Search

SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels associated with reduced hospitalization risk remain undefined. Our outpatient COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP), placebo-controlled trial observed SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels decreasing 22-fold from matched donor units into post-transfusion seronegative recipients. Unvaccinated recipients were jointly stratified by a) early or late transfusion (≤ 5 or >5 days from symptom onset) and b) high or low post-transfusion SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels (< or ≥ geometric mean). Early treatment with high post-transfusion antibody levels reduced hospitalization risk-0/102 (0%) compared to all other CCP recipients-17/370 (4.6%; Fisher exact p=0.03) and to all control plasma recipients-35/461 (7.6%; Fisher exact p=0.001). A similar donor upper/lower antibody level and early late transfusion stratified analyses indicated significant hospital risk reduction. Pre-transfusion nasal viral loads were similar in CCP and control recipients regardless of hospitalization outcome. Therapeutic CCP should comprise the upper 30% of donor antibody levels to provide effective outpatient use for immunocompromised and immunocompetent outpatients.

Polyclonal convalescent plasma may be obtained from donors who have recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). The efficacy of this plasma in preventing serious complications in outpatients with recent-onset Covid-19 is uncertain.In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of Covid-19 convalescent plasma, as compared with control plasma, in symptomatic adults (≥18 years of age) who had tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, regardless of their risk factors for disease progression or vaccination status. Participants were enrolled within 8 days after symptom onset and received a transfusion within 1 day after randomization. The primary outcome was Covid-19-related hospitalization within 28 days after transfusion.Participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, through October 1, 2021. A total of 1225 participants underwent randomization, and 1181 received a transfusion. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a transfusion, the primary outcome occurred in 17 of 592 participants (2.9%) who received convalescent plasma and 37 of 589 participants (6.3%) who received control plasma (absolute risk reduction, 3.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 1.0 to 5.8; P = 0.005), which corresponded to a relative risk reduction of 54%. Evidence of efficacy in vaccinated participants cannot be inferred from these data because 53 of the 54 participants with Covid-19 who were hospitalized were unvaccinated and 1 participant was partially vaccinated. A total of 16 grade 3 or 4 adverse events (7 in the convalescent-plasma group and 9 in the control-plasma group) occurred in participants who were not hospitalized.In participants with Covid-19, most of whom were unvaccinated, the administration of convalescent plasma within 9 days after the onset of symptoms reduced the risk of disease progression leading to hospitalization. (Funded by the Department of Defense and others; CSSC-004 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04373460.).

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) use between October and December 2020 was characterized using the National Inpatient Sample database. CCP was administered in 18.0% of COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and was strongly associated with older age and increased disease severity. There were disparities in the receipt of CCP by race and ethnicity, geography, and insurance.

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.

Background The efficacy of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) convalescent plasma (CCP) for preventing infection in exposed, uninfected individuals is unknown. CCP might prevent infection when administered before symptoms or laboratory evidence of infection. Methods This double-blinded, phase 2 randomized, controlled trial (RCT) compared the efficacy and safety of prophylactic high titer (≥1:320 by Euroimmun ELISA) CCP with standard plasma. Asymptomatic participants aged ≥18 years with close contact exposure to a person with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the previous 120 hours and negative SARS-CoV-2 test within 24 hours before transfusion were eligible. The primary outcome was new SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results In total, 180 participants were enrolled; 87 were assigned to CCP and 93 to control plasma, and 170 transfused at 19 sites across the United States from June 2020 to March 2021. Two were excluded for screening SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) positivity. Of the remaining 168 participants, 12/81 (14.8%) CCP and 13/87 (14.9%) control recipients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection; 6 (7.4%) CCP and 7 (8%) control recipients developed COVID-19 (infection with symptoms). There were no COVID-19-related hospitalizations in CCP and 2 in control recipients. Efficacy by restricted mean infection free time (RMIFT) by 28 days for all SARS-CoV-2 infections (25.3 vs 25.2 days; P = .49) and COVID-19 (26.3 vs 25.9 days; P = .35) was similar for both groups. Conclusions Administration of high-titer CCP as post-exposure prophylaxis, although appearing safe, did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Clinical Trials Registration NCT04323800.

IMPORTANCEMany hospitalized patients with COVID-19 have been treated with convalescent plasma. However, it is uncertain whether this therapy lowers mortality and if so, if the mortality benefit is larger among specific subgroups, such as recipients of plasma with high antibody content and patients treated early in the disease course.OBJECTIVETo examine the association of COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion with mortality and the differences between subgroups in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.DATA SOURCESOn October 26, 2022, a systematic search was performed for clinical studies of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in the literature.STUDY SELECTIONRandomized 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 3,841 unique records, of which 744 were considered for full-text screening. The selection process was performed independently by a panel of five reviewers.DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESISThe study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data were extracted by 5 independent reviewers in duplicate and pooled using inverse-variance random-effects model.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESPrespecified end point was all-cause mortality during hospitalization.RESULTSThirty-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 demonstrated that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma was associated with a significant 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, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.64-0.94]). Meta-analysis of subgroups revealed two important findings. First, treatment with convalescent plasma containing high antibody levels was associated with a decrease in mortality compared to 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 significant decrease in mortality compared with the later treatment cohort (OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.82]).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCECOVID-19 convalescent plasma use was associated with a 13% reduced risk in 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.Key PointsQuestionWhat is the evidence regarding the potential mortality benefit associated with transfusion of convalescent plasma in hospitalized patients with COVID-19?FindingsIn this meta-analysis of 39 randomized clinical trials enrolling 21,529 participants and 70 matched cohort studies enrolling 50,160 participants, transfusion of convalescent plasma was associated with a 13% mortality benefit. Subgroup analyses revealed that patients treated with plasma containing higher levels of antibodies and patients treated earlier in the course of the disease had a greater mortality benefit associated with COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion.MeaningThese findings suggest that transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma is associated with a mortality benefit for hospitalized patients, particularly those treated earlier in the disease course.

A pet cockatoo was the suspected source of

Given the urgent need for treatments during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration issued emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for multiple therapies. In several instances, however, these EUAs were issued before sufficient evidence of a given therapy’s efficacy and safety were available, potentially promoting ineffective or even harmful therapies and undermining the generation of definitive evidence. We describe the strengths and weaknesses of the different therapeutic EUAs issued during this pandemic. We also contrast them to the vaccine EUAs and suggest a framework and criteria for an evidence-based, trustworthy, and publicly transparent therapeutic EUA process for future pandemics.

Despite the challenges of the pandemic, there has been substantial progress with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies. Pivotal COVID-19 trials like SOLIDARITY, RECOVERY, and ACCT-1 were rapidly conducted and data disseminated to support effective therapies. However, critical shortcomings remain on trial conduct, dissemination and interpretation of study results, and regulatory guidance in pandemic settings. The lessons that we learned have implications for both the current pandemic and future emerging infectious diseases. There is a need for establishing and standardizing clinical meaningful outcomes in therapeutic trials and for targeting defined populations and phenotypes that will most benefit from specific therapies. Standardized processes should be established for rapid and critical data review and dissemination to ensure scientific integrity. Clarity around the evidence standards needed for issuance of both emergency use authorization (EUA) and biologic license application (BLA) should be established and an infrastructure for executing rapid trials in epidemic settings maintained.

It is important to maintain the safety of blood products by avoiding the transfusion of units with known and novel viral pathogens. It is unknown whether COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) may contain pathogenic viruses (either newly acquired or reactivated) that are not routinely screened for by blood centers.The DNA virome was characterized in potential CCP donors (n = 30) using viral genome specific PCR primers to identify DNA plasma virome members of the Herpesviridae [Epstein Barr Virus (EBV), cytomegalovirus (CMV), human herpesvirus 6A/B, human herpesvirus 7] and Anelloviridae [Torque teno viruses (TTV), Torque teno mini viruses (TTMV), and Torque teno midi viruses (TTMDV)] families. In addition, the RNA plasma virome was characterized using unbiased metagenomic sequencing. Sequencing was done on a HiSeq2500 using high output mode with a read length of 2X100 bp. The sequencing reads were taxonomically classified using Kraken2. CMV and EBV seroprevalence were evaluated using a chemiluminescent immunoassay.TTV and TTMDV were detected in 12 (40%) and 4 (13%) of the 30 study participants, respectively; TTMDV was always associated with infection with TTV. We did not observe TTMV DNAemia. Despite CMV and EBV seroprevalences of 33.3% and 93.3%, respectively, we did not detect Herpesviridae DNA among the study participants. Metagenomic sequencing did not reveal any human RNA viruses in CCP, including no evidence of circulating SARS-CoV-2.There was no evidence of pathogenic viruses, whether newly acquired or reactivated, in CCP despite the presence of non-pathogenic Anelloviridae. These results confirm the growing safety data supporting CCP.

There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials. The objective was to develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Based on the most recent search conducted on 31 May 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 32 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and postexposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, and hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines. At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were conducted that provided much-needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved, which we hope future trials can answer.

There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials.Develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19.In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.Based on the most recent search conducted on May 31, 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 30 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines.At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were done which provided much needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved which we hope future trials can answer.

Contains fulltext : 235066.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) To determine the effect of COVID-19 convalescent plasma on mortality, we aggregated patient outcome data from 10 randomized clinical trials, 20 matched control studies, 2 dose-response studies, and 96 case reports or case series. Studies published between January 1, 2020, and January 16, 2021, were identified through a systematic search of online PubMed and MEDLINE databases. Random effects analyses of randomized clinical trials and matched control data demonstrated that patients with COVID-19 transfused with convalescent plasma exhibited a lower mortality rate compared with patients receiving standard treatments. Additional analyses showed that early transfusion (within 3 days of hospital admission) of higher titer plasma is associated with lower patient mortality. These data provide evidence favoring the efficacy of human convalescent plasma as a therapeutic agent in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Desensitization has enabled incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) across HLA/ABO barriers, but added immunomodulation might put patients at increased risk of infections. We studied 475 recipients from our center from 2010 to 2015, categorized by desensitization intensity: none/compatible (n = 260), low (0‐4 plasmaphereses, n = 47), moderate (5‐9, n = 74), and high (≥10, n = 94). The 1‐year cumulative incidence of infection was 50.1%, 49.8%, 66.0%, and 73.5% for recipients who received none, low, moderate, and high‐intensity desensitization (P, Among living donor kidney transplant recipients, infections are most common in patients who receive high‐intensity desensitization, and patients with more than 4 infections in the first year posttransplant are at increased risk of adverse outcomes.

A pet cockatoo was the suspected source of Cryptococcus neoformans recovered from the cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) of an immunocompromised patient with cryptococcosis based on the molecular analyses available in 2000. Here we report whole genome sequence analysis of the clinical and cockatoo strains. Both are closely related MATα strains belonging to the VNII lineage, confirming that the human infection likely originated from pet bird exposure. The two strains differ by 61 single nucleotide polymorphisms, including 8 nonsynonymous changes involving 7 genes. To ascertain whether changes in these genes are selected during mammalian infection, we passaged the cockatoo strain in mice. Remarkably, isolates obtained from mouse tissue possess a frame-shift mutation in one of the seven genes altered in the human sample, a gene predicted to encode a SWI-SNF chromatin-remodeling complex protein. Both cockatoo and patient strains as well as mouse passaged isolates obtained from brain tissue had a premature stop codon in a homolog of ZFC3, a predicted single-zinc finger containing protein, which is associated with larger capsules when deleted and appears to have reverted to a full-length protein in the mouse passaged isolates obtained from lung tissue. The patient strain and mouse passaged isolates show variability in the expression of virulence factors, with differences in capsule size, melanization, and rates on non-lytic expulsion from macrophages observed. Our results establish that environmental strains undergo genomic and phenotypic changes during mammalian passage, suggesting that animal virulence can be a mechanism for genetic change and that the genomes of clinical isolates may provide a readout of mutations acquired during infection.

Antibody-based therapy for infectious diseases predates modern antibiotics and, in the absence of other therapeutic options, was deployed early in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic through COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) administration. Although most studies have demonstrated signals of efficacy for CCP, definitive assessment has proved difficult under pandemic conditions, with rapid changes in disease incidence and the knowledge base complicating the design and implementation of randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, evidence from a variety of studies demonstrates that CCP is as safe as ordinary plasma and strongly suggests that it can reduce mortality if given early and with sufficient antibody content., Convalescent plasma emerged as a major therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic, but definitive large randomized controlled trials to establish its efficacy proved difficult to do because of the changing nature of the epidemic and the rapid accrual of new information from observational studies, which suggested efficacy.

Background The management of recurrent pleural effusions remains a challenging issue for clinicians. Advances in management have led to increased use of indwelling tunneled pleural catheters (IPC) because of their effectiveness and ease of outpatient placement. However, with the increase in IPC placement there have also been increasing reports of complications, including infections. Currently there is minimal guidance in IPC-related management issues after placement. Research Question Our objective was to formulate clinical consensus statements related to perioperative and long-term IPC catheter management based on a modified Delphi process from experts in pleural disease management. Study Design and Methods Expert panel members used a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on common perioperative and long-term management options related to IPC use. Members were identified from multiple countries, specialties, and practice settings. A series of meetings and anonymous online surveys were completed. Responses were used to formulate consensus statements among panel experts, using a modified Delphi process. Consensus was defined a priori as greater than 80% agreement among panel constituents. Results A total of 25 physicians participated in this project. The following topics were addressed during the process: definition of an IPC infection, management of IPC-related infectious complications, interventions to prevent IPC infections, IPC-related obstruction/malfunction management, assessment of IPC removal, and instructions regarding IPC management by patients and caregivers. Strong consensus was obtained on 36 statements. No consensus was obtained on 29 statements. Interpretation The management of recurrent pleural disease with IPC remains complex and challenging. This statement offers statements for care in numerous areas related to IPC management based on expert consensus and identifies areas that lack consensus. Further studies related to long-term management of IPC are warranted.

Background Convalescent plasma therapy is a leading treatment for conferring temporary immunity to COVID-19–susceptible individuals or for use as post-exposure prophylaxis. However, not all recovered patients develop adequate antibody titers for donation and the relationship between avidity and neutralizing titers is currently not well understood. Methods SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike and anti-nucleocapsid IgG titers and avidity were measured in a longitudinal cohort of COVID-19 hospitalized patients (n = 16 individuals) and a cross-sectional sample of convalescent plasma donors (n = 130). Epidemiologic correlates of avidity were examined in donors by linear regression. The association of avidity and a high neutralizing titer (NT) were also assessed in donors using modified Poisson regression. Results Antibody avidity increased over duration of infection and remained elevated. In convalescent plasma donors, higher levels of anti-spike avidity were associated with older age, male sex, and hospitalization. Higher NTs had a stronger positive correlation with anti-spike IgG avidity (Spearman ρ = 0.386; P Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 antibody avidity correlated with duration of infection and higher neutralizing titers, suggesting a potential alternative screening parameter for identifying optimal convalescent plasma donors.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS–CoV-2), the cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has spurred a global health crisis. To date, there are no proven options for prophylaxis for those who have been exposed to SARS–CoV-2, nor therapy for those who develop COVID-19. Immune (i.e., “convalescent”) plasma refers to plasma that is collected from individuals following resolution of infection and development of antibodies. Passive antibody administration through transfusion of convalescent plasma may offer the only short-term strategy for conferring immediate immunity to susceptible individuals. There are numerous examples in which convalescent plasma has been used successfully as postexposure prophylaxis and/or treatment of infectious diseases, including other outbreaks of coronaviruses (e.g., SARS-1, Middle East respiratory syndrome [MERS]). Convalescent plasma has also been used in the COVID-19 pandemic; limited data from China suggest clinical benefit, including radiological resolution, reduction in viral loads, and improved survival. Globally, blood centers have robust infrastructure for undertaking collections and constructing inventories of convalescent plasma to meet the growing demand. Nonetheless, there are nuanced challenges, both regulatory and logistical, spanning donor eligibility, donor recruitment, collections, and transfusion itself. Data from rigorously controlled clinical trials of convalescent plasma are also few, underscoring the need to evaluate its use objectively for a range of indications (e.g., prevention vs. treatment) and patient populations (e.g., age, comorbid disease). We provide an overview of convalescent plasma, including evidence of benefit, regulatory considerations, logistical work flow, and proposed clinical trials, as scale-up is brought underway to mobilize this critical resource.