Johns Hop­kins re­searchers pub­lish a how-to guide­book on Covid-19 plas­ma trans­fu­sions

The nov­el coro­n­avirus’ rapid spread, far out­strip­ping even the ac­cel­er­at­ed time­lines set for new drugs and vac­cines, has sent doc­tors turn­ing to a ther­a­py re­searchers say is promis­ing but which hasn’t been wide­ly used in the US in decades: blood plas­ma do­na­tions from re­cov­er­ing pa­tients.

Yet the nov­el­ty of the pro­ce­dure has left hos­pi­tals fac­ing many ques­tions, rang­ing from how ef­fec­tive the treat­ment is to the ba­sic lo­gis­tics of how to go about get­ting the plas­ma from the arm of a now-healthy per­son and in­to the arm of a still-sick one.

To fill that knowl­edge gap, a team of ex­perts at Johns Hop­kins Med­i­cine has pub­lished a guide­book for con­va­les­cent plas­ma in the Jour­nal of Clin­i­cal On­col­o­gy. Con­tain­ing both step-by-step in­struc­tions for how to han­dle in­fu­sions and an overview of the ev­i­dence sup­port­ing its use, the ar­ti­cle func­tions as both a man­u­al and one of the most sys­tem­at­ic and care­ful Eng­lish lan­guage en­dorse­ments for the use of plas­ma do­na­tions in Covid-19 pa­tients since the out­break be­gan.

Evan Bloch

“We’ve re­ceived many in­quiries from health care providers look­ing to ramp up their abil­i­ty to de­liv­er this ther­a­py,” Evan Bloch, an in­fec­tious dis­ease pro­fes­sor at Hop­kins and lead au­thor, said in a state­ment. “There is his­tor­i­cal prece­dent for its use to pre­vent and treat vi­ral ill­ness. How­ev­er, dur­ing the chaos of an epi­dem­ic, the ther­a­py is of­ten de­ployed with­out rig­or­ous­ly study­ing its ef­fects. Care­ful­ly con­duct­ed stud­ies are crit­i­cal­ly need­ed to un­der­stand which peo­ple are most like­ly to ben­e­fit from this ther­a­py and how best to ap­ply it to op­ti­mize that ben­e­fit.”

The guide­book – which al­so drew from ex­perts at Stan­ford, Co­lum­bia and Wash­ing­ton Uni­ver­si­ty in St. Louis, among oth­ers – ex­plained that al­though da­ta from clin­i­cal tri­als are still need­ed, con­va­les­cent plas­ma has been used as ther­a­py and post-ex­po­sure pro­phy­lax­is for past in­fec­tious dis­eases, in­clud­ing the dead­ly coro­n­avirus­es SARS and MERS, and was used in a lim­it­ed num­ber of Covid-19 cas­es in Chi­na. The ther­a­py works by tak­ing the pas­sive an­ti­bod­ies a pa­tient nat­u­ral­ly gen­er­at­ed in re­sponse to the virus and trans­fer­ring to a new pa­tient, where (hope­ful­ly) it binds to the virus, halt­ing in­fec­tion.

The plas­ma ap­pears to be ef­fec­tive at mul­ti­ple stages but works bet­ter the ear­li­er it is giv­en, the au­thors wrote. They cit­ed a Hong Kong study from the SARS out­break, in which pa­tients giv­en plas­ma in the first 14 days re­cov­ered faster than those giv­en lat­er. Still, a re­port of five crit­i­cal­ly ill Covid-19 pa­tients in Chi­na found that all 5 im­proved af­ter trans­fu­sion, ev­i­dence that “con­va­les­cent plas­ma is safe, re­duces vi­ral load and may im­prove clin­i­cal out­comes.”

“Im­por­tant­ly, pas­sive an­ti­body ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fers the on­ly short-term strat­e­gy to con­fer im­me­di­ate im­mu­ni­ty to sus­cep­ti­ble in­di­vid­u­als,” they wrote. “This is par­tic­u­lar­ly the case in the set­ting of a nov­el, emerg­ing in­fec­tious dis­ease such as SARS- CoV-2/COVID-19.”

By their count, five tri­als have been pro­posed to test the ther­a­py: As post-ex­po­sure pro­phy­lax­is, in mild cas­es, in mod­er­ate cas­es, in chil­dren and as a “res­cue in­ter­ven­tion” for those se­vere­ly ill. The post-ex­po­sure tri­al — a Phase II be­ing run but the Mayo Clin­ic — could give “di­rect clin­i­cal ben­e­fit” for pa­tients while al­so of­fer­ing “wide-rang­ing” so­cial ben­e­fits such as pro­tect­ing health­care work­ers on the front­line. Treat­ing mod­er­ate­ly ill pa­tients might help stave off ven­ti­la­tion and pre­serve the short sup­ply of equip­ment. Crit­i­cal­ly ill pa­tients may be helped by plas­ma, but tri­als on those pa­tients may of­fer lit­tle con­clu­sive da­ta be­cause of “con­found­ing vari­ables,” in­clud­ing oth­er ex­per­i­men­tal ther­a­pies, the au­thors con­clud­ed.

There’s still much we don’t know about plas­ma trans­fu­sions and an­ti­bod­ies to Covid-19, they ac­knowl­edged. That in­cludes which of the an­ti­bod­ies the body makes best to neu­tral­ize the virus, and though you can screen blood for dif­fer­ent an­ti­bod­ies, it takes time. Their re­view of the lab da­ta in­di­cat­ed most pa­tients would have enough an­ti­bod­ies for do­na­tion 14 days af­ter their symp­toms end­ed.

For eq­ui­table ac­cess to plas­ma, they rec­om­mend­ed donors be screened in a clin­ic for both the virus and its an­ti­bod­ies. If the for­mer’s neg­a­tive and the lat­ter pos­i­tive, they are then di­rect­ed to do­nate at a blood cen­ter, which then shares it with hos­pi­tals, who dis­trib­ute it ac­cord­ing to those in clin­i­cal tri­als or with emer­gency use au­tho­riza­tions. They ar­gued risks — ei­ther from con­tract­ing an in­fec­tion from the donor or from a phe­nom­e­na called an­ti­body-de­pen­dent en­hance­ment, where mon­o­clon­al an­ti­bod­ies can wors­en the dis­ease — were low, but cau­tioned time and da­ta were need­ed.

“The risks of COVID-19 in­fec­tion are pro­found,” they con­clud­ed. “Hu­man plas­ma from re­cov­ered COVID-19 pa­tients is pro­ject­ed to be a safe and po­ten­tial­ly ef­fec­tive ther­a­py for treat­ment and post-ex­po­sure pro­phy­lax­is alike. Sub­stan­tial ev­i­dence of ben­e­fit with pri­or use for vi­ral in­fec­tions of­fers strong prece­dent for such an ap­proach. How­ev­er, it is crit­i­cal­ly im­por­tant to per­form well con­trolled clin­i­cal tri­als to con­firm ef­fi­ca­cy, there­by in­form­ing ra­tio­nal ev­i­dence-based de­ci­sion-mak­ing.”

For a look at all End­points News coro­n­avirus sto­ries, check out our spe­cial news chan­nel.

In a sec­ond big set­back for Covid-19 an­ti­body treat­ment hopes, Re­gen­eron halts en­roll­ment for more se­vere pa­tients

Regeneron has just delivered more bad news for the hope that neutralizing antibodies could be used to treat patients with more severe forms of Covid-19.

The New York biotech said today that an independent monitoring committee recommended halting enrollment of patients who need high-flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation in one of the trials on their antibody cocktail, after finding “a potential safety signal” and “an unfavorable risk/benefit profile.” The news comes a week after the NIH scrapped a trial of Eli Lilly’s Covid-19 antibody after finding it was having little effect on an initial cohort of hospitalized patients.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 93,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Patrick Soon-Shiong at the JP Morgan Healthcare Conference, Jan. 13, 2020 (David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Af­ter falling be­hind the lead­ers, dissed by some ex­perts, biotech show­man Patrick Soon-Sh­iong fi­nal­ly gets his Covid-19 vac­cine ready for a tri­al. But can it live up to the hype?

In January, when dozens of scientists rushed to start making a vaccine for the then-novel coronavirus, they were joined by an unlikely compatriot: Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire doctor most famous for making big, controversial promises on cancer research.

Soon-Shiong had spent the last 4 years on his “Cancer Moonshot,” but part of his project meant buying a small Seattle biotech that specialized in making common-cold vectors, called adenoviruses, to train the immune system. The billionaire had been using those vectors for oncology, but the company had also developed vaccine candidates for H1N1, Lassa fever and other viruses. When the outbreak began, he pivoted.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 93,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Daphne Koller, Getty

Bris­tol My­er­s' Richard Har­g­reaves pays $70M to launch a neu­rode­gen­er­a­tion al­liance with a star play­er in the ma­chine learn­ing world

Bristol Myers Squibb is turning to one of the star upstarts in the machine learning world to go back to the drawing board and come up with the disease models needed to find drugs that can work against two of the toughest targets in the neuro world.

Daphne Koller’s well-funded insitro is getting $70 million in cash and near-term milestones to use their machine learning platform to create induced pluripotent stem cell-derived disease models for ALS and frontotemporal dementia.

Ugur Sahin, BioNTech CEO (Andreas Arnold/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images)

Covid-19 roundup: Flush with $486M con­tract, As­traZeneca signs Lon­za up to man­u­fac­ture an­ti­bod­ies; BioN­Tech's Ugur Sahin ex­pects vac­cine da­ta 'in a fort­night'

Days after scoring a $486 million BARDA contract to develop and manufacture its long-acting antibody combo for Covid-19, AstraZeneca has tapped Lonza to produce the drug substance at its mid-scale facility in Portsmouth, NH.

The drug, dubbed AZD7442, puts together two antibodies, first discovered by scientists at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, derived from convalescent patients who recovered from a SARS-CoV-2 infection. AstraZeneca licensed them in June and has since further engineered them with half-life extension and reduced Fc receptor binding.

Eli Lilly CEO David Ricks (Evan Vucci/AP Images)

A p-val­ue of 0.38? NE­JM re­sults raise new ques­tions for Eli Lil­ly's vaunt­ed Covid an­ti­body

Generally, a p-value of 0.38 means your drug failed and by a fair margin. Depending on the company, the compound and the trial, it might mean the end of the program. It could trigger layoffs.

For Eli Lilly, though, it was part of the key endpoint on a trial that landed them a $1.2 billion deal with the US government to supply up to nearly 1 million Covid-19 antibodies.

So what does one make of that? Was the endpoint not so important, as Lilly maintains? Or did the US government promise a princely sum for a pedestrian drug?

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 93,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Image: Shutterstock

Covid-19 roundup: Boehringer pulls a drug out of the pipeline for a PhII Covid-19 tri­al; No­vavax de­lays PhI­II tri­al in US, with PhII da­ta com­ing Fri­day

With big questions still hanging over the fate of the vaccines and drugs now in late-stage development for Covid-19, Boehringer Ingelheim is pulling one of its early-stage drugs into a Phase II trial to see if it can help some of the most severely afflicted patients.

Put through a safety study last year, researchers have been intrigued by the potential of BI 764198 — a TRPC6 inhibitor — as a treatment for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which can cause immense damage and death for patients exposed to the virus.

No­var­tis CEO Vas Narasimhan signs off on a $231M deal to try some­thing new in the R&D fight against SARS-CoV-2

Patrick Amstutz was baptized by pandemic fire early on.

He and colleagues attended the notorious Cowen conference in early March that included some of the top Biogen execs who helped trigger a superspreader event in Boston. Heading back to his post as CEO of Molecular Partners in Switzerland, the outbreak was sweeping through Italy, triggering near panic in some quarters and creeping into the voices of people he knew, including one friend on the Italian side of the country.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 93,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

As­traZeneca sells off heart fail­ure and hy­per­ten­sion drugs to Chep­lapharm for $400M

Out with the old and in with the new: AstraZeneca is selling off two heart failure and hypertension drugs to Germany-based Cheplapharm, bagging $400 million and making way for development in other areas.

Cheplapharm paid $200 million for the European rights to Atacand (candesartan cilexetil) and Atacand Plus (candesartan cilexetil and hydrochlorothiazide) back in 2018. They’re now doubling that amount for commercial control in more than 70 countries.

News brief­ing: Ax­o­vant faces months of de­lay on lead Parkin­son's gene ther­a­py; Chi­nese CAR-T biotech nabs $100M

One of Axovant’s top gene therapy prospects for its second act is hitting a roadblock that could push its clinical timelines back by almost a year.

In an update, the biotech said it was informed about delays in CMC data and third-part fill-finish issues around mid-October by its manufacturing partner, Oxford Biomedica. Axovant has been developing a suspension-based process for the Parkinson’s drug; with that taking longer than expected, it now believes “it is unlikely that its planned randomized, sham-controlled trial of AXO-Lenti-PD will enroll patients by the end of calendar year 2021.”