No increase in anti-A isohemagglutinin titer after SARS-CoV-2 infection: A retrospective cohort analysis of group O apheresis platelet donors.

The risk of a hemolytic reaction during the transfusion of ABO non-identical PC is determined by the presence of natural anti-A IgM antibodies, the titer of which may increase after infections. The aim of the study was to evaluate the titer of anti-A isohemagglutinins in platelet concentrate (PC) obtained by apheresis from group O donors who experienced SARS-CoV-2 infection, and to compare the titer before and after infection. A retrospective single-center analysis of 21 PC donors with a previous COVID-19 history was performed. The results showed neither a statistically important increase in the anti-A IgM antibody titers nor a significant correlation between the anti-A IgM antibody level and anti-SARS-CoV-2S1 antibody titer in the donors with an asymptomatic or mild COVID-19. Further population-based studies on anti-A titers are necessary for a comprehensive assessment of this phenomenon.

Early safety indicators of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 5000 patients.

BACKGROUNDConvalescent plasma is the only antibody-based therapy currently available for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It has robust historical precedence and sound biological plausibility. Although promising, convalescent plasma has not yet been shown to be safe as a treatment for COVID-19.METHODSThus, we analyzed key safety metrics after transfusion of ABO-compatible human COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 5000 hospitalized adults with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, with 66% in the intensive care unit, as part of the US FDA expanded access program for COVID-19 convalescent plasma.RESULTSThe incidence of all serious adverse events (SAEs), including mortality rate (0.3%), in the first 4 hours after transfusion was <1%. Of the 36 reported SAEs, there were 25 reported incidences of related SAEs, including mortality (n = 4), transfusion-associated circulatory overload (n = 7), transfusion-related acute lung injury (n = 11), and severe allergic transfusion reactions (n = 3). However, only 2 of 36 SAEs were judged as definitely related to the convalescent plasma transfusion by the treating physician. The 7-day mortality rate was 14.9%.CONCLUSIONGiven the deadly nature of COVID-19 and the large population of critically ill patients included in these analyses, the mortality rate does not appear excessive. These early indicators suggest that transfusion of convalescent plasma is safe in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT04338360.FUNDINGMayo Clinic, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (75A50120C00096), National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR002377), National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (5R35HL139854 and R01 HL059842), National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (5T32DK07352), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (PDF-532926-2019), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (R21 AI145356, R21 AI152318, and AI152078), Schwab Charitable Fund, United Health Group, National Basketball Association, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, and Octapharma USA Inc.

A matched cohort study of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is a public health crisis. Prior studies demonstrated successful use of convalescent plasma therapy for treatment of other viral illnesses. Our primary objective was to evaluate treatment efficacy of convalescent plasma in patients with COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective matched cohort study, we enrolled recipients of convalescent plasma collected from donors recovered from laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection under the single patient eIND process. We individually matched 35 cases with 61 controls based on age, gender, supplemental oxygen requirements, and C-reactive protein level at the time of hospital admission. We compared the outcomes of in-hospital mortality and hospital length of stay between the groups. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality was 20% among the cases and 24.6% among the controls (P = .61). A multivariable logistic regression model that included age, gender, duration of symptoms, need for mechanical ventilation, and pharmacologic interventions revealed no significant difference in mortality by study group (P = .71). The median length of stay was significantly greater among convalescent plasma recipients compared with controls, 10 (IQR, 6-17) vs 7 (IQR, 4-11) days, P < .01. The difference was not significant after controlling for covariates (P > .1). CONCLUSIONS: We did not find convalescent plasma reduced in-hospital mortality in our sample, nor did it reduce length of stay. Further investigation is warranted to determine the efficacy of this treatment in patients with COVID-19, particularly early in the disease process.