Back

Convalescent plasma treatment of B-cell depleted patients with COVID-19: systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

Zaremba, S.; Focosi, D.; Pruter, W. W.; Franchini, M.; Collantes Hoyos, D. B.; Cruciani, M.; Miller, A. J.; Ripoll, J. G.; Casadevall, A.; Tulledge-Scheitel, S. M.; Rufer, N.; Hueso, T.; Juskewitch, J. E.; van Buskirk, C. M.; Ioannou, P.; Lanza, F.; Razonable, R. R.; Magyari, F.; Pinczes, L. I.; Ganesh, R.; Denkinger, C. M.; Hurt, R. T.; Janssen, M.; Stubbs, J. R.; Muller-Tidow, C.; Winters, J. L.; Holm, K.; Parikh, S. A.; Simeunovic, G.; Kay, N. E.; Rijnders, B.; Wright, S. R.; Issa, N.; Chaussade, H.; Carter, R. E.; Schroeder, D. R.; Senefeld, J. W.; Joyner, M. J.

2025-05-27 infectious diseases
10.1101/2025.05.15.25327576 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundCOVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is obtained from people recently recovered from COVID-19 and contains viral-neutralizing antibodies. Because such treatment is safe and effective against SARS-CoV-2, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently authorized the use of CCP for COVID-19 patients with immunodeficiencies. Currently available CCP is a "hybrid" product with antibodies from individuals who had both infection and vaccination (vaccine-boosted CCP). In this context, there is growing interest in CCP treatment outcomes in specific groups of immunocompromised patients. Specifically, B-cell depleted patients are at risk of not producing antibodies after either infection or vaccination. Hence, B-cell depleted patients are conceivably among those who would benefit the most from CCP. We thus conducted a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis to assess characteristics associated with 60-day survival in B-cell depleted patients transfused with CCP. MethodsThe last search was April 2nd, 2024, and included all studies using CCP in B-cell depleted patients. Whenever not available in the publication, we requested individual participant data from corresponding authors of eligible studies. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. Data were analyzed using conditional logistic regression. ResultsWe describe individual patient data extracted from 85 studies and synthesized into a cohort of 570 patients. The overall 60-day survival rate was 86.5%. Of patients with information available, 70.1% achieved SARS-CoV-2 clearance, and 64.3% had clinical improvement within 5 days of CCP transfusion. After controlling for age, sex, calendar year of infection and World Health Organization (WHO) disease severity, we found a significant association between 60-day survival and days since last anti-CD20 dose (OR=1.16 per 10-day increase; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.29; p=0.007) and transfusion of vaccine-boosted CCP (OR=9.49; 95% CI 2.01 to 44.82; p=0.005), but not with concomitant remdesivir treatment (OR=1.31; 95% CI 0.66 to 2.61; p=0.440). DiscussionOur study is limited to individual participant data analysis, with a majority of the studies included being case series and case reports. Overall survival in our cohort of B-cell depleted patients was consistent with prior meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on survival of immunocompromised patient transfused with CCP ([~]84%). A novel finding from this analysis is that vaccine-boosted CCP with a presumably higher content of neutralizing antibodies is associated with a high survival benefit. RegistrationThe protocol for this systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024516513) on March 1st, 2024.

Matching journals

The top 12 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
12.5%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 31%
4.9%
3
Infectious Diseases and Therapy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
4
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.0%
5
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.7%
6
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.7%
7
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.6%
8
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
9
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.1%
10
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
11
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.8%
12
Journal of Clinical Investigation
164 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
50% of probability mass above
13
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.8%
14
Annals of Internal Medicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
15
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
16
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
17
The American Journal of Pathology
31 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
18
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 64%
1.3%
19
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
20
Blood Advances
54 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.2%
21
AIDS
31 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
22
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
23
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
24
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
25
Journal of Medical Economics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.0%
26
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
27
Vaccines
196 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
28
RMD Open
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
29
mBio
750 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.8%
30
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%