Chemosensory deficits are best predictor of serologic response among individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2.

OBJECTIVE: Smell and taste alteration are closely linked to infection with SARS-CoV-2 and may be associated with a more indolent disease course. Serologic response rates among individuals with mild disease remains limited. We sought to identify whether chemosensory changes associated with COVID-19 were predictive of a serologic response. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: The sample consisted of 306 adults (≥18 years old) volunteering for convalescent plasma donation following perceived COVID-19 illness from April-June 2020. Documentation of COVID-19 PCR status, clinical symptoms at time of illness, and treatment course occurred at the time of serologic analysis, where we assessed chemosensory function using patient-perceived deficits. We implemented previously validated ELISA screening to determine serologic status regarding anti-Spike immunoglobulins. Statistical analysis using stepwise logistic models were employed to identify predictive factors of serologic response. RESULTS: Of 306 patients undergoing serologic and chemosensory evaluation, 196 (64.1%) and 195 (63.7%) reported subjective olfactory and taste dysfunction, respectively, during the first two weeks of COVID-19 infection. In unadjusted models, the odds of developing suprathreshold IgG antibody titers were 1.98 times higher among those who reported altered smell (95% CI 1.14-3.42, p = 0.014) and 2.02 times higher among those with altered taste (95% CI 1.17-3.48, p = 0.011) compared to those with normal smell and taste. Multivariable logistic models adjusting for sex, age, race/ethnicity, symptom duration, smoking status and comorbidities index demonstrated that altered smell and taste remained significant predictors of positive anti-spike IgG response (smell OR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.05-3.44, p = 0.033; taste OR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.12-3.61, p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Subjective chemosensory dysfunction, as self-reported smell or taste deficiency, is highly predictive of serologic response following SARS-CoV-2 infection. This information may be useful for patient counseling. Additional longitudinal research should be performed to better understand the onset and duration of the serologic response in these patients.

A randomized trial of blood donor iron repletion on red cell quality for transfusion and donor cognition and well-being.

Although altruistic regular blood donors are vital for the blood supply, many become iron deficient from donation-induced iron loss. The effects of blood donation-induced iron deficiency on red cell transfusion quality or donor cognition are unknown. In this double-blind, randomized trial, adult iron-deficient blood donors (n = 79; ferritin < 15 µg/L and zinc protoporphyrin >60 µMol/mol heme) who met donation qualifications were enrolled. A first standard blood donation was followed by the gold-standard measure for red cell storage quality: a 51-chromium posttransfusion red cell recovery study. Donors were then randomized to intravenous iron repletion (1 g low-molecular-weight iron dextran) or placebo. A second donation ∼5 months later was followed by another recovery study. Primary outcome was the within-subject change in posttransfusion recovery. The primary outcome measure of an ancillary study reported here was the National Institutes of Health Toolbox-derived uncorrected standard Cognition Fluid Composite Score. Overall, 983 donors were screened; 110 were iron-deficient, and of these, 39 were randomized to iron repletion and 40 to placebo. Red cell storage quality was unchanged by iron repletion: mean change in posttransfusion recovery was 1.6% (95% confidence interval -0.5 to 3.8) and -0.4% (-2.0 to 1.2) with and without iron, respectively. Iron repletion did not affect any cognition or well-being measures. These data provide evidence that current criteria for blood donation preserve red cell transfusion quality for the recipient and protect adult donors from measurable effects of blood donation-induced iron deficiency on cognition. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02889133 and NCT02990559.

A randomized double-blind controlled trial of convalescent plasma in adults with severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUNDAlthough convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), data from randomized controlled trials that support its efficacy are limited.METHODSWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial among adults hospitalized with severe and critical COVID-19 at 5 sites in New York City (USA) and Rio de Janeiro (Brazil). Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive a single transfusion of either convalescent plasma or normal control plasma. The primary outcome was clinical status at 28 days following randomization, measured using an ordinal scale and analyzed using a proportional odds model in the intention-to-treat population.RESULTSOf 223 participants enrolled, 150 were randomized to receive convalescent plasma and 73 to receive normal control plasma. At 28 days, no significant improvement in the clinical scale was observed in participants randomized to convalescent plasma (OR 1.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-2.68, P = 0.180). However, 28-day mortality was significantly lower in participants randomized to convalescent plasma versus control plasma (19/150 [12.6%] versus 18/73 [24.6%], OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22-0.91, P = 0.034). The median titer of anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody in infused convalescent plasma units was 1:160 (IQR 1:80-1:320). In a subset of nasopharyngeal swab samples from Brazil that underwent genomic sequencing, no evidence of neutralization-escape mutants was detected.CONCLUSIONIn adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19, use of convalescent plasma was not associated with significant improvement in day 28 clinical status. However, convalescent plasma was associated with significantly improved survival. A possible explanation is that survivors remained hospitalized at their baseline clinical status.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04359810.FUNDINGAmazon Foundation, Skoll Foundation.

Distinct antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in children and adults across the COVID-19 clinical spectrum.

Clinical manifestations of COVID-19 caused by the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 are associated with age1,2. Adults develop respiratory symptoms, which can progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in the most severe form, while children are largely spared from respiratory illness but can develop a life-threatening multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C)3-5. Here, we show distinct antibody responses in children and adults after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Adult COVID-19 cohorts had anti-spike (S) IgG, IgM and IgA antibodies, as well as anti-nucleocapsid (N) IgG antibody, while children with and without MIS-C had reduced breadth of anti-SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, predominantly generating IgG antibodies specific for the S protein but not the N protein. Moreover, children with and without MIS-C had reduced neutralizing activity as compared to both adult COVID-19 cohorts, indicating a reduced protective serological response. These results suggest a distinct infection course and immune response in children independent of whether they develop MIS-C, with implications for developing age-targeted strategies for testing and protecting the population.

Correction to: Evaluating the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in severely ill adults with COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Antibody responses to SARS-CoV2 are distinct in children with MIS-C compared to adults with COVID-19.

Clinical manifestations of COVID-19 caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 are associated with age. While children are largely spared from severe respiratory disease, they can present with a SARS-CoV-2-associated multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) similar to Kawasaki's disease. Here, we show distinct antibody (Ab) responses in children with MIS-C compared to adults with severe COVID-19 causing acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and those who recovered from mild disease. There was a reduced breadth and specificity of anti-SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in MIS-C patients compared to the COVID patient groups; MIS-C predominantly generated IgG Abs specific for the Spike (S) protein but not for the nucleocapsid (N) protein, while both COVID-19 cohorts had anti-S IgG, IgM and IgA Abs, as well as anti-N IgG Abs. Moreover, MIS-C patients had reduced neutralizing activity compared to COVID-19 cohorts, indicating a reduced protective serological response. These results suggest a distinct infection course and immune response in children and adults who develop severe disease, with implications for optimizing treatments based on symptom and age.

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in severely ill adults with COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in hospitalized adults with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a prospective, single-center, phase 2, randomized, controlled trial that is blinded to participants and clinical outcome assessor. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants include adults (≥ 18 years) with evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR test of nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab within 14 days of randomization, evidence of infiltrates on chest radiography, peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≤ 94% on room air, and/or need for supplemental oxygen, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation, who are willing and able to provide written informed consent prior to performing study procedures or who have a legally authorized representative available to do so. Exclusion criteria include participation in another clinical trial of anti-viral agent(s)* for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), receipt of any anti-viral agent(s)* with possible activity against SARS-CoV-2 <24 hours prior to plasma infusion, mechanical ventilation (including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]) for ≥ 5 days, severe multi-organ failure, history of allergic reactions to transfused blood products per NHSN/CDC criteria, known IgA deficiency, and pregnancy. Included participants will be hospitalized at the time of randomization and plasma infusion. *Use of remdesivir as treatment for COVID-19 is permitted. The study will be undertaken at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, USA. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The investigational treatment is anti-SARS-CoV-2 human convalescent plasma. To procure the investigational treatment, volunteers who recovered from COVID-19 will undergo testing to confirm the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody to the spike trimer at a 1:400 dilution. Donors will also be screened for transfusion-transmitted infections (e.g. HIV, HBV, HCV, WNV, HTLV-I/II, T. cruzi, ZIKV). If donors have experienced COVID-19 symptoms within 28 days, they will be screened with a nasopharyngeal swab to confirm they are SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative. Plasma will be collected using standard apheresis technology by the New York Blood Center. Study participants will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive one unit (200 - 250 mL) of anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma versus one unit (200 - 250 mL) of the earliest available control plasma. The control plasma cannot be tested for presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody prior to the transfusion, but will be tested for anti- SARS-CoV-2 antibody after the transfusion to allow for a retrospective per-protocol analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint is time to clinical improvement. This is defined as time from randomization to either discharge from the hospital or improvement by one point on the following seven-point ordinal scale, whichever occurs first. 1. Not hospitalized with resumption of normal activities 2. Not hospitalized, but unable to resume normal activities 3. Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen 4. Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen 5. Hospitalized, requiring high-flow oxygen therapy or non-invasive mechanical ventilation 6. Hospitalized, requiring ECMO, invasive mechanical ventilation, or both 7. Death This scale, designed to assess clinical status over time, was based on that recommended by the World Health Organization for use in determining efficacy end-points in clinical trials in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. A recent clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of lopinavir- ritonavir for patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 used a similar ordinal scale, as have recent clinical trials of novel therapeutics for severe influenza, including a post-hoc analysis of a trial evaluating immune plasma. The primary safety endpoints are cumulative incidence of grade 3 and 4 adverse events and cumulative incidence of serious adverse events during the study period. RANDOMIZATION: Study participants will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma versus control plasma using a web-based randomization platform. Treatment assignments will be generated using randomly permuted blocks of different sizes to minimize imbalance while also minimizing predictability. BLINDING (MASKING): The study participants and the clinicians who will evaluate post-treatment outcomes will be blinded to group assignment. The blood bank and the clinical research team will not be blinded to group assignment. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMIZED (SAMPLE SIZE): We plan to enroll 129 participants, with 86 in the anti-SARS-CoV-2 arm, and 43 in the control arm. Among the participants, we expect ~70% or n = 72 will achieve clinical improvement. This will yield an 80% power for a one-sided Wald test at 0.15 level of significance under the proportional hazards model with a hazard ratio of 1.5. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol AAAS9924, Version 17APR2020, 4/17/2020 Start of recruitment: April 20, 2020 Recruitment is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04359810 Date of trial registration: April 24, 2020 Retrospectively registered FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Correction to: Evaluating the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in severely ill adults with COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Donor Iron Deficiency Study (DIDS): protocol of a study to test whether iron deficiency in blood donors affects red blood cell recovery after transfusion.

BACKGROUND: Despite fulfilling all requirements for blood donation, a large proportion of regular blood donors are iron deficient. Red blood cells (RBC) from iron-deficient donors may be particularly susceptible to damage induced by standard refrigerated storage. Herein, we present a study protocol for testing whether correcting iron deficiency in donors with iron-deficient erythropoiesis will improve the quality of their refrigerator-stored RBC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a randomised, controlled, double-blind clinical trial. Sixty healthy regular donors who meet donation standards, while exhibiting iron-deficient erythropoiesis by laboratory testing criteria, will donate a single standard RBC unit that will be leucoreduced and stored in a refrigerator under standard conditions for 40-42 days. A 51Cr-radiolabelled 24-hour RBC recovery study will be performed and then these donors will be randomised to receive, in a double-blinded fashion, either intravenous saline, as a control, or low-molecular weight iron dextran (1 g), to provide total iron repletion. Four to six months later, they will donate a second RBC unit, which will be similarly stored, and autologous 51Cr-labelled 24-hour post-transfusion RBC recovery will again be determined. RESULTS: The primary endpoint will be the change in 24-hour post-transfusion recovery from the first to the second donation. The primary outcome will be the group mean difference in the primary endpoints between the group receiving intravenous saline and the group receiving intravenous iron dextran. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life, fatigue, and emotional health, assessed by surveys. CONCLUSION: This study will provide definitive evidence as to whether donor iron deficiency affects the quality of the blood supply and will assess the severity of symptoms affecting iron-deficient blood donors.