. Thus, the therapeutic use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma has increased on the presumption that such plasma contains potentially therapeutic antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 that can be passively transferred to the plasma recipient. Objective: To assess the growing number of reports of clinical experiences of patients with COVID-19 who are immunocompromised and treated with specific neutralizing antibodies via COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion. Data Sources: On August 12, 2022, a systematic search was performed for clinical studies of COVID-19 convalescent plasma use in patients who are immunocompromised. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials, matched cohort studies, and case report or series on COVID-19 convalescent plasma use in patients who are immunocompromised were included. The electronic search yielded 462 unique records, of which 199 were considered for full-text screening. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data were extracted by 3 independent reviewers in duplicate and pooled. Main Outcomes and Meaures: The prespecified end point was all-cause mortality after COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion; exploratory subgroup analyses were performed based on putative factors associated with the potential mortality benefit of convalescent plasma. Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis included 3 randomized clinical trials enrolling 1487 participants and 5 controlled studies. Additionally, 125 case series or reports enrolling 265 participants and 13 uncontrolled large case series enrolling 358 participants were included. Separate meta-analyses, using models both stratified and pooled by study type (ie, randomized clinical trials and matched cohort studies), demonstrated that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with the control cohort for the amalgam of both randomized clinical trials and matched cohort studies (risk ratio [RR], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.50-0.79]). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma is associated with mortality benefit for patients who are immunocompromised and have COVID-19.

Association of Neutralizing Antispike Monoclonal Antibody Treatment With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalization and Assessment of the Monoclonal Antibody Screening Score.

Objective: To test the hypothesis that the Monoclonal Antibody Screening Score performs consistently better in identifying the need for monoclonal antibody infusion throughout each "wave" of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant predominance during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and that the infusion of contemporary monoclonal antibody treatments is associated with a lower risk of hospitalization. Patients and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated the efficacy of monoclonal antibody treatment compared with that of no monoclonal antibody treatment in symptomatic adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 regardless of their risk factors for disease progression or vaccination status during different periods of SARS-CoV-2 variant predominance. The primary outcome was hospitalization within 28 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. The study was conducted on patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 from November 19, 2020, through May 12, 2022. Results: Of the included 118,936 eligible patients, hospitalization within 28 days of COVID-19 diagnosis occurred in 2.52% (456/18,090) of patients who received monoclonal antibody treatment and 6.98% (7,037/100,846) of patients who did not. Treatment with monoclonal antibody therapies was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization when using stratified data analytics, propensity scoring, and regression and machine learning models with and without adjustments for putative confounding variables, such as advanced age and coexisting medical conditions (eg, relative risk, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.14-0.17). Conclusion: Among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, including those who have been vaccinated, monoclonal antibody treatment was associated with a lower risk of hospital admission during each wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Greater central airway luminal area in people with COVID-19: a case-control series.

Respiratory epithelium in the conducting airways of the human body is one of the primary targets of SARS-CoV-2 infection, however, there is a paucity of studies describing the association between COVID-19 and physical characteristics of the conducting airways. To better understand the pathophysiology of COVID-19 on the size of larger conducting airways, we determined the luminal area of the central airways in patients with a history of COVID-19 compared to a height-matched cohort of controls using a case-control study design. Using three-dimensional reconstruction from low-dose high-resolution computed tomography, we retrospectively assessed airway luminal cross-sectional area in 114 patients with COVID-19 (66 females, 48 males) and 114 healthy, sex- and height-matched controls (66 females, 48 males). People with a history of smoking, cardiopulmonary disease, or a body mass index greater than 40 kg·m-2 were excluded. Luminal areas of seven conducting airways were analyzed, including trachea, left and right main bronchus, intermediate bronchus, left and right upper lobe, and left lower lobe. For the central conducting airways, luminal area was ~ 15% greater patients with COVID-19 compared to matched controls (p < 0.05). Among patients with COVID-19, there were generally no differences in the luminal areas of the conducting airways between hospitalized patients compared to patients who did not require COVID-19-related hospitalization. Our findings suggest that males and females with COVID-19 have pathologically larger conducting airway luminal areas than healthy, sex- and height-matched controls.

Anti-spike T-cell and Antibody Responses to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccines in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies.

The anti-spike T-cell and antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in patients with B-cell malignancies were examined in a real-world setting. A next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based molecular assay was used to assess SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell responses. After the second dose, 58% (166/284) of seropositive and 45% (99/221) of seronegative patients display anti-spike T cells. The percentage of patients who displayed T-cell response was higher among patients receiving mRNA-1273 vaccines compared with those receiving BNT162b2 vaccines. After the third vaccination, 40% (137/342) of patients seroconverted, although only 22% displayed sufficient antibody levels associated with the production of neutralizing antibodies. 97% (717/738) of patients who were seropositive before the third dose had markedly elevated anti-spike antibody levels. Anti-spike antibody levels, but not T-cell responses, were depressed by B cell-directed therapies. Vaccinated patients with B-cell malignancies with a poor response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may remain vulnerable to COVID-19 infections. SIGNIFICANCE: This study represents the first investigation of SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses to vaccination in a patient registry using an NGS-based method for T-cell receptor repertoire-based analysis combined with anti-spike antibody assessments. Vaccinated patients with B cell-derived hematologic malignancies are likely at higher risk of infection or severe COVID-19. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 476.

Limited Correlation between SARS-CoV-2 Serologic Assays for Identification of High-Titer COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Using FDA Thresholds.

In August 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) specified 12 authorized serologic assays and associated assay-specific cutoff values for the selection of high-titer CCP for use in hospitalized patients. The criteria used for establishing these cutoff values remains unclear. Here, we compare the overall agreement and concordance of five serologic assays included in the August 2020 FDA EUA at both the manufacturer-recommended qualitative cutoff thresholds and at the FDA-indicated thresholds for high-titer CCP, using serum samples collected as part of the CCP Expanded Access Program (EAP). The qualitative positive percent agreement (PPA) across assays ranged from 92.3% to 98.8%. However, the high-titer categorization across assays varied significantly, with the PPA ranging from 26.5% to 82.7%. The Roche anti-NC ECLIA provided the lowest agreement compared to all other assays. Efforts to optimize high-titer cutoffs could reduce, although not eliminate, the discordance across assays. The consequences of using nonstandardized assays are apparent in our study, and the high-titer cutoffs chosen for each assay are not directly comparable to each other. The generalized findings in our study will be relevant to any future use of convalescent plasma for either COVID-19 or future pandemics of newly emerged pathogens. IMPORTANCE COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) was one of the first therapeutic options available for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infections and continues to be used selectively for immunosuppressed patients. Given the emergence of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants which are resistant to treatment with available monoclonal antibody (MAb) therapy, CCP remains an important therapeutic consideration. The FDA has released several emergency use authorizations (EUA) that have specified which serological assays can be used for qualification of CCP, as well as assay-specific cutoffs that must be used to identify high-titer CCP. In this study, a cohort of donor CCP was assessed across multiple serological assays which received FDA EUA for qualification of CCP. This study indicates a high degree of discordance across the assays used to qualify CCP for clinical use, which may have precluded the optimal use of CCP, including during clinical trials. This study highlights the need for assay standardization early in the development of serological assays for emerging pathogens.

Coagulation profile of human COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

Convalescent plasma is used to treat COVID-19. There are theoretical concerns about the impact of pro-coagulant factors in convalescent plasma on the coagulation cascade particularly among patients with severe COVID-19. The aim of this study was to evaluate the coagulation profile of COVID-19 convalescent plasma. Clotting times and coagulation factor assays were compared between fresh frozen plasma, COVID-19 convalescent plasma, and pathogen-reduced COVID-19 convalescent plasma. Measurements included prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, thrombin time, fibrinogen, D-dimer, von Willebrand factor activity, von Willebrand factor antigen, coagulation factors II, V, VII-XII, protein S activity, protein C antigen, and alpha-2 plasmin inhibitor. Clotting times and coagulation factor assays were not different between COVID-19 convalescent plasma and fresh frozen plasma, except for protein C antigen. When compared to fresh frozen plasma and regular convalescent plasma, pathogen reduction treatment increased activated partial thromboplastin time and thrombin time, while reducing fibrinogen, coagulation factor II, V, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, protein S activity, and alpha-2 plasmin inhibitor. The coagulation profiles of human COVID-19 convalescent plasma and standard fresh frozen plasma are not different. Pathogen reduced COVID-19 convalescent plasma is associated with reduction of coagulation factors and a slight prolongation of coagulation times, as anticipated. A key limitation of the study is that the COVID-19 disease course of the convalesced donors was not characterized.

The Role of Disease Severity and Demographics in the Clinical Course of COVID-19 Patients Treated With Convalescent Plasma.

Treatment of patients with COVID-19 using convalescent plasma from recently recovered patients has been shown to be safe, but the time course of change in clinical status following plasma transfusion in relation to baseline disease severity has not yet been described. We analyzed short, descriptive daily reports of patient status in 7,180 hospitalized recipients of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in the Mayo Clinic Expanded Access Program. We assessed, from the day following transfusion, whether the patient was categorized by his or her physician as better, worse or unchanged compared to the day before, and whether, on the reporting day, the patient received mechanical ventilation, was in the ICU, had died or had been discharged. Most patients improved following transfusion, but clinical improvement was most notable in mild to moderately ill patients. Patients classified as severely ill upon enrollment improved, but not as rapidly, while patients classified as critically ill/end-stage and patients on ventilators showed worsening of disease status even after treatment with convalescent plasma. Patients age 80 and over showed little or no clinical improvement following transfusion. Clinical status at the time of convalescent plasma treatment and age appear to be the primary factors in determining the therapeutic effectiveness of COVID-19 convalescent plasma among hospitalized patients.

Access to and safety of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in the United States Expanded Access Program: A national registry study.

BACKGROUND: The United States (US) Expanded Access Program (EAP) to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma was initiated in response to the rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of COVID-19. While randomized clinical trials were in various stages of development and enrollment, there was an urgent need for widespread access to potential therapeutic agents. The objective of this study is to report on the demographic, geographical, and chronological characteristics of patients in the EAP, and key safety metrics following transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Mayo Clinic served as the central institutional review board for all participating facilities, and any US physician could participate as a local physician-principal investigator. Eligible patients were hospitalized, were aged 18 years or older, and had-or were at risk of progression to-severe or life-threatening COVID-19; eligible patients were enrolled through the EAP central website. Blood collection facilities rapidly implemented programs to collect convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Demographic and clinical characteristics of all enrolled patients in the EAP were summarized. Temporal patterns in access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma were investigated by comparing daily and weekly changes in EAP enrollment in response to changes in infection rate at the state level. Geographical analyses on access to convalescent plasma included assessing EAP enrollment in all national hospital referral regions, as well as assessing enrollment in metropolitan areas and less populated areas that did not have access to COVID-19 clinical trials. From April 3 to August 23, 2020, 105,717 hospitalized patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19 were enrolled in the EAP. The majority of patients were 60 years of age or older (57.8%), were male (58.4%), and had overweight or obesity (83.8%). There was substantial inclusion of minorities and underserved populations: 46.4% of patients were of a race other than white, and 37.2% of patients were of Hispanic ethnicity. Chronologically and geographically, increases in the number of both enrollments and transfusions in the EAP closely followed confirmed infections across all 50 states. Nearly all national hospital referral regions enrolled and transfused patients in the EAP, including both in metropolitan and in less populated areas. The incidence of serious adverse events was objectively low (<1%), and the overall crude 30-day mortality rate was 25.2% (95% CI, 25.0% to 25.5%). This registry study was limited by the observational and pragmatic study design that did not include a control or comparator group; thus, the data should not be used to infer definitive treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the EAP provided widespread access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma in all 50 states, including for underserved racial and ethnic minority populations. The study design of the EAP may serve as a model for future efforts when broad access to a treatment is needed in response to an emerging infectious disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT#: NCT04338360.

SARS-CoV-2 Serologic Assays Dependent on Dual-Antigen Binding Demonstrate Diverging Kinetics Relative to Other Antibody Detection Methods.

Longitudinal studies assessing durability of the anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (anti-SARS-CoV-2) humoral immune response have generated conflicting results. This has been proposed to be due to differences in patient populations, the lack of standardized methodologies, and the use of assays that measure distinct aspects of the humoral response. SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were serially measured in sera from a cohort of 44 well-characterized convalescent plasma donors over 120 days post-COVID-19 symptom onset, utilizing eight assays, which varied according to antigen source, the detected antibody isotype, and the activity measured (i.e., binding, blocking, or neutralizing). While the majority of assays demonstrated a gradual decline in antibody titers over the course of 120 days, the two electrochemiluminescence immunoassay Roche assays (Roche Diagnostics Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 [qualitative, nucleocapsid based] and Roche Diagnostics Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 S [semiquantitative, spike based]), which utilize dual-antigen binding for antibody detection, demonstrated stable and/or increasing antibody titers over the study period. This study is among the first to assess longitudinal, rather than cross-sectional, SARS-CoV-2 antibody profiles among convalescent COVID-19 patients, primarily using commercially available serologic assays with Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization. We show that SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection is dependent on the serologic method used, which has implications for future assay utilization and clinical value.