Comparison of allocation strategies of convalescent plasma to reduce excess infections and mortality from SARS-CoV-2 in a US-like population.

BACKGROUND: While the use of convalescent plasma (CP) in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has been inconsistent, CP has the potential to reduce excess morbidity and mortality in future pandemics. Given constraints on CP supply, decisions surrounding the allocation of CP must be made. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Using a discrete-time stochastic compartmental model, we simulated implementation of four potential allocation strategies: administering CP to individuals in early hospitalization with COVID-19; administering CP to individuals in outpatient settings; administering CP to hospitalized individuals and administering any remaining CP to outpatient individuals and administering CP in both settings while prioritizing outpatient individuals. We examined the final size of SARS-CoV-2 infections, peak and cumulative hospitalizations, and cumulative deaths under each of the allocation scenarios over a 180-day period. We compared the cost per weighted health benefit under each strategy. RESULTS: Prioritizing administration to patients in early hospitalization, with remaining plasma administered in outpatient settings, resulted in the highest reduction in mortality, averting on average 15% more COVID-19 deaths than administering to hospitalized individuals alone (95% CI [11%-18%]). Prioritizing administration to outpatients, with remaining plasma administered to hospitalized individuals, had the highest percentage of hospitalizations averted (22% [21%-23%] higher than administering to hospitalized individuals alone). DISCUSSION: Convalescent plasma allocation strategy should be determined by the relative priority of averting deaths, infections, or hospitalizations. Under conditions considered, mixed allocation strategies (allocating CP to both outpatient and hospitalized individuals) resulted in a larger percentage of infections and deaths averted than administering CP in a single setting.

Expanding the platelet inventory to mitigate the impact of severe shortages.

The platelet collection and distribution system, based on volunteer nonremunerated donors, apheresis platelet collections, and primarily 1-directional distribution of platelets for up to 5-day room temperature storage at hospitals, typically performs well and provides therapeutic support for hundreds of thousands of patients annually. However, direct and indirect effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, particularly during the Omicron wave, produced dramatic systemic failures and severe shortages. We propose 4 initiatives to reinforce the existing platelet pipeline and buffer the platelet supply against future unexpected disruptions.

Clinical Practice Guidelines From the Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB): COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma.

DESCRIPTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 convalescent plasma (CCP) has emerged as a potential treatment of COVID-19. However, meta-analysis data and recommendations are limited. The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB) developed clinical practice guidelines for the appropriate use of CCP. METHODS: These guidelines are based on 2 living systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CCP from 1 January 2019 to 26 January 2022. There were 33 RCTs assessing 21 916 participants. The results were summarized using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. An expert panel reviewed the data using the GRADE framework to formulate recommendations. RECOMMENDATION 1 (OUTPATIENT): The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for outpatients with COVID-19 who are at high risk for disease progression (weak recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2 (INPATIENT): The AABB recommends against CCP transfusion for unselected hospitalized persons with moderate or severe disease (strong recommendation, high-certainty evidence). This recommendation does not apply to immunosuppressed patients or those who lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. RECOMMENDATION 3 (INPATIENT): The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detected at admission (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 4 (INPATIENT): The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting immunosuppression (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 5 (PROPHYLAXIS): The AABB suggests against prophylactic CCP transfusion for uninfected persons with close contact exposure to a person with COVID-19 (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE STATEMENT: CCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers to infected patients early after symptom onset.

Lessons learned from the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 and specific considerations for immunocompromised patients.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CovCP) infusions have been widely used for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The aims of this narrative review were to analyze the safety and efficacy of CovCP infusions in the overall population and in immunocompromised patients with COVID-19 and to identify the lessons learned concerning the use of convalescent plasma (CP) to fill treatment gaps for emerging viruses. Systematic searches (PubMed, Scopus, and COVID-19 Research) were conducted to identify peer-reviewed articles and pre-prints published between March 1, 2020 and May 1, 2021 on the use of CovCP for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. From 261 retrieved articles, 37 articles reporting robust controlled studies in the overall population of patients with COVID-19 and 9 articles in immunocompromised patients with COVID-19 were selected. While CovCP infusions are well tolerated in both populations, they do not seem to improve clinical outcomes in critically-ill patients with COVID-19 and no conclusion could be drawn concerning their potential benefits in immunocompromised patients with COVID-19. To be better prepared for future epidemics/pandemics and to evaluate potential benefits of CP treatment, only CP units with high neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) titers should be infused in patients with low NAb titers, patient eligibility criteria should be based on the disease pathophysiology, and measured clinical outcomes and methods should be comparable across studies. Even if CovCP infusions did not improve clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, NAb-containing CP infusions remain a safe, widely available and potentially beneficial treatment option for future epidemics/pandemics.

International Society of Blood Transfusion survey of experiences of blood banks and transfusion services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted blood systems worldwide. Challenges included maintaining blood supplies and initiating the collection and use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). Sharing information on the challenges can help improve blood collection and utilization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey questionnaire was distributed to International Society of Blood Transfusion members in 95 countries. We recorded respondents' demographic information, impacts on the blood supply, CCP collection and use, transfusion demands and operational challenges. RESULTS: Eighty-two responses from 42 countries, including 24 low- and middle-income countries, were analysed. Participants worked in national (26.8%) and regional (26.8%) blood establishments and hospital-based (42.7%) institutions. CCP collection and transfusion were reported by 63% and 36.6% of respondents, respectively. Decreases in blood donations occurred in 70.6% of collecting facilities. Despite safety measures and recruitment strategies, donor fear and refusal of institutions to host blood drives were major contributing factors. Almost half of respondents working at transfusion medicine services were from large hospitals with over 10,000 red cell transfusions per year, and 76.8% of those hospitals experienced blood shortages. Practices varied in accepting donors for blood or CCP donations after a history of COVID-19 infection, CCP transfusion, or vaccination. Operational challenges included loss of staff, increased workloads and delays in reagent supplies. Almost half of the institutions modified their disaster plans during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The challenges faced by blood systems during the COVID-19 pandemic highlight the need for guidance, harmonization, and strengthening of the preparedness and the capacity of blood systems against future infectious threats.

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.

Estimated US Infection- and Vaccine-Induced SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence Based on Blood Donations, July 2020-May 2021.

Importance: People who have been infected with or vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 have reduced risk of subsequent infection, but the proportion of people in the US with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies from infection or vaccination is uncertain. Objective: To estimate trends in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence related to infection and vaccination in the US population. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a repeated cross-sectional study conducted each month during July 2020 through May 2021, 17 blood collection organizations with blood donations from all 50 US states; Washington, DC; and Puerto Rico were organized into 66 study-specific regions, representing a catchment of 74% of the US population. For each study region, specimens from a median of approximately 2000 blood donors were selected and tested each month; a total of 1 594 363 specimens were initially selected and tested. The final date of blood donation collection was May 31, 2021. Exposure: Calendar time. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of persons with detectable SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid antibodies. Seroprevalence was weighted for demographic differences between the blood donor sample and general population. Infection-induced seroprevalence was defined as the prevalence of the population with both spike and nucleocapsid antibodies. Combined infection- and vaccination-induced seroprevalence was defined as the prevalence of the population with spike antibodies. The seroprevalence estimates were compared with cumulative COVID-19 case report incidence rates. Results: Among 1 443 519 specimens included, 733 052 (50.8%) were from women, 174 842 (12.1%) were from persons aged 16 to 29 years, 292 258 (20.2%) were from persons aged 65 years and older, 36 654 (2.5%) were from non-Hispanic Black persons, and 88 773 (6.1%) were from Hispanic persons. The overall infection-induced SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence estimate increased from 3.5% (95% CI, 3.2%-3.8%) in July 2020 to 20.2% (95% CI, 19.9%-20.6%) in May 2021; the combined infection- and vaccination-induced seroprevalence estimate in May 2021 was 83.3% (95% CI, 82.9%-83.7%). By May 2021, 2.1 SARS-CoV-2 infections (95% CI, 2.0-2.1) per reported COVID-19 case were estimated to have occurred. Conclusions and Relevance: Based on a sample of blood donations in the US from July 2020 through May 2021, vaccine- and infection-induced SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence increased over time and varied by age, race and ethnicity, and geographic region. Despite weighting to adjust for demographic differences, these findings from a national sample of blood donors may not be representative of the entire US population.

Progression and Predictors of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Seroreactivity In US Blood Donors.

The second largest US blood center began testing for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the etiologic agent of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) to identify potential COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma (CCP) donors and encourage blood donation. We report the non-vaccine seroprevalence of total immunoglobulin directed against the S1 spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 in our donors. Unique non-CCP donor sera from June 01to December 31, 2020 were tested with the Ortho VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 total immunoglobulin assay (reactive: signal-to-cutoff (S/C) ≥ 1). Multivariate regressions including age, sex, race-ethnicity, ABO, RhD, highest education level, donor experience, regional collection center and drive type factors were conducted to identify demographics associated with the presence of antibodies and with S/C values. Unique donors (n = 523,068) showed an overall seroprevalence of 6.12% over 7 months, with the highest prevalence in December 2020 around Lubbock, TX (24.3%). In a subset of donors with demographic information (n = 394,470), lower odds of antibody reactivity were associated with female sex, non-Hispanic White or Asian race/ethnicity, age ≥ 65, graduate education, blood Group O, and history of blood donation. In reactive donors (n = 24,028), antibody signal was associated with male sex, race/ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White, low educational attainment, age 16-17 years and geographic location. Seroprevalence continues to grow in US blood donors but varies significantly by region. Temporal trends in reactivity may be useful to estimate effectiveness of public health measures. Before generalizing these data from healthy donors to the general population, rates must be corrected for false-positive test results and adjusted to match the wider US demography.

SARS-CoV-2 antibody persistence in COVID-19 convalescent plasma donors: Dependency on assay format and applicability to serosurveillance.

BACKGROUND: Antibody response duration following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection tends to be variable and depends on severity of disease and method of detection. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: COVID-19 convalescent plasma from 18 donors was collected longitudinally for a maximum of 63-129 days following resolution of symptoms. All the samples were initially screened by the Ortho total Ig test to confirm positivity and subsequently tested with seven additional direct sandwich or indirect binding assays (Ortho, Roche, Abbott, Broad Institute) directed against a variety of antigen targets (S1, receptor binding domain, and nucleocapsid [NC]), along with two neutralization assays (Broad Institute live virus PRNT and Vitalant Research Institute [VRI] Pseudovirus reporter viral particle neutralization [RVPN]). RESULTS: The direct detection assays (Ortho total Ig total and Roche total Ig) showed increasing levels of antibodies over the time period, in contrast to the indirect IgG assays that showed a decline. Neutralization assays also demonstrated declining responses; the VRI RVPN pseudovirus had a greater rate of decline than the Broad PRNT live virus assay. DISCUSSION: These data show that in addition to variable individual responses and associations with disease severity, the detection assay chosen contributes to the heterogeneous results in antibody stability over time. Depending on the scope of the research, one assay may be preferable over another. For serosurveillance studies, direct, double Ag-sandwich assays appear to be the best choice due to their stability; in particular, algorithms that include both S1- and NC-based assays can help reduce the rate of false-positivity and discriminate between natural infection and vaccine-derived seroreactivity.

Selecting COVID-19 convalescent plasma for neutralizing antibody potency using a high-capacity SARS-CoV-2 antibody assay.

BACKGROUND: Efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is hypothesized to be associated with the concentration of neutralizing antibodies (nAb) to SARS-CoV-2. High capacity serologic assays detecting binding antibodies (bAb) have been developed; nAb assays are not adaptable to high-throughput testing. We sought to determine the effectiveness of using surrogate bAb signal-to-cutoff ratios (S/Co) in predicting nAb titers using a pseudovirus reporter viral particle neutralization (RVPN) assay. METHODS: CCP donor serum collected by three US blood collectors was tested with a bAb assay (Ortho Clinical Diagnostics VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total, CoV2T) and a nAb RVPN assay. Prediction effectiveness of various CoV2T S/Co criteria was evaluated for RVPN nAb NT50 titers using receiver operating characteristics. RESULTS: Seven hundred and fifty-three CCPs were tested with median CoV2T S/Co and NT50 of 71.2 of 527.5. Proportions of donors with NT50 over target nAb titers were 86% ≥1:80, 76% ≥1:160, and 62% ≥1:320. Increasing CoV2T S/Co criterion reduced the sensitivity to predict NT50 titers, while specificity to identify those below increased. As target NT50 titers increase, the CoV2T assay becomes less accurate as a predictor with a decline in positive predictive value and rise in negative predictive value. CONCLUSION: Selection of a clinically effective nAb titer will impact availability of CCP. Product release with CoV2T assay S/Co criterion must balance the risk of releasing products below target nAb titers with the cost of false negatives. A two-step testing scheme may be optimal, with nAb testing on CoV2T samples with S/Cos below criterion.

Pandemic blood donor demographics - Do changes impact blood safety?

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 safety measures and possibly SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing may alter blood donor demography, which has the potential to alter blood safety. We characterized pre-pandemic and pandemic rates of donor infectious disease marker (IDM) reactivity which reflect the residual risk of transfusion-transmitted infections (TTIs) undetectable by current testing. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis of allogeneic blood donor presentations and successful donations in a large national US blood collector identifies changes in self-reported behavioral risk factors and IDM reactivity. Data on allogeneic blood donor presentations and successful donations from March 1 through August 31, 2020 and the same period in 2019 were retrieved from the blood center's computer system. Donor demographics and deferrals for reported behavioral risk factors and confirmed-positive IDMs were compared in pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. RESULTS: With increasing mobile blood drive cancellations, pandemic donors were more likely than 2019 donors to be female, over age 30, non-Hispanic Whites, and have a post-secondary degree. First-time donations (at highest risk for confirmed-positive IDMs) did not substantially increase. Pandemic donors reported fewer behavioral risks and IDMs declined among these donors. Mid-pandemic introduction of screening for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies did not affect IDM rates. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike disasters, which tend to bring out more first-time donors with increased IDM reactivity and TTI residual risk, COVID-19 donors had lower IDM rates which were not affected by SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. Already-low TTI residual risk is likely to have declined as a result.