RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Antivirales , Sueroterapia para COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Inmunización Pasiva , Inmunoglobulina G , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , COVID-19/terapia , COVID-19/inmunología , COVID-19/mortalidad , Anticuerpos Antivirales/sangre , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Femenino , Inmunoglobulina G/sangre , Anciano , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto , Estudios Retrospectivos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , COVID-19/complicaciones , SARS-CoV-2 , Sueroterapia para COVID-19 , Inflamación , Fibrinógeno , Ferritinas , CogniciónRESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica , Enfermedades Transmisibles , Educación Médica , Médicos , Humanos , Investigación Biomédica/tendencias , Recursos Humanos , Educación Médica/tendenciasRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Internado y Residencia , Medicina , Educación de Postgrado en Medicina , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , BecasAsunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , COVID-19/terapia , Enfermedad Crítica/terapia , Sueroterapia para COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
Objective: To examine the association of COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion with mortality and the differences between subgroups in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Patients and Methods: On October 26, 2022, a systematic search was performed for clinical studies of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in the literature from January 1, 2020, to October 26, 2022. Randomized clinical trials and matched cohort studies investigating COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion compared with standard of care treatment or placebo among hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 were included. The electronic search yielded 3841 unique records, of which 744 were considered for full-text screening. The selection process was performed independently by a panel of 5 reviewers. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data were extracted by 5 independent reviewers in duplicate and pooled using an inverse-variance random effects model. The prespecified end point was all-cause mortality during hospitalization. Results: Thirty-nine randomized clinical trials enrolling 21,529 participants and 70 matched cohort studies enrolling 50,160 participants were included in the systematic review. Separate meta-analyses reported that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with the control cohort for both randomized clinical trials (odds ratio [OR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.00) and matched cohort studies (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.88). The meta-analysis of subgroups revealed 2 important findings. First, treatment with convalescent plasma containing high antibody levels was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with convalescent plasma containing low antibody levels (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.99). Second, earlier treatment with COVID-19 convalescent plasma was associated with a decrease in mortality compared with the later treatment cohort (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.82). Conclusion: During COVID-19 convalescent plasma use was associated with a 13% reduced risk of mortality, implying a mortality benefit for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, particularly those treated with convalescent plasma containing high antibody levels treated earlier in the disease course.
RESUMEN
Host non-T cell markers to aid in the diagnosis of cryptococcal meningoencephalitis (CM) have not been identified. In this case-control study, we characterized antibody and B cell profiles in HIV-negative and HIV-positive Vietnamese individuals of the Kinh ethnicity recently diagnosed with CM and controls. The study included 60 HIV-negative with no known immunocompromising condition and 60 HIV-positive individuals, with 30 CM cases and 30 controls in each group. Participants were matched by age, sex, HIV serostatus, and CD4 count in the HIV-positive group. Plasma immunoglobulin (Ig) levels, including IgG1, IgG2, IgM, and IgA, Cryptococcus spp. glucuronoxylomannan (GXM)- and laminarin (branched ${\rm{\beta }}$-[1-3]-glucan)-binding IgG, IgM, IgA levels, and peripheral blood B cell subsets were measured. Logistic regression, principal component, and mediation analyses were conducted to assess associations between antibody, B cell levels, and CM. The results showed that GXM-IgG levels were higher and IgG1 and IgG2 were lower in CM cases than controls, regardless of HIV status. In HIV-negative individuals, IgG2 mediated an inverse association between CD19+CD27+CD43+CD5- (B-1b-like) cells and CM. In HIV-positive individuals, lower levels of IgA, laminarin-IgA, and CD19+CD27+IgM+IgD- (IgM+ memory B) cells were each associated with CM. The shared and distinct antibody and B cell profiles identified in HIV-negative and HIV-positive CM cases may inform the identification of non-T-cell markers of CM risk or unsuspected disease, particularly in HIV-negative individuals.
Unlike cryptococcal meningitis (CM) in HIV-positive individuals, there are no known biomarkers of risk in HIV-negative individuals and the diagnosis is often not suspected and delayed. This study identified non-T cells, including antibody and B cell CM-associated profiles that may guide cryptococcal antigen testing in HIV-negative individuals.
Asunto(s)
Cryptococcus neoformans , Infecciones por VIH , Meningitis Criptocócica , Meningoencefalitis , Humanos , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Infecciones por VIH/complicaciones , Infecciones por VIH/veterinaria , Inmunoglobulina M , Inmunoglobulina G , Meningoencefalitis/veterinaria , Inmunoglobulina A , Meningitis Criptocócica/veterinariaRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: When the COVID-19 pandemic struck no specific therapies were available and many turned to COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP), a form of antibody therapy. The literature provides mixed evidence for CCP efficacy. AREAS COVERED: PubMed was searched using the words COVID-19 and convalescent plasma and individual study designs were evaluated for adherence to the three principles of antibody therapy, i.e. that plasma 1) contain specific antibody; 2) have enough specific antibody to mediate a biological effect; and 3) be administered early in the course of disease. Using this approach, a diverse and seemingly contradictory collection of clinical findings was distilled into a consistent picture whereby CCP was effective when used according to the above principles of antibody therapy. In addition, CCP therapy in immunocompromised patients is useful at any time in the course of disease. EXPERT OPINION: CCP is safe and effective when used appropriately. Today, most of humanity has some immunity to SARS-CoV-2 from vaccines and infection, which has lessened the need for CCP in the general population. However, COVID-19 in immunocompromised patients is a major therapeutic challenge, and with the deauthorization of all SARS-CoV-2-spike protein-directed monoclonal antibodies, CCP is the only antibody therapy available for this population.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemias , Sueroterapia para COVID-19 , Inmunización Pasiva , Anticuerpos MonoclonalesRESUMEN
Background: Cancer patients show increased morbidity with COVID-19 and need effective immunization strategies. Many healthcare regulatory agencies recommend administering 'booster' doses of COVID-19 vaccines beyond the standard two-dose series, for this group of patients. Therefore, studying the efficacy of these additional vaccine doses against SARS-CoV-2 and variants of concern is of utmost importance in this immunocompromised patient population. Methods: We conducted a prospective single arm clinical trial enrolling patients with cancer that had received two doses of mRNA or one dose of AD26.CoV2.S vaccine and administered a third dose of mRNA vaccine. We further enrolled patients that had no or low responses to three mRNA COVID vaccines and assessed the efficacy of a fourth dose of mRNA vaccine. Efficacy was assessed by changes in anti-spike antibody, T-cell activity, and neutralization activity, which were again assessed at baseline and 4 weeks. Results: We demonstrate that a third dose of COVID-19 vaccine leads to seroconversion in 57% of patients that were seronegative after primary vaccination series. The immune response is durable as assessed by anti-SARS-CoV-2 (anti-S) antibody titers, T-cell activity, and neutralization activity against wild-type (WT) SARS-CoV2 and BA1.1.529 at 6 months of follow-up. A subset of severely immunocompromised hematologic malignancy patients that were unable to mount an adequate immune response (titer <1000 AU/mL) after the third dose and were treated with a fourth dose in a prospective clinical trial which led to adequate immune boost in 67% of patients. Low baseline IgM levels and CD19 counts were associated with inadequate seroconversion. Booster doses induced limited neutralization activity against the Omicron variant. Conclusions: These results indicate that third dose of COVID vaccine induces durable immunity in cancer patients and an additional dose can further stimulate immunity in a subset of patients with inadequate response. Funding: Leukemia Lymphoma Society, National Cancer Institute. Clinical trial number: NCT05016622.
People with cancer have a higher risk of death or severe complications from COVID-19. As a result, vaccinating cancer patients against COVID-19 is critical. But patients with cancer, particularly blood or lymphatic system cancers, are less likely to develop protective immunity after COVID-19 vaccination. Immune suppression caused by cancer or cancer therapies may explain the poor vaccine response. Booster doses of the vaccine may improve the vaccine response in patients with cancer. But limited information is available about how well booster doses protect patients with cancer against COVID-19. Thakkar et al. show that a third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine can induce a protective immune response in half of the patients with cancer with no immunity after the first two doses. In the experiments, Thakkar et al. tracked the immune reaction to COVID-19 booster shots in 106 cancer patients. A third booster dose protected patients for up to four to six months and reduced breakthrough infection rates to low levels. Eighteen patients with blood cancers and severe immune suppression had an inadequate immune response after three doses of the vaccine; a fourth dose boosted the immune response for two-thirds of them, which for some included neutralization of variants such as Omicron. The experiments show that booster doses can increase COVID-19 vaccine protection for patients with cancer, even those who do not respond to the initial vaccine series. Thakkar et al. also show that pre-vaccine levels of two molecules linked to the immune system, (immunoglobin M and the CD19 antigen) predicted the patients' vaccine response, which might help physicians identify which individuals would benefit from booster doses.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasias , Humanos , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Ad26COVS1 , Estudios Prospectivos , ARN Viral , COVID-19/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Neoplasias/terapia , Inmunidad , Anticuerpos AntiviralesRESUMEN
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) is a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19 in immunocompromised (IC) patients. IC patients have a higher risk of persistent infection, severe disease, and death from COVID-19. Despite the continued clinical use of CCP to treat IC patients, the optimal dose, frequency/schedule, and duration of CCP treatment has yet to be determined, and related best practices guidelines are lacking. A group of individuals with expertise spanning infectious diseases, virology and transfusion medicine was assembled to render an expert opinion statement pertaining to the use of CCP for IC patients. For optimal effect, CCP should be recently and locally collected to match circulating variant. CCP should be considered for the treatment of IC patients with acute and protracted COVID-19; dosage depends on clinical setting (acute vs protracted COVID-19). CCP containing high-titer severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies, retains activity against circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants, which have otherwise rendered monoclonal antibodies ineffective.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , COVID-19/terapia , SARS-CoV-2 , Sueroterapia para COVID-19 , Huésped Inmunocomprometido , Inmunización Pasiva , Anticuerpos Antivirales/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic cryptococcal antigenemia (positive blood cryptococcal antigen [CrAg]) is associated with increased mortality in individuals with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) even after adjusting for CD4 count and despite receiving antifungal treatment. The association of antibody immunity with mortality in adults with HIV with cryptococcal antigenemia is unknown. METHODS: Cryptococcal capsular glucuronoxylomannan (GXM)- and naturally occurring ß-glucans (laminarin, curdlan)-binding antibodies were measured in blood samples of 197 South Africans with HIV who underwent CrAg screening and were followed up to 6 months. Associations between antibody titers, CrAg status, and all-cause mortality were sought using logistic and Cox regression, respectively. RESULTS: Compared with CrAg-negative individuals (n = 130), CrAg-positive individuals (n = 67) had significantly higher IgG1 (median, 6672; interquartile range [IQR], 4696-10 414 vs 5343, 3808-7722 µg/mL; P = .007), IgG2 (1467, 813-2607 vs 1036, 519-2012 µg/mL; P = .01), and GXM-IgG (1:170, 61-412 vs 1:117, 47-176; P = .0009) and lower curdlan-IgG (1:47, 11-133 vs 1:93, 40-206; P = .01) titers. GXM-IgG was associated directly with cryptococcal antigenemia adjusted for CD4 count and antiretroviral therapy use (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21 to 2.22). Among CrAg-positive individuals, GXM-IgG was inversely associated with mortality at 6 months adjusted for CD4 count and tuberculosis (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, .33 to .77). CONCLUSIONS: The inverse association of GXM-IgG with mortality in CrAg-positive individuals suggests that GXM-IgG titer may have prognostic value in those individuals. Prospective longitudinal studies to investigate this hypothesis and identify mechanisms by which antibody may protect against mortality are warranted.