Background Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required. OBJECTIVES: To continually assess, as more evidence becomes available, whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in treatment of people with COVID-19. Search methods We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trial registries to identify completed and ongoing studies on 4 June 2020. Selection criteria We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of study design, disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. Data collection and analysis We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), and the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-controlled NRSIs. MAIN RESULTS: This is the first living update of our review. We included 20 studies (1 RCT, 3 controlled NRSIs, 16 non-controlled NRSIs) with 5443 participants, of whom 5211 received convalescent plasma, and identified a further 98 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 50 are randomised. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. Overall risk of bias of included studies was high, due to study design, type of participants, and other previous or concurrent treatments. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from four controlled studies (1 RCT (stopped early) with 103 participants, of whom 52 received convalescent plasma; and 3 controlled NRSIs with 236 participants, of whom 55 received convalescent plasma) to assess effectiveness of convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge (1 controlled NRSI, 21 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma has any effect on all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.31; very low-certainty evidence). Time to death (1 RCT, 103 participants; 1 controlled NRSI, 195 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma prolongs time to death (RCT: hazard ratio (HR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.82; controlled NRSI: HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96; very low-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical symptoms, assessed by need for respiratory support (1 RCT, 103 participants; 1 controlled NRSI, 195 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma has any effect on improvement of clinical symptoms at seven days (RCT: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19), 14 days (RCT: RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.77; controlled NRSI: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.29), and 28 days (RCT: RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.81; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life No studies reported this outcome. Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from 1 RCT, 3 controlled NRSIs and 10 non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of adverse events and serious adverse events was variable. The controlled studies reported on adverse events and serious adverse events only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. The duration of follow-up varied. Some, but not all, studies included death as a serious adverse event. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (13 studies, 201 participants) The studies did not report the grade of adverse events. Thirteen studies (201 participants) reported on adverse events of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these adverse events were allergic or respiratory events. We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events (14 studies, 5201 participants) Fourteen studies (5201 participants) reported on serious adverse events. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (5000 participants), which reported only on serious adverse events limited to the first four hours after convalescent plasma transfusion. This study included death as a serious adverse event; they reported 15 deaths, four of which they classified as potentially, probably or definitely related to transfusion. Other serious adverse events reported in all studies were predominantly allergic or respiratory in nature, including anaphylaxis, transfusion-associated dyspnoea, and transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI). We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma affects the number of serious adverse events. Authors' conclusions We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. For safety outcomes we also included non-controlled NRSIs. There was limited information regarding adverse events. Of the controlled studies, none reported on this outcome in the control group. There is only very low-certainty evidence for safety of convalescent plasma for COVID-19. While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, problems with recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies are conceivable. The early termination of the first RCT investigating convalescent plasma, and the multitude of studies registered in the past months illustrate this. It is therefore necessary to critically assess the design of these registered studies, and well-designed studies should be prioritised. Other considerations for these studies are the need to report outcomes for all study arms in the same way, and the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms. There are 98 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 50 are RCTs. This is the first living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. These updates may show different results to those reported here.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review.

AIMS: To estimate the association of smoking status with rates of (i) infection, (ii) hospitalization, (iii) disease severity and (iv) mortality from SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 disease. DESIGN: Living rapid review of observational and experimental studies with random-effects hierarchical Bayesian meta-analyses. Published articles and pre-prints were identified via MEDLINE and medRxiv. SETTING: Community or hospital, no restrictions on location. PARTICIPANTS: Adults who received a SARS-CoV-2 test or a COVID-19 diagnosis. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, disease severity and mortality stratified by smoking status. Study quality was assessed (i.e. 'good', 'fair' and 'poor'). FINDINGS: Version 7 (searches up to 25 August 2020) included 233 studies with 32 'good' and 'fair' quality studies included in meta-analyses. Fifty-seven studies (24.5%) reported current, former and never smoking status. Recorded smoking prevalence among people with COVID-19 was generally lower than national prevalence. Current compared with never smokers were at reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection [relative risk (RR) = 0.74, 95% credible interval (CrI) = 0.58-0.93, τ = 0.41]. Data for former smokers were inconclusive (RR = 1.05, 95% CrI = 0.95-1.17, τ = 0.17), but favoured there being no important association (21% probability of RR ≥ 1.1). Former compared with never smokers were at somewhat increased risk of hospitalization (RR = 1.20, CrI = 1.03-1.44, τ = 0.17), greater disease severity (RR = 1.52, CrI = 1.13-2.07, τ = 0.29) and mortality (RR = 1.39, 95% CrI = 1.09-1.87, τ = 0.27). Data for current smokers were inconclusive (RR = 1.06, CrI = 0.82-1.35, τ = 0.27; RR = 1.25, CrI = 0.85-1.93, τ = 0.34; RR = 1.22, 95% CrI = 0.78-1.94, τ = 0.49, respectively), but favoured there being no important associations with hospitalization and mortality (35% and 70% probability of RR ≥ 1.1, respectively) and a small but important association with disease severity (79% probability of RR ≥ 1.1). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with never smokers, current smokers appear to be at reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, while former smokers appear to be at increased risk of hospitalization, increased disease severity and mortality from COVID-19. However, it is uncertain whether these associations are causal.

The association of smoking status with sars-cov-2 infection, hospitalization and mortality from covid-19: A living rapid evidence review with bayesian meta-analyses (version 7)

The Effect of Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Mortality Among Patients With COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 has infected millions of people globally. Virus infection requires the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein. Although studies have demonstrated anti-spike and -RBD antibodies to be protective in animal models, and convalescent plasma as a promising therapeutic option, little is known about immunoglobulin (Ig) isotypes capable of blocking infection. METHODS: We studied spike- and RBD-specific Ig isotypes in convalescent and acute plasma/sera using a multiplex bead assay. We also determined virus neutralization activities in plasma, sera, and purified Ig fractions using a VSV pseudovirus assay. RESULTS: Spike- and RBD-specific IgM, IgG1, and IgA1 were produced by all or nearly all subjects at variable levels and detected early after infection. All samples displayed neutralizing activity. Regression analyses revealed that IgM and IgG1 contributed most to neutralization, consistent with IgM and IgG fractions' neutralization potency. IgA also exhibited neutralizing activity, but with lower potency. CONCLUSION: IgG, IgM and IgA are critical components of convalescent plasma used for COVID-19 treatment.

/pdf/role-of-igm-and-iga-antibodies-in-the-neutralization-of-sars-197n84xuvv.pdf

Role of IgM and IgA Antibodies in the Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2.

Clinical trials on the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma remain inconclusive While data on safety is increasingly available, evidence for efficacy is still sparse Subgroup analyses hint to a dose-response relationship between convalescent plasma neutralizing antibody levels and mortality In particular, patients with primary and secondary antibody deficiency might benefit from this approach However, testing of neutralizing antibodies is limited to specialized biosafety level 3 laboratories and is a time- and labor-intense procedure In this single center study of 206 COVID-19 convalescent patients, clinical data, results of commercially available ELISA testing of SARS-CoV-2 spike-IgG and -IgA, and levels of neutralizing antibodies, determined by plaque reduction neutralization testing (PRNT), were analyzed At a medium time point of 58 days after symptom onset, only 126% of potential plasma donors showed high levels of neutralizing antibodies (PRNT50 ≥ 1:320) Multivariable proportional odds logistic regression analysis revealed need for hospitalization due to COVID-19 (odds ratio 687; p-value 00004) and fever (odds ratio 300; p-value 00001) as leading factors affecting levels of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers in convalescent plasma donors Using penalized estimation, a predictive proportional odds logistic regression model including the most important variables hospitalization, fever, age, sex, and anosmia or dysgeusia was developed The predictive discrimination for PRNT50 ≥ 1:320 was reasonably good with AUC: 086 (with 95% CI: 079-092) Combining clinical and ELISA-based pre-screening, assessment of neutralizing antibodies could be spared in 75% of potential donors with a maximal loss of 10% of true positives (PRNT50 ≥ 1:320)

/pdf/disease-severity-fever-age-and-sex-correlate-with-sars-cov-2-1ehjap5unq.pdf

Disease Severity, Fever, Age, and Sex Correlate With SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody Responses.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral respiratory syndrome caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This novel virus was discovered in Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China, in December 2019. As of September 6, 2020, confirmed cases have risen to more than 27,000,000 worldwide and more than 885,000 people have died. Currently, no cure or standard treatment for COVID-19 exists. We conducted a prospective single-arm open-label phase II clinical trial assessing the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Convalescent plasma with sufficient total anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titer (1:320) obtained from recovered donors was administered to adult patients with either severe or critical COVID-19 illness. Primary outcomes were adverse events in association with plasma administration, and hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included disease progression, recovery, length of stay, and hospital discharge. Of the 38 patients included in the analysis, 24 (63%) recovered and were discharged, and 14 (37%) died. Patients who received convalescent plasma early in the disease course (severe illness group) as compared to the patients that received convalescent plasma later in the disease progression (critical illness group) had significantly lower hospital mortality 13% vs 55% (p < 0.02) and shorter mean hospital length of stay 15.4 vs 33 days (p < 0.01). One patient experienced a transient transfusion reaction. No other adverse effects of convalescent plasma infusion were observed. Our results suggest that convalescent plasma with adequate anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titer is safe and has the potential for positive impact on clinical outcomes including recovery and survival if given to patients early in the course of COVID-19 disease. ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier, NCT04343261, IND #19805.

/pdf/factors-associated-with-good-patient-outcomes-following-53e48vb0ok.pdf

Factors Associated with Good Patient Outcomes Following Convalescent Plasma in COVID-19: A Prospective Phase II Clinical Trial.

SARS-CoV-2 serology and virology trends in donors and recipients of convalescent plasma.

We conducted a prospective single-arm open-label phase II clinical trial assessing the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Convalescent plasma with sufficient IgG titer (1:320) obtained from recovered donors was administered to adult patients with either severe or critical COVID-19 illness. Primary outcomes were adverse events in association with plasma administration, and hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included disease progression, recovery, length of stay, and hospital discharge. Of the 38 patients included in the analysis, 24 (63%) recovered and were discharged, and 14 (37%) died. Patients who received convalescent plasma early in the disease course (severe illness group) as compared to the patients that received convalescent plasma later in disease progression (critical illness group) had significantly lower hospital mortality 13% vs 55% (p

/pdf/factors-associated-with-good-patient-outcomes-following-bjux01uxep.pdf

Reginald Eadie

Papers

Factors Associated with Good Patient Outcomes Following Convalescent Plasma in COVID-19: A Prospective Phase II Clinical Trial.

SARS-CoV-2 serology and virology trends in donors and recipients of convalescent plasma.

Factors Associated with Good Patient Outcomes Following Convalescent Plasma in COVID-19: A Prospective Phase II Clinical Trial