Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Blood Advances ; 2022.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-1799125

ABSTRACT

The ongoing evolution of SARS-Co-V2 variants to omicron 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 FDA currently allows outpatient CCP for the immunosuppressed. Viral specific antibody levels in CCP can range ten- to hundred-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-delta/pre-omicron donor units obtained before March 2021, 20 post-delta COVID-19/post-vaccination units and one pre-delta/pre-omicron hyperimmunoglobulin preparation for variant specific virus (vaccine-related isolate (WA-1), delta and omicron) neutralization correlated to Euroimmun S1 IgG antibody levels. We observed a 2- to 4-fold and 20- to 40-fold drop in virus neutralization from SARS-CoV-2 WA-1 to delta or omicron, respectively. CCP antibody levels in the upper 10% of the 108 donations as well as 100% of the post-delta COVID-19/post-vaccination units and the hyperimmunoglobulin effectively neutralized all three variants. High-titer CCP neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 variants despite no previous donor exposure to the variants.

2.
N Engl J Med ; 2022 Mar 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1768967

ABSTRACT

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.).

3.
Transfusion ; 2022 Mar 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1765061

ABSTRACT

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.

4.
Clin Infect Dis ; 74(4): 584-590, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1709326

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: With limited severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) testing capacity in the United States at the start of the epidemic (January-March 2020), testing was focused on symptomatic patients with a travel history throughout February, obscuring the picture of SARS-CoV-2 seeding and community transmission. We sought to identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the early weeks of the US epidemic. METHODS: All of Us study participants in all 50 US states provided blood specimens during study visits from 2 January to 18 March 2020. Participants were considered seropositive if they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies with the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 ELISA in a sequential testing algorithm. The sensitivity and specificity of these ELISAs and the net sensitivity and specificity of the sequential testing algorithm were estimated, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The estimated sensitivities of the Abbott and EUROIMMUN assays were 100% (107 of 107 [95% CI: 96.6%-100%]) and 90.7% (97 of 107 [83.5%-95.4%]), respectively, and the estimated specificities were 99.5% (995 of 1000 [98.8%-99.8%]) and 99.7% (997 of 1000 [99.1%-99.9%]), respectively. The net sensitivity and specificity of our sequential testing algorithm were 90.7% (97 of 107 [95% CI: 83.5%-95.4%]) and 100.0% (1000 of 1000 [99.6%-100%]), respectively. Of the 24 079 study participants with blood specimens from 2 January to 18 March 2020, 9 were seropositive, 7 before the first confirmed case in the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings identified SARS-CoV-2 infections weeks before the first recognized cases in 5 US states.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Population Health , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/diagnosis , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
5.
JCI Insight ; 7(5)2022 03 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1662370

ABSTRACT

Benchmarks for protective immunity from infection or severe disease after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are still being defined. Here, we characterized virus neutralizing and ELISA antibody levels, cellular immune responses, and viral variants in 4 separate groups: healthy controls (HCs) weeks (early) or months (late) following vaccination in comparison with symptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 after partial or full mRNA vaccination. During the period of the study, most symptomatic breakthrough infections were caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant. Neutralizing antibody levels in the HCs were sustained over time against the vaccine parent virus but decreased against the Alpha variant, whereas IgG titers and T cell responses against the parent virus and Alpha variant declined over time. Both partially and fully vaccinated patients with symptomatic infections had lower virus neutralizing antibody levels against the parent virus than the HCs, similar IgG antibody titers, and similar virus-specific T cell responses measured by IFN-γ. Compared with HCs, neutralization activity against the Alpha variant was lower in the partially vaccinated infected patients and tended to be lower in the fully vaccinated infected patients. In this cohort of breakthrough infections, parent virus neutralization was the superior predictor of breakthrough infections with the Alpha variant of SARS-CoV-2.


Subject(s)
Adaptive Immunity , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/pharmacology , COVID-19/virology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Vaccination/methods , Vaccines, Synthetic/pharmacology , /pharmacology , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Population Surveillance , Retrospective Studies , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
6.
AIDS ; 36(3): 355-362, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1494133

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Telemedicine became the primary mode of delivering care during the COVID-19 pandemic. We describe the impact of telemedicine on access to care for people with HIV (PWH) by comparing the proportion of PWH engaged in care prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted an observational analysis of patients enrolled in the Johns Hopkins HIV Clinical Cohort, a single-center cohort of patients at an urban HIV subspecialty clinic affiliated with an academic center. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the clinic transitioned from in-person to mostly telemedicine visits. We compared patients receiving care in two time periods. The prepandemic period included 2010 people with at least one visit scheduled between 1 September 2019 and 15 March 2020. The pandemic period included 1929 people with at least one visit scheduled between 16 March 2020 and 30 September 2020. We determined the proportion of patients completing at least one of their scheduled visits during each period. RESULTS: Visit completion increased significantly from 88% prepandemic to 91% during the pandemic (P = 0.008). Visit completion improved significantly for patients age 20-39 (82 to 92%, P < 0.001), women (86 to 93%, P < 0.001), Black patients (88 to 91%, P = 0.002) and patients with detectable viremia (77 to 85%, P = 0.06) during the pandemic. Only 29% of people who completed at least one telemedicine visit during the pandemic did so as a video (versus telephone) visit. CONCLUSION: During the pandemic when care was widely delivered via telemedicine, visit completion improved among groups with lower prepandemic engagement but most were limited to telephone visits.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , HIV Infections , Telemedicine , Adult , Female , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
7.
Clin Infect Dis ; 74(4): 584-590, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1269569

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: With limited severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) testing capacity in the United States at the start of the epidemic (January-March 2020), testing was focused on symptomatic patients with a travel history throughout February, obscuring the picture of SARS-CoV-2 seeding and community transmission. We sought to identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the early weeks of the US epidemic. METHODS: All of Us study participants in all 50 US states provided blood specimens during study visits from 2 January to 18 March 2020. Participants were considered seropositive if they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies with the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 ELISA in a sequential testing algorithm. The sensitivity and specificity of these ELISAs and the net sensitivity and specificity of the sequential testing algorithm were estimated, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The estimated sensitivities of the Abbott and EUROIMMUN assays were 100% (107 of 107 [95% CI: 96.6%-100%]) and 90.7% (97 of 107 [83.5%-95.4%]), respectively, and the estimated specificities were 99.5% (995 of 1000 [98.8%-99.8%]) and 99.7% (997 of 1000 [99.1%-99.9%]), respectively. The net sensitivity and specificity of our sequential testing algorithm were 90.7% (97 of 107 [95% CI: 83.5%-95.4%]) and 100.0% (1000 of 1000 [99.6%-100%]), respectively. Of the 24 079 study participants with blood specimens from 2 January to 18 March 2020, 9 were seropositive, 7 before the first confirmed case in the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings identified SARS-CoV-2 infections weeks before the first recognized cases in 5 US states.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Population Health , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/diagnosis , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL