Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  1. Eva Stadler
  2. Khai Li Chai
  3. Timothy E Schlub
  4. Deborah Cromer
  5. Shanchita R Khan
  6. Mark N Polizzotto
  7. Stephen J Kent
  8. Claire Beecher
  9. Heath White
  10. Tari Turner
  11. Nicole Skoetz
  12. Lise Estcourt
  13. Zoe K McQuilten
  14. Erica M Wood
  15. David S Khoury
  16. Miles P Davenport

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/s2666-5247(23)00194-5
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.03.21.22272672: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    We identified studies from published search strategies conducted by the Cochrane Haematology living systematic review teams which searched the following databases - MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Pubmed, Epistemonikos
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    Pubmed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    L*OVE List Coronavirus disease, World Health Organization COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease and trial registry platforms, including ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and medRxiv (see references8,10).
    ClinicalTrials
    suggested: (ClinicalTrials.gov, RRID:SCR_002309)

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    This study has a number of limitations. Firstly, it aggregates studies using different therapeutics and with different enrolment and outcome criteria. Secondly, it tries to equate administered doses of convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies based on a single study comparing in vitro neutralisation of pseudovirus32. In the case of convalescent plasma, we consider mean titre of donor plasma and mean plasma volume for dilution, which does not reflect the considerable variability that exists between individual donor plasma neutralisation titres and individual recipients’ plasma volumes. In addition, we consider only the ‘administered dose’, as the studies did not directly measure plasma neutralisation titres in recipients after administration. Gordon et al33 studied the pharmacokinetics of convalescent plasma after administration of a volume of 5 ml/kg to infants (leading to an estimated dilution of approximately 10-fold34). Direct measurement of recipient titres 30 minutes after infusion found a mean of 6.2% of donor titres, suggesting a decrease in titre of around 40% compared to what would be predicted by dilution alone. Thus, there may be a tendency for the ‘administered dose’ to be higher than a serum neutralisation level that might be directly measured in vivo after treatment. Despite these limitations, a major strength of our approach is to apply a rigorous quantitative analysis to the available data on passive antibody treatment for SARS-CoV-2. A major factor that ...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.03.21.22272672 on medRxiv