Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the cause of coronavirus disease , 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 to confer immediate immunity to susceptible individuals. There are numerous examples, where convalescent plasma has been used successfully as post-exposure 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 to undertake collections and construct 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, from evidence of benefit, regulatory considerations, logistical work flow and proposed clinical trials, as scale up is brought underway to mobilize this critical resource.

No abstract

Convalescent plasma is currently one of the leading treatments for COVID-19, but there is a paucity of data identifying therapeutic efficacy. A comprehensive analysis of the antibody responses in potential plasma donors and an understanding of the clinical and demographic factors that drive variant antibody responses is needed. Among 126 potential convalescent plasma donors, the humoral immune response was evaluated by a SARS-CoV-2 virus neutralization assay using Vero-E6-TMPRSS2 cells, commercial IgG and IgA ELISA to Spike (S) protein S1 domain (Euroimmun), IgA, IgG and IgM indirect ELISAs to the full-length S or S-receptor binding domain (S-RBD), and an IgG avidity assay. Multiple linear regression and predictive models were utilized to assess the correlations between antibody responses with demographic and clinical characteristics. IgG titers were greater than either IgM or IgA for S1, full length S, and S-RBD in the overall population. Of the 126 plasma samples, 101 (80%) had detectable neutralizing titers. Using neutralization titer as the reference, the sensitivity of the IgG ELISAs ranged between 95-98%, but specificity was only 20-32%. Male sex, older age, and hospitalization with COVID-19 were all consistently associated with increased antibody responses across the serological assays. Neutralizing antibody titers were reduced over time in contrast to overall antibody responses. There was substantial heterogeneity in the antibody response among potential convalescent plasma donors, but sex, age and hospitalization emerged as factors that can be used to identify individuals with a high likelihood of having strong antiviral antibody levels.

Conflict of interest: EMB reports receiving personal fees and nonfinancial support from Terumo BCT and personal fees and nonfinancial support from Grifols Diagnostic Solutions. EMB is a member of the United States FDA Blood Products Advisory Committee. Any views or opinions that are expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors, based on their own scientific expertise and professional judgment; they do not necessarily represent the views of either the Blood Products Advisory Committee or the formal position of the FDA, and also do not bind or otherwise obligate or commit either the advisory committee or the agency to the views expressed.

Background Individuals can test positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by molecular assays following the resolution of their clinical disease. Recent studies indicate that SARS-CoV-2 antigen–based tests are likely to be positive early in the disease course, when there is an increased likelihood of high levels of infectious virus. Methods Upper respiratory specimens from 251 participants with coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms (≤7 days from symptom onset) were prospectively collected and tested with a lateral flow antigen test and a real-time polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR) assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Specimens from a subset of the study specimens were utilized to determine the presence of infectious virus in the VeroE6TMPRSS2 cell culture model. Results The antigen test demonstrated a higher positive predictive value (90%) than rt-PCR (70%) when compared to culture-positive results. The positive percentage agreement for detection of infectious virus for the antigen test was similar to rt-PCR when compared to culture results. Conclusions The correlation between SARS-CoV-2 antigen and SARS-CoV-2 culture positivity represents a significant advancement in determining the risk for potential transmissibility beyond that which can be achieved by detection of SARS-CoV-2 genomic RNA. SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing can facilitate low-cost, scalable, and rapid time-to-result, while providing good risk determination of those who are likely harboring infectious virus, compared to rt-PCR.