Pirofski, Liise‐anne

In the Spring of 2020, the United States of America (USA) deployed COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) to treat hospitalized patients. Over 500,000 patients were treated with CCP during the first year of the pandemic. In this study, we estimated the number of actual inpatient lives saved by CCP treatment in the United States of America based on CCP weekly use, weekly national mortality data, and CCP mortality reduction data from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and real-world data. We also estimate the potential number of lives saved if CCP had been deployed for 100% of hospitalized patients or used in 15 to 75% of outpatients. Depending on the assumptions modeled in stratified analyses, we estimated that CCP saved between 16,476 and 66,296 lives. The CCP ideal use might have saved as many as 234,869 lives and prevented 1,136,133 hospitalizations. CCP deployment was a successful strategy for ameliorating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA. This experience has important implications for convalescent plasma use in future infectious disease emergencies.

Plasma collected from people recovered from COVID-19 (COVID-19 convalescent plasma, CCP) was the first antibody-based therapy employed to fight the pandemic. CCP was, however, often employed in combination with other drugs, such as the antiviral remdesivir and glucocorticoids. The possible effect of such interaction has never been investigated systematically. To assess the safety and efficacy of CCP combined with other agents for treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, a systematic literature search using appropriate Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms was performed through PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane central, medRxiv and bioRxiv. The main outcomes considered were mortality and safety of CCP combined with other treatments versus CCP alone. This review was carried out in accordance with Cochrane methodology including risk of bias assessment and grading of the quality of evidence. Measure of treatment effect was the risk ratio (RR) together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 11 studies (8 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 3 observational) were included in the systematic review, 4 studies with CCP combined with remdesivir and 6 studies with CCP combined with corticosteroids, all involving hospitalized patients. One RCT reported information on both remdesivir and steroids use with CCP. The use of CCP combined with remdesivir was associated with a significantly reduced risk of death (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.56–0.97; p = 0.03; moderate certainty of evidence), while the use of steroids with CCP did not modify the mortality risk (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.34–1.51; p = 0.38; very low certainty of evidence). Not enough safety data were retrieved form the systematic literature analysis. The current evidence from the literature suggests a potential beneficial effect on mortality of combined CCP plus remdesivir compared to CCP alone in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. No significant clinical interaction was found between CCP and steroids.

Abstract Infectious diseases (ID) research is vital for global public health, typically led by physician-scientists. This Perspective addresses challenges in the ID workforce and suggests solutions. Physician-scientists have made key discoveries that have significantly impacted human health. The importance of ID research in understanding diseases, leading to treatments and vaccines, is emphasized, along with the need to address persistent and new infections, antimicrobial resistance, and threats like HIV and influenza. The paper analyzes the physician-scientist workforce's struggles, including funding, training, and research-practice integration gaps. We suggest increased funding, better training, and mentorship, more collaborative and interdisciplinary research, and improved recognition systems. The article stresses the urgency of supporting physician-scientists in ID, advocating for proactive prevention and preparedness, and calls for immediate action to enhance ID research and care.

Abstract Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19 in immunocompromised (IC) patients. IC patients have a higher risk of persistent infection, severe disease, and death from COVID-19. Despite the continued clinical use of CCP to treat IC patients, the optimal dose, frequency/schedule, and duration of CCP treatment has yet to be determined, and related best practices guidelines are lacking. A group of individuals with expertise spanning infectious diseases, virology and transfusion medicine was assembled to render an expert opinion statement pertaining to the use of CCP for IC patients. For optimal effect, CCP should be recently and locally collected to match circulating variant. CCP should be considered for the treatment of IC patients with acute and protracted COVID-19; dosage depends on clinical setting (acute vs protracted COVID-19). CCP containing high-titer severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies, retains activity against circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants, which have otherwise rendered monoclonal antibodies ineffective.

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.

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.

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.