Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 16385, 2022 09 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2050519


Passive immunotherapy with convalescent plasma may be the only available agent during the early phases of a pandemic. Here, we report safety and efficacy of high-titer convalescent plasma for COVID-19 pneumonia. Double-blinded randomized multicenter placebo-controlled trial of adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The intervention was COVID-19 convalescent plasma and placebo was saline allocated 2:1. The primary outcome was clinical status 14 days after the intervention evaluated on a clinical ordinal scale. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov, NCT04345289, 14/04/2020. The CCAP-2 trial was terminated prematurely due to futility. Of 147 patients randomized, we included 144 patients in the modified intention-to-treat population. The ordinal clinical status 14 days post-intervention was comparable between treatment groups (odds ratio (OR) 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-2.09). Results were consistent when evaluating clinical progression on an individual level 14 days after intervention (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.46-1.73). No significant differences in length of hospital stay, admission to ICU, frequency of severe adverse events or all-cause mortality during follow-up were found between the intervention and the placebo group. Infusion of convalescent plasma did not influence clinical progression, survival or length of hospitalization in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

COVID-19 , Adult , COVID-19/therapy , Hospitalization , Humans , Immunization, Passive/methods , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
PLoS One ; 17(7): e0272298, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1963049


Virus neutralization assays provide a means to quantitate functional antibody responses that block virus infection. These assays are instrumental in defining vaccine and therapeutic antibody potency, immune evasion by viral variants, and post-infection immunity. Here we describe the development, optimization and evaluation of a live virus microneutralization assay specific for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In this assay, SARS-CoV-2 clinical isolates are pre-incubated with serial diluted antibody and added to Vero E6 cells. Replicating virus is quantitated by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) targeting the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein and the standardized 50% virus inhibition titer calculated. We evaluated critical test parameters that include virus titration, assay linearity, number of cells, viral dose, incubation period post-inoculation, and normalization methods. Virus titration at 96 hours was determined optimal to account for different growth kinetics of clinical isolates. Nucleocapsid protein levels directly correlated with virus inoculum, with the strongest correlation at 24 hours post-inoculation. Variance was minimized by infecting a cell monolayer, rather than a cell suspension. Neutralization titers modestly decreased with increasing numbers of Vero E6 cells and virus amount. Application of two different normalization models effectively reduced the intermediate precision coefficient of variance to <16.5%. The SARS-CoV-2 microneutralization assay described and evaluated here is based on the influenza virus microneutralization assay described by WHO, and are proposed as a standard assay for comparing neutralization investigations.

COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Antibodies, Viral , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay , Humans , Neutralization Tests/methods , Nucleocapsid Proteins , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus
Clin Infect Dis ; 72(2): 249-253, 2021 01 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-614253


BACKGROUND: The pandemic due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has tremendous consequences for our societies. Knowledge of the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 is needed to accurately monitor the spread of the epidemic and to calculate the infection fatality rate (IFR). These measures may help the authorities make informed decisions and adjust the current societal interventions. The objective was to perform nationwide real-time seroprevalence surveying among blood donors as a tool to estimate previous SARS-CoV-2 infections and the population-based IFR. METHODS: Danish blood donors aged 17-69 years giving blood 6 April to 3 May were tested for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin M and G antibodies using a commercial lateral flow test. Antibody status was compared between geographical areas, and an estimate of the IFR was calculated. Seroprevalence was adjusted for assay sensitivity and specificity taking the uncertainties of the test validation into account when reporting the 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The first 20 640 blood donors were tested, and a combined adjusted seroprevalence of 1.9% (95% CI, .8-2.3) was calculated. The seroprevalence differed across areas. Using available data on fatalities and population numbers, a combined IFR in patients <70 years is estimated at 89 per 100 000 (95% CI, 72-211) infections. CONCLUSIONS: The IFR was estimated to be slightly lower than previously reported from other countries not using seroprevalence data. The IFR is likely severalfold lower than the current estimate. We have initiated real-time nationwide anti-SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence surveying of blood donations as a tool in monitoring the epidemic.

Blood Donors , COVID-19 , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Antibodies, Viral , Humans , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Young Adult