Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Convalescent Plasma Versus Standard Plasma in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infected Hospitalized Patients in New York: A Double-Blind Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Four peer-reviewed publications have reported results from randomized controlled trials of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 infection; none were conducted in the United States nor used standard plasma as a comparator. To determine if administration of convalescent plasma to patients with coronavirus disease 2019 increases antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and improves outcome. DESIGN: Double-blind randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Hospital in New York. PATIENTS: Patients with polymerase chain reaction documented coronavirus disease 2019 infection. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized (4:1) to receive 2 U of convalescent plasma versus standard plasma. Antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 were measured in plasma units and in trial recipients. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Enrollment was terminated after emergency use authorization was granted for convalescent plasma. Seventy-four patients were randomized. At baseline, mean (sd) Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (23.4 [5.6] and 22.5 [6.6]), percent of patients intubated (19% and 20%), and median (interquartile range) days from symptom onset to randomization of 9 (6-18) and 9 (6-15), were similar in the convalescent plasma versus standard plasma arms, respectively. Convalescent plasma had high neutralizing activity (median [interquartile range] titer 1:526 [1:359-1:786]) and its administration increased antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by 14.4%, whereas standard plasma administration led to an 8.6% decrease (p = 0.005). No difference was observed for ventilator-free days through 28 days (primary study endpoint): median (interquartile range) of 28 (2-28) versus 28 (0-28; p = 0.86) for the convalescent plasma and standard plasma groups, respectively. A greater than or equal to 2 point improvement in the World Health Organization scale was achieved by 20% of subjects in both arms (p = 0.99). All-cause mortality through 90 days was numerically lower in the convalescent plasma versus standard plasma groups (27% vs 33%; p = 0.63) but did not achieve statistical significance. A key prespecified subgroup analysis of time to death in patients who were intubated at baseline was statistically significant; however, sample size numbers were small. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of convalescent plasma to hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection increased antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus disease 2 but was not associated with improved outcome.

Prevalence of IgM and IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in health care workers at a tertiary care New York hospital during the Spring COVID-19 surge.

BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCW) such as anesthesiologists, surgeons, and intensivists face high rates of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 through direct contact with COVID-19 patients. While there are initial reports of the prevalence of COVID-19 antibodies among the general population, there are few reports comparing the seroprevalence of IgM/IgG COVID-19 antibodies in HCW of different exposure levels as well as different HCW professions. METHODS: A convenience sample of health care workers provided blood for COVID-19 antibody testing and a review of medical history and work exposure for correlative analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 474 HCW were enrolled in April 2020 including 102 front-line physicians (e.g., anesthesiologists, surgeons, intensivists, emergency medicine), 91 other physicians, 135 nurses, 134 other clinical staff, and 12 non-clinical HCW. The prevalence of IgM or IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 was 16.9% (95% CI 13.6-20.6) (80/474). The proportion of positive antibodies in the PCR + group was significantly higher than health care workers without symptoms (84.6% [95% CI 54.6-98.1] vs. 12.3% [95% CI 8.5-17.2], p < 0.001). No significant differences in proportions of COVID-19 antibodies were observed among the different exposure groups (e.g., high vs minimal/no exposure) and among the different HCW professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Despite exposure to COVID-19 patients, the prevalence of antibodies in our HCW was similar to what has been reported for the general population of New York State (14%) and for another New York HCW cohort (13.7%). Health care workers with higher exposure rates were not more likely to have been infected with COVID-19. Therefore, these data suggest that infection of HCW may result from exposure in the community rather than at work. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This investigator-initiated study was observational; therefore, no registration was required. Not applicable.

Impact of serological and PCR testing requirements on the selection of COVID-19 convalescent plasma donors.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma is undergoing randomized trials as a potential therapeutic option for COVID-19 infection. Little empirical evidence exists regarding the determination of donor eligibility and experiences with donor selection. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This prospective study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in New York to select plasma donors for a randomized, double-blind, controlled convalescent plasma trial. Clearance for donation required successful completion of an online questionnaire and an in-person screening visit, which included (a) completion of a Donor Health Questionnaire (DHQ), (b) Immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody testing using an immunochromatographic anti- severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test, (c) Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing if <28 days from symptom resolution, and (d) routine blood bank testing. RESULTS: After receiving 3093 online questionnaires, 521 individuals presented for in-person screening visits, with 40.1% (n = 209) fully qualifying. Subjects (n = 312) failed to progress due to the following reasons: disqualifying answer from DHQ (n = 30, 9.6%), insufficient antibodies (n = 198, 63.5%), persistent positive PCR tests (n = 14, 4.5%), and blood donation testing labs (n = 70, 22.4%). Importantly, 24.6% and 11.1% of potential donors who reported having PCR-diagnosed infection had low or undetectable SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels, respectively. Surprisingly, 62.9% (56/89) of subjects had positive PCR tests 14-27 days after symptom resolution, with 13 individuals continuing to be PCR positive after 27 days. CONCLUSION: It is feasible for a single site to fully qualify a large number of convalescent plasma donors in a short period of time. Among otherwise qualified convalescent plasma donors, we found high rates of low or undetectable antibody levels and many individuals with persistently positive PCR tests.