In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Canadian clinical researchers pivoted their research programs to investigate repurposing drugs, accelerating the development of experimental therapies, and developing novel disease-specific treatments. This systematic review analyzes the trial design, participant characteristics, and reported outcomes of all Health Canada authorized clinical trials of therapeutics to prevent or treat COVID-19 with published results as of March 2023. We conclude that there is a need for adaptive clinical trial designs, broader pan-Canadian clinical trial networks, more targeted participant recruitment to facilitate increased diversity and inclusion, and standardization in reporting participant characteristics, outcome measurement, and follow-up. Finally, guided by our findings, we make recommendations for improved clinical trial designs when faced with an emerging disease.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic era saw numerous treatments authorized for emergency use by the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The purpose of the review was to determine if convalescent plasma, antivirals, or monoclonal antibodies are associated with serious adverse events (SAEs) and, if so, which specific populations are at risk.

PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the FDA submission database were searched through December 2023, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines, international COVID Network Meta-analysis database, and systematic reviews were reference mined to identify controlled studies with at least 1 US site. Reviewers abstracted study characteristics, number of patients experiencing each type of SAE, and methods of adverse event collection and reporting.

Fifty-four studies met inclusion criteria, including 31 randomized controlled trials. We found insufficient evidence of association of any SAE with antivirals and spike protein receptor-binding antibodies. In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the monoclonal antibody tocilizumab, an interleukin 6 inhibitor, may be associated with elevated risk of neutropenia (moderate certainty) and infection (limited certainty). Convalescent plasma may be associated with thrombotic events (limited certainty) as well as bleeding events and infection in patients with hematologic cancers (moderate certainty). Inclusion of studies without a US site could potentially change the findings.

Severe COVID-19 infection may have serious consequences, especially in hospitalized patients with comorbidities. These consequences may be confused with toxicities of the interventions. Based on our analysis, approved treatments for COVID-19 should be prescribed as clinically indicated, although continued vigilance is warranted to identify rare and potentially significant toxicities that may arise in clinical practice.

PROSPERO (CRD42023467821).

In May 2023 the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the end of COVID-19 as a public health emergency. Seroprevalence studies performed in African countries, such as Cameroon, depicted a much higher COVID-19 burden than reported by the WHO. To better understand humoral responses kinetics following infection, we enrolled 333 participants from Yaoundé, Cameroon between March 2020 and January 2022. We measured the levels of antibodies targeting the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding-domain (RBD) and the Spike glycoproteins of Delta, Omicron BA.1 and BA.4/5 and the common cold coronavirus HCoV-OC43. We also evaluated plasma capacity to neutralize authentic SARS-CoV-2 virus and to mediate Antibody-Dependent Cellular Cytotoxicity (ADCC). Most individuals mounted a strong antibody response against SARS-CoV-2 Spike. Plasma neutralization waned faster than anti-Spike binding and ADCC. We observed differences in humoral responses by age and circulating variants. Altogether, we show a global overview of antibody dynamics and functionality against SARS-CoV-2 in Cameroon.

Early antibody therapy can prevent severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). However, the effectiveness of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) therapy in treating severe COVID-19 remains inconclusive. To test a hypothesis that some CCP units are associated with a coagulopathy hazard in severe disease that offsets its benefits, we tracked 304 CCP units administered to 414 hospitalized COVID-19 patients to assess their association with the onset of unfavorable post-transfusion D-dimer trends. CCP recipients with increasing or persistently elevated D-dimer trajectories after transfusion experienced higher mortality than those whose D-dimer levels were persistently low or decreasing after transfusion. Within the CCP donor-recipient network, recipients with increasing or persistently high D-dimer trajectories were skewed toward association with a minority of CCP units. In in vitro assays, CCP from "higher-risk" units had higher cross-reactivity with the spike protein of human seasonal betacoronavirus OC43. "Higher-risk" CCP units also mediated greater Fcγ receptor IIa signaling against cells expressing SARS-CoV-2 spike compared with "lower-risk" units. This study finds that post-transfusion activation of coagulation pathways during severe COVID-19 is associated with specific CCP antibody profiles and supports a potential mechanism of immune complex-activated coagulopathy.

Immunocompromised (IC) hosts represent a unique patient population at risk for not only typical pathogens, but also opportunistic microorganisms. While antimicrobials remain the main treatment, new investigations have demonstrated the importance of host-response to pathogens. In this article, we highlight previously discovered and new areas of investigation for adjunctive host-response treatments for IC host pneumonia.

Traditional vaccinology has primarily focused on neutralizing antibody titers as the main correlate of vaccine efficacy, often overlooking the multifaceted roles of antibody Fc effector functions in orchestrating protective immune responses. Fc-mediated immune responses play a pivotal role in immune modulation and pathogen clearance. Emerging evidence from natural infections and vaccine studies highlights the critical contribution of Fc effector functions in determining the quality and durability of immunity. This work explores the limitations of current vaccine evaluation paradigms that prioritize neutralization over Fc effector mechanisms. It also describes findings from a study showing an unexpected role for SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibodies: both convalescent plasma and patient-derived monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) lead to maximum phagocytic capacity by monocytes at low concentrations, whereas at higher concentrations the phagocytic capacity was reduced. Given that the severity of COVID-19 disease and antibody titers are strongly positively correlated, this work challenges the paradigm that high antibodies offer better protection against severe disease. It is proposed that humoral and cellular responses elicited by vaccination should never be higher than those produced by natural infection. By integrating antibody Fc effector functions into vaccine development, a paradigm shift is proposed that emphasizes synergic antibody responses. Such an approach could transform vaccine efficacy assessment, enhance protection against dangerous pathogens, and drive innovation in vaccine design.

Convalescent plasma (CP) treatment of COVID-19 has shown significant therapeutic effect only when administered early. We investigated the importance of patient and CP seroprofiles on treatment outcome in REMAP-CAP CP trial.

We evaluated neutralising antibodies (nAb), anti-spike (S) IgM, IgG, IgG avidity, IgG fucosylation and respiratory viral loads in a sub-set of patients (n=80) and controls (n=51) before and after transfusion, comparing them to those in the CP units (n=157) they received.

Most patients were SARS-CoV-2 seropositive pre-transfusion (72% nAb; 89% S-IgG seropositivity). The majority (80%) had higher pre-transfusion S-IgG levels (median 1.7×106 arbitrary units (AU); 56%) or S-IgG production rates (median 1.1×106 AU/day; 64%) than they received from CP (median 2.2×105 AU). Only 22% of the patients demonstrated significant (median 24-fold) increase in their S-IgG levels acquired from transfusion. Better outcomes, measured by organ support-free days, were associated with increase in S-IgM levels (p=0.007), decreased S-IgG fucosylation (p<0.001), lower patient age (p<0.001) but not with receiving CP (p=0.337).

Based on our data, increased S-antibody levels linked to transfused CP were only observed in pre-seroconversion or immunodeficient patients lacking their own SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, representing the groups where CP treatment has previously shown most benefit.

Convalescent plasma (CP) therapy for COVID-19 infection may have favorable safety but varying efficacy, with concerns about its procoagulant impact. We investigated whether administration of CP to hospitalized patients affects their coagulation profile. Fifty-four patients randomized in a double-blinded fashion received either placebo, low-titer CP (LCP) or high-titer CP (HCP). Donor blood samples were obtained at the time of the plasmapheresis, while recipient blood samples were collected before infusion, one day post-infusion and between two and six days after infusion. Routine laboratory follow-up, coagulation biomarkers, antiphospholipid antibodies, and thrombin generation (TG) were assessed. CP donors had normal blood cell counts and coagulation profiles, without differences between LCP and HCP donors at the baseline. All CP recipients were on low-molecular-weight heparin thromboprophylaxis at the time of the infusion. Despite randomization, the HCP group had lower baseline (p = 0.004) and Day 1 platelet counts (p = 0.019) than the LCP group. Von Willebrand antigen (VWF:Ag) levels clearly exceeded normal without differences at baseline. At Day 1, LCP recipients had higher VWF:Ag (mean ± SD 224 ± 15%) than HCP recipients (210 ± 8%) (p = 0.012). In all groups, overall 80% lupus anticoagulant was positive. Baseline TG variables were comparable, but again LCP recipients exhibited higher endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) (1313 ± 535 nM.min) (p = 0.038) and peak TG (184 ± 106 nM) (p = 0.037) than the HCP group (870 ± 425 nM.min and 86 ± 54 nM). Our findings show that LCP increases VWF:Ag levels and enhances TG despite the thromboprophylaxis. These results suggest that HCP induces less hypercoagulability than LCP, which may contribute to the variability in CP efficacy.

Convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) is one of the treatment modalities used for COVID-19. Initial smaller studies showed the usefulness of CPT in COVID-19, but larger studies showed that it is not effective. This is a retrospective observational study conducted between 1st June 2020 and 31st July 2021 at a tertiary hospital in Noida, India. Our analysis was done on 213 COVID-19 patients, comprising 170 cases who were given convalescent plasma and 43 controls who did not get CPT. Outcomes analyzed were improvement in PaO2:FiO2 ratio (PFR) by day 5 of CPT, 28-day mortality, and level of inflammatory markers. Mean PFR before plasma transfusion was comparable between CPT and control groups (142.11±73.99 vs. 151.11±88.87, p=0.56). There was no significant difference in mean PFR after 5 days of CPT between cases and the control group (187.02±102.34 vs. 160.29±83.39, p=0.206). 28-day mortality was 47.05% in the CPT group and 37.20% in the control group (p=0.246). Mortality amongst the subgroup of patients on invasive mechanical ventilation was 89.74% in cases and 80% in controls (p=0.518). No significant difference was found in levels of serum ferritin, interleukin-6, and C-reactive protein between the two groups. Convalescent plasma does not have a significant effect on day 5 PFR and 28-day mortality. Our study could not find any subgroup of patients who would benefit from CPT. This study reinforces that CPT does not benefit moderate to severe patients with COVID-19.

Despite concerns about potential side effects, based both on historical experience with plasma products and more recent concerns about contemporary use of plasma, COVID-19 convalescent plasma has been shown to be a very safe product. Research early in the COVID-19 pandemic documented-among the very large population of convalescent plasma recipients in the US Convalescent Plasma Study component of the FDA-authorized Expanded Access Program-that the overall risk profile was no different than that seen for fresh frozen plasma, a product used routinely in medical practice. The safety of CCP was further demonstrated using real-world evidence, pragmatic trials, and formal randomized trials. The rates of all serious adverse events were very low, an especially impressive finding in light of the fact that nearly all safety data came from the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in patients who were hospitalized, were older, and/or had significant co-morbid cardiopulmonary and metabolic disorders. The well-known complications of blood and plasma transfusions-transfusion-associated circulatory overload and transfusion-related acute lung injury-were found with no higher incidence than with standard use of blood and plasma, nor was there evidence for antibody-dependent enhancement or increased incidence of thromboembolic events. The comprehensive safety profile derived from studies enrolling hundreds of thousands of recipients of COVID-19 convalescent plasma across the world should allay safety fears about the rapid deployment of convalescent plasma in future pandemics.

This study compared the outcomes of two cohorts of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who received COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusions between 2020 and 2021.

This retrospective study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. We included a retrospective cohort of patients who received convalescent compassionate plasma, and another group of patients from a previous clinical study. We collected clinical and laboratory data on the day of and 5 days after transfusion. Patients with hematological or immunological conditions were excluded. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.

COVID-19 convalescent plasma did not affect the outcomes of patients with severe COVID-19 when comparing the two cohorts transfused with different volumes and titers of neutralizing antibodies. Despite improvements in some laboratory parameters, no effect on clinical outcomes was observed. Dialysis negatively affected the length of intensive care unit stay, hospitalization, and mechanical ventilation use. Each higher point on the day 0 World Health Organization scale reduced the probability of hospital and intensive care unit discharge and the risk of mechanical ventilation discontinuation.

Dialysis and the assessed clinical severity represented by the World Health Organization scale on day 0 influenced the outcomes, whereas COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfusion did not.

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.

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.

Electronic databases were searched for studies published from January 2020 to January 2024.

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of CCP on COVID-19 mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

CCP versus no CCP.

Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs.

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.

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.

In-hospital transfusion of CCP within 7 days from symptom onset conferred a mortality benefit.

Antigenically distinct SARS-CoV-2 variants increase the reinfection risk for vaccinated and previously exposed population due to antibody neutralization escape. COVID-19 severity depends on many variables, including host immune responses, which differ depending on genetic predisposition. To address this, we perform immune profiling of female mice with different genetic backgrounds -transgenic K18-hACE2 and wild-type 129S1- infected with the severe B.1.351, 30 days after exposure to the milder BA.1 or severe H1N1. Prior BA.1 infection protects against B.1.351-induced morbidity in K18-hACE2 but aggravates disease in 129S1. H1N1 protects against B.1.351-induced morbidity only in 129S1. Enhanced severity in B.1.351 re-infected 129S1 is characterized by an increase of IL-10, IL-1β, IL-18 and IFN-γ, while in K18-hACE2 the cytokine profile resembles naïve mice undergoing their first viral infection. Enhanced pathology during 129S1 reinfection cannot be attributed to weaker adaptive immune responses to BA.1. Infection with BA.1 causes long-term differential remodeling and transcriptional changes in the bronchioalveolar CD11c+ compartment. K18-hACE2 CD11c+ cells show a strong antiviral defense expression profile whereas 129S1 CD11c+ cells present a more pro-inflammatory response upon restimulation. In conclusion, BA.1 induces cross-reactive adaptive immune responses in K18-hACE2 and 129S1, but reinfection outcome correlates with differential CD11c+ cells responses in the alveolar space.

In the Spring of 2020, the United States of America (USA) deployed COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) to treat hospitalized patients. Over 500,000 patients were treated with CCP during the first year of the pandemic. In this study, we estimated the number of actual inpatient lives saved by CCP treatment in the United States of America based on CCP weekly use, weekly national mortality data, and CCP mortality reduction data from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and real-world data. We also estimate the potential number of lives saved if CCP had been deployed for 100% of hospitalized patients or used in 15 to 75% of outpatients. Depending on the assumptions modeled in stratified analyses, we estimated that CCP saved between 16,476 and 66,296 lives. The CCP ideal use might have saved as many as 234,869 lives and prevented 1,136,133 hospitalizations. CCP deployment was a successful strategy for ameliorating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA. This experience has important implications for convalescent plasma use in future infectious disease emergencies.

The COVID-19 pandemic has driven the search for alternative therapies, including convalescent plasma, historically used in infectious diseases. Despite results in other diseases, its effectiveness against COVID-19 remains uncertain with conflicting results in clinical trials. A pragmatic, single-center, prospective, and open randomized controlled trial was carried out in a hospital in Brazil, with the aim of evaluating the impact of convalescent plasma on the clinical improvement of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The World Health Organization (WHO) ordinal scale was used to measure clinical improvement, focusing on the reduction in disease severity by up to 2 points, while antibody and C-reactive protein levels were monitored over time. After hospital admission, participants were randomized 1:1 to receive convalescent plasma and standard treatment or to be part of the control group with standard treatment. Follow-up was carried out on days 1, 3, 7, 14 and/or at discharge. From January 14 to April 4, 2022, 38 patients were included, but 3 were excluded due to protocol deviations, resulting in a total of 35 patients: 19 in the control group and 16 in the plasma group. There was no significant difference in clinical improvement between the convalescent plasma group and the control group, nor in secondary outcomes. The study had limitations due to the small number of patients and limited representation of COVID-19 cases. Broader investigations are needed to integrate therapies into medical protocols, both for COVID-19 and other diseases. Conducting randomized studies is challenging due to the complexity of medical conditions and the variety of treatments available.

Adoptive cellular therapies (ACT) are novel, promising treatments for life-threatening malignancies. In addition to the better known chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, ACTs include tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL), cancer antigen-specific T cell receptors (TCRs), and CAR-NK (natural killer) cells. In key historic milestones, several adoptive therapies recently received FDA approvals, including 6 CAR-T products for the treatment of hematologic malignancies and the first TIL therapy for the treatment for metastatic melanoma. The rapid pace of clinical trials in the field and the discoveries they provide are ushering in a new era of cancer immunotherapy. However, the potential complications of these therapies are still not fully understood. In particular, patients receiving ACT may be at increased risk for severe infections due to immunocompromise resulting from their underlying malignancies, which are further compounded by the immune derangements that develop in the setting of cellular immunotherapy and/or the preconditioning treatment needed to enhance ACT efficacy. Moreover, these treatments are being readily implemented at a time following the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, and it remains unclear what additional risks these patients may face from SARS-CoV-2 and similar infections. Here, we examine the evidence for infectious complications with emerging adoptive therapies, and provide a focused review of the epidemiology, complications, and clinical management for COVID-19 in CAR-T recipients to understand the risk this disease may pose to recipients of other forms of ACT.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first identified in December 2019 and quickly became a global pandemic. The understanding of the pathophysiology, treatment, and management of the disease has evolved since the beginning of the pandemic in 2020. COVID-19 can be complicated by immune system dysfunction, lung injury with hypoxemia, acute kidney injury, and coagulopathy. The treatment and management of COVID-19 is based on the severity of illness, ranging from asymptomatic to severe and often life-threatening disease. The 3 main recommended medication classes include antivirals, immunomodulators, and anticoagulants. Other supportive therapies include ensuring adequate oxygenation, mechanical ventilation, and prone positioning.

During the global health emergency caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), evidence relating to the efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy-evidence critically needed for both public policy and clinical practice-came from multiple levels of the epistemic hierarchy. The challenges of conducting clinical research during a pandemic, combined with the biological complexities of convalescent plasma treatment, required the use of observational data to fully assess the impact of convalescent plasma therapy on COVID symptomatology, hospitalization rates, and mortality rates. Observational studies showing the mortality benefits of convalescent plasma emerged early during the COVID-19 pandemic from multiple continents and were substantiated by real-time pragmatic meta-analyses. Although many randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were initiated at the onset of the pandemic and were designed to provide high-quality evidence, the relative inflexibility in the design of clinical trials meant that findings generally lagged behind other forms of emerging information and ultimately provided inconsistent results on the efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma. In the pandemic framework, it is necessary to emphasize more flexible analytic strategies in clinical trials, including secondary, subgroup, and exploratory analyses. We conclude that in totality, observational studies and clinical trials taken together provide strong evidence of a mortality benefit conferred by COVID-19 convalescent plasma, while acknowledging that some randomized clinical trials examined suboptimal uses of convalescent plasma.

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.

Major efforts were deployed to study the antibody response against SARS-CoV-2. Antibodies neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 have been extensively studied in the context of infections, vaccinations, and breakthrough infections. Antibodies, however, are pleiotropic proteins that have many functions in addition to neutralization. These include Fc-effector functions such as antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) and antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP). Although important to combat viral infections, these Fc-effector functions were less studied in the context of SARS-CoV-2 compared with binding and neutralization. This is partly due to the difficulty in developing reliable assays to measure Fc-effector functions compared to antibody binding and neutralization. Multiple assays have now been developed and can be used to measure different Fc-effector functions. Here, we review these assays and what is known regarding anti-SARS-CoV-2 Fc-effector functions. Overall, this review summarizes and updates our current state of knowledge regarding anti-SARS-CoV-2 Fc-effector functions.

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.

Background: Sample size estimation is an essential step in the design of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating a treatment effect. Sample size is a critical variable in determining statistical significance and, thus, it significantly influences RCTs' success or failure. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many RCTs tested the efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in hospitalized patients but reported different efficacies, which could be attributed to, in addition to timing and dose, inadequate sample size estimates. Methods: To assess the sample size estimation in RCTs evaluating the effect of treatment with CCP in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, we searched the medical literature between January 2020 and March 2024 through PubMed and other electronic databases, extracting information on expected size effect, statistical power, significance level, and measured efficacy. Results: A total of 32 RCTs were identified. While power and significance level were highly consistent, heterogeneity in the expected size effect was relevant. Approximately one third of the RCTs did not reach the planned sample size for various reasons, with the most important one being slow patient recruitment during the pandemic's peaks. RCTs with a primary outcome in favor of CCP treatment had a significant lower median absolute difference in the expected size effect than unfavorable RCTs (20.0% versus 33.9%, P = 0.04). Conclusions: The analyses of sample sizes in RCTs of CCP treatment in hospitalized COVID-19 patients reveal that many underestimated the number of participants needed because of excessively high expectations on efficacy, and thus, these studies had low statistical power. This, in combination with a lower-than-planned recruitment of cases and controls, could have further negatively influenced the primary outcomes of the RCTs.

The response of Canada's research community to the COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique opportunity to examine the country's clinical health research ecosystem. We sought to describe patterns of enrolment across Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)-funded studies on COVID-19.

We identified COVID-19 studies funded by the CIHR and that enrolled participants from Canadian acute care hospitals between January 2020 and April 2023. We collected information on study-and site-level variables from study leads, site investigators, and public domain sources. We described and evaluated factors associated with cumulative enrolment.

We obtained information for 23 out of 26 (88%) eligible CIHR-funded studies (16 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 7 cohort studies). The 23 studies were managed by 12 Canadian and 3 international coordinating centres. Of 419 Canadian hospitals, 97 (23%) enrolled a total of 28 973 participants - 3876 in RCTs across 78 hospitals (median cumulative enrolment per hospital 30, interquartile range [IQR] 10-61), and 25 097 in cohort studies across 62 hospitals (median cumulative enrolment per hospital 158, IQR 6-348). Of 78 hospitals recruiting participants in RCTs, 13 (17%) enrolled 50% of all RCT participants, whereas 6 of 62 hospitals (9.7%) recruited 54% of participants in cohort studies.

A minority of Canadian hospitals enrolled the majority of participants in CIHR-funded studies on COVID-19. This analysis sheds light on the Canadian health research ecosystem and provides information for multiple key partners to consider ways to realize the full research potential of Canada's health systems.

Lung transplant recipients are at increased risk of severe disease following infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) due to high-dose immunosuppressive drugs and the lung is the main organ affected by Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Several studies have confirmed increased SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and morbidity in patients living with lung allografts; however, detailed immunological studies of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the early phase following transplantation remain scarce.

We investigated patients who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the early phase (18-103 days) after receiving double-lung allografts (n = 4, LuTx) in comparison to immunocompetent patients who had not received solid organ transplants (n = 88, noTx). We analyzed SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses against the SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid proteins using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIA), and immunoblot assays. T cell responses were investigated using Elispot assays.

One LuTx patient suffered from persistent infection with fatal outcome 122 days post-infection despite multiple interventions including remdesivir, convalescent plasma, and the monoclonal antibody bamlanivimab. Two patients experienced clinically mild disease with prolonged viral shedding (47 and 79 days), and one patient remained asymptomatic. Antibody and T cell responses were significantly reduced or undetectable in all LuTx patients compared to noTx patients.

Patients in the early phase following lung allograft transplantation are vulnerable to infection with SARS-CoV-2 due to impaired immune responses. This patient population should be vaccinated before LuTx, protected from infection post-LuTx, and in case of infection treated generously with currently available interventions.

Blood services manage the increasingly tight balance between the supply and demand of blood products, and their role in health research is expanding. This review explores the themes that may define the future of blood banking.

We reviewed the PubMed database for articles on emerging/new blood-derived products and the utilization of blood donors in health research.

In high-income countries (HICs), blood services may consider offering these products: whole blood, cold-stored platelets, synthetic blood components, convalescent plasma, lyophilized plasma and cryopreserved/lyophilized platelets. Many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) aim to establish a pool of volunteer, non-remunerated blood donors and wean themselves off family replacement donors; and many HICs are relaxing the deferral criteria targeting racial and sexual minorities. Blood services in HICs could achieve plasma self-sufficiency by building plasma-dedicated centres, in collaboration with the private sector. Lastly, blood services should expand their involvement in health research by establishing donor cohorts, conducting serosurveys, studying non-infectious diseases and participating in clinical trials.

This article provides a vision of the future for blood services. The introduction of some of these changes will be slower in LMICs, where addressing key operational challenges will likely be prioritized.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an acute respiratory infection caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). SARS-CoV-2 infection typically presents with fever and respiratory symptoms, which can progress to severe respiratory distress syndrome and multiple organ failure. In severe cases, these complications may even lead to death. One of the causes of COVID-19 deaths is the cytokine storm caused by an overactive immune response. Therefore, suppressing the overactive immune response may be an effective strategy for treating COVID-19. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and their derived exosomes (MSCs-Exo) have potent homing abilities, immunomodulatory functions, regenerative repair, and antifibrotic effects, promising an effective tool in treating COVID-19. In this paper, we review the main mechanisms and potential roles of MSCs and MSCs-Exo in treating COVID-19. We also summarize relevant recent clinical trials, including the source of cells, the dosage and the efficacy, and the clinical value and problems in this field, providing more theoretical references for the clinical use of MSCs and MSCs-Exo in the treatment of COVID-19.

The CONvalescent Plasma for Hospitalized Adults With COVID-19 Respiratory Illness (CONCOR-1) trial was a multicenter randomized controlled trial assessing convalescent plasma in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of convalescent plasma and its impact on quality-of-life to provide insight into its potential as an alternative treatment in resource-constrained settings.

Individual patient data on health outcomes and resource utilization from the CONCOR-1 trial were used to conduct the analysis from the Canadian public payer's perspective with a time horizon of 30 days post-randomization. Baseline and 30-day EQ-5D-5L were measured to calculate quality-adjusted survival. All costs are presented in 2021 Canadian dollars. The base case assessed the EQ-5D-5L scores of hospitalized inpatients reporting at both timepoints, and a utility score of 0 was assigned for patients who died within 30 days. Costs for all patients enrolled were used. The sensitivity analysis utilizes EQ-5D-5L scores from the same population but only uses costs from this population.

940 patients were randomized: 627 received CCP and 313 received standard care. The total costs were $28,716 (standard deviation, $25,380) and $24,258 ($22,939) for the convalescent plasma and standard care arms respectively. EQ-5D-5L scores were 0.61 in both arms (p = .85) at baseline. At 30 days, EQ-5D-5L scores were 0.63 and 0.64 for patients in the convalescent plasma and standard care arms, respectively (p = .46). The incremental cost was $4458 and the incremental quality-adjusted life day was -0.078.

Convalescent plasma was less effective and more costly than standard care in treating hospitalized COVID-19.

Since November 2019, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has created challenges for preventing and managing COVID-19 in children and adolescents. Most research to develop new therapeutic interventions or to repurpose existing ones has been undertaken in adults, and although most cases of infection in pediatric populations are mild, there have been many cases of critical and fatal infection. Understanding the risk factors for severe illness and the evidence for safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of therapies for COVID-19 in children is necessary to optimize therapy.

A panel of experts in pediatric infectious diseases, pediatric infectious diseases pharmacology, and pediatric intensive care medicine from 21 geographically diverse North American institutions was re-convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys and a systematic review with meta-analysis of data for risk factors, a guidance statement comprising a series of recommendations for risk stratification, treatment, and prevention of COVID-19 was developed and refined based on expert consensus.

There are identifiable clinical characteristics that enable risk stratification for patients at risk for severe COVID-19. These risk factors can be used to guide the treatment of hospitalized and non-hospitalized children and adolescents with COVID-19 and to guide preventative therapy where options remain available.

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.

The safety of transfusion of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in high plasma volume blood components to recipients without COVID-19 is not established. We assessed whether transfusion of plasma or platelet products during periods of increasing prevalence of blood donor SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination was associated with changes in outcomes in hospitalized patients without COVID-19.

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of hospitalized adults who received plasma or platelet transfusions at 21 hospitals during pre-COVID-19 (3/1/2018-2/29/2020), COVID-19 pre-vaccine (3/1/2020-2/28/2021), and COVID-19 post-vaccine (3/1/2021-8/31/2022) study periods. We used multivariable logistic regression with generalized estimating equations to adjust for demographics and comorbidities to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Among 21,750 hospitalizations of 18,584 transfusion recipients without COVID-19, there were 697 post-transfusion thrombotic events, and oxygen requirements were increased in 1751 hospitalizations. Intensive care unit length of stay (n = 11,683) was 3 days (interquartile range 1-5), hospital mortality occurred in 3223 (14.8%), and 30-day rehospitalization in 4144 (23.7%). Comparing the pre-COVID, pre-vaccine and post-vaccine study periods, there were no trends in thromboses (OR 0.9 [95% CI 0.8, 1.1]; p = .22) or oxygen requirements (OR 1.0 [95% CI 0.9, 1.1]; p = .41). In parallel, there were no trends across study periods for ICU length of stay (p = .83), adjusted hospital mortality (OR 1.0 [95% CI 0.9-1.0]; p = .36), or 30-day rehospitalization (p = .29).

Transfusion of plasma and platelet blood components collected during the pre-vaccine and post-vaccine periods of the COVID-19 pandemic was not associated with increased adverse outcomes in transfusion recipients without COVID-19.

Antibodies provide critical protective immunity against COVID-19, and the Fc-mediated effector functions and mucosal antibodies also contribute to the protection. To expand the characterization of humoral immunity stimulated by subunit protein-peptide COVID-19 vaccine UB-612, preclinical studies in non-human primates were undertaken to investigate mucosal secretion and the effector functionality of vaccine-induced antibodies in antibody-dependent monocyte phagocytosis (ADMP) and antibody-dependent NK cell activation (ADNKA) assays. In cynomolgus macaques, UB-612 induced potent serum-neutralizing, RBD-specific IgG binding, ACE2 binding-inhibition antibodies, and antibodies with Fc-mediated effector functions in ADMP and ADNKA assays. Additionally, immunized animals developed mucosal antibodies in bronchoalveolar lavage fluids (BAL). The level of mucosal or serum ADMP and ADNKA antibodies was found to be UB-612 dose-dependent. Our results highlight that the novel subunit UB-612 vaccine is a potent B-cell immunogen inducing polyfunctional antibody responses contributing to anti-viral immunity and vaccine efficacy.