Focosi, Daniele

Convalescent plasma (CP) recurs as a frontline treatment in epidemics because it is available as soon as there are survivors. The COVID-19 pandemic represented the first large-scale opportunity to shed light on the mechanisms of action, safety, and efficacy of CP using modern evidence-based medicine approaches. Studies ranging from observational case series to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported highly variable efficacy results for COVID-19 CP (CCP), resulting in uncertainty.

AbstractCOVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) was among the few frontline therapies used to treat COVID‐19. After large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relying on late use in hospitalized patients and/or low antibody titres failed to meet their predefined primary endpoint, the infectious disease community reduced usage of CCP in favour of monoclonal antibodies. Consequently, there are CCP stocks at most transfusion centres worldwide, although scattered usage continues. Further, better designed RCTs are also being launched. The urgent question here is: should we use CCP units collected months before given the largely changed viral variant landscape? We review here in vitro evidence that discourages usage of such CCP units against Delta and other variants of concern. CCP collections should be continued in order to update the armamentarium of therapeutics against vaccine breakthrough infections or in unvaccinated patients and is especially relevant in next‐generation RCTs.

COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is currently under investigation for both treatment and post-exposure prophylaxis. The active component of CCP mediating improved outcome is commonly reported as specific antibodies, particularly neutralizing antibodies, with clinical efficacy characterized according to the level or antibody affinity. In this review, we highlight the potential role of additional factors in CCP that can be either beneficial (e.g., AT-III, alpha-1 AT, ACE2+ extracellular vesicles) or detrimental (e.g., anti-ADAMTS13, anti-MDA5 or anti-interferon autoantibodies, pro-coagulant extracellular vesicles). Variations in these factors in CCP may contribute to varied outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and undergoing CCP therapy. We advise careful, retrospective investigation of such co-factors in randomized clinical trials that use fresh frozen plasma in control arms. Nevertheless, it might be difficult to establish a causal link between these components and outcome, given that CCP is generally safe and neutralizing antibody effects may predominate.

Rituximab improves outcomes for persons with lymphoproliferative disorders and is increasingly used to treat immune-mediated illnesses. Recent reports describe 2 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and 1 with rheumatoid arthritis who developed progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) after rituximab treatment. We reviewed PML case descriptions among patients treated with rituximab from the Food and Drug Administration, the manufacturer, physicians, and a literature review from 1997 to 2008. Overall, 52 patients with lymphoproliferative disorders, 2 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, 1 patient with rheumatoid arthritis, 1 patient with an idiopathic autoimmune pancytopenia, and 1 patient with immune thrombocytopenia developed PML after treatment with rituximab and other agents. Other treatments included hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (7 patients), purine analogs (26 patients), or alkylating agents (39 patients). One patient with an autoimmune hemolytic anemia developed PML after treatment with corticosteroids and rituximab, and 1 patient with an autoimmune pancytopenia developed PML after treatment with corticosteroids, azathioprine, and rituximab. Median time from last rituximab dose to PML diagnosis was 5.5 months. Median time to death after PML diagnosis was 2.0 months. The case-fatality rate was 90%. Awareness is needed of the potential for PML among rituximab-treated persons.