Abstract
The novel SARS-CoV-2 Omicron, with its antigenic escape from unboosted vaccines and therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, demonstrates the continued relevance of COVID19 convalescent plasma (CCP) therapies. Lessons learnt from previous usage of CCP suggests focusing on outpatients and immunocompromised recipients, with high nAb-titer units. In this analysis we systematically reviewed Omicron neutralizing plasma activity data from 31 publications, and found that approximately 50% (426/841) of CCP from unvaccinated donors neutralizes Omicron with very low mean neutralization titers (about 30), representing a more than 30-fold reduction from paired WA-1 neutralization. Two doses of mRNA vaccines had a similar 50% percent neutralization with more than doubling of Omicron neutralization mean titer (about 60). However, CCP from vaccinees recovered from previous variants of concern or third-dose uninfected vaccinees was nearly 100% neutralizing with mean Omicron neutralizing titers over 1000, a 30-fold Omicron neutralizing antibody increase compared to non-boosted vaccinees or unvaccinated convalescents. These findings have implications for both CCP stocks collected in prior pandemic periods and plans to restart CCP collections. Plasma from either boosted vaccinees or vaccination after pre-Omicron COVID-19 has nearly 100% neutralizing activity with Omicron neutralizing levels similar to matched convalescent plasma to variant neutralizing activity. Thus, CCP provides an effective tool to combat the emergence of variants that defeat therapeutic monoclonal antibodies.
Introduction
The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern (VOC) (named VUI-21NOV-01 by Public Health England and belonging to GISAID clade GR/484A) was first reported on November 8, 2021 in South Africa (particularly in Gauteng, North West and Limpopo regions, where it was likely to have been circulating for weeks 1), and shortly thereafter spread all around the world. Omicron mutations impact 27% of T cell epitopes 2 and 31% of B cell epitopes of Spike, while percentages for other VOC were significantly lower 3. The Omicron variant already includes several sublineages (with more expected soon during such a massive spread), which are named by PANGO phylogeny using the BA alias: the BA.1 wave of Winter 2021-2022 has been suddenly replaced by BA.2 worldwide, with further BA.4 and BA.5 waves emerging in South Africa, BA.2.12.1 in USA, and the BA.1/BA.2 recombinant XE causing concern in UK.
The novel VOC Omicron is reducing the efficacy of all vaccines approved to date (unless 3 doses are delivered) and is initiating an unexpected boost in COVID19 convalescent plasma (CCP) usage, with Omicron being treated as a shifted novel virus instead of a SARS-CoV-2 variant drift. Two years into the pandemics, we are back to the starting line for some therapeutic agents. Specifically, Omicron escapes viral neutralization by most monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) authorized to date 4-9 with the lone exception of bebtelovimab. Despite the development of promising oral small-chemical antivirals (molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir), the logistical and economical hurdles for deploying these drugs worldwide will prevent their immediate and widespread availability, and concerns remain regarding both molnupiravir (both safety10 and efficacy 11) and nirmatrelvir (efficacy 12). COVID19 convalescent plasma (CCP) was used as a frontline treatment from the very beginning of the pandemic. Efficacy outcomes have been mixed to date, with most failures explained by low dose, late usage, or both 13, but efficacy of high-titer CCP has been definitively proven in outpatients with mild disease stages 14,15. Neutralizing antibody (nAb) efficacy against VOC remains a prerequisite to support CCP usage, which can now be collected from vaccinated convalescents including donors recovered from breakthrough infections 16: pre-Omicron evidence suggest that those nAbs have higher titers and are more effective against VOCs than those from unvaccinated convalescents 17,18,
There are up to 48 different possible vaccine schedules according to EMA and FDA approvals including a number of homologous or heterologous boosts, but the most commonly delivered schedules in the western hemisphere are: 1) BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 for 2 doses eventually followed by a homologous boost; 2) ChAdOx1 for 2 doses eventually followed by a BNT162b2 boost; 3) Ad26.COV2.S for 1 dose eventually followed by a BNT162b2 boost. Many more inactivated vaccines have been in use in low-and-middle income countries (LMIC), which are target regions for CCP therapy given that the minimal burden to expand the existing transfusion infrastructure to treat COVID-19. Most blood donors there have already received the vaccine schedule before, after or without having been infected, with an nAb titer generally declining over months. Hence identifying the settings where the nAb titer is highest will definitively increase the efficacy of CCP collections. Variations in nAb titers against a given SARS-CoV-2 strain are usually reported as fold-changes in geometric mean titer (GMT) compared to wild-type strains: nevertheless, fold-changes for groups that include non-responders can lead to highly artificial results and possibly over-interpretation. Rigorous studies have hence reported the percentage of responders as primary outcome and provided fold-changes of GMT where calculation is reasonable (100% responders in both arms) 19.
To date the most rigorous data repository for SARS-CoV-2 sensitivity to antivirals is the Stanford University Coronavirus Antiviral & Resistance Database, but as of April 30, 2022 the tables there summarizing “Virus Variants and Spike Mutations vs Convalescent Plasma” (https://covdb.stanford.edu/page/susceptibility-data/#:~:text=Table%202.-,Virus%20Variants%20and%20Spike%20Mutations%20vs%20Convalescent%20Plasma,-Table%203.%20Virus) and “Virus Variants and Spike Mutations vs Plasma from Vaccinated Persons” (https://covdb.stanford.edu/page/susceptibility-data/#table.2.virus.variants.and.spike.mutations.vs.convalescent.plasma) report aggregate data from only 6 studies, and do not dissect the infecting sublineages, nor the different heterologous or homologous vaccination schemes, nor the time from infection/vaccine to neutralization assay. Consequently, a more in-depth analysis is needed to better stratify the populations.
Methods
On April 30, 2022, we searched PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv for research investigating the efficacy of CCP (either from vaccinated or unvaccinated donors) against SARS-CoV-2 VOC Omicron. In unvaccinated patients, convalescence was annotated according to infecting sublineage (pre-VOC Alpha, VOC Alpha, VOC Beta or VOC Delta). Given the heterologous immunity that develops after vaccination in convalescents, the infecting lineage was not annotated in vaccine recipients. In vaccinees, strata were created for 2 homologous doses, 3 homologous doses, or post-COVID-19 and post-vaccination (Vax-CCP). The mean neutralizing titer for WA-1 (pre-Alpha wild-type), Omicron and number out of total that neutralized Omicron was abstracted from studies.
Statistical significance between means was investigated using Tukey’s test.
Results
Our literature search identified 31 studies, that were then manually mined for relevant details and the PRISMA flowchart for our study is provided in Figure 1. Given the urgency to assess efficacy against the upcoming VOC Omicron, most studies (with a few exceptions) relied on Omicron pseudovirus neutralization assays, which, as opposed to live authentic virus, are scalable, do not require BSL-3 facilities, and provide results in less than 1 week. Geometric mean titer (GMT) of nAb and fold-reduction (FR) in GMT against Omicron compared to WA-1 were the most common ways of reporting changes.
Neutralizing activity to WA-1 from CCP collected from subjects infected with Alpha VOC, Delta VOC or vaccinated with 2 mRNA vaccine doses averaged nAb titers of 850 to 2,000 (Figure 2 and Table 1). Beta VOC CCP was tested in a few samples and averaged a nAb titer of 186. The same CCP averaged about a 30-FR against Omicron compared to WA-1. CCP from uninfected vaccinees receiving a third boost registered GMT averaging 10,000-20,000, or 10-fold higher dilutional nAb titer to WA-1 viral assays. The nAb FR against Omicron was now 10 to 20, but importantly the average nAb GMT was close to 1,000 again. The approximately 30-FR in nAb GMT from WA-1 to Omicron was reversed by the 30-fold increase in nAb GMT from either boosted vaccination or vaccination and COVID-19 combination.
In addition to the nAb GMT levels showing potency, the percentage of individuals within a study cohort positive for any level of Omicron neutralization shows the likelihood of a possible donation having anti-Omicron activity. All studies but one tested a limited number of 20 to 40 individuals. The pre-Alpha CCP showed that most (18 of 27 studies) had less than 50% of individuals tested within a study with measurable Omicron neutralizing activity: only 2 out of 27 studies indicated 100% of individuals tested showed Omicron neutralization (Figure 3). Likewise, most of the studies investigating Alpha and Beta CCP showed similar percent with nAb. Delta CCP had 6 of 7 studies with more than 50% Omicron neutralization. The plasma from studies of the 2-dose mRNA vaccines indicated a more uniform distributive increase in percent of individual patients with measurable Omicron nAb’s. The stark contrast is post COVID-19/post vaccination (Vax-CCP), where 16 of 19 studies had 100% of individuals tested with anti-Omicron nAb. The 3-dose vaccinee studies had similarly had 12 of 17 studies with 100% measurable nAb.
There were 5 studies which directly compared anti-Omicron nAb titers in nonvaccinated pre-Alpha, Alpha, Beta, and Delta CCP, and vaccinated plasma with the same nAb assay (Figure 4). nAb GMT against WA-1 was higher for Alpha and Delta CCP but lower for Beta CCP. nAb GMT against Omicron was actually highest for Beta CCP with average levels of 14 for pre-Alpha, Alpha and Delta. In these 5 studies, nAb GMT rose from 2-dose vaccinations to post COVID-19 and post vaccination (VaxCCP) to the 3-dose boosted vaccination. Importantly, for nAb GMT against Omicron were 15 to 140 to 463, respectively representing a 10 to 30-fold rise.
Another set of 9 matched vaccination studies inclusive of plasma collected after 2 and 3 dose schedules, as well as post COVID-19 and post vaccination plasma (Vax-CCP) depicted a 60-fold rise in GMT of anti-Omicron nAb from the 2-dose vaccine to post COVID-19 vaccinees, and a 30-fold increase after the third vaccine dose. The pattern was similar for nAb GMT against WA-1.
The AZD1222, 3-dose mRNA-1273 and Ad26.COV2 vaccines were understudied, with 3 or less independent studies at different time points, reported in Table 10. The GMT nAb to Omicron after 3-mRNA-1273 doses ranged 60 to 2000, with a 5 to 15 FR compared with WA-1. nAb to Omicron GMT after AZD1222 vaccine was modest (∼10 to 20), as with Ad26.COV2 vaccine (∼20 to 40). Two studies reported on post-COVID-19/post-mRNA-1273 with nAb GMT against Omicron of 38 and 272. Studies with 100% of individual patient samples neutralizing Omicron included 2 3-dose mRNA-1273 studies, one AZD1222 study, and one post-COVID-19/post-mRNA-1273 study.
Few data exist for comparisons among different vaccine boosts. For CoronaVac® (SinoVac), three doses led to 5.1 FR in nAb titer 20, while for Sputnik V nAb titer moved from a 12-fold reduction at 6-12 months up to a 7-fold reduction at 2-3 months after a boost with Sputnik Light 21,22. These in vitro findings have been largely confirmed in vivo, where prior heterologous SARS-CoV-2 infection, with and without mRNA vaccination, protects against Omicron re-infection 23.
The studies included here mostly refer to neutralization of Omicron BA.1 sublineage from CCP collected from convalescent patients from pre-Omicron VOCs. A small study nevertheless confirmed that CCP from patients infected by wild-type SARS-CoV-2 or recipients of current mRNA vaccines showed a substantial loss in neutralizing activity that was comparable against BA.1, BA.1.1 and BA.2 24, but was rescued against BA.2 by vaccine boosts 25. Furthermore, within-Omicron CCP efficacy (i.e., efficacy of CCP collected from convalescents of an Omicron sublineage against the same or another Omicron sublineage) has been investigated in a few publications so far:
BA.1 CCP against BA.1: BA.1 breakthrough infection in fully vaccinated es rapidly elicited potent cross-reactive broad nAbs against VOCs Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and BA.1, from unmeasurable IC50 values to mean 1:2929 at around 9-12 days, which were higher than the mean peak IC50 values of BNT162b2 vaccinees 26,27. Convalescent serums only displayed low level of neutralization activity against the cognate virus and were unable to neutralize other SARS-CoV-2 variants 28.
BA.1 CCP against BA.2: 3 studies on 7 Omicron BA.1 breakthrough infections showed that the neutralization of the BA.2 sublineage was 1.3 to 1.8-fold lower than against the parental BA.1 sublineage 24,29,30. The neutralizing GMTs against heterologous BA.2 and USA/WA1-2020 were 4.2-and 28.4-fold lower than the GMT against homologous BA.1, respectively 31. Accordigly, antibodies derived from memory B cells or plasma cells of Omicron breakthrough cases cross-react with the Wuhan-Hu-1, BA.1 and BA.2 receptor-binding domains whereas Omicron primary infections elicit B cells of narrow specificity 32.
BA.1 CCP against BA.2.12.1 : compared to BA.2, BA.2.12.1 exhibits stronger neutralization escape from the plasma of 3-dose vaccinees and from vaccinated BA.1 convalescents. 33.
BA.1 CCP against BA.4/BA.5: in 24 Omicron/BA.1 infected but unvaccinated individuals, FRNT50 declined from 275 for BA.1 to 36 for BA.4 and 37 for BA.5, a 7.6 and 7.5-FR, respectively. In 15 BNT162b2- or Ad26.CoV.2S-vaccinated with breakthrough Omicron/BA.1 infection, FRNT50 declined from 507 for BA.1 to 158 for BA.4 (3.2-fold) and 198 for BA.5 (2.6-fold). Absolute BA.4 and BA.5 neutralization levels were about 5-fold higher in this group versus unvaccinated BA.1-infected participants 34. Compared to BA.2, BA.4/BA.5 exhibited stronger neutralization escape from the plasma of 3-dose vaccinees and from vaccinated BA.1 convalescents. 33.
No study has been reported yet on the efficacy of BA.2 CCP against other Omicron sublineages, which would be the commonest scenario if a CCP program is re-launched at this time.
Discussion
CCP with a high nAb titer is preferable, since nAbs are by definition antiviral, and there is now strong clinical evidence that nAb titers correlate with clinical benefit in randomized clinical trials (RCT) 14,15. Although nAb titers correlate with vaccine efficacy 35,36, it is important to keep in mind that SARS-CoV-2 binding non-neutralizing antibodies can similarly provide protection via Fc-mediated functions 37,38. However, such functions are harder to measure in the laboratory and no automated assay exist for use in clinical laboratories. Hence, whereas the presence of a high nAb titer in CCP is evidence for antibody effectiveness in vitro, the absence of nAb titer does not imply lack of protection in vivo where Fc effects mediate protection by other mechanisms such as ADCC, complement activation and phagocytosis.
The mechanism by which CCP from vaccinated COVID-19 convalescent individuals neutralizes Omicron lineage variants is probably a combination of higher amounts of antibody and broader antibody specificity. Higher amounts of antibody could neutralize antigenically different variants through the law of mass action whereby even lower affinity antibodies elicited to earlier variants would bind to the Omicron variant as mass compensates for reduced binding strength to drive the reaction forward. In addition, vaccinated COVID-19 convalescent individuals would have experienced SARS-CoV-2 protein in two antigenically different forms: as part of intact infective virions generated in vivo during an infectious process and as antigens in vaccine preparations. As the immune system processes the same antigen in different forms there are numerous opportunities for processing the protein in different manners that can diversity the specificity of the immune response and thus increase the likelihood of eliciting antibodies that react with variant proteins. Stucturally, it has been shown that mRNA third dose vaccination induces mostly mainly class 1/2 antibodies encoded by IGHV1-58;IGHJ3-1 and IGHV1-69;IGHJ4-1 germlines, but not the IGHV2-5;IGHJ3-1 germline, broadly cross-reactive Class 3 antibodies seen after infection 39.
Our analysis provides strong evidence that, unlike what has been observed in Syrian hamster models 40, CCP from unvaccinated donors is likely (less than 50%) to have any measurable Omicron neutralization. Although the nAb GMT threshold for clinical utility remains poorly defined, it is noticeable that low Omicron nAb GMT were generally detected in CCP after infection from pre-Omicron VOCs.
On the contrary, despite the huge heterogeneity of vaccine schedules, CCP from vaccinated and COVID-19 convalescent individuals (Vax-CCP) consistently harbors high nAb titers against Omicron if collected up to 6 months since last event (either vaccine dose or infection). These Omicron neutralizing levels are comparable in dilutional titers to that of WA-1 CCP neutralizing WA-1, but their prevalence is much higher at this time, facilitating recruitment of suitable donors. Pre-Omicron CCP boosted with WA-1 type vaccines induces heterologous immunity that effectively neutralizes Omicron in the same assays which rule in or out therapeutic anti-Spike monoclonal antibodies. Consequently, prescreening of Vax-CCP donors for nAb titers is not necessary, and qualification of Vax-CCP units remains advisable only within clinical trials. A more objective way to assess previous infection (convalescence) would be measuring anti-nucleocapsid (N) antibodies, but unfortunately these vanish quickly 41,42. Previous symptomatic infection and vaccination can be established by collecting past medical history (PMH) during the donor selection visit, which is cheaper, faster, and more reliable than measuring rapidly declining anti-N antibodies. Although there is no formal evidence for this, it is likely that asymptomatic infection (leading to lower nAb levels) also leads to lower nAb levels after vaccination compared to symptomatic infection, given that disease severity correlates with antibody titer 43,44: hence those asymptomatically infected donors missed by investigating PMH are also less likely to be useful.
The same reasoning applies to uninfected vaccinees receiving third dose boosts, but several authorities, including the FDA, do not currently allow collection from such donors for CCP therapy on the basis that the convalescent polyclonal and poly-target response is a prerequisite for efficacy and superior to the polyclonal anti-Spike-only response induced by vaccinees. This may be a false premise for recipients of inactivated whole-virus vaccines (e.g., BBIBP-CorV or VLA2001): for BBIBP-CorV, the efficacy against Omicron is largely reduced 20,22,45, but the impact of boost doses is still unreported at the time of writing. Table 1 and Table 9 clearly show that 3-doses of BNT162b2 are enough to restore nAb levels against Omicron in the absence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Another point to consider is that information on nAb levels after the third vaccine dose has been almost exclusively investigated for only 1 month of follow-up, while studies on convalescents extend to more than 6 months: to date it seems hence advisable to start from convalescent vaccinees rather than uninfected 3-dose vaccinees. This is also confirmed by immune escape reported in vivo after usage of vaccine (non-convalescent) plasma 46 despite very high nAb titres, likely due to restricted antigen specificity. Vaccine schedules with a delayed boost seem to elicit higher and broader nAb levels than the approved, short schedules47-50, but this remain to be confirmed in larger series. The same is true for breakthrough infections from Alpha or Delta VOC in fully BNT162b2 vaccinated subjects51, although variation in time from infection due to successive waves is a major confounder.
With the increase of Omicron seroprevalence in time, polyclonal intravenous immunoglobulins collected from regular donors could become a more standardized alternative to CCP, but their efficacy to date (at the peak of the vaccinations campaign) is still 16-fold reduced against Omicron compared to wild-type SARS-CoV-2, and such preparations include only IgG and not IgM and IgA, which have powerful SARS-CoV-2 activity.
CCP collection from vaccinated convalescents (regardless of infecting sublineage, vaccine type and number of doses) is likely to achieve high nAb titer against VOC Omicron, and, on the basis of lessons learnt with CCP usage during the first 2 years of the pandemic. Although in ideal situations one would prefer RCT evidence of efficacy against Omicron before deployment, there is concern that variants are generated so rapidly that by the time such trials commenced this variant could be replaced for another. Given the success of CCP in 2 outpatient RCTs reducing hospitalization14,15 and the loss of major mAb therapies due to Omicron antigenic changes, the high titers in CCP collected from vaccinated convalescents provides an immediate option for COVID-19, especially in LMIC. Given the reduced hospitalization rate with Omicron compared to Delta 52,53, it is even more relevant to identify patient subsets at risk of progression in order to minimize the number needed to treat to prevent a single hospitalization: moving from the same criteria used for mAb therapies while using the same (now unused) in-hospital facilities seems a logical approach.
Data Availability
All data produced are available online at PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv.
We declare we have no conflict of interest related to this manuscript.
Acknowledgements
none.
Footnotes
massimo.franchini{at}asst-mantova.it
joyner.michael{at}mayo.edu
acasade1{at}jhu.edu
Funding Information: The analysis was supported by the U.S. Department of Defense’s Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense (JPEO-CBRND), in collaboration with the Defense Health Agency (DHA) (contract number: W911QY2090012) (D.S), with additional support from Bloomberg Philanthropies, State of Maryland, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) 3R01AI152078-01S1) (A.C).
One more author, 4 new figures, 8 more tables, entire revision of text