Convalescent Plasma and Improved Survival in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies and COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Since initial reports in late 2019, SARS Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected over 100 million people worldwide and caused over 2 million deaths by early 2021.¹ To date, data guiding COVID-19 therapies have largely arisen from large scale studies of healthy adults. Patients with hematologic malignancy represent a distinctive subset of COVID-19 patients due to immune deficits associated with both the diseases themselves and their treatments. Hematologic malignancy has been consistently associated with increased COVID-19 mortality and other complications.^2–4

Antibody-based immunity is an important correlate of SARS-CoV-2 recovery and vaccine-associated prevention. Hematologic malignancies are associated with defects in humoral and cellular immunity that may contribute to adverse COVID-19 outcomes. Impaired antibody function is a well described complication of plasma cell neoplasms, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and other lymphoid malignancies. Treatment of hematologic malignancies often exacerbate these immune defects; for example, rituximab targets the pan-B cell marker, CD20, and is highly effective therapy for B-cell malignancies. However, B-cell depletion can cause lymphopenia and hypogammaglobulinemia, and is associated with more severe COVID-19.⁵ Lymphopenia is known to be associated with more severe COVID-19.⁶

Antibody therapy using COVID-19 convalescent plasma was associated with a therapeutic benefit in a general patient population⁷ and older patients⁸ when high titer units were administered early in the course of disease. A negative prospective randomized trial included only 4 patients with hematologic malignancy in the convalescent plasma group.⁹ In immunodeficient patients, case reports have noted exceptional improvements in clinical status following convalescent plasma therapy, even following relatively late infusion.¹⁰ Given the absence of definitive prospective trial data in patients with hematologic malignancy, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate the hypothesis that convalescent plasma can correct defects in humoral deficiency and improve outcomes.

METHODS

RESULTS

As of January 21^st, 2021, the CCC19 registry contained 8209 case reports with complete baseline information. 1761 (21.5%) patients had a primary or secondary hematologic malignancy, with lymphoid malignancies being the most common. After applying eligibility criteria (Supplemental Figure S1), there were n=966 patients, of whom 143 (14.8%) received convalescent plasma treatment (Supplemental Figure S2). Patient characteristics are noted in Table 1. Median age was 67 (interquartile range 58 to 77). In the unmatched sample, convalescent plasma recipients were slightly younger and more likely to be male. A lower proportion of convalescent plasma recipients had pulmonary comorbidities and ECOG performance status of 2 or more compared to the unexposed group. Convalescent plasma recipients were also more likely to be treated with corticosteroids, tocilizumab, and/or remdesivir, and less likely with hydroxychloroquine. Overall, 512 (53%) patients had received systemic anticancer treatment within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis, with targeted therapies (monoclonal antibodies, small molecule inhibitors, and/or immunomodulators) being the most commonly received treatments. 115 (22%) of those treated received an anti-CD20 antibody-containing regimen. Overall, 489 (58%) of 845 patients with absolute lymphocyte count available had lymphopenia (<1.5 x 10⁹ cells/liter) at presentation; this proportion increased to 79% in patients who had received anti-CD20 antibodies. Propensity-score matching was successful, with good balance achieved between the exposed and non-exposed groups (Supplement Figures S3-S5). Convalescent plasma recipients were more likely to require aggressive care (intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation).

With a median follow-up period of 30 days (interquartile range 21 to 90 days), there were 223 (23.1%) deaths within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis (Table 2). The crude hazard rate for mortality was significantly lower in convalescent plasma recipients (19 out of 143; 13.3%), compared to non-recipients (204 out of 823; 24.8%). This difference was statistically significant after adjustment in the overall comparison (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.97; P=0.033) and the propensity-score matched comparison (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.92; P=0.025) (Table 2). Non-recipients had significantly lower overall survival than those who received convalescent plasma in the unmatched and matched samples (Figure 1). Multiple additional sensitivity analyses, including analyses that used different caliper sizes for matching and analyses with randomized matching orders, showed similar results. Among the 338 patients admitted to the intensive care unit, the crude hazard rate for mortality was significantly lower in convalescent plasma recipients compared to non-recipients in the overall comparison (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.56) and the propensity-score matched comparison (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.80). Among the 227 patients requiring mechanical ventilation, the crude hazard rate for mortality was significantly lower in convalescent plasma recipients compared to non-recipients in the overall comparison (hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.50) and the propensity-score matched comparison (hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.72) (Table 2; Supplemental Figure S6).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: Primary Outcome in the A) Overall Population and B) Propensity-Score Matched Population

DISCUSSION

There is historical evidence demonstrating the efficacy of passive antibody therapy for infectious diseases when given early in the course of disease prior to the development of endogenous antibody responses, including in severe acute respiratory infections.^14–16 On this basis, interventional trials of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 are ongoing; to our knowledge, only one of these, FALP-COVID (NCT04384588) is specifically recruiting patients with cancer. There is accumulating evidence supporting the efficacy of convalescent plasma in patients with primary or secondary immunodeficiency, including those subjected to profound immunosuppression in the setting of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.^17,18 Patients with hematologic malignancies may have immune deficiencies from patient factors (including age), disease factors, and treatment factors. For example, in a single center cohort of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (a common B-cell hematologic malignancy) who had documented symptomatic COVID-19, 7 of 21 (33%) did not develop detectable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, notably lower than the 100% seroconversion rate observed in a non-cancer population.^19,20 Several small studies have demonstrated improvement in clinical course after administration of convalescent to patients with cancer, primarily hematologic malignancy.^21–23 Clinical improvement in COVID-19 symptoms within 48 hours of convalescent plasma transfusion was also reported in 16 of 17 patients with B-cell lymphopenia and prolonged COVID-19, 15 of whom had received anti-CD20 therapy in the 3-6 months prior to symptoms onset.²³

Lymphopenia was common in our study population, especially in patients with recent anti-CD20 treatment, as would be expected. We are unable to ascertain rates of hypogammaglobulinemia, as this was not a routinely collected variable. The exact mechanism by which convalescent plasma may have mediated improved outcomes in the treated patients is likely multifactorial, and could include reduction in viral load via enhanced clearance,²³ reduction in secondary bacterial and fungal infections, neutralization of inflammatory cytokines that may otherwise promote a hyperinflammatory immune phenotype,²⁴ and temporizing until the native immune system generates additional humoral and cell-mediated responses in the recovery phase after myelosuppressive or lymphodepleting anticancer therapy.

Our study is the largest such series reported to date, to our knowledge. Due to the multi-institutional nature of the data with over 70 contributing institutions (Supplemental Appendix), these findings are unlikely to be the result of specific practice patterns at certain institutions. Variables collected through this effort, such as cancer status, prior cancer treatments, and ECOG performance status, are not readily available through automated electronic health record extractions or claims databases.

Limitations of this study include its retrospective nature, as well as unmeasured variables, such as the exact timing of convalescent plasma administration with respect to the date of COVID-19 diagnosis, the antibody titers/levels in the plasma that was administered, and whether repeat dosing was employed. Despite propensity matching, it is possible that residual confounding remains, and results should be interpreted with caution. For example, even after propensity matching, the convalescent plasma recipients received more corticosteroids and remdesivir. Although these agents have not been shown to have a clear survival benefit in cancer populations,²⁵ it is possible that at least part of the observed protective effect of convalescent plasma could be due to concomitant medications, including fewer administrations of hydroxychloroquine. Convalescent plasma non-recipients may have received less aggressive care overall due to factors other than COVID-19, e.g., advanced states of cancer; this possibility is partially addressed through adjustment for cancer status. Differential access to convalescent plasma due to health system or socioeconomic factors cannot be excluded. It is possible that the findings in the first 30 days would not persist into later periods, which would require a more extended follow-up. Therefore, like any observational study, these findings should not be inferred for causality but rather be seen as contributing to the accumulating evidence regarding survival benefit with convalescent plasma in patients with COVID-19 illness. Prospective randomized trials evaluating convalescent plasma in patients with hematologic malignancy with attention to administration timing and consideration of repeated dosing are recommended.

In conclusion, convalescent plasma appears to confer a survival benefit in patients with hematologic malignancy and COVID-19. If this finding should hold up in prospective clinical trials, convalescent plasma would be, to our knowledge, the first COVID-19 intervention with a survival benefit in this high-risk population.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US Department of Health and Human services and its agencies including the Biomedical Research and Development Authority and the Food and Drug Administration, as well as any agency of the U.S. government. Assumptions made within and interpretations from the analysis are not reflective of the position of any U.S. government entity.