COVID-19 convalescent plasma utilization in the United States: data from the National Inpatient Sample.

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) use between October-December 2020 was characterized using the National Inpatient Sample database. CCP was administered in 18.0% of COVID-19-associated hospitalizations, and was strongly associated with older age and increased disease severity. There were disparities in the receipt of CCP by race and ethnicity, geography, and insurance.

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.

Vaccines and therapeutics for immunocompromised patients with COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted immunocompromised patients. This diverse group is at increased risk for impaired vaccine responses, progression to severe disease, prolonged hospitalizations and deaths. At particular risk are people with deficiencies in lymphocyte number or function such as transplant recipients and those with hematologic malignancies. Such patients' immune responses to vaccination and infection are frequently impaired leaving them more vulnerable to prolonged high viral loads and severe complications of COVID-19. Those in turn, have implications for disease progression and persistence, development of immune escape variants and transmission of infection. Data to guide vaccination and treatment approaches in immunocompromised people are generally lacking and extrapolated from other populations. The large clinical trials leading to authorisation and approval of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapeutics included very few immunocompromised participants. While experience is accumulating, studies focused on the special circumstances of immunocompromised patients are needed to inform prevention and treatment approaches.

Invasive fungal infections after respiratory viral infections in lung transplant recipients are associated with lung allograft failure and chronic lung allograft dysfunction within 1 year.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory viral infections (RVI) are associated with chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) and mortality in lung transplant recipients (LTRs). However, the prevalence and impact of secondary invasive fungal infections (IFIs) post RVIs in LTRs have not been investigated. METHODS: We performed a single center retrospective study including LTRs diagnosed with 5 different respiratory viral pathogens between January 2010 to May 2021 and evaluated their clinical outcomes in 1 year. The risk factors of IFIs were evaluated by logistic regression. The impact of IFIs on CLAD stage progression/death was examined by Cox regression. RESULTS: A total of 202 RVI episodes (50 influenza, 31 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2, 30 metapneumovirus, 44 parainfluenza, and 47 respiratory syncytial virus) in 132 patients was included for analysis. Thirty-one episodes (15%) were associated with secondary IFIs, and 27 occurred in LTRs with lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI; 28% from 96 LRTI episodes). Aspergillosis was the most common IFI (80%). LTRs with IFIs had higher disease severity during RVI episodes. In multivariable analysis, RVI with LTRI was associated with IFI (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] of 7.85 (2.48-24.9). Secondary IFIs were associated with CLAD stage progression/death after accounting for LRTI, pre-existing CLAD, intensive care unit admission, secondary bacterial pneumonia and underlying lung diseases pre-transplant with adjusted hazard ratio (95%CI) of 2.45 (1.29-4.64). CONCLUSIONS: This cohort demonstrated 15% secondary IFI prevalence in LTRs with RVIs. Importantly, secondary IFIs were associated with CLAD stage progression/death, underscoring the importance of screening for fungal infections in this setting.

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.

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.

Outcomes of SOT Recipients With COVID-19 in Different Eras of COVID-19 Therapeutics.

BACKGROUND: Few reports have focused on newer coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies (remdesivir, dexamethasone, and convalescent plasma) in solid organ transplant recipients; concerns had been raised regarding possible adverse impact on allograft function or secondary infections. METHODS: We studied 77 solid organ transplant inpatients with COVID-19 during 2 therapeutic eras (Era 1: March-May 2020, 21 patients; and Era 2: June-November 2020, 56 patients) and 52 solid organ transplant outpatients. RESULTS: In Era 1, no patients received remdesivir or dexamethasone, and 4 of 21 (19.4%) received convalescent plasma, whereas in Era 2, remdesivir (24/56, 42.9%), dexamethasone (24/56, 42.9%), and convalescent plasma (40/56, 71.4%) were commonly used. Mortality was low across both eras, 4 of 77 (5.6%), and rejection occurred in only 2 of 77 (2.8%) inpatients; infections were similar in hypoxemic patients with or without dexamethasone. Preexisting graft dysfunction was associated with greater need for hospitalization, higher severity score, and lower survival. Acute kidney injury was present in 37.3% of inpatients; renal function improved more rapidly in patients who received remdesivir and convalescent plasma. Post-COVID-19 renal and liver function were comparable between eras, out to 90 d. CONCLUSIONS: Newer COVID-19 therapies did not appear to have a deleterious effect on allograft function, and infectious complications were comparable.

Nirmatrelvir and COVID-19: development, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, resistance, relapse, and pharmacoeconomics.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (N/R) is one of the most effective antiviral drugs against SARS-CoV-2. The preclinical development, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of N/R are reviewed herein. Randomized clinical trials have been conducted exclusively with pre-Omicron variants of concern, but in vitro studies show that efficacy against all Omicron sublineages is preserved, as confirmed by post-marketing observational studies. Nevertheless, investigations of large viral genome repositories have shown that mutation in the main protease causing resistance to N/R are increasingly frequent. In addition, virological and clinical rebounds after N/R discontinuation have been reported in immunocompetent patients. This finding is of concern when translated to immunocompromised patients, in whom N/R efficacy has not been formally investigated in clinical trials. Economical sustainability and perspectives for this therapeutic arena are discussed.

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.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials. OBJECTIVE: Develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. RESULTS: Based on the most recent search conducted on May 31, 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 30 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were done which provided much needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved which we hope future trials can answer.

Lessons Learned from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Therapies: Critical Perspectives From the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) COVID-19 Treatment Guideline Panel.

Despite the challenges of the pandemic, there has been substantial progress with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies. Pivotal COVID-19 trials like SOLIDARITY, RECOVERY, and ACCT-1 were rapidly conducted and data disseminated to support effective therapies. However, critical shortcomings remain on trial conduct, dissemination and interpretation of study results, and regulatory guidance in pandemic settings. The lessons that we learned have implications for both the current pandemic and future emerging infectious diseases. There is a need for establishing and standardizing clinical meaningful outcomes in therapeutic trials and for targeting defined populations and phenotypes that will most benefit from specific therapies. Standardized processes should be established for rapid and critical data review and dissemination to ensure scientific integrity. Clarity around the evidence standards needed for issuance of both emergency use authorization (EUA) and biologic license application (BLA) should be established and an infrastructure for executing rapid trials in epidemic settings maintained.

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.

Antibody attributes that predict the neutralization and effector function of polyclonal responses to SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: While antibodies can provide significant protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection and disease sequelae, the specific attributes of the humoral response that contribute to immunity are incompletely defined. METHODS: We employ machine learning to relate characteristics of the polyclonal antibody response raised by natural infection to diverse antibody effector functions and neutralization potency with the goal of generating both accurate predictions of each activity based on antibody response profiles as well as insights into antibody mechanisms of action. RESULTS: To this end, antibody-mediated phagocytosis, cytotoxicity, complement deposition, and neutralization were accurately predicted from biophysical antibody profiles in both discovery and validation cohorts. These models identified SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM as a key predictor of neutralization activity whose mechanistic relevance was supported experimentally by depletion. CONCLUSIONS: Validated models of how different aspects of the humoral response relate to antiviral antibody activities suggest desirable attributes to recapitulate by vaccination or other antibody-based interventions.