Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Hospitalized Patients-An Open-Label Phase II Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is an important antiviral option for selected patients with COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this open-label, phase 2, clinical trial conducted from 30 April 2020 till 10 May 2021 in the Republic of North Macedonia, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of CCP in hospitalized patients. Treatment was with a single unit of CCP having an anti-RBD IgG concentration higher than 5 AU/mL. RESULTS: There were 189 patients that completed the study, of which 65 (34.4%) had WHO 8-point clinical progression scale score of 3 (requiring hospital care but not oxygen support), 65 (34.4%) had a score of 4 (hospitalized and requiring supplemental oxygen by mask or nasal prongs), and 59 (31.2%) had a score of 5 (hospitalized and requiring supplemental oxygen by non-invasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen). Mean age was 57 years (range 22-94), 78.5% were males, 80.4% had elevated body mass index, and 70.9% had comorbidity. Following CCP transfusion, we observed clinical improvement with increase rates in oxygenation-free days of 32.3% and 58.5% at 24 h and seven days after CCP transfusion, a decline in WHO scores, and reduced progression to severe disease (only one patient was admitted to ICU after CCP transfusion). Mortality in the entire cohort was 11.6% (22/189). We recorded 0% mortality in WHO score 3 (0/65) and in patients that received CCP transfusion in the first seven days of disease, 4.6% mortality in WHO score 4 (3/65), and 30.5% mortality in WHO score 5 (18/59). Mortality correlated with WHO score (Chi-square 19.3, p < 0.001) and with stay in the ICU (Chi-square 55.526, p ≤ 0.001). No severe adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that early administration of CCP to patients with moderate disease was a safe and potentially effective treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04397523).

Prevalence of Allelic Variants and Clonality of IGHV1-69 Expressing B-Cells in Patients with Different Severity of COVID 19 Disease

Introduction: Since the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, efforts have been made to understand the importance of broadly neutralising natural antibodies in determining the response to SARS-CoV-2. Previous studies have shown that allelic variants of the IGHV1-69 gene play a dominant role in protective natural antibody responses to several other viral pathogens, including influenza virus, hepatitis C virus, human immunodeficiency virus and, most notably, the SARS-CoV-2-related viruses SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. These allelic variants are commonly known as 51p1-related and differ from the other IGHV1-69 alleles (known as hv1263-related) in the presence of a Phe54 residue in the CDR2 region. Importantly, crystallographic studies have shown that the Phe54 residue is critical for the binding of IGHV1-69 antibodies to the SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV spike proteins. In this study, we evaluated the prevalence of 51p1 and hv1263 alleles and the clonality of 51p1- and hv1263-expressing B cells in a large cohort of healthy individuals and COVID-19 patients and correlated the findings with the severity of the disease. Мaterials and methods: A total of 419 samples were included in the study, of which 78 asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic individuals, 200 hospitalized patients with severe disease, 94 critically ill patients and 47 healthy donors. Peripheral blood was collected 8-20 days after the onset of symptoms and total cellular RNA was extracted from whole blood using an automated procedure. Аllelle-specific Ig-gene fingerprinting of IgM heavy chain transcripts was used to simultaneously analyse the clonality of the IgM+ B-cell population and the clonality of the 51p1- and hv1263-expressing B cell populations. The significance of the differences in the prevalence of clonal B-cell populations between healthy donors and patients and between patients with different severity of the disease was calculated with the Chi-Square test. Results: Analysis of the clonality of the IgM+ B-cell population showed a polyclonal pattern in most of the investigated healthy individuals (33/47, 70%) but in only 20% of all SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals (75/372, p<0.001). A significant difference was also observed between mildly affected and severely/critically ill patients [31/78 (39.7%) vs. 44/294 (15%), respectively) (p<0.001)], but not between severely and critically ill patients [28/200 (14,%) vs. 16/94 (17,1%), (p=n.s.)]. No 51p1 transcripts were detected in 74/372 (19.9%) of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals and in 14/47 (29,8%) of the control group (p>0,01), while hv1263 transcripts were not detected in 155/289 (53,6%) and in 27/47 (68,6%) tasted patients and controls, respectively (p>0,05). We did not find a statistically significant difference in the prevalence of 51p1 and hv1263 alleles between patients with different disease severity. However, a significantly higher number of patients displayed clonal expansions of 51p1- or hv1263-expressing B cells (219/372(58.9%) and 118/244 (48,4%), respectively in comparison to healthy donors [5/47(10.6%) and 7/47(14.9%), respectively]. There was no statistically significant difference between mildly affected and severely/critically ill patients in the clonallity status of 51p1- 38/61 (62,3%) and 182/237 (76,7%) respectively or between hv1263- expressing B cells in the same two groups of patients [20/25 (80%) and 98/109 (89,9%), p>0.05]. Conclusions: Our results show that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulates clonal expansions of IGHV1-69 -expressing B-cells, but this is independent of the severity of the disease. In addition, no difference in the prevalence of IGHV1-69 alleles was observed between patients at different stages of the disease, indicating that natural neutralizing antibodies encoded by this gene are not an important determinant of COVID-19 severity and progression. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Insight in the Current Progress in the Largest Clinical Trials for Covid-19 Drug Management (As of January 2021).

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has generated the largest global health crisis of the 21st century, evolving into accelerating socioeconomic disruption. In spite of all rapidly and widely emerging scientific data on epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention and treatment of the COVID-19 disease, severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is continuing to propagate in lack of definitive and specific therapeutic agents. Current therapeutic strategies are mainly focused on viral inhibition by antiviral drugs and hampering the exuberant immune response of the host by immunomodulatory drugs. In this review, we have studied the reports of the largest clinical trials intended to COVID-19 treatment published during the first year of the pandemics. In general, these results concentrate on seven therapeutic options: remdesivir, chloroguine/hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir combination, corticosteroids, tocilizumab, convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies. In line with the reviewed data, as of January 2021, most of the evidence support the use of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with moderate and severe forms of the disease and provide reliable data on the substantial beneficial effect of corticosteroids in patients requiring supplemental oxygen. Moreover, preliminary RECOVERY trial results have demonstrated the efficacy of tociluzumab in the treatment of critically ill patients. The reports presenting the outcomes of the other immune-based therapies under investigation are enthusiastically awaited.

The use of remdesivir outside of clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

With a scientific background from filoviruses, paramyxoviruses, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV, remdesivir entered into the COVID-19 battle to become one of the favorable therapeutic candidates with potential antiviral activity in the treatment of this disease. Globally, remdesivir was accessed and investigated through clinical research (clinical trials) and clinical practice (compassionate use, expanded access, early access scheme, and emergency use). Currently, remdesivir approval status differs between states. This paper aims to review and analyze regulatory approaches for accessing and investigating remdesivir, by communicating regulatory variability between countries in terms of terminology, modalities, and protocols.

Current regulatory approaches for accessing potential COVID-19 therapies.

This commentary aims to elaborate challenges in the regulatory approaches for accessing and investigating COVID-19 potential therapies either with off-label use, compassionate use, emergency use or for clinical trials. Since no therapies have been formally approved and completely effective and safe to date, the best clinical choice is acquired only after consistent and fair communication and collaboration between licensed clinicians, researchers, regulatory authorities, manufacturers and patients.