Monoclonal Antibodies and Hyperimmune Immunoglobulins in the Next Pandemic.
Pandemics are highly unpredictable events that are generally caused by novel viruses. There is a high likelihood that such novel pathogens belong to entirely novel viral families for which no targeted small-molecule antivirals exist. In addition, small-molecule antivirals often have pharmacokinetic properties that make them contraindicated for the frail patients who are often the most susceptible to a novel virus. Passive immunotherapies-available from the first convalescent patients-can then play a key role in controlling pandemics. Convalescent plasma is immediately available, but if manufacturers have fast platforms to generate marketable drugs, other forms of passive antibody treatment can be produced. In this chapter, we will review the technological platforms for generating monoclonal antibodies and hyperimmune immunoglobulins, the current experience on their use for treatment of COVID-19, and the pipeline for pandemic candidates.
Franchini M
，Focosi D
《Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology》
Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a rapid review.
Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with respiratory virus diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19.
The protocol was pre-published with the Center for Open Science and can be accessed here: osf.io/dwf53 We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trials registries to identify ongoing studies and results of completed studies on 23 April 2020 for case-series, cohort, prospectively planned, and randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
We followed standard Cochrane methodology and performed all steps regarding study selection in duplicate by two independent review authors (in contrast to the recommendations of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group). We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and studies evaluating standard immunoglobulins.
We followed recommendations of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group regarding data extraction and assessment. To assess bias in included studies, we used the assessment criteria tool for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at hospital discharge, improvement of clinical symptoms (7, 15, and 30 days after transfusion), grade 3 and 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies (seven case-series, one prospectively planned, single-arm intervention study) with 32 participants, and identified a further 48 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma (47 studies) or hyperimmune immunoglobulin (one study), of which 22 are randomised. Overall risk of bias of the eight included studies was high, due to: study design; small number of participants; poor reporting within studies; and varied type of participants with different severities of disease, comorbidities, and types of previous or concurrent treatments, including antivirals, antifungals or antibiotics, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine and respiratory support. We rated all outcomes as very low certainty, and we were unable to summarise numerical data in any meaningful way. As we identified case-series studies only, we reported results narratively. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 The following reported outcomes could all be related to the underlying natural history of the disease or other concomitant treatment, rather than convalescent plasma. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge All studies reported mortality. All participants were alive at the end of the reporting period, but not all participants had been discharged from hospital by the end of the study (15 participants discharged, 6 still hospitalised, 11 unclear). Follow-up ranged from 3 days to 37 days post-transfusion. We do not know whether convalescent plasma therapy affects mortality (very low-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical symptoms (assessed by respiratory support) Six studies, including 28 participants, reported the level of respiratory support required; most participants required respiratory support at baseline. All studies reported improvement in clinical symptoms in at least some participants. We do not know whether convalescent plasma improves clinical symptoms (very low-certainty evidence). Time to discharge from hospital Six studies reported time to discharge from hospital for at least some participants, which ranged from four to 35 days after convalescent plasma therapy. Admission on the intensive care unit (ICU) Six studies included patients who were critically ill. At final follow-up the majority of these patients were no longer on the ICU or no longer required mechanical ventilation. Length of stay on the ICU Only one study (1 participant) reported length of stay on the ICU. The individual was discharged from the ICU 11 days after plasma transfusion. Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 Grade 3 or 4 adverse events The studies did not report the grade of adverse events after convalescent plasma transfusion. Two studies reported data relating to participants who had experienced adverse events, that were presumably grade 3 or 4. One case study reported a participant who had moderate fever (38.9 °C). Another study (3 participants) reported a case of severe anaphylactic shock. Four studies reported the absence of moderate or severe adverse events (19 participants). We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events One study (3 participants) reported one serious adverse event. As described above, this individual had severe anaphylactic shock after receiving convalescent plasma. Six studies reported that no serious adverse events occurred. We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified eight studies (seven case-series and one prospectively planned single-arm intervention study) with a total of 32 participants (range 1 to 10). Most studies assessed the risks of the intervention; reporting two adverse events (potentially grade 3 or 4), one of which was a serious adverse event. We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma is effective for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19 as studies reported results inconsistently, making it difficult to compare results and to draw conclusions. We identified very low-certainty evidence on the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma therapy for people with COVID-19; all studies were at high risk of bias and reporting quality was low. No RCTs or controlled non-randomised studies evaluating benefits and harms of convalescent plasma have been completed. There are 47 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, of which 22 are RCTs, and one trial evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We will update this review as a living systematic review, based on monthly searches in the above mentioned databases and registries. These updates are likely to show different results to those reported here.
Valk SJ
，Piechotta V
，Chai KL
，Doree C
，Monsef I
，Wood EM
，Lamikanra A
，Kimber C
，McQuilten Z
，So-Osman C
，Estcourt LJ
，Skoetz N
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
The Logic and History of Passive Immunity and Antibody Therapies.
This volume takes a broad overview of antibody-based therapies prior to and during the COVID pandemic and examines their potential use in future pandemics. Passive antibody therapy was the first effective antimicrobial treatment and its development in the early twentieth century helped catalyze immunological and microbiological research. During the era of serum therapy (1890-1940) antibody-based therapies were developed against both viral and bacterial diseases. Effective treatment required an understanding of how to quantify antibodies, how to develop serotype-specific sera and recognition of the need to treat early in disease. Thus, although the era of serum therapy essentially ended with the development of small molecule antimicrobial therapy in the 1940s, antibody-based therapies led to important new scientific understanding, while remaining in use for some toxin and venom-caused diseases and in the prevention of outbreaks of viral hepatitis. A renewed interest in antibody-based therapies was seen in the widespread deployment of convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Convalescent plasma will likely be the first specific therapy during outbreaks with new pathogens for which there is no other therapy. For all forms of antibody-based therapies, effectiveness relies on the key principles of antibody therapy, namely, treatment early in disease with preparations containing sufficient antibody specific to the microbe in question.
Casadevall A
，Paneth N
《Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
