Shoham, Shmuel

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.

Abstract There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials. The objective was to develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Based on the most recent search conducted on 31 May 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 32 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and postexposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, and hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines. At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were conducted that provided much-needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved, which we hope future trials can answer.

Abstract The ongoing evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants severely limits available effective monoclonal antibody therapies. Effective drugs are also supply limited. COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) qualified for high antibody levels effectively reduces immunocompetent outpatient hospitalization. The Food and Drug Administration currently allows outpatient CCP for the immunosuppressed. Viral-specific antibody levels in CCP can range 10- to 100-fold between donors, unlike the uniform viral-specific monoclonal antibody dosing. Limited data are available on the efficacy of polyclonal CCP to neutralize variants. We examined 108 pre-δ/pre-ο donor units obtained before March 2021, 20 post-δ COVID-19/postvaccination units, and 1 pre-δ/pre-ο hyperimmunoglobulin preparation for variant-specific virus (vaccine-related isolate [WA-1], δ, and ο) neutralization correlated to Euroimmun S1 immunoglobulin G antibody levels. We observed a two- to fourfold and 20- to 40-fold drop in virus neutralization from SARS-CoV-2 WA-1 to δ or ο, respectively. CCP antibody levels in the upper 10% of the 108 donations as well as 100% of the post-δ COVID-19/postvaccination units and the hyperimmunoglobulin effectively neutralized all 3 variants. High-titer CCP neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 variants despite no previous donor exposure to the variants.

AbstractConvalescent plasma, collected from donors who have recovered from a pathogen of interest, has been used to treat infectious diseases, particularly in times of outbreak, when alternative therapies were unavailable. The COVID‐19 pandemic revived interest in the use of convalescent plasma. Large observational studies and clinical trials that were executed during the pandemic provided insight into how to use convalescent plasma, whereby high levels of antibodies against the pathogen of interest and administration early within the time course of the disease are critical for optimal therapeutic effect. Several studies have shown outpatient administration of COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) to be both safe and effective, preventing clinical progression in patients when administered within the first week of COVID‐19. The United States Food and Drug Administration expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) to allow for the administration of CCP in an outpatient setting in December 2021, at least for immunocompromised patients or those on immunosuppressive therapy. Outpatient transfusion of CCP and infusion of monoclonal antibody therapies for a highly transmissible infectious disease introduces nuanced challenges related to infection prevention. Drawing on our experiences with the clinical and research use of CCP, we describe the logistical considerations and workflow spanning procurement of qualified products, infrastructure, staffing, transfusion, and associated management of adverse events. The purpose of this description is to facilitate the efforts of others intent on establishing outpatient transfusion programs for CCP and other antibody‐based therapies.

Abstract Despite the challenges of the pandemic, there has been substantial progress with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies. Pivotal COVID-19 trials like SOLIDARITY, RECOVERY, and ACCT-1 were rapidly conducted and data disseminated to support effective therapies. However, critical shortcomings remain on trial conduct, dissemination and interpretation of study results, and regulatory guidance in pandemic settings. The lessons that we learned have implications for both the current pandemic and future emerging infectious diseases. There is a need for establishing and standardizing clinical meaningful outcomes in therapeutic trials and for targeting defined populations and phenotypes that will most benefit from specific therapies. Standardized processes should be established for rapid and critical data review and dissemination to ensure scientific integrity. Clarity around the evidence standards needed for issuance of both emergency use authorization (EUA) and biologic license application (BLA) should be established and an infrastructure for executing rapid trials in epidemic settings maintained.

Abstract Given the urgent need for treatments during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration issued emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for multiple therapies. In several instances, however, these EUAs were issued before sufficient evidence of a given therapy’s efficacy and safety were available, potentially promoting ineffective or even harmful therapies and undermining the generation of definitive evidence. We describe the strengths and weaknesses of the different therapeutic EUAs issued during this pandemic. We also contrast them to the vaccine EUAs and suggest a framework and criteria for an evidence-based, trustworthy, and publicly transparent therapeutic EUA process for future pandemics.

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.

Abstract Background There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). There is a need for frequently updated practice guidelines on their use, based on critical evaluation of rapidly emerging literature. The objective was to develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. Methods The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise. Process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results The IDSA guideline panel agreed on 7 treatment recommendations and provided narrative summaries of other treatments undergoing evaluations. Conclusions The panel expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials, which would provide much-needed evidence on the efficacy and safety of various therapies for COVID-19, given that we could not make a determination whether the benefits outweigh harms for most treatments.

ABSTRACTNeither breakpoints (BPs) nor epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs) have been established forCandidaspp. with anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin when using the Sensititre YeastOne (SYO) broth dilution colorimetric method. In addition, reference caspofungin MICs have so far proven to be unreliable.Candidaspecies wild-type (WT) MIC distributions (for microorganisms in a species/drug combination with no detectable phenotypic resistance) were established for 6,007Candida albicans, 186C. dubliniensis, 3,188C. glabratacomplex, 119C. guilliermondii, 493C. krusei, 205C. lusitaniae, 3,136C. parapsilosiscomplex, and 1,016C. tropicalisisolates. SYO MIC data gathered from 38 laboratories in Australia, Canada, Europe, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States were pooled to statistically define SYO ECVs. ECVs for anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin encompassing ≥97.5% of the statistically modeled population were, respectively, 0.12, 0.25, and 0.06 μg/ml forC. albicans, 0.12, 0.25, and 0.03 μg/ml forC. glabratacomplex, 4, 2, and 4 μg/ml forC. parapsilosiscomplex, 0.5, 0.25, and 0.06 μg/ml forC. tropicalis, 0.25, 1, and 0.25 μg/ml forC. krusei, 0.25, 1, and 0.12 μg/ml forC. lusitaniae, 4, 2, and 2 μg/ml forC. guilliermondii, and 0.25, 0.25, and 0.12 μg/ml forC. dubliniensis. Species-specific SYO ECVs for anidulafungin, caspofungin, and micafungin correctly classified 72 (88.9%), 74 (91.4%), 76 (93.8%), respectively, of 81Candidaisolates with identifiedfksmutations. SYO ECVs may aid in detecting non-WT isolates with reduced susceptibility to anidulafungin, micafungin, and especially caspofungin, since testing the susceptibilities ofCandidaspp. to caspofungin by reference methodologies is not recommended.