Casadevall, Arturo

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.

Background: The US Food and Drug Administration authorized COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) therapy for hospitalized COVID-19 patients via the Expanded Access Program (EAP) and the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), leading to use in about 500,000 patients during the first year of the pandemic for the USA. Methods: We tracked the number of CCP units dispensed to hospitals by blood banking organizations and correlated that usage with hospital admission and mortality data. Results: CCP usage per admission peaked in Fall 2020, with more than 40% of inpatients estimated to have received CCP between late September and early November 2020. However, after randomized controlled trials failed to show a reduction in mortality, CCP usage per admission declined steadily to a nadir of less than 10% in March 2021. We found a strong inverse correlation (r = −0.52, p=0.002) between CCP usage per hospital admission and deaths occurring 2 weeks after admission, and this finding was robust to examination of deaths taking place 1, 2, or 3 weeks after admission. Changes in the number of hospital admissions, SARS-CoV-2 variants, and age of patients could not explain these findings. The retreat from CCP usage might have resulted in as many as 29,000 excess deaths from mid-November 2020 to February 2021. Conclusions: A strong inverse correlation between CCP use and mortality per admission in the USA provides population-level evidence consistent with the notion that CCP reduces mortality in COVID-19 and suggests that the recent decline in usage could have resulted in excess deaths. Funding: There was no specific funding for this study. AC was supported in part by RO1 HL059842 and R01 AI1520789; MJJ was supported in part by 5R35HL139854. This project has been funded in whole or in part with Federal funds from the Department of Health and Human Services; Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response; Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority under Contract No. 75A50120C00096.

AbstractIn the absence of effective countermeasures, human convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the causative agent of novel coronavirus disease 19 (COVID‐19), including among patients with innate or acquired immunosuppression. However, the association between COVID‐19‐associated mortality in patients with immunosuppression and therapeutic use of convalescent plasma is unknown. We review 75 reports, including one large matched‐control registry study of 143 COVID‐19 patients with hematological malignancies, and 51 case reports and 23 case series representing 238 COVID‐19 patients with immunosuppression. We review clinical features and treatment protocols of COVID‐19 patients with immunosuppression after treatment with human convalescent plasma. We also discuss the time course and clinical features of recovery. The available data from case reports and case series provide evidence suggesting a mortality benefit and rapid clinical improvement in patients with several forms of immunosuppression following COVID‐19 convalescent plasma transfusion. The utility of convalescent plasma or other forms of antibody therapy in immune‐deficient and immune‐suppressed patients with COVID‐19 warrants further investigation.

Antibody therapies such as convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies have emerged as major potential therapeutics for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Immunoglobulins differ from conventional antimicrobial agents in that they mediate direct and indirect antimicrobial effects that work in concert with other components of the immune system.

Background and ObjectivesABO blood group may affect risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and/or severity of COVID‐19. We sought to determine whether IgG, IgA and neutralizing antibody (nAb) to SARS‐CoV‐2 vary by ABO blood group.Materials and MethodsAmong eligible convalescent plasma donors, ABO blood group was determined via agglutination of reagent A1 and B cells, IgA and IgG were quantified using the Euroimmun anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 ELISA, and nAb titres were quantified using a microneutralization assay. Differences in titre distribution were examined by ABO blood group using non‐parametric Kruskal–Wallis tests. Adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) of high nAb titre (≥1:160) were estimated by blood group using multivariable modified Poisson regression models that adjusted for age, sex, hospitalization status and time since SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnosis.ResultsOf the 202 potential donors, 65 (32%) were blood group A, 39 (19%) were group B, 13 (6%) were group AB, and 85 (42%) were group O. Distribution of nAb titres significantly differed by ABO blood group, whereas there were no significant differences in anti‐spike IgA or anti‐spike IgG titres by ABO blood group. There were significantly more individuals with high nAb titre (≥1:160) among those with blood group B, compared with group O (aPR = 1·9 [95%CI = 1·1–3·3], P = 0·029). Fewer individuals had a high nAb titre among those with blood group A, compared with group B (aPR = 0·6 [95%CI = 0·4‐1·0], P = 0·053).ConclusionEligible CCP donors with blood group B may have relatively higher neutralizing antibody titres. Additional studies evaluating ABO blood groups and antibody titres that incorporate COVID‐19 severity are needed.