A longitudinal study of convalescent plasma ( CCP ) donors and correlation of ABO group, initial neutralizing antibodies ( nAb ), and body mass index ( BMI ) with nAb and anti‐nucleocapsid ( NP ) SARS‐CoV ‐2 antibody kinetics: Proposals for better quality of CCP collections

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

Introduction

Little is known about the neutralizing (nAb) and binding antibody kinetics in COVID‐19 convalescent plasma donors, especially during the first 100 days after disease onset.

Materials and Methods

A cohort of previously RT‐PCR positive (detected by nasopharyngeal swab during the acute phase), male convalescent patients, all with mild symptoms, were enrolled in serial blood sample collection for a longitudinal nAb titers and anti‐nucleocapsid (NP) antibodies (IgM, IgG and IgA) evaluation. NAbs were detected by a cytopathic effect‐based virus neutralization test (CPE‐based VNT), carried out with SARS‐CoV‐2 (GenBank: MT350282).

Results

A total of 78 male volunteers provided 316 samples, spanning a total of 4820 days of study. Although only 25% of donors kept nAb titers ≥160 within 100 days after the onset of disease, there was >75% probability of sustaining nAb titers ≥160 in volunteers whose initial nAb titer was ≥1280, weight ≥ 90 kg or obese, according to their body mass index (BMI), as evidenced by Kaplan–Meier analysis and Cox hazard regression (all p  < .02). There was no correlation between the ABO group, ABO antibody titers and persistent high nAb titers. High IgG anti‐NP (S/CO ≥5.0) is a good surrogate for detecting nAb ≥ 160, defined by the ROC curve (sensitivity = 90.5%; CI95%: 84.5%–94.7%).

Conclusion

Selection of CCP donors for multiple collections based on initial high nAb titers (≥1280) or BMI ≥ 30 kg/m 2 provides a simple strategy to achieve higher quality in CCP programs. High IgG anti‐NP levels can also be used as surrogate markers for high nAb screening.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.12.20230391: (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.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    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.