RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Outcomes of convalescent plasma with defined high- versus lower-neutralizing antibody titers against SARS-CoV-2 among hospitalized patients: CoronaVirus Inactivating Plasma (CoVIP), double-blind phase 2 study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.04.29.22274387
DO 10.1101/2022.04.29.22274387
A1 Bartelt, Luther A.
A1 Markmann, Alena J.
A1 Nelson, Bridget
A1 Keys, Jessica
A1 Root, Heather
A1 Henderson, Heather I.
A1 Kuruc, JoAnn
A1 Baker, Caroline
A1 Bhowmik, D. Ryan
A1 Hou, Yixuan J.
A1 Premkumar, Lakshmanane
A1 Cornaby, Caleb
A1 Schmitz, John L.
A1 Weiss, Susan
A1 Park, Yara
A1 Baric, Ralph
A1 de Silva, Aravinda M.
A1 Lachiewicz, Anne
A1 Napravnik, Sonia
A1 van Duin, David
A1 Margolis, David M.
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/02/2022.04.29.22274387.abstract
AB Background COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma (CCP) was an early and widely adopted putative therapy for severe COVID-19. Results from randomized control trials and observational studies have failed to demonstrate a clear therapeutic role for CCP for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Underlying these inconclusive findings is a broad heterogeneity in the concentrations of neutralizing antibodies (nAb) between different CCP donors. The present study was designed to evaluate nAb titer threshold for clinically effective CCP.Methods We conducted a double-blind, phase 2 study to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of nAb titer-defined CCP in adults admitted to an academic referral hospital. Patients positive on a SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test and with symptoms for < 10 days were eligible. Participants received either CCP with nAb titers ≥1:160-1:640 (standard titer group) or >1:640 (high titer group) in addition to standard of care treatments. Adverse events were contrasted by CCP titer. The primary clinical outcome was time to hospital discharge, with mortality and respiratory support evaluated as secondary outcomes.Findings Between August 28 and December 4, 2020, 316 participants were screened, 55 received CCP, with 41 and 14 receiving standard versus high titer CCP, respectively. Participants were a median of 61 years of age (IQR 52-67), 36% women, 25% Black and 33% Hispanic. Severe adverse events (SAE) (≥ grade 3) occurred in 4 (29%) and 23 (56%) of participants in the high versus standard titer groups, respectively by day 28 (Risk Difference -0.28 [95% CI -0.56, 0.01]). There were no observed treatment-related AEs. By day 55, time to hospital discharge was shorter among participants receiving high versus standard titer, accounting for death as a competing event (hazard ratio 1.94 [95% CI 1.05, 3.58], Gray’s p=0.02).Interpretation In this phase 2 trial in a high-risk population of patients admitted for Covid-19, we found earlier time to hospital discharge and lower occurrences of life-threatening SAEs among participants receiving CCP with nAb titers >1:640 compared with participants receiving CCP with lower nAb titer CCP. Though limited by a small study size these findings support further study of high-nAb titer CCP defined as >1:640 in the treatment of COVID-19.Funding This clinical study was supported by the UNC Health Foundation and the North Carolina Policy Collaboratory at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill with funding from the North Carolina Coronavirus Relief Fund established and appropriated by the North Carolina General Assembly. The laboratory assays for neutralizing antibody titers and SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody-binding assays were partially supported by The NIH NCI/NIAID SeroNet Serocenter of Excellence Award U54 CA260543.Evidence before this study COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma (CCP) has emergency use authorization from the FDA for early treatment of COVID-19 in either outpatient or inpatient settings. Evidence supporting the use of CCP for severe COVID-19 is mixed and still emerging. One major limitation in interpreting published clinical trials and the clinical role of CCP is incomplete understanding of necessary neutralizing antibody (nAb) titer for clinically effective CCP. Observational studies suggest that higher antibody-content CCP is more effective than lower antibody-content CCP, or that very low antibody-content CCP is harmful. We searched PubMed articles published between February 1, 2020, and April 15, 2022, using the terms “COVID-19”, “convalescent plasma”, “SARS-CoV-2”, and “CCP” alone and in combination. Our search yielded 6,468 results which we filtered to 280 and 162 by selecting ‘Clinical Trial’ and ‘Randomized Controlled Trial’ article types, respectively. Among these, we identified 25 open-label or blinded efficacy or effectiveness studies in hospitalized patients that were relevant to our study. Preliminary reports show wide variability in the antibody content of CCP used in clinical trials, the assays used to define CCP antibody content, and the estimates of clinical outcomes following CCP therapy for hospitalized patients. Only one study deliberately infused CCP with nAb > 1:640. Post-hoc analyses of potent monoclonal antibody therapy in hospitalized patients in the UK showed survival benefit when monoclonal antibody was infused to patients who had not yet seroconverted by spike antibody ELISA, suggesting that if dosed appropriately, antibody-based therapies may have a role in improving outcomes of severe COVID-19.Added value of this study This phase 2 study showed that CCP with high nAb titer (>1:640) provided more rapid recovery to hospital discharge and fewer COVID-19 attributable AEs than CCP with nAb titer between the FDA-recommended minimum standard and 4-fold higher (≥1:160-1:640). The hazard ratio of time to hospital discharge from baseline through day 55, accounting for death as a competing event, contrasting patients receiving high versus standard CCP titer was 1.94 (95% CI 1.05-3.58). Adjusted hazard ratios of high versus standard titer CCP receipt for time to hospital discharge were consistent with the primary unadjusted findings. Mortality through 55 days was lower in the high titer group, but with a wide confidence interval that did not reach statistical significance.Implications of all available evidence Our data that CCP with nAb >1:640 expedites recovery of patients admitted with COVID-19 compared with CCP with nAb ≥1:160-1:640 suggests that a threshhold of nAb ≥1:160 may be too low to define CCP as ‘high titer’. Analyses in larger CCP trials should consider full reporting of nAb in CCP units administered at individual study participant level, and specifically whether CCP contained nAb >1:640. Further investigation of CCP with nAb >1:640 is warranted given that raising the threshhold of nAb, or a correlative specific anti-spike antibody assay, used to qualify ‘high titer’ CCP in clinical trials could inform policy guidance and clinical use of CCP.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialIND22282 NCT04524507Funding StatementThis clinical study was supported by the UNC Health Foundation and the North Carolina Policy Collaboratory at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill with funding from the North Carolina Coronavirus Relief Fund established and appropriated by the North Carolina General Assembly. The laboratory assays for neutralizing antibody titers and SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody-binding assays were partially supported by The NIH NCI/NIAID SeroNet Serocenter of Excellence Award U54 CA260543. Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethics committee/IRB of the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill gave ethical approval for this work.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.