Abstract

The recent COVID-19 pandemic poses a serious threat to global public health, thus there is an urgent need to define the molecular mechanisms involved in SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein-mediated virus entry that is essential for preventing and/or treating this emerging infectious disease In this study, we examined the blocking activity of human COVID-19 convalescent plasma by cell–cell fusion assays using SARS-CoV-2-S-transfected 293 T as effector cells and ACE2-expressing 293 T as target cells We demonstrate that the SARS-CoV-2 S protein exhibits a very high capacity for membrane fusion and is efficient in mediating virus fusion and entry into target cells Importantly, we find that COVID-19 convalescent plasma with high titers of IgG neutralizing antibodies can block cell–cell fusion and virus entry by interfering with the SARS-CoV-2-S/ACE2 or SARS-CoV-S/ACE2 interactions These findings suggest that COVID-19 convalescent plasma may not only inhibit SARS-CoV-2-S but also cross-neutralize SARS-CoV-S-mediated membrane fusion and virus entry, supporting its potential as a preventive and/or therapeutic agent against SARS-CoV-2 as well as other SARS-CoV infections

Abstract

BACKGROUND Recent evidence suggested that the higher titers of anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody from convalescent plasma donors contributed to the clinical improvement in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, the titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies varied in each individual, and the precise factors that might govern such variation have not been elucidated. OBJECTIVES To assess the factors associated with high titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody among COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) donors. METHODS A cross-sectional study was conducted in Saiful Anwar General Hospital, Malang, Indonesia. Information of interest including demographic characteristics, clinical symptoms, comorbidities, laboratory findings, and the titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody among COVID-19 CCP donors were collected. The correlation was assessed using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS A total of 50 COVID-19 CCP donors with the titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody of more than 1:320 and 33 donors with the titers of less than 1:320 were analyzed. Our analysis revealed that CCP donors with history of cough, fever, dyspnea, and pneumonia significantly had higher titers of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody compared to asymptomatic donors. Moreover, CCP donors with elevated levels of eosinophils and immature granulocytes and low levels of albumins had higher levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody. The titer of antibody was not affected by comorbidities of donors. CONCLUSIONS CPP donors who had experience of symptomatic COVID-19 with high eosinophils level, high immature granulocytes and low albumin level have higher titers of anti-SARS-COV-2 antibody than those who experienced asymptomatic COVID-19. Our current findings may be used as the additional baseline criteria for selecting the donors of CCP for the management of COVID-19.

Abstract

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention) The objectives are as follows: To assess whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2 and development of COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach

Abstract

BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are being investigated as potential therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of these interventions is required.  OBJECTIVES Using a living systematic review approach, to assess whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence. SEARCH METHODS To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform, and trial registries. Searches were done on 17 March 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. For safety assessments, we also included non-controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) if 500 or more participants were included. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as 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 2' tool for RCTs, and for NRSIs, the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer. We rated the certainty of evidence, using the GRADE approach, for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, improvement and worsening of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), development of severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms (for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease), quality of life (including fatigue and functional independence), grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS We included 13 studies (12 RCTs, 1 NRSI) with 48,509 participants, of whom 41,880 received convalescent plasma. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We identified a further 100 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, and 33 studies reporting as being completed or terminated. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease Eleven RCTs and one NRSI investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 48,349 participants with moderate to severe disease. Nine RCTs compared convalescent plasma to placebo treatment or standard care alone, and two compared convalescent plasma to standard plasma (results not included in abstract). Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We included data on nine RCTs (12,875 participants) to assess the effectiveness of convalescent plasma compared to placebo or standard care alone.  Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 12,646 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on clinical improvement for all participants when assessed by liberation from respiratory support (RR not estimable; 8 RCTs, 12,682 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on the chance of being weaned or liberated from invasive mechanical ventilation for the subgroup of participants requiring invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.93; 2 RCTs, 630 participants; low-certainty evidence). It does not reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.08; 4 RCTs, 11,765 participants; high-certainty evidence). We did not identify any subgroup differences.  We did not identify any studies reporting quality of life, and therefore, do not know whether convalescent plasma has any impact on quality of life. One RCT assessed resolution of fatigue on day 7, but we are very uncertain about the effect (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.42; 309 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Safety of convalescent plasma We included results from eight RCTs, and one NRSI, to assess the safety of convalescent plasma. Some of the RCTs reported on safety data only for the convalescent plasma group.  We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma increases or reduces the risk of grade 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.41; 4 RCTs, 905 participants; low-certainty evidence), and serious adverse events (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.90; 2 RCTs, 414 participants; low-certainty evidence).  A summary of reported events of the NRSI (reporting safety data for 20,000 of 35,322 transfused participants), and four RCTs reporting safety data only for transfused participants (6125 participants) are included in the full text. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and asymptomatic or mild disease We identified one RCT reporting on 160 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo treatment (saline).  Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We are very uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on all-cause mortality (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.65; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on developing severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR not estimable; low-certainty evidence).  We identified no study reporting quality of life.  Safety of convalescent plasma We do not know whether convalescent plasma is associated with a higher risk of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (very low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). This is a living systematic review. We search weekly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We have high certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for the treatment of individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on measures of clinical improvement. We are uncertain about the adverse effects of convalescent plasma. While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, heterogeneous reporting of outcomes is still problematic. There are 100 ongoing studies and 33 studies reporting in a study registry as being completed or terminated. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around hyperimmune immunoglobulin therapy for people with any disease severity, and convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Abstract

Background and Objectives: On 24 March 2020, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the approval of convalescent plasma therapy for critically ill patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) as an emergency investigational new drug This pilot study from Romania aimed to determine if convalescent plasma transfusion can be beneficial in the treatment of selected critically ill patients diagnosed with a SARS-CoV-2 infection Materials and Methods: Donor and receiver eligibility for critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients was based on Romanian guidelines issued at the time of the study Here, we describe the evolution of a total of five eligible patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who received convalescent plasma (CP) in Romania Results: In spite of our efforts and convalescent plasma administration, three of the five patients did not survive, while the other two recovered completely Over the course of our five-day laboratory record, the surviving patients had significantly lower values for C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and white blood cells Conclusions: This pilot study provides insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of convalescent plasma use as a therapeutic option for critically ill COVID-19 patients

Abstract

This paper aims to analyze the ethical challenges in experimental drug use during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, using Germany as a case study. In Germany uniform ethical guidelines were available early on nationwide, which was considered as desirable by other states to reduce uncertainties and convey a message of unity. The purpose of this ethical analysis is to assist the preparation of future guidelines on the use of medicines during public health emergencies. The use of hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir and COVID-19 convalescent plasma in clinical settings was analyzed from the perspective of the ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, justice and autonomy. We observed that drug safety and drug distribution during the pandemic affects all four ethical principles. We therefore recommend to establish ethical guidelines (i) to discuss experimental treatment options with patients from all population groups who are in urgent need, (ii) to facilitate the recording of patient reactions to drugs in off-label use, (iii) to expand inclusion criteria for clinical studies to avoid missing potentially negative effects on excluded groups, and (iv) to maintain sufficient access to repurposed drugs for patients with prior conditions.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Neutralizing-antibody (nAb) is the major focus of most ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials. However, nAb response against SARS-CoV-2, when present, decays rapidly. Given the myriad roles of antibodies in immune responses, it is possible that antibodies could also mediate protection against SARS-CoV-2 via effector mechanisms such as antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC), which we sought to explore here. METHODS Plasma of 3 uninfected controls and 20 subjects exposed to, or recovering from, SARS-CoV-2 infection were collected from U.S. and sub-Saharan Africa. Immunofluorescence assay was used to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 specific IgG antibodies in the plasma samples. SARS-CoV-2 specific neutralizing capability of these plasmas was assessed with SARS-CoV-2 spike pseudotyped virus. ADCC activity was assessed with a calcein release assay. RESULTS SARS-CoV-2 specific IgG antibodies were detected in all COVID-19 subjects studied. All but three COVID-19 subjects contained nAb at high potency (>80% neutralization). Plasma from 19/20 of COVID-19 subjects also demonstrated strong ADCC activity against SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein, including two individuals without nAb against SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSION Both neutralizing and non-neutralizing COVID-19 plasmas can mediate ADCC. Our findings argue that evaluation of potential vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 should include investigation of the magnitude and durability of ADCC, in addition to nAb.