Abstract

BACKGROUND Hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIVIG) contains polyclonal antibodies, which can be prepared from large amounts of pooled convalescent plasma or prepared from animal sources through immunisation. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This review was previously part of a parent review addressing convalescent plasma and hIVIG for people with COVID-19 and was split to address hIVIG and convalescent plasma separately. OBJECTIVES To assess the benefits and harms of hIVIG therapy for the treatment of people with COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Research Database, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform and Medline and Embase from 1 January 2019 onwards. We carried out searches on 31 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated hIVIG for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. 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 that evaluated standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used RoB 2. 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), quality of life, adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS We included five RCTs with 947 participants, of whom 688 received hIVIG prepared from humans, 18 received heterologous swine glyco-humanised polyclonal antibody, and 241 received equine-derived processed and purified F(ab')(2) fragments. All participants were hospitalised with moderate-to-severe disease, most participants were not vaccinated (only 12 participants were vaccinated). The studies were conducted before or during the emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. There are no data for people with COVID-19 with no symptoms (asymptomatic) or people with mild COVID-19. We identified a further 10 ongoing studies evaluating hIVIG. Benefits of hIVIG prepared from humans We included data on one RCT (579 participants) that assessed the benefits and harms of hIVIG 0.4 g/kg compared to saline placebo. hIVIG may have little to no impact on all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.44; absolute effect 77 per 1000 with placebo versus 61 per 1000 (33 to 111) with hIVIG; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on worsening of clinical status at day 7 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.23; very low-certainty evidence). It probably has little to no impact on improvement of clinical status on day 28 (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.08; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify any studies that reported quality-of-life outcomes, so we do not know if hIVIG has any impact on quality of life. Harms of hIVIG prepared from humans hIVIG may have little to no impact on adverse events at any grade on day 1 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.18; 431 per 1000; 1 study 579 participants; low-certainty evidence). Patients receiving hIVIG probably experience more adverse events at grade 3-4 severity than patients who receive placebo (RR 4.09, 95% CI 1.39 to 12.01; moderate-certainty evidence). hIVIG may have little to no impact on the composite outcome of serious adverse events or death up to day 28 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence). We also identified additional results on the benefits and harms of other dose ranges of hIVIG, not included in the summary of findings table, but summarised in additional tables. Benefits of animal-derived polyclonal antibodies We included data on one RCT (241 participants) to assess the benefits and harms of receptor-binding domain-specific polyclonal F(ab´)(2) fragments of equine antibodies (EpAbs) compared to saline placebo. EpAbs may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.37; absolute effect 114 per 1000 with placebo versus 68 per 1000 (30 to 156) ; low-certainty evidence). EpAbs may reduce worsening of clinical status up to day 28 (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.18; absolute effect 203 per 1000 with placebo versus 136 per 1000 (77 to 240); low-certainty evidence). It may have some effect on improvement of clinical status on day 28 (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.17; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any studies that reported quality-of-life outcomes, so we do not know if EpAbs have any impact on quality of life. Harms of animal-derived polyclonal antibodies EpAbs may have little to no impact on the number of adverse events at any grade up to 28 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events at grade 3-4 severity were not reported. Individuals receiving EpAbs may experience fewer serious adverse events than patients receiving placebo (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.19; low-certainty evidence). We also identified additional results on the benefits and harms of other animal-derived polyclonal antibody doses, not included in the summary of findings table, but summarised in additional tables. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We included data from five RCTs that evaluated hIVIG compared to standard therapy, with participants with moderate-to-severe disease. As the studies evaluated different preparations (from humans or from various animals) and doses, we could not pool them. hIVIG prepared from humans may have little to no impact on mortality, and clinical improvement and worsening. hIVIG may increase grade 3-4 adverse events. Studies did not evaluate quality of life. RBD-specific polyclonal F(ab´)(2) fragments of equine antibodies may reduce mortality and serious adverse events, and may reduce clinical worsening. However, the studies were conducted before or during the emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and prior to widespread vaccine rollout. As no studies evaluated hIVIG for participants with asymptomatic infection or mild disease, benefits for these individuals remains uncertain. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIG) can provide standardized and controlled antibody content. Data from controlled clinical trials using hIG for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outpatients have not been reported. We assessed the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin 20% (C19-IG20%) compared to placebo in preventing development of symptomatic COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS We did a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in asymptomatic unvaccinated adults (≥18 years of age) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 5 days between April 28 and December 27, 2021. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a blinded subcutaneous infusion of 10 mL with 1 g or 2 g of C19-IG20%, or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who remained asymptomatic through day 14 after infusion. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of individuals who required oxygen supplementation, any medically attended visit, hospitalisation, or ICU, and viral load reduction and viral clearance in nasopharyngeal swabs. Safety was assessed as the proportion of patients with adverse events. The trial was terminated early due to a lack of potential benefit in the target population in a planned interim analysis conducted in December 2021. ClinicalTrials.gov registry: NCT04847141. FINDINGS 461 individuals (mean age 39.6 years [SD 12.8]) were randomized and received the intervention within a mean of 3.1 (SD 1.27) days from a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a subcutaneous infusion, the primary outcome occurred in 59.9% (91/152) of participants receiving 1 g C19-IG20%, 64.7% (99/153) receiving 2 g, and 63.5% (99/156) receiving placebo (difference in proportions 1 g C19-IG20% vs. placebo, -3.6%; 95% CI -14.6% to 7.3%, p = 0.53; 2 g C19-IG20% vs placebo, 1.1%; -9.6% to 11.9%, p = 0.85). None of the secondary clinical efficacy endpoints or virological endpoints were significantly different between study groups. Adverse event rate was similar between groups, and no severe or life-threatening adverse events related to investigational product infusion were reported. INTERPRETATION Our findings suggested that administration of subcutaneous human hyperimmune immunoglobulin C19-IG20% to asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection was safe but did not prevent development of symptomatic COVID-19. FUNDING Grifols.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Passive immunotherapy using hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) to SARS-CoV-2, derived from recovered donors, is a potential rapidly available, specific therapy for an outbreak infection such as SARS-CoV-2. Findings from randomised clinical trials of hIVIG for the treatment of COVID-19 are limited. METHODS In this international randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who had been symptomatic for up to 12 days and did not have acute end-organ failure were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either hIVIG or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo, in addition to remdesivir, when not contraindicated, and other standard clinical care. Randomisation was stratified by site pharmacy; schedules were prepared using a mass-weighted urn design. Infusions were prepared and masked by trial pharmacists; all other investigators, research staff, and trial participants were masked to group allocation. Follow-up was for 28 days. The primary outcome was measured at day 7 by a seven-category ordinal endpoint that considered pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications and ranged from no limiting symptoms to death. Deaths and adverse events, including organ failure and serious infections, were used to define composite safety outcomes at days 7 and 28. Prespecified subgroup analyses were carried out for efficacy and safety outcomes by duration of symptoms, the presence of anti-spike neutralising antibodies, and other baseline factors. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received all or part of the assigned study product infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04546581. FINDINGS From Oct 8, 2020, to Feb 10, 2021, 593 participants (n=301 hIVIG, n=292 placebo) were enrolled at 63 sites in 11 countries; 579 patients were included in the mITT analysis. Compared with placebo, the hIVIG group did not have significantly greater odds of a more favourable outcome at day 7; the adjusted OR was 1·06 (95% CI 0·77-1·45; p=0·72). Infusions were well tolerated, although infusion reactions were more common in the hIVIG group (18·6% vs 9·5% for placebo; p=0·002). The percentage with the composite safety outcome at day 7 was similar for the hIVIG (24%) and placebo groups (25%; OR 0·98, 95% CI 0·66-1·46; p=0·91). The ORs for the day 7 ordinal outcome did not vary for subgroups considered, but there was evidence of heterogeneity of the treatment effect for the day 7 composite safety outcome: risk was greater for hIVIG compared with placebo for patients who were antibody positive (OR 2·21, 95% CI 1·14-4·29); for patients who were antibody negative, the OR was 0·51 (0·29-0·90; p(interaction)=0·001). INTERPRETATION When administered with standard of care including remdesivir, SARS-CoV-2 hIVIG did not demonstrate efficacy among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. The safety of hIVIG might vary by the presence of endogenous neutralising antibodies at entry. FUNDING US National Institutes of Health.

Abstract

Cytomegalovirus is the leading infectious cause of congenital neurological disabilities. Valaciclovir and CMV hyperimmune globulin may reduce vertical transmission and sequelae in neonates. A systematic review on valaciclovir and CMV hyperimmune globulin in preventing vertical transmission or reducing sequelae in neonates was conducted to 3 September 2021. Valaciclovir as a preventative strategy was supported by a well-conducted randomised controlled trial. Evidence supporting valaciclovir as a treatment strategy was limited to observational studies at moderate risk of bias. CMV hyperimmune globulin was not supported as a preventative strategy in two RCTs, which contrasted with observational studies. Evidence favouring CMV hyperimmune globulin as a treatment strategy was limited to observational studies at moderate risk of bias. The role of valaciclovir and CMV hyperimmune globulin in CMV infection in pregnancy is still being defined. Valaciclovir to prevent vertical transmission has the highest quality evidence in favour of use.

Abstract

The aim of this randomized, controlled trial is to determine whether anti-SARS-CoV-2 hyperimmune globulin protects against severe COVID-19 in severely immunocompromised, hospitalized, COVID-19 patients. Patients were randomly assigned to receive anti-SARS-CoV-2 hyperimmune globulin (COVIG) or intravenous immunoglobulin without SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Severe COVID-19 was observed in two out of ten (20%) patients treated with COVIG compared to seven out of eight (88%) in the IVIG control group (p = 0.015, Fisher's exact test). COVIG may be a valuable treatment in severely immunocompromised, hospitalized, COVID-19 patients and should be considered when no monoclonal antibody therapies are available. The trial was registered at www.trialregister.nl (#NL9436).

Abstract

BACKGROUND Primary cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection during pregnancy carries a risk of congenital infection and possible severe sequelae. There is no established intervention for preventing congenital CMV infection. METHODS In this multicenter, double-blind trial, pregnant women with primary CMV infection diagnosed before 24 weeks' gestation were randomly assigned to receive a monthly infusion of CMV hyperimmune globulin (at a dose of 100 mg per kilogram of body weight) or matching placebo until delivery. The primary outcome was a composite of congenital CMV infection or fetal or neonatal death if CMV testing of the fetus or neonate was not performed. RESULTS From 2012 to 2018, a total of 206,082 pregnant women were screened for primary CMV infection before 23 weeks of gestation; of the 712 participants (0.35%) who tested positive, 399 (56%) underwent randomization. The trial was stopped early for futility. Data on the primary outcome were available for 394 participants; a primary outcome event occurred in the fetus or neonate of 46 of 203 women (22.7%) in the group that received hyperimmune globulin and of 37 of 191 women (19.4%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80 to 1.72; P = 0.42). Death occurred in 4.9% of fetuses or neonates in the hyperimmune globulin group and in 2.6% in the placebo group (relative risk, 1.88; 95% CI, 0.66 to 5.41), preterm birth occurred in 12.2% and 8.3%, respectively (relative risk, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.81 to 2.67), and birth weight below the 5th percentile occurred in 10.3% and 5.4% (relative risk, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.92 to 3.99). One participant in the hyperimmune globulin group had a severe allergic reaction to the first infusion. Participants who received hyperimmune globulin had a higher incidence of headaches and shaking chills while receiving infusions than participants who received placebo. CONCLUSIONS Among pregnant women, administration of CMV hyperimmune globulin starting before 24 weeks' gestation did not result in a lower incidence of a composite of congenital CMV infection or perinatal death than placebo. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01376778.).

Abstract

BACKGROUND Since the 1918 influenza pandemic, non-randomised studies and small clinical trials have suggested that convalescent plasma or anti-influenza hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) might have clinical benefit for patients with influenza infection, but definitive data do not exist. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of hIVIG in a randomised controlled trial. METHODS This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was planned for 45 hospitals in Argentina, Australia, Denmark, Greece, Mexico, Spain, Thailand, UK, and the USA over five influenza seasons from 2013-14 to 2017-18. Adults (≥18 years of age) were admitted for hospital treatment with laboratory-confirmed influenza A or B infection and were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive standard care plus either a single 500-mL infusion of high-titre hIVIG (0.25 g/kg bodyweight, 24.75 g maximum; hIVIG group) or saline placebo (placebo group). Eligible patients had a National Early Warning score of 2 points or greater at the time of screening and their symptoms began no more than 7 days before randomisation. Pregnant and breastfeeding women were excluded, as well as any patients for whom the treatment would present a health risk. Separate randomisation schedules were generated for each participating clinical site using permuted block randomisation. Treatment assignments were obtained using a web-based application by the site pharmacist who then masked the solution for infusion. Patients and investigators were masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was a six-category ordinal outcome of clinical status at day 7, ranging in severity from death to resumption of normal activities after discharge. The choice of day 7 was based on haemagglutination inhibition titres from a pilot study. It was analysed with a proportional odds model, using all six categories to estimate a common odds ratio (OR). An OR greater than 1 indicated that, for a given category, patients in the hIVIG group were more likely to be in a better category than those in the placebo group. Prespecified primary analyses for safety and efficacy were based on patients who received an infusion and for whom eligibility could be confirmed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02287467. FINDINGS 313 patients were enrolled in 34 sites between Dec 11, 2014, and May 28, 2018. We also used data from 16 patients enrolled at seven of the 34 sites during the pilot study between Jan 15, 2014, and April 10, 2014. 168 patients were randomly assigned to the hIVIG group and 161 to the placebo group. 21 patients were excluded (12 from the hIVIG group and 9 from the placebo group) because they did not receive an infusion or their eligibility could not be confirmed. Thus, 308 were included in the primary analysis. hIVIG treatment produced a robust rise in haemagglutination inhibition titres against influenza A and smaller rises in influenza B titres. Based on the proportional odds model, the OR on day 7 was 1.25 (95% CI 0.79-1.97; p=0.33). In subgroup analyses for the primary outcome, the OR in patients with influenza A was 0.94 (0.55-1.59) and was 3.19 (1.21-8.42) for those with influenza B (interaction p=0.023). Through 28 days of follow-up, 47 (30%) of 156 patients in the hIVIG group and in 45 (30%) of 152 patients in the placebo group had the composite safety outcome of death, a serious adverse event, or a grade 3 or 4 adverse event (hazard ratio [HR] 1.06, 95% CI 0.70-1.60; p=0.79). Six (4%) patients in the hIVIG group and five (3%) in the placebo group died, but these deaths were not necessarily related to treatment. INTERPRETATION When administered alongside standard care (most commonly oseltamivir), hIVIG was not superior to placebo for adults hospitalised with influenza infection. By contrast with our prespecified subgroup hypothesis that hIVIG would result in more favourable responses in patients with influenza A than B, we found the opposite effect. The clinical benefit of hIVIG for patients with influenza B is supported by antibody affinity analyses, but confirmation is warranted. FUNDING NIAID and NIH. Partial support was provided by the Medical Research Council (MRC_UU_12023/23) and the Danish National Research Foundation.

Abstract

BACKGROUND The Congenital Human Cytomegalovirus Infection Prevention (CHIP) study, a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial, demonstrated that the efficacy of hyperimmune globulin (HIG) was not different from that of placebo regarding transmission of cytomegalovirus (CMV) from mothers to newborns. Our aim was to analyze histologically HIG effects on placentas collected for the CHIP study. MATERIALS AND METHODS Virological and histological analyses were performed on 40 placentas from transmitter and nontransmitter HIG-treated and untreated mothers by assessing the number of CMV-positive cells, tissue viral load, tissue damage, and compensatory mechanisms. RESULTS The HIG and placebo groups showed no significant differences in the number of CMV-positive cells (median number in 10 fields at 10 high-power fields: 2.5 vs. 2, p = 0.969) and viral load (median load: 5 copies/5 ng vs. 10.5 copies/5 ng, p = 0.874). Regarding histological examination, the scores of parameters related to tissue damage and hypoxic parenchymal compensation were higher in transmitters except for chorangiosis, with statistically significant differences observed for chronic villitis (p = 0.007), calcification (p = 0.011), and the total score of tissue damage (p < 0.001). The HIG and placebo groups showed no significant differences for all tissue damage and compensation parameters and overall scores. DISCUSSION HIGs are not able to reduce placental viral load and histological damage, which was significantly associated only with infection.

Abstract

BACKGROUND With the advent of effective antivirals against cytomegalovirus (CMV), use of CMV hyperimmune globulin has decreased. Although antiviral prophylaxis in patients at high risk for CMV is effective, many patients still have late infection, never developing antibodies sufficient to achieve immunity. Utilizing a combination of antiviral and CMV immunoglobulin G may allow patients to achieve immunity and decrease late CMV infections. METHODS This was a prospective randomized, open-label, pilot study comparing valganciclovir (VGCV) prophylaxis for 200 days vs VGCV for 100 days followed by CMV HIG in abdominal transplant recipients at high risk for CMV. The primary outcome was a comparison of late CMV disease. RESULTS Forty patients were randomized to VGCV for 200 days (n = 20) or VGCV for 100 days followed by 3 doses of monthly CMV HIG (n = 20). Numerically, more overall CMV infections occurred in the CMV HIG group (45 vs 20%, P = 0.09). No differences in overall CMV infections or late CMV disease were seen between groups (20% vs 15%, P = 1.00 and 0 vs 0, P = 1.00). All CMV disease occurred within 200 days, with 63% occurring while patients were on VGCV. No differences were found in toxicities, graft function, or rejection between groups. Patients with CMV infection at any time had a higher body weight than those who did not have an infection (82 vs 95 kg, P = .049). CONCLUSION Use of CMV HIG sequentially with prophylaxis may be an effective and affordable prophylactic regimen in abdominal transplant recipients at high risk for CMV, and warrants larger prospective study. Increased monitoring for patients with obesity may be warranted. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Abstract

UNLABELLED Hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) antibody responses to anti-influenza virus hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) were characterized. Thirty-one patients with influenza during the 2013-2014 season were randomly assigned to receive 0.25 g/kg of hIVIG (n = 16) or placebo (n = 15). For hIVIG recipients, the ratio of geometric mean titers (1 hour after infusion/before infusion) was 4.00 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.61-6.13) for 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) and 1.76 (95% CI, 1.33-2.32) for influenza A(H3N2) and influenza B. Among patients with 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1), ratios for hIVIG (n = 9) versus placebo (n = 8) were higher 1 hour after infusion (3.9 [95% CI, 2.3-6.7]) and sustained through day 3 (2.0 [95% CI, 1.0-4.0]). hIVIG administration significantly increases HAI titer levels among patients with influenza, supporting the need to perform a clinical outcomes study. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NCT02008578.Copyright © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail journals.permissions@oup.com.