Generating the Evidence Base for Convalescent Plasma Use for a New Infectious Disease.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) swept across the world in the waning months of 2019 and emerged as the cause of the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic in early 2020. The use of convalescent plasma (CP) for prior respiratory pandemics provided a strong biological rationale for the rapid deployment of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in early 2020 when no validated treatments or prior immunity existed. CCP is an antiviral agent, with its activity against SARS-CoV-2 stemming from specific antibodies elicited by the virus. Early efforts to investigate the efficacy of CCP in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that targeted hospitalized patients with COVID-19 did not demonstrate the overall efficacy of CCP despite signals of benefit in certain subgroups, such as those treated earlier in disease. In contrast, studies adhering to the principles of antibody therapy in their study design, choice of patient population, and product qualification, i.e., those that administered high levels of specific antibody during the viral phase of disease in immunocompromised or very early in immunocompetent individuals, demonstrated benefits. In this chapter, we leverage the knowledge gained from clinical studies of CCP for COVID-19 to propose a framework for future studies of CP for a new infectious disease. This framework includes obtaining high-quality CP and designing clinical studies that adhere to the principles of antibody therapy to generate a robust evidence base for using CP.

Infectious Diseases Training in the 21st Century: A Glass Half Full or Half Empty?

The percentage of infectious diseases (ID) fellowship positions filled has declined in the last years despite a relatively stable number of applicants. The data are concerning since this could impact an already strained workforce. A recent survey of ID fellowship program directors provides insight into the perceptions of program directors about factors that might have affected the match rate in 2023 and could also be applicable to the recent 2024 match. Here, we discuss the results of this survey and discuss the complex factors that might influence the choice of ID as an specialty. Although concerning, recent fellowship match results provide new opportunities to reassess current models of ID training and design innovative strategies for ID fellowship and education.

A Call to Action: Urgently Strengthening the Future Physician-Scientist Workforce in Infectious Diseases.

Infectious diseases (ID) research is vital for global public health, typically led by physician-scientists. This Perspective addresses challenges in the ID workforce and suggests solutions. Physician-scientists have made key discoveries that have significantly impacted human health. The importance of ID research in understanding diseases, leading to treatments and vaccines, is emphasized, along with the need to address persistent and new infections, antimicrobial resistance, and threats like HIV and influenza. The paper analyzes the physician-scientist workforce's struggles, including funding, training, and research-practice integration gaps. We suggest increased funding, better training, and mentorship, more collaborative and interdisciplinary research, and improved recognition systems. The article stresses the urgency of supporting physician-scientists in ID, advocating for proactive prevention and preparedness, and calls for immediate action to enhance ID research and care.

Single monoclonal antibodies should not be used for COVID-19 therapy: a call for antiviral stewardship.

The COVID-19 pandemic saw the largest deployment of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for an infectious disease in history. mAbs to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein proved safe and were initially effective for COVID-19 therapy, but each was defeated by continued SARS-CoV-2 evolution, leading to their withdrawal. This was a setback for people with impaired immunity who cannot mount an effective antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 and often cannot clear the virus. New mAbs have now been developed for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PreEP) in immunosuppressed people. Here we argue that while mAb use for PreEP is justified, single mAbs should not be used for COVID-19 therapy. In contrast to PreEP where the viral inoculum is small, immunosuppressed people with COVID-19 have large viral burden that can harbor mAb-escape variants that single-agent mAb treatments can rapidly select for resistance. Selection of mAb-escape variants has potential risks for patients, society and the feasibility of mAb therapy itself.

Association between COVID-19 convalescent plasma antibody levels and COVID-19 outcomes stratified by clinical status at presentation.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to understand the relationship between COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma (CCP) anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels and clinical outcomes to optimize CCP use. This study aims to evaluate the relationship between recipient baseline clinical status, clinical outcomes, and CCP antibody levels. METHODS: The study analyzed data from the COMPILE study, a meta-analysis of pooled individual patient data from 8 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of CCP vs. control, in adults hospitalized for COVID-19 who were not receiving mechanical ventilation at randomization. SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels, referred to as 'dose' of CCP treatment, were retrospectively measured in donor sera or the administered CCP, semi-quantitatively using the VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG chemiluminescent immunoassay (Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics) with a signal-to-cutoff ratio (S/Co). The association between CCP dose and outcomes was investigated, treating dose as either continuous or categorized (higher vs. lower vs. control), stratified by recipient oxygen supplementation status at presentation. RESULTS: A total of 1714 participants were included in the study, 1138 control- and 576 CCP-treated patients for whom donor CCP anti-SARS-CoV2 antibody levels were available from the COMPILE study. For participants not receiving oxygen supplementation at baseline, higher-dose CCP (/control) was associated with a reduced risk of ventilation or death at day 14 (OR = 0.19, 95% CrI: [0.02, 1.70], posterior probability Pr(OR < 1) = 0.93) and day 28 mortality (OR = 0.27 [0.02, 2.53], Pr(OR < 1) = 0.87), compared to lower-dose CCP (/control) (ventilation or death at day 14 OR = 0.79 [0.07, 6.87], Pr(OR < 1) = 0.58; and day 28 mortality OR = 1.11 [0.10, 10.49], Pr(OR < 1) = 0.46), exhibiting a consistently positive CCP dose effect on clinical outcomes. For participants receiving oxygen at baseline, the dose-outcome relationship was less clear, although a potential benefit for day 28 mortality was observed with higher-dose CCP (/control) (OR = 0.66 [0.36, 1.13], Pr(OR < 1) = 0.93) compared to lower-dose CCP (/control) (OR = 1.14 [0.73, 1.78], Pr(OR < 1) = 0.28). CONCLUSION: Higher-dose CCP is associated with its effectiveness in patients not initially receiving oxygen supplementation, however, further research is needed to understand the interplay between CCP anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels and clinical outcome in COVID-19 patients initially receiving oxygen supplementation.

Trajectories of Inflammatory Markers and Post-COVID-19 Cognitive Symptoms: A Secondary Analysis of the CONTAIN COVID-19 Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic systemic inflammation has been hypothesized to be a mechanistic factor leading to post-acute cognitive dysfunction after COVID-19. However, little data exist evaluating longitudinal inflammatory markers. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data collected from the CONTAIN randomized trial of convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, including patients who completed an 18-month assessment of cognitive symptoms and PROMIS Global Health questionnaires. Patients with pre-COVID-19 dementia/cognitive abnormalities were excluded. Trajectories of serum cytokine panels, D-dimer, fibrinogen, C-reactive peptide (CRP), ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and absolute neutrophil counts (ANCs) were evaluated over 18 months using repeated measures and Friedman nonparametric tests. The relationships between the area under the curve (AUC) for each inflammatory marker and 18-month cognitive and global health outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 279 patients (N = 140 received plasma, N = 139 received placebo) were included. At 18 months, 76/279 (27%) reported cognitive abnormalities and 78/279 (28%) reported fair or poor overall health. PROMIS Global Mental and Physical Health T-scores were 0.5 standard deviations below normal in 24% and 51% of patients, respectively. Inflammatory marker levels declined significantly from hospitalization to 18 months for all markers (IL-2, IL-2R, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12, IL-13, INFγ, TNFα, D-dimer, fibrinogen, ferritin, LDH, CRP, neutrophils; all p < 0.05), with the exception of IL-1ß, which remained stable over time. There were no significant associations between the AUC for any inflammatory marker and 18-month cognitive symptoms, any neurologic symptom, or PROMIS Global Physical or Mental health T-scores. Receipt of convalescent plasma was not associated with any outcome measure. DISCUSSION: At 18 months posthospitalization for COVID-19, cognitive abnormalities were reported in 27% of patients, and below average PROMIS Global Mental and Physical Health scores occurred in 24% and 51%, respectively. However, there were no associations with measured inflammatory markers, which decreased over time.

Safety and Efficacy of Convalescent Plasma Combined with Other Pharmaceutical Agents for Treatment of COVID-19 in Hospitalized Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Plasma collected from people recovered from COVID-19 (COVID-19 convalescent plasma, CCP) was the first antibody-based therapy employed to fight the pandemic. CCP was, however, often employed in combination with other drugs, such as the antiviral remdesivir and glucocorticoids. The possible effect of such interaction has never been investigated systematically. To assess the safety and efficacy of CCP combined with other agents for treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, a systematic literature search using appropriate Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms was performed through PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane central, medRxiv and bioRxiv. The main outcomes considered were mortality and safety of CCP combined with other treatments versus CCP alone. This review was carried out in accordance with Cochrane methodology including risk of bias assessment and grading of the quality of evidence. Measure of treatment effect was the risk ratio (RR) together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 11 studies (8 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 3 observational) were included in the systematic review, 4 studies with CCP combined with remdesivir and 6 studies with CCP combined with corticosteroids, all involving hospitalized patients. One RCT reported information on both remdesivir and steroids use with CCP. The use of CCP combined with remdesivir was associated with a significantly reduced risk of death (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.56-0.97; p = 0.03; moderate certainty of evidence), while the use of steroids with CCP did not modify the mortality risk (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.34-1.51; p = 0.38; very low certainty of evidence). Not enough safety data were retrieved form the systematic literature analysis. The current evidence from the literature suggests a potential beneficial effect on mortality of combined CCP plus remdesivir compared to CCP alone in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. No significant clinical interaction was found between CCP and steroids.

COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Therapy: Long-term Implications.

Background: The long-term effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute treatments on postacute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (PASC) is unknown. The CONTAIN-Extend study explores the long-term impact of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) therapy on postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) symptoms and general health 18 months following hospitalization. Methods: The CONTAIN-Extend study examined 281 participants from the original CONTAIN COVID-19 trial (CONTAIN-RCT, NCT04364737) at 18 months post-hospitalization for acute COVID-19. Symptom surveys, global health assessments, and biospecimen collection were performed from November 2021 to October 2022. Multivariable logistic and linear regression estimated associations between the randomization arms and self-reported symptoms and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores and adjusted for covariables, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, disease severity, and CONTAIN enrollment quarter and sites. Results: There were no differences in symptoms or PROMIS scores between CCP and placebo (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of general symptoms, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.54-1.67). However, females (aOR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.73-5.34), those 45-64 years (aOR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.14-6.23), and April-June 2020 enrollees (aOR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.10-5.19) were more likely to report general symptoms and have poorer PROMIS physical health scores than their respective reference groups. Hispanic participants (difference, -3.05; 95% CI, -5.82 to -0.27) and Black participants (-4.48; 95% CI, -7.94 to -1.02) had poorer PROMIS physical health than White participants. Conclusions: CCP demonstrated no lasting effect on PASC symptoms or overall health in comparison to the placebo. This study underscores the significance of demographic factors, including sex, age, and timing of acute infection, in influencing symptom reporting 18 months after acute hypoxic COVID-19 hospitalization.

Convalescent plasma and predictors of mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Plasma collected from recovered patients with COVID-19 (COVID-19 convalescent plasma [CCP]) was the first antibody-based therapy employed to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. While the therapeutic effect of early administration of CCP in COVID-19 outpatients has been recognized, conflicting data exist regarding the efficacy of CCP administration in hospitalized patients. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of CCP compared to placebo or standard treatment, and to evaluate whether time from onset of symptoms to treatment initiation influenced the effect. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched for studies published from January 2020 to January 2024. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of CCP on COVID-19 mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19. INTERVENTIONS: CCP versus no CCP. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI for the pooled effect estimates of CCP treatment. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-seven RCTs were included, representing 18,877 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. When transfused within 7 days from symptom onset, CCP significantly reduced the risk of death compared to standard therapy or placebo (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.95), while later CCP administration was not associated with a mortality benefit (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.06). The certainty of the evidence was graded as moderate. Meta-regression analysis demonstrated increasing mortality effects for longer interval to transfusion or worse initial clinical severity. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital transfusion of CCP within 7 days from symptom onset conferred a mortality benefit.