1.
Randomized Trial of Hyperimmune Globulin for Congenital CMV Infection - 2-Year Outcomes
Hughes, B. L., Clifton, R. G., Rouse, D. J., Saade, G. R., Dinsmoor, M. J., Reddy, U. M., Pass, R., Allard, D., Mallett, G., MacPherson, C., et al
The New England journal of medicine. 2023;389(19):1822-1824
-
-
-
Editor's Choice
PICO Summary
Population
Pregnant women with primary maternal cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection (n= 399).
Intervention
Monthly infusions of CMV hyperimmune globulin until delivery (n= 206).
Comparison
Placebo (n= 193).
Outcome
This planned 2-year follow-up study involved the children of the enrolled women to evaluate whether CMV hyperimmune globulin improves childhood outcomes. Partial data on 2-year outcomes were available for 360 children (90%). Death or CMV infection with severe disability occurred in 20 of the 149 children (13.4%) in the hyperimmune globulin group and in 15 of the 149 children (10.1%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 1.33; 95% confidence interval [0.71, 2.50]. No material differences were found between the groups in the incidence of any component of the composite outcome or in any other outcome at 24 months, including severe disability with or without congenital CMV infection. No deaths occurred after the delivery hospitalization.
2.
Hyperimmune globulin for severely immunocompromised patients hospitalized with COVID-19: a randomized, controlled trial
Huygens S, Hofsink Q, Nijhof IS, Goorhuis A, Kater AP, Te Boekhorst PA, Swaneveld F, Novotný VM, Bogers S, Welkers MR, et al
The Journal of infectious diseases. 2022
-
-
-
Free full text
-
-
Editor's Choice
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).
PICO Summary
Population
Severely immunocompromised patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (n= 18).
Intervention
Anti-SARS-CoV-2 hyperimmune globulin (COVIG), (n= 10).
Comparison
Intravenous immunoglobulin without SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (IVIG), (n= 8).
Outcome
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.
3.
Hyperimmune immunoglobulin for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (ITAC): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3, randomised trial
Lancet (London, England). 2022;399(10324):530-40
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
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.
PICO Summary
Population
Hospitalised patients with COVID-19 enrolled in the ITAC trial in 11 countries (n= 593).
Intervention
Hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG), (n= 301).
Comparison
Placebo (n= 292).
Outcome
The primary outcome was measured at day 7 by a seven-category ordinal endpoint that considered pulmonary status and extra-pulmonary 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. Compared with placebo, the hIVIG group did not have significantly greater odds of a more favourable outcome at day 7. Infusion reactions were more common in the hIVIG group (18.6%) than placebo (9.5%). The percentage with the composite safety outcome at day 7 was similar for the hIVIG (24%) and placebo groups (25%).
4.
Anti-influenza hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin for adults with influenza A or B infection (FLU-IVIG): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial
Davey RT Jr, Fernandez-Cruz E, Markowitz N, Pett S, Babiker AG, Wentworth D, Khurana S, Engen N, Gordin F, Jain MK, et al
The Lancet. Respiratory medicine. 2019
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
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.
PICO Summary
Population
Hospitalised adults with laboratory-confirmed influenza A or B infection (n= 308).
Intervention
Single 500-mL infusion of high-titre hIVIG (0.25 g/kg bodyweight, 24.75 g maximum (hIVIG group, n=156).
Comparison
Saline placebo (placebo group, n=152).
Outcome
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). In subgroup analyses for the primary outcome, the OR in patients with influenza A was 0.94 and was 3.19 for those with influenza B. 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). Six (4%) patients in the hIVIG group and five (3%) in the placebo group died, but these deaths were not necessarily related to treatment.