Analysis of anti-Omicron neutralizing antibody titers in plasma from pre-Omicron convalescents and vaccinees ============================================================================================================ * Daniele Focosi * Massimo Franchini * Michael J. Joyner * Arturo Casadevall * David J Sullivan ## 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. Keywords * COVID19 * Omicron * convalescent plasma * vaccine * neutralizing 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](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](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. ![Figure 1](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/05/11/2021.12.24.21268317/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/11/2021.12.24.21268317/F1) Figure 1 PRISMA flowchart for the current study. 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. ![Figure 2](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/05/11/2021.12.24.21268317/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/11/2021.12.24.21268317/F2) Figure 2 GMT of nAb’s against WA-1 versus Omicron by study. Mean entire study neutralization of WA-1 in filled circles with Omicron in empty circles with means and fold reduction above data and number of studies above x-axis. All means are not statistically significant in difference by multiple comparison in Tukey’s test. View this table: [Table 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/11/2021.12.24.21268317/T1) Table 1 Comparison of WA-1 to Omicron nAb and percent with any Omicron nAb amongst VOC CCP and vaccination status. View this table: [Table 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/11/2021.12.24.21268317/T2) Table 2 Synopsis of *in vitro* studies investigating the efficacy of pre-Alpha CCP against Omicron View this table: [Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/11/2021.12.24.21268317/T3) Table 3. Synopsis of *in vitro* studies investigating the efficacy of Alpha CCP against Omicron View this table: [Table 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/11/2021.12.24.21268317/T4) Table 4. Synopsis of *in vitro* studies investigating the efficacy of Beta CCP against Omicron. View this table: [Table 5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/11/2021.12.24.21268317/T5) Table 5. Synopsis of *in vitro* studies investigating the efficacy of Delta CCP against Omicron. 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. ![Figure 3](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/05/11/2021.12.24.21268317/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 3](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/11/2021.12.24.21268317/F3) Figure 3 Percent of individual plasma samples in each study showing any titer of Omicron neutralization. The percent of samples within a study condition which neutralized Omicron graphed in increasing percentages with the number of samples tested on the right y axis. A) pre-Alpha CCP neutralization of Omicron; B) Alpha, Beta and Delta CCP neutralization of Omicron C) 2 dose mRNA vaccines neutralization of Omicron D) post COVID-19/post vaccine (VaxCCP) and uninfected 3-dose vaccine neutralization of Omicron. 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. ![Figure 4](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/05/11/2021.12.24.21268317/F4.medium.gif) [Figure 4](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/11/2021.12.24.21268317/F4) Figure 4 Geometric mean titers of ant-WA.1 or anti-Omicron neutralizing antibodies in plasma samples from 5 studies investigating diverse SARS-CoV-2 infecting lineage or vaccination status. 5 studies characterized A) pre-Alpha, Alpha, Beta and Delta CCP for Omicron nAb compared to WA-1, and also B) 2 or 3 doses BNT162b plasma, as well as post-COVID-19 plus BNT162b vaccine (VaxCCP). 9 studies looked at the same vaccine conditions comparing WA-1 nAb to Omicron nAb. 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. View this table: [Table 6.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/11/2021.12.24.21268317/T6) Table 6. Synopsis of *in vitro* studies investigating the efficacy of plasma from uninfected recipients of 2 BNT162b2 doses against Omicron. View this table: [Table 7.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/11/2021.12.24.21268317/T7) Table 7. Synopsis of *in vitro* studies investigating the efficacy of plasma from uninfected recipients of 2 mRNA-1273 doses against Omicron. View this table: [Table 8.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/11/2021.12.24.21268317/T8) Table 8. Synopsis of *in vitro* studies investigating the efficacy of plasma from infected and vaccinated (2 BNT162b2 doses) subjects (VaxCCP) against Omicron. View this table: [Table 9.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/11/2021.12.24.21268317/T9) Table 9. Synopsis of *in vitro* studies investigating the efficacy of plasma from uninfected subjects vaccinated with 3 BNT162b2 doses against Omicron. View this table: [Table 10.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/11/2021.12.24.21268317/T10) Table 10. Synopsis of *in vitro* studies investigating the efficacy of plasma from uninfected subjects vaccinated with 3 mRNA-1273, AZD-1222 or Ad26.COV2 doses against Omicron. 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 * Received December 24, 2021. * Revision received May 11, 2022. * Accepted May 11, 2022. * © 2022, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission. ## References 1. 1.Yeh, T.-Y. & Contreras, G.P. Tajima D test accurately forecasts Omicron / COVID-19 outbreak. 2021.2012.2002.21267185 (2021). 2. 2.Ahmed, S.F., Quadeer, A.A. & McKay, M. SARS-CoV-2 T cell responses are expected to remain robust against Omicron. 2021.2012.2012.472315 (2021). 3. 3.Bernasconi, A., et al. Report on Omicron Spike mutations on epitopes and immunological/epidemiological/kinetics effects from literature. (2021). 4. 4.Cao, Y.R., et al. B.1.1.529 escapes the majority of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies of diverse epitopes. 2021.2012.2007.470392 (2021). 5. 5.Planas, D., et al. Considerable escape of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron to antibody neutralization. Nature 602, 671–675 (2022). [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F11%2F2021.12.24.21268317.atom) 6. 6.Liu, L., et al. Striking antibody evasion manifested by the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Nature 602, 676–681 (2022). 7. 7.Aggarwal, A., et al. SARS-CoV-2 Omicron: reduction of potent humoral responses and resistance to clinical immunotherapeutics relative to viral variants of concern. 2021.2012.2014.21267772 (2021). 8. 8.VanBlargan, L.A., et al. An infectious SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 Omicron virus escapes neutralization by several therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. 2021.2012.2015.472828 (2021). 9. 9.Carreno, J.M., et al. Activity of convalescent and vaccine serum against a B.1.1.529 variant SARS-CoV-2 isolate. 2021.2012.2020.21268134 (2021). 10. 10.Zhou, S., et al. β-d-N4-hydroxycytidine Inhibits SARS-CoV-2 Through Lethal Mutagenesis But Is Also Mutagenic To Mammalian Cells. The Journal of Infectious Diseases 224, 415–419 (2021). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/infdis/jiab247&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33961695&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F11%2F2021.12.24.21268317.atom) 11. 11.Jayk Bernal, A., et al. Molnupiravir for Oral Treatment of Covid-19 in Nonhospitalized Patients. N Engl J Med 386, 509–520 (2022). [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F11%2F2021.12.24.21268317.atom) 12. 12.Gupta, K., Strymish, J., Stack, G. & Charness, M. Rapid Relapse of Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection Following Early Suppression with Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir. Accessed online at [https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1588371/v1](https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1588371/v1) on May 1, 2022. Research Square (2022). 13. 13.Focosi, D., et al. COVID-19 convalescent plasma and randomized clinical trials: rebuilding confidence by explaining failures and finding signals of efficacy. 2021.2009.2007.21263194 (2021). 14. 14.Libster, R., et al. Early High-Titer Plasma Therapy to Prevent Severe Covid-19 in Older Adults. N Engl J Med 384, 610–618 (2021). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa2033700&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F11%2F2021.12.24.21268317.atom) 15. 15.Sullivan, D., et al. Early Outpatient Treatment for Covid-19 with Convalescent Plasma. N Engl J Med (2021). 16. 16.Vickers, M.A., et al. Exponential increase in neutralizing and spike specific antibodies following vaccination of COVID-19 convalescent plasma donors. Transfusion 61, 2099–2106 (2021). 17. 17.Schmidt, F., et al. High genetic barrier to SARS-CoV-2 polyclonal neutralizing antibody escape. Nature (2021). 18. 18.Germanio, C.D., et al. Vaccination of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Donors Increases Binding and Neutralizing Antibodies Against SARS-CoV-2 Variants. 2021.2010.2028.21265622 (2021). 19. 19.Jacobsen, H., et al. Diminished neutralization responses towards SARS-CoV-2 Omicron VoC after mRNA or vector-based COVID-19 vaccinations. 2021.2012.2021.21267898 (2021). 20. 20.Zhao, X., et al. Reduced sera neutralization to Omicron SARS-CoV-2 by both inactivated and protein subunit vaccines and the convalescents. 2021.2012.2016.472391 (2021). 21. 21.Dolzhikova, I.V., et al. Sputnik Light booster after Sputnik V vaccination induces robust neutralizing antibody response to B.1.1.529 (Omicron) SARS-CoV-2 variant. 2021.2012.2017.21267976 (2021). 22. 22.Bowen, J.E., et al. Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 neutralizing activity elicited by a comprehensive panel of human vaccines. 2022.2003.2015.484542 (2022). 23. 23.Carazo, S., et al. Protection against Omicron re-infection conferred by prior heterologous SARS-CoV-2 infection, with and without mRNA vaccination. 2022.2004.2029.22274455 (2022). 24. 24.Iketani, S., et al. Antibody Evasion Properties of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Sublineages. 2022.2002.2007.479306 (2022). 25. 25.Tjan, L.H., et al. High neutralizing activity against Omicron BA.2 can be induced by COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccination. 2022.2004.2019.22273940 (2022). 26. 26.Zhou, R., et al. Vaccine-breakthrough infection by the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant elicits broadly cross-reactive immune responses. 2021.2012.2027.474218 (2021). 27. 27.Bekliz, M., et al. Neutralization of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 and variants Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Zeta and Omicron by mRNA vaccination and infection-derived immunity through homologous and heterologous variants. 2021.2012.2028.21268491 (2021). 28. 28.Turelli, P., et al. Omicron infection induces low-level, narrow-range SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity. 2022.2005.2002.22274436 (2022). 29. 29.Yu, J., et al. Comparable Neutralization of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 Variants. 2022.2002.2006.22270533 (2022). 30. 30.Seaman, M.S., et al. Vaccine Breakthrough Infection with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta or Omicron (BA.1) Variant Leads to Distinct Profiles of Neutralizing Antibody Responses. 2022.2003.2002.22271731 (2022). 31. 31.Zou, J., et al. Cross neutralization of Omicron BA.1 against BA.2 and BA.3 SARS-CoV-2. 2022.2003.2030.486409 (2022). 32. 32.Park, Y.-J., et al. Imprinted antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron sublineages. 2022.2005.2008.491108 (2022). 33. 33.Cao, Y.R., et al. BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5 escape antibodies elicited by Omicron infection. 2022.2004.2030.489997 (2022). 34. 34.Khan, K., et al. Omicron sub-lineages BA.4/BA.5 escape BA.1 infection elicited neutralizing immunity. 2022.2004.2029.22274477 (2022). 35. 35.Khoury, D.S., et al. Neutralizing antibody levels are highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nat Med 27, 1205–1211 (2021). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41591-021-01377-8&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F11%2F2021.12.24.21268317.atom) 36. 36.Feng, S., et al. Correlates of protection against symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nat Med 27, 2032–2040 (2021). [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F11%2F2021.12.24.21268317.atom) 37. 37.Gilbert, P.B., et al. Immune correlates analysis of the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine efficacy clinical trial. Science, eab3435 (2021). 38. 38.Earle, K.A., et al. Evidence for antibody as a protective correlate for COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccine 39, 4423–4428 (2021). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.05.063&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F11%2F2021.12.24.21268317.atom) 39. 39.Andreano, E., et al. COVID-19 mRNA third dose induces a unique hybrid immunity-like antibody response. 2022.2005.2009.491201 (2022). 40. 40.Ryan, K.A., et al. Convalescence from prototype SARS-CoV-2 protects Syrian hamsters from disease caused by the Omicron variant. 2021.2012.2024.474081 (2021). 41. 41.Krutikov, M., et al. Prevalence and duration of detectable SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibodies in staff and residents of long-term care facilities over the first year of the pandemic (VIVALDI study): prospective cohort study in England. The Lancet Healthy Longevity (2021). 42. 42.Amjadi, M.F., et al. Anti-membrane and anti-spike antibodies are long-lasting and together discriminate between past COVID-19 infection and vaccination. 2021.2011.2002.21265750 (2021). 43. 43.Klein, S., et al. Sex, age, and hospitalization drive antibody responses in a COVID-19 convalescent plasma donor population. in medRxiv [Preprint] 2020.2006.2026.20139063 (2020). 44. 44.Focosi, D. & Franchini, M. Clinical predictors of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers in COVID-19 convalescents: Implications for convalescent plasma donor recruitment. European journal of haematology 107, 24–28 (2021). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/ejh.13630&link_type=DOI) 45. 45.Yu, X., et al. Pseudotyped SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant exhibits significant escape from neutralization induced by a third booster dose of vaccination. 2021.2012.2017.21267961 (2021). 46. 46.Gachoud, D., et al. Antibody response and intra-host viral evolution after plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients pre-exposed or not to B-cell depleting agents. 2022.2004.2024.22274200 (2022). 47. 47.Chatterjee, D., et al. SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Spike recognition by plasma from individuals receiving BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination with a 16-week interval between doses. Cell Rep 38, 110429 (2022). 48. 48.Grunau, B., et al. Immunogenicity of Extended mRNA SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Dosing Intervals. Jama (2021). 49. 49.Tauzin, A., et al. A single BNT162b2 mRNA dose elicits antibodies with Fc-mediated effector functions and boost pre-existing humoral and T cell responses. medRxiv [Preprint], 2021.2003.2018.435972 (2021). 50. 50.Skowronski, D.M., et al. Two-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness with mixed schedules and extended dosing intervals: test-negative design studies from British Columbia and Quebec, Canada. 2021.2010.2026.21265397 (2021). 51. 51.Miyamoto, S., et al. Vaccination-infection interval determines cross-neutralization potency to SARS-CoV-2 Omicron after breakthrough infection by other variants. 2021.2012.2028.21268481 (2022). 52. 52.León, G., et al. Development and pre-clinical characterization of two therapeutic equine formulations towards SARS-CoV-2 proteins for the potential treatment of COVID-19. medRxiv [Preprint], 2020.2010.2017.343863 (2020). 53. 53.Wolter, N., et al. Early assessment of the clinical severity of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in South Africa. 2021.2012.2021.21268116 (2021). 54. 54.Zeng, C., et al. Neutralization and Stability of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant. bioRxiv (2021). 55. 55.Lechmere, T., et al. Broad Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 Variants, Including Omicron, following Breakthrough Infection with Delta in COVID-19-Vaccinated Individuals. mBio 13, e0379821 (2022). 56. 56.Schmidt, F., et al. Plasma Neutralization of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant. N Engl J Med 386, 599–601 (2022). 57. 57.Arien, K.K., et al. Three doses of BNT162b2 vaccine confer neutralising antibody capacity against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. NPJ Vaccines 7, 35 (2022). 58. 58.Lusvarghi, S., et al. SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 variant is neutralized by vaccine booster-elicited serum, but evades most convalescent serum and therapeutic antibodies. Sci Transl Med, eabn8543 (2022). 59. 59.Hoffmann, M., et al. The Omicron variant is highly resistant against antibody-mediated neutralization: Implications for control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Cell 185, 447–456 e411 (2022). [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F11%2F2021.12.24.21268317.atom) 60. 60.Zou, J., et al. Neutralization against Omicron SARS-CoV-2 from previous non-Omicron infection. Nat Commun 13, 852 (2022). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41467-022-28544-w&link_type=DOI) 61. 61.Zhang, L., et al. The significant immune escape of pseudotyped SARS-CoV-2 variant Omicron. Emerging microbes & infections 11, 1–5 (2022). 62. 62.Gruell, H., et al. mRNA booster immunization elicits potent neutralizing serum activity against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. Nat Med 28, 477–480 (2022). 63. 63.Dejnirattisai, W., et al. SARS-CoV-2 Omicron-B.1.1.529 leads to widespread escape from neutralizing antibody responses. Cell 185, 467–484 e415 (2022). [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/J.CELL.2021.12.046&link_type=DOI) 64. 64.Sheward, D.J., et al. Variable loss of antibody potency against SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron). bioRxiv, 2021.2012.2019.473354 (2021). 65. 65.Rossler, A., Riepler, L., Bante, D., von Laer, D. & Kimpel, J. SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant Neutralization in Serum from Vaccinated and Convalescent Persons. N Engl J Med 386, 698–700 (2022). 66. 66.Tada, T., et al. Increased resistance of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant to neutralization by vaccine-elicited and therapeutic antibodies. EBioMedicine 78, 103944 (2022). 67. 67.Aggarwal, A., et al. SARS-CoV-2 Omicron: evasion of potent humoral responses and resistance to clinical immunotherapeutics relative to viral variants of concern. medRxiv, 2021.2012.2014.21267772 (2021). 68. 68.Zhao, X., et al. Effects of a Prolonged Booster Interval on Neutralization of Omicron Variant. N Engl J Med 386, 894–896 (2022). 69. 69.Bowen, J.E., et al. Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 neutralizing activity elicited by a comprehensive panel of human vaccines. bioRxiv (2022). 70. 70.Carreno, J.M., et al. Activity of convalescent and vaccine serum against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron. Nature 602, 682–688 (2022). 71. 71.Syed, A.M., et al. Omicron mutations enhance infectivity and reduce antibody neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 virus-like particles. medRxiv (2022). 72. 72.Haveri, A., et al. Neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant after third mRNA vaccination in health care workers and elderly subjects. Eur J Immunol (2022). 73. 73.Li, M., et al. Convalescent plasma with a high level of virus-specific antibody effectively neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. Blood advances, 2022.2003.2001.22271662 (2022). 74. 74.Kurahashi, Y., et al. Cross-neutralizing activity against Omicron could be obtained in SARS-CoV-2 convalescent patients who received two doses of mRNA vaccination. medRxiv, 2022.2002.2024.22271262 (2022). 75. 75.Edara, V.V., et al. mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines have reduced neutralizing activity against the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant. Cell Rep Med 3, 100529 (2022). 76. 76.Muik, A., et al. Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron by BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine-elicited human sera. Science (New York, N.Y.) 375, 678–680 (2022). 77. 77.Cele, S., et al. Omicron extensively but incompletely escapes Pfizer BNT162b2 neutralization. Nature 602, 654–656 (2022). 78. 78.Wilhelm, A., et al. Reduced Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant by Vaccine Sera and Monoclonal Antibodies. medRxiv, 2021.2012.2007.21267432 (2021). 79. 79.Doria-Rose, N.A., et al. Booster of mRNA-1273 Strengthens SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Neutralization. medRxiv, 2021.2012.2015.21267805 (2021). 80. 80.Kawaoka, Y., et al. Characterization and antiviral susceptibility of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron/BA.2. Res Sq (2022). 81. 81.Dejnirattisai, W., et al. Reduced neutralisation of SARS-COV-2 Omicron-B.1.1.529 variant by post-immunisation serum. 2021.2012.2010.21267534 (2021).