Characterization of 100 sequential SARS‐CoV‐2 convalescent plasma donations

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article

Abstract

Background

Transfusion of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) convalescent plasma is a promising treatment for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) cases, with success of the intervention based on neutralizing antibody content. Measurement by serologic correlates without biocontainment needs as well as an understanding of donor characteristics that may allow for targeting of more potent donors would greatly facilitate effective collection.

Study Design and Methods

One hundred convalescent plasma units were characterized for functionally active SARS‐CoV‐2 neutralizing antibodies, as well as for SARS‐CoV‐2 binding antibodies, with the intention to establish a correlation between the functionally more relevant neutralization assay and the more accessible enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Donor demographics such as COVID‐19 severity, age, and sex were correlated with antibody titers.

Results

A mean neutralization titer 50% of 230 (range, <8‐1765) was seen for the 100 convalescent plasma units, with highly significant ( P  < .0001) yet quantitatively limited (R 2 = 0.2830) correlation with results of the ELISA. Exclusion of units with particularly high titers (>500) from analysis improved correlation (R 2 = 0.5386). A tendency of higher‐titer plasma units from donors with increased disease severity, of advanced age, and of male sex was seen, yet the functional relevance of this difference is questionable.

Conclusion

The ELISA‐based correlation to neutralization titer enabled a threshold proposal that could be used to eliminate lower‐titer units from the clinical supply for COVID‐19 treatment. Disease severity may be associated with the development of higher titers of neutralizing antibodies, although larger case numbers will be needed for additional confirmation.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.21.163444: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    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.