Skip to main content
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics logoLink to Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics
. 2021 May 19;18(2):1886560. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2021.1886560

Polyclonal hyper immunoglobulin: A proven treatment and prophylaxis platform for passive immunization to address existing and emerging diseases

Tharmala Tharmalingam a, Xiaobing Han a,b, Ashley Wozniak a, Laura Saward a,c,
PMCID: PMC9090292  PMID: 34010089

ABSTRACT

Passive immunization with polyclonal hyper immunoglobulin (HIG) therapy represents a proven strategy by transferring immunoglobulins to patients to confer immediate protection against a range of pathogens including infectious agents and toxins. Distinct from active immunization, the protection is passive and the immunoglobulins will clear from the system; therefore, administration of an effective dose must be maintained for prophylaxis or treatment until a natural adaptive immune response is mounted or the pathogen/agent is cleared. The current review provides an overview of this technology, key considerations to address different pathogens, and suggested improvements. The review will reflect on key learnings from development of HIGs in the response to public health threats due to Zika, influenza, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

KEYWORDS: immunoglobulin, pathogen, infectious disease, passive immunotherapy

Introduction

Vaccines represent an active immunization strategy to combat disease, in which the antigen, pathogen, or a fragment of the pathogen is introduced to the host, so that the host’s immune system can generate endogenous antibodies in response.1 Although highly effective, this process may take weeks or months and requires the host to have a non-compromised immune system.2 In contrast, passive immunization transfers nearly immediate immunity by direct administration of specific antibodies against the pathogen, with intravascular administration being the fastest way to confer protection within hours.3,4 The specific antibodies may inhibit the pathogen through multiple mechanisms, including binding at epitopes that neutralize by preventing cellular uptake, speeding up clearance, or directed killing through T-cell mechanisms.5 Passive immunization can be especially important for individuals with a deficient immune system, who do not respond adequately to active immunization.2 Immunity conferred by passive immunization is generally short-lived (typically weeks to months depending on the antibody source) and dose-related, requiring continued dosing until the infection or toxin has been cleared.1

Based on the pathogen and patient population, passive immunization can be an effective treatment option throughout disease progression for prevention of infection for people in high-risk situations, such as frontline healthcare workers and at-risk patients; postexposure prophylaxis; as an early treatment to prevent infected patients from developing severe symptoms; and as a late treatment for people already experiencing severe symptoms. The types of antibodies used in passive immunization can be polyclonal in nature, representing a mixture of antibodies that bind to different epitopes on the pathogen, or monoclonal, representing an antibody that binds a single epitope. The three main types of passive immunization through polyclonal-based immunotherapy include convalescent plasma (CP); intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG); and, the focus of this review, hyper immunoglobulin (HIG).

Hyper immunoglobulins

HIG therapy is made from plasma derived from donors (humans or animals) with high antibody titers against specific antigenic targets.6 Thus, HIGs are enriched for a specific target and plasma is pooled from multiple donors to achieve specific and consistent antibody levels that are further concentrated through the manufacturing process. When administered through passive immunization, HIGs are an efficient mechanism to achieve immediate short-term immunization against antigenic targets. They are commonly used in cases of exposure to an infectious disease when no vaccine is available, when a vaccine would not elicit a humoral immune response quickly enough, or when an underlying disease or therapy makes a satisfactory vaccine response unlikely. Furthermore, HIGs can also be used in conjunction with vaccines to confer temporary immunity while waiting for the patient’s immune system to respond to vaccination, as in the case of typical rabies treatment.7

The advent of HIG development can be traced back to the 1930s when it was discovered that antibodies were localized to the immunoglobulin fraction of human serum. This led to further optimization specifically of fractions containing immunoglobulin G (IgG).8 The HIG manufacturing technology is now well established with multiple licensed products and decades of use in a broad range of populations including vulnerable individuals. Leveraging this history, the platform can enable expedited development and entry into late-stage clinical trials.9 To support the safe use of HIGs, across multiple patient populations and disease states, regulatory requirements have defined multiple controls on plasma donations as well as validated viral reduction steps within the manufacturing process. First, the donor plasma undergoes screening for a defined panel of pathogens to ensure usability. During the manufacturing process, multiple virus inactivation and removal steps are typically incorporated and validated to provide additional safety controls. Current manufacturing schemes generally consist of either precipitation in solvent according to the Cohn method or a chromatography step for purification with additional steps incorporated for safety including validated viral removal through filtration or chromatography, inactivation via pH, heat, or addition of solvents and detergents, and a reverse-phase chromatography step to remove the solvents and detergents.10,11 The process often also includes an ultrafiltration step to further concentrate immunoglobulin before it is formulated in preparation for final filtration and filling of the drug product. The final HIG product is, therefore highly purified, with a consistent level of pathogen-specific antibodies per dose.12 New products developed on the same HIG manufacturing platform can leverage the validated manufacturing controls and assays, as well as supportive information from the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) profiles from existing products manufactured on the same platform.

Human HIGs are manufactured from human plasma pooled from donors with specific antibodies to the antigenic target using plasma from either donors who were vaccinated in order to stimulate the production of antibodies (donor-stimulated program)13,14 or convalescent donors with high measurable titers of desired antibodies.15–18 Human HIGs represent fully human antibodies with normal diversity and natural glycosylation, and thereby contain inherent properties with an optimal clinical profile (half-life, tolerance, etc). The higher concentration of proteins in HIG products means that a high concentration of antibodies, with a known titer that is consistent batch to batch, can be administered with lower volume and with an established risk-benefit profile across diverse patient populations. In addition, the HIG products using these manufacturing processes result in a formulated final product that supports an extended shelf-life.

The antibodies in HIGs are polyclonal, characterized by high avidity and broad specificity across numerous epitopes and have the potential to bind to different sites of the pathogen, which can impact binding to target receptors, inhibit cellular uptake, and improve clearance. This broad binding activity of polyclonal antibodies may also reduce the likelihood of a pathogen/agent introducing mutations at a targeted site to escape treatment and help exploit vulnerable conserved epitopes or viral clades conferring virulence.19,20 The precise mechanism of action of HIG therapeutics against infection is multifaceted, but involves at least two aspects: (1) protective antibodies that neutralize specific pathogens/agents and lead to rapid clearance,21 and (2) ancillary plasma components believed to provide an immunomodulatory effect against infection.21 Another benefit of polyclonality is the potential for cross-reactivity; for example, CroFab® (Crotalidae polyvalent immune fab [ovine]), an approved HIG indicated for the management of patients with North American crotalid envenomation (includes rattlesnakes, copperheads, and cottonmouths/water moccasins), has been used to treat patients bitten by the hognosed viper (Pidium nasutum).22

Animal sera have also been successfully used to generate HIG products, especially for pathogens without a vaccine or sufficient human exposure as a plasma source, often the case for emerging infectious diseases or biodefense targets. One key advantage of using an animal system is the ability to use a broader range of vaccines and adjuvants to achieve high-titer antibodies that are needed for treatment in challenging diseases. For example, the treatment of diphtheria in adults requires between 20,000 and 100,000 IU per dose depending on disease severity; however, circulating titers of 0.1 IU/mL in adults offers protective immunity.23 The low protective titer produced by vaccination makes it infeasible to produce a human HIG with titers for treatment in volumes that would be acceptable. In addition, the animal-derived HIGs can provide a scalable plasma source and more cost-effective treatments. In the past, animal-derived HIGs have resulted in immunogenic reactions and serum sickness;24–27 however, newer products have incorporated improvements to significantly reduce this occurrence. In most of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved products, the Fc portion of the antibodies is removed through enzymatic digestion (e.g. papain or pepsin) to produce antibody fragments consisting of the Fab and F(ab’)2 with the antigen-binding sites to reduce immunogenicity. In addition, improvements in the manufacturing process to achieve a higher level of purity than historical animal-derived HIGs have further limited the immunogenicity, as described previously.27,28 Although the Fc cleavage reduces immunogenicity, the Fab and F(ab’)2 antibody fragments have a shorter half-life than a fully intact HIG.24

US Food and Drug-Administration–approved products

Currently, there are more than 20 FDA-approved HIGs available on the market (Table 1). They can be separated into four groups: antiviral prophylactics, antitoxin treatments, antivenin treatments, and other therapies. The table may not be a comprehensive list of all currently approved HIG products, and approval may not always translate to availability in the market. The table was compiled from the FDA website for approved immunoglobulins, focusing on HIGs, and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research List of Licensed Biological Products. Many more HIGs are approved and available for use in other jurisdictions worldwide but will not be covered in this review.

Table 1.

Hyper immunoglobulin therapies that are licensed by the FDA.

Group Proper Name Origin Trade Name Company FDA Approval Indication
Antiviral prophylactics
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cytomegalovirus immunoglobulin intravenous
Human
CytoGam™
Saol Therapeutics
April 1990
Prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus disease associated with transplantation of kidney, lung, liver, pancreas, and heart
 
Hepatitis A immunoglobulin intravenous
Human
GamaSTAN™
Grifols Therapeutics Inc
January 1944
Postexposure prophylaxis for hepatitis A infection
Prevention or modification of measles (rubeola) in susceptible persons exposed fewer than 6 days previously
Passive immunization in immunocompromised patients to protect against varicella if varicella-zoster immunoglobulin (human) is not available
May benefit women who have been exposed to rubella in the first trimester of pregnancy and who will not consider a therapeutic abortion
 
Hepatitis B immunoglobulin intravenous
Human
HepaGam B™
Saol Therapeutics
January 2006
Prevention of hepatitis B recurrence following liver transplant in HBsAg-positive liver transplant patients
Postexposure prophylaxis including
  • Acute exposure to HBsAg-positive blood, plasma, or serum (parenteral exposure, direct mucus membrane contact, oral ingestion, etc)

  • Perinatal exposure of infants born to HBsAg-positive mothers

  • Sexual exposure to HBsAg-positive persons

  • Household exposure to persons with acute HBV infection


 
Hepatitis B immuneglobulin
Human
Nabi-HB™
ADMA Biologics
March 1999
Treatment of acute exposure to blood containing HBsAg, perinatal exposure of infants born to HBsAg-positive mothers, sexual exposure to HBsAg-positive persons, and household exposure to persons with acute HBV infection in the following settings:
  • Acute exposure to blood containing HBsAg

  • Perinatal exposure of infants born to HBsAg-positive mothers

  • Sexual exposure to HBsAg-positive persons

  • Household exposure to persons with acute HBV infection


 
Hepatitis B immunoglobulin
Human
HyperHEP B™
Grifols
September 1977
Postexposure prophylaxis in the following situations:
  • Acute exposure to blood containing HBsAg infection

  • Perinatal exposure of infants born to HBsAg-positive mothers

  • Sexual exposure to an HBsAg-positive person

  • Household exposure to persons with acute HBV infection


 
Rabies immunoglobulin
Human
KEDRAB™
Kedrion Biopharma
August 2017
Passive, transient postexposure prophylaxis of rabies infection, when given immediately after contact with a rabid or possibly rabid animal and concurrently with a full course of rabies vaccine
 
Rabies immunoglobulin
Human
IMOGAM™
Sanofi
April 1984
In conjunction with the standard series of rabies vaccinations, is indicated for individuals suspected of exposure to rabies, particularly severe exposure
 
Rabies immunoglobulin
Human
HyperRAB™
Grifols
June 1974
Postexposure prophylaxis, along with rabies vaccine, for all persons suspected of exposure to rabies
 
Vaccinia immune
globulin intravenous
Human
CNJ-016™
Emergent BioSolutions
May 2005
Treatment of complications due to vaccinia vaccination including:
  • Eczema vaccinatum

  • Progressive vaccinia

  • Severe generalized vaccinia

  • Vaccinia infections in individuals who have skin conditions

  • Aberrant infections induced by vaccinia virus (except in cases of isolated keratitis)


VIGIV is not indicated for postvaccinial encephalitis.
 
Varicella zoster
immunoglobulin
Human
VARIZIG™
Saol Therapeutics
December 2012
Postexposure prophylaxis in high-risk groups (immunocompromised children and adults, newborns of mothers with peripartum varicella, premature infants or infants less than 1 year of age, pregnant women, and adults without evidence of immunity)
Antitoxins
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Anthrax immunoglobulin intravenous Human ANTHRASIL™ Emergent BioSolutions March 2015 Treatment of inhalational anthrax in adult and pediatric patients in combination with appropriate antibacterial drugs
 
Botulism immunoglobulin intravenous
Human
BabyBIG™
California Department
of Health Services
October 2003
Treatment of botulism caused by Clostridium botulinum (types A or B) in patients below 1 year of age
 
Botulism antitoxin heptavalent (A, B, C, D, E, F, G)
Horse
BAT™
Emergent BioSolutions
March 2013
Treatment of symptomatic botulism following documented or suspected exposure to botulinum neurotoxin serotypes A, B, C, D, E, F, or G in adults and pediatric patients
 
Tetanus immunoglobulin
Human
HyperTET™
Grifols
October 1957
Prophylaxis against tetanus following injury in patients whose immunization is incomplete or uncertain
Also indicated, although evidence of effectiveness is limited, in the regimen of treatment of active cases of tetanus
Antivenins
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Antivenin (Latrodectus mactans)
Horse
Black widow spider antivenin™
Merck & Co, Inc
1936
Treatment of patients with symptoms due to bites by the black widow spider (Latrodectus mactans)
 
Antivenin (Micrurus fulvius)
Horse
North American coral snake antivenin™
Pfizer
1967
Treatment of envenomation caused by North American coral snakes (Micrurus)
 
Centruroides (scorpion) immune F(ab’)2 injection
Horse
Anascorp™
Rare Disease Therapeutics
August 2011
Treatment for clinical signs of scorpion envenomation
 
Crotalidae immune F(ab’)2
Horse
ANAVIP™
Rare Disease Therapeutics
May 2015
Management of adult and pediatric patients with North American rattlesnake envenomation
 
Crotalidae polyvalent immune Fab
Sheep
CroFab™
BTG International
October 2000
Management of adult and pediatric patients with North American crotalid envenomation (Crotalidae subfamily including rattlesnakes, copperheads and cottonmouths/water moccasins)
Other therapies
 
 
 
 
 
 
Antithymocyte globulin
Rabbit
Thymoglobulin™
Sanofi
December 1998
Prophylaxis and treatment of acute rejection in patients receiving a kidney transplant
Thymoglobulin is to be used in conjunction with concomitant immunosuppression.
 
Antithymocyte globulin, lymphocyte immunoglobulin
Horse
ATGAM™
Pfizer
March 2018
For any patient in whom reduction of peripheral T-lymphocyte function as measured by rosette-forming cell assay could be desirable
 
Digoxin immune Fab
Sheep
DigiFab™
BTG International
August 2001
Treatment of patients with life-threatening or potentially life-threatening digoxin toxicity or overdose
 
Rho(D) immunoglobulin intravenous
Human
Rhophylac™
CSL Behring
February 2004
Suppression of rhesus (Rh) isoimmunization in
  • Pregnancy and obstetric conditions in non-sensitized, Rho(D)-negative women with an Rh-incompatible pregnancy, including routine antepartum and postpartum Rh prophylaxis and Rh prophylaxis in cases of obstetric complications, invasive procedures during pregnancy, or obstetric manipulative procedures

  • Incompatible transfusions in Rho(D)-negative individuals transfused with blood components containing Rho(D)-positive red blood cells


  Rho(D) immunoglobulin intravenous Human HyperRHO S/D™ Grifols June 1971 Full dose: for the prevention of Rh HDN and the prevention of isoimmunization in RhO(D)-negative individuals who have been transfused with RhO(D)-positive red blood cells
Mini dose: prevent the isoimmunization of RhO(D)-negative women at the time of spontaneous or induced abortion of up to 12 weeks’ gestation provided the following criteria are met:
  1. The mother must be RhO(D) negative and must not already be sensitized to the RhO(D) antigen.

  2. The father is not known to be RhO(D) negative.

  3. Gestation is not more than 12 weeks at termination.

 
Rho(D) immunoglobulin intravenous
Human
RhoGAM and MICRhoGAM™
Kedrion Biopharma Inc.
April 1968
For use in preventing Rh immunization for
  • Pregnancy and other obstetrical conditions in Rh-negative women unless the father or baby are conclusively Rh-negative, e.g., delivery of an Rh-positive baby irrespective of the ABO groups of the mother and baby, any antepartum fetal-maternal hemorrhage (suspected or proven), actual or threatened pregnancy loss at any stage of gestation and ectopic pregnancy

  • Prevention of Rh immunization in any Rh-negative person after incompatible transfusion of Rh-positive blood or blood products


  Rho(D) immunoglobulin intravenous Human WinRho SDF Liquid™ Saol Therapeutics March 1995 For use in clinical situations requiring an increase in platelet count to prevent excessive hemorrhage in the treatment of non-splenectomized, Rho(D)-positive
  • Children with chronic or acute immune thrombocytopenia (ITP)

  • Adults with chronic ITP

  • Children and adults with ITP secondary to HIV infection

CMV, cytomegalovirus; FDA, US Food and Drug Administration; HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HDN, hemolytic disease of the newborn; HIG, hyper immunoglobulin.

Table 1 was compiled from a combination of the FDA website for approved immunoglobulins,29 with focus on HIGs, and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research List of Licensed Biological Products.30 Indications were sourced from the associated website or product information.

Antiviral prophylactics

Eight human polyclonal immunoglobulin products are approved for passive immunotherapy against viral infections including varicella zoster (VARIZIG®),17 rabies (KEDRAB®13 and HyperRAB®31), vaccinia (CNJ-016®),14 hepatitis A (GamaSTAN S/D®),32 hepatitis B (HepaGam B®16 and Nabi-HB®18), and cytomegalovirus (CytoGam®).15 These antiviral HIGs are mostly used for postexposure prophylaxis; however, CNJ-016® is indicated for the treatment of complications due to vaccinia vaccination.14

For many of the viral prophylactics, there are also commercially available vaccines to prevent the disease’s occurence. Despite the availability of a vaccine for these diseases, there is still a use case for HIGs in helping to prevent disease progression or complications. For example, VARIZIG® is recommended for postexposure prophylaxis to prevent or attenuate varicella in high-risk individuals including newborns born to pregnant women who develop varicella close to delivery.17 The use of VARIZIG® in these high-risk newborns was associated with low rates of varicella when administered up to 10 days after exposure.33–35 Another example is the administration of HepaGam® that has proven efficacy and dose-dependent response in the prevention of hepatitis B virus (HBV) recurrence after liver transplantation.36 Treatment with this HIG in combination with antivirals further reduces the risk of hepatitis B infection and the need for retransplantation.36 HepaGam® and Nabi-HB® are also indicated for postexposure prophylaxis after contact with blood or body fluids of serum hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)–positive carriers and in the prevention of mother-to-child (vertical) transmission. For both these viruses, vaccines for the prevention of the disease exist. However, with increasing nonmedical exemption rates and increased globalized travel, the incidence of the disease may increase; therefore, HIGs can play a part in prevention and treatment.

Antitoxins

Four HIGs against toxins are currently approved in the United States, including 3 produced from human plasma (ANTHRASIL® for treatment of anthrax,37 HyperTET® for treatment of tetanus38 and BabyBIG® for treatment of infant botulism39) and 1 sourced from horses ([BAT®] heptavalent botulism antitoxin40). ANTHRASIL® is prepared using plasma collected from healthy, screened donors who were immunized with BioThrax® (anthrax vaccine adsorbed)41 to achieve high titers of anti-anthrax antibody (meeting minimum potency specifications). HyperTET® is prepared using plasma collected from healthy donors hyperimmunized with tetanus toxoid.42 BabyBIG® is prepared from the plasma of donors immunized with pentavalent (serotypes A, B, C, D, and E) botulinum toxoid and screened for neutralizing antibodies to type A and type B botulinum toxins. The heptavalent botulism antitoxin, BAT® is a mixture of purified F(ab’)2 plus F(ab’)2-related immunoglobulin fragments indicated for the treatment of symptomatic botulism following documented or suspected exposure to botulinum neurotoxin serotypes A, B, C, D, E, F, or G in adults and pediatric patients.43 The production process involves the immunization of horses with a specific serotype of botulism neurotoxin, the purification of each individual serotype, and the combining of serotypes at defined antitoxin titers.

BabyBIG® was initially assessed in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with 129 infants with botulism, treated within 3 days of hospital admission. The trial and postapproval results showed rapid clinical improvement,44 often associated with significant decreases in duration of ventilation, length of hospital stay, and mean hospital costs per patient.45 Owing to the unethical or logistically impractical conduct of clinical trials, ANTHRASIL® and BAT® were approved using the animal rule46,47 to enable licensure of medical countermeasures for “lethal or permanently disabling” conditions.48 BAT® was well tolerated and provided clinical benefit in treated patients. BAT® administration within 2 days of symptom onset resulted in 100% survival associated with shorter hospital and intensive care unit stays, and shorter duration and need for mechanical ventilation.49,50 For ANTHRASIL®, clinical data are limited to small, complex patient groups with multiple co-morbidities and different levels of medical support.51,52 Although vaccinations for tetanus induce the active production of anti-tetanus antibodies, in which protective levels are reported as ≥0.01 U/mL, a recent case study reported the use of HyperTET® in a patient with 800 times the protective level.53 The incidence of tetanus, botulism, and anthrax poisoning is low, and thus clinical data and reports are sparse. While occurrence is low, and vaccines may be available, widespread vaccination against biothreats (e.g. anthrax) is not standard practice. Therefore in the event of accidental or intentional large exposure events, post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment options are required and therefore these products tend to be stockpiled by governments around the world.

Antivenins

Annually, millions of humans fall victim to animal envenomation, which may result in death or cause permanent disability. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that about 5 million snakebites occur annually, resulting in up to 2.7 million envenomations, roughly 100,000 deaths per annum, and approximately 400,000 disabilities.54 In 2017, the WHO listed snakebite envenomation as a priority neglected tropical disease with a goal to halve the number of deaths and disabilities by 2030 by strengthening the production of antivenoms, improving regulatory control, and rebuilding and reinvigorating the market by ensuring availability, accessibility, and affordability of safe and efficacious products.54 Products approved by the FDA include ANAVIP®, an antitoxin derived from horses for treatment of North American rattlesnake envenomation; CroFab®, an antitoxin derived from sheep for treatment of North American crotalid envenomation (rattlesnakes, copperheads, and cottonmouths/water moccasins); and the North American coral snake antivenin, derived from horses and indicated for the treatment of envenomation caused by North American coral snakes (Micrurus). Although differences exist between products, in general, the antivenin HIGs bind and inactivate venom components, leading to cessation or reversal of the toxic effects of the venom.55–57

Spider and scorpion bites also cause envenomation but are not often deadly. Black widow spider envenomation frequently results in severe pain, muscle cramps, abdominal pain, back pain, and hypertension.58 Antivenin Latrodectus mactans is the only antivenom approved in the United States for treatment of black widow spider envenomation. In an evaluation of case studies of symptomatic black widow spider envenomation, the use of this antivenin resulted in three cases that were treated successfully with antivenin Latrodectus mactans, showing the safe and effective use of black widow antivenom.58 Scorpion stings can cause cranial nerve dysfunction, neuromuscular hyperactivity,59 and pancreatitis.60 Anascorp®, an antitoxin derived from horses, is the only FDA-approved HIG for the treatment of scorpion envenomation. The administration of Anascorp® in children and adults was associated with a more rapid resolution of symptoms within 4 hours compared with placebo.61,62

Other therapies

Antithymocyte globulin (ATG) is an antibody preparation derived from rabbits or horses hyperimmunized with human thymocytes. It was initially approved for use in the United States as treatment of acute cellular rejection after renal transplantation. Two FDA-approved products are available in the United States: Thymoglobulin® (rabbit-derived plasma) and Atgam® (horse-derived plasma). DigiFab® is a HIG derived from sheep that is indicated for the treatment of patients with life-threatening or potentially life-threatening digoxin toxicity or overdose.

WinRho®, RhoGAM®, and Rhophylac® are human Rh immunoglobulin treatments that are used in the treatment of fetal rhesus incompatibility to prevent Rh immunization, a condition in which an individual with Rh-negative blood develops antibodies after exposure to Rh-positive blood. The administration of Rh immunoglobulin during a second pregnancy is of utmost importance to prevent the onset of fetal anemia (low iron in the blood), miscarriage, stillbirth, or a serious illness in the baby celled hemolytic disease of the newborn.

Passive immunotherapy for infectious disease

One of the many challenges with countering infectious disease threats is the emergence of new strains or the introduction of existing strains to new geographic regions. Both of these can have a devastating impact because of the lack of natural immunity in the general population and the absence of available vaccines and treatments. As knowledge emerges about the specific strain(s), its mechanism of action, and disease sequelae, the timeline to develop therapeutics can be lengthy, affecting the ability to prevent spread and treat individuals who are already infected. The most recent example of this challenge is the current coronavirus outbreak due to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that emerged at the end of 2019.

Over the past 30 years, many new infectious diseases have emerged or reemerged (Table 2), causing large numbers of outbreaks, posing significant threats to human health, and having an enormous social and economic impact. With increased travel, expanded urbanization, escalated climate change, and the increasing interaction between humans and animals, the infectious disease landscape and human vulnerability are changing. As a result, the world is experiencing recurrent larger-scale outbreaks and global pandemics, and the trends are likely to continue and intensify in the 21st century. Evidence suggests that approximately 1 new human infectious disease has emerged every 8 months on average; approximately 75% of these emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) were zoonotic in nature, with a majority being viral diseases.105

Table 2.

Polyclonal passive immunotherapy against emerging and/or zoonotic viral diseases in the past 30 years.

Infectious Agent Major Outbreaks Cases/Mortality/Clinical Impact Treatment Clinical Findings Regarding Polyclonal Passive Immunotherapy References
JUNV
Until 1992
Argentine hemorrhagic fever with 20%–30% mortality
CP: clinical trial
CP showed efficacy, reduced mortality to 1%; current SOC
63
SNV/ANDV
1993, 2012, 2017,2019
Hantavirus cardiopulmonary syndrome with 30%–50% mortality
CP: nonrandomized trial
Immune sera: preclinical efficacy
CP reduced case fatality rate from 32% to 14%
64–66
EV71
1997–2004, 2008, 2013
Cardiopulmonary or neurological complications and mortality in severe cases
HIG
N/A (Preclinical efficacy has been demonstrated)
67
H5N1
1997, 2003, 2013
~60% mortality
CP: clinical application
HIG: preclinical efficacy
CP case studies: significantly reduced viral load and patients survived
68–70
MARV
1998, 2004, 2012
~50% mortality
Polyclonal IgG
Postexposure IgG treatment was protective, with no signs of disease or detectable viremia in NHP
71
WNV
1999–2018
About 1 in 150 develop serious/fatal illness; neurological WNV has 5%–14% mortality
HIG, IVIG
HIG and IVIG case studies: early administration associated with recovery of neurological features; phase 1/2 trial: no significant difference in outcomes
72–74
LASV
2000
~100,000–300,000 cases annually; ~5000 deaths
CP: clinical application
CP: treated 47 patients; early administration showed rapid improvement of symptoms
75
NiV
2001, 2007, 2018
40%–60% mortality
Polyclonal antibody
N/A (Preclinical efficacy has been demonstrated in hamsters)
76
SARS
2003
8096 people in 29 countries got SARS and 774 died in 2003
CP: clinical application
HIG
CP: early treatment was beneficial, significantly reduced fatality rate
77–79
CHIKV
2004–2005, 2007, 2010, 2013–2020
>2 million cases worldwide
HIG, IVIG
HIG: nonrandomized phase 1/2 trial in high-risk neonates born to CHIKV-viremic mothers
IVIG: clinical application for CHIKV encephalitis
80–82
CCHFV
2008–2010, 2013–2016
3%–30% mortality
HIG, IVIG: clinical studies
HIG: reduced viral load and improved survival rate in high-risk patients
Fresh frozen plasma and IVIG: to treat disseminated intravascular coagulation and severe thrombocytopenia
83–85
H1N1
2009
151,700–575,500 deaths worldwide during the first year the virus circulated
CP and IVIG: clinical application
HIG: clinical trial
CP: significantly reduced fatality rate
HIG: treatment within 5 d of onset associated with lower viral load and reduced mortality
86–89
DENV
2010, 2012, 2016, 2017, 2019
~390 million per year
HIG
HIG: demonstrated broad neutralizing activity against different serotypes
90
MERS
2012
~35% mortality
CP: case study HIG: clinical trials
CP: decrease the viral burden
HIG (from transchromosomic cattle): double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 trial
91–93
H7N9
2013
~30% mortality
CP: case study
CP: clinical improvement and recovery of a patient not responding to oseltamivir
94
EBV
2013–2014, 2018–2020
~50% mortality
CP: clinical study
HIG
CP: no clear evidence for the prevention of deaths
HIG: N/A (preclinical efficacy has been demonstrated in NHP)
95–99
ZIKV
2015
5%–14% of children from infected mothers had congenital Zika syndrome
CP, HIG
CP: preclinical efficacy in NHP
HIG: preclinical efficacy and phase 1 clinical trial
100,101
SARS-CoV-2 2019–present Ongoing pandemic CP, HIG CP: clinical trial ongoing
HIG: clinical trial ongoing
102–104

CCHFV, Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus; CHIKV, Chikungunya virus; CP, convalescent plasma; DENV, Dengue virus; EBV, Ebola virus; HIG, hyper immunoglobulin; IgG, immunoglobulin G; IVIG, intravenous immunoglobulin; JUNV, Junin virus; LASV, Lassa virus; MARV, Marburg virus; NHP, nonhuman primates; NiV, Nipah virus; SARS, severe acute respiratory syndrome; SARS-CoV-2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; SNV/ANDV, Sin Nombre virus/Andes virus; SOC, standard of care; WNV, West Nile virus; ZIKV, Zika virus.

Unfortunately, we are unable to precisely predict and identify future EID risks, leaving the world to face unprecedented challenges with the emergence of infectious diseases like COVID-19, caused by a novel strain of coronavirus with the ability to spread rapidly because no vaccine or treatment is available and no natural immunity exists. Emerging viruses are especially problematic because viral diseases usually have higher transmission rates, cause severe symptoms, and often lead to mortality. Most emerging viral pathogens are RNA viruses, and are characterized by higher mutation rates owing to the lack of proofreading ability of RNA polymerases. Their rapid mutation and adaptation present significant challenges for the development of vaccines and treatments.106

It has long been demonstrated that antibody-based passive immunotherapy is an appropriate preventive and therapeutic option to treat infectious diseases. In many viral diseases, HIG is effectively used to mitigate disease severity in postexposure prophylaxis, such as in the treatment for rabies, human cytomegalovirus, varicella zoster virus, and hepatitis B, as indicated in Table 1. Active immunization through vaccination is typically more effective to prevent disease for longer periods and is less expensive than passive immunization with antibody therapy. However, not all individuals respond to vaccination, and effective vaccines have not been successfully developed against many important viral pathogens, especially for newly emerging viral threats.107 Active immunization often takes a few weeks (or months for vaccines that require >1 dose) for hosts to develop adequate immune protection after vaccination, whereas passive immunotherapy provides immediate protection. This option can be important for individuals with a compromised immune system, including immunocompromised individuals, pregnant women, and geriatric and pediatric populations who may remain vulnerable to infection even if vaccines are broadly available.108 Conversely, HIGs are a passive immunotherapy produced from a well-established platform technology that can enable expedited development and a favorable safety profile, making it a promising option for the treatment and prevention of emerging viral threats.

Recent multiple EID outbreaks have highlighted the potential of passive immunotherapy as a promising strategy for treating EIDs. Plasma from patients who have recovered from the infection can provide a source of antibodies that recognize a specific target and limit its function, and other plasma components can exert beneficial effects.109,110 However, there can be significant variability between donors and as a result, individual CP units contain donor-dependent antibody specificities and titers and may carry the risk of inadvertent transmission of bloodborne diseases.109,110 Because each CP unit offers a limited ratio of donor to patient and requires matched blood types for administration, this individualized treatment is difficult to scale to global levels.109 In comparison to CP, HIGs are manufactured at a larger scale by pooling plasma from multiple donors to achieve a standardized amount of specific antibodies, allowing a broader range of plasma to be used. Furthermore, HIGs are manufactured to purify and concentrate the IgG component with steps to inactivate and remove viruses for added safety. Both CP and HIG have been used in clinical studies in viral infection outbreaks of filovirus (Ebola and Marburg), arenaviruses (Lassa, Junin), coronavirus (SARS, MERS, SARS-CoV-2), influenza (H5N1, H7N9, H1N1), and several other outbreaks caused by emerging viral pathogens in the past 30 years (Table 2). While CP is used as an initial response to emerging infections, HIGs tend to be preferred for larger scale and wider spread outbreaks.

IVIG is generally used as prophylaxis to prevent infection from various infectious diseases in patients with primary immune deficiency.111,112 A key difference among CP, HIG, and IVIG is that IVIG is not enriched for donors with antibodies to a specific disease outside the class label requirements.113 Clinical case studies have demonstrated that some of the therapeutic benefits of IVIG are conveyed by factors other than neutralizing antibodies (Table 2). Because CP, HIG, and IVIG are closely related, these other factors would also be present in CP and HIG. In viral infections causing hemorrhagic fever (e.g., Ebola hemorrhagic fever and Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever), the benefits of nonspecific antibodies and plasma proteins may include preventing excess vascular leakage,95 treating disseminated intravascular coagulant and severe thrombocytopenia,83 and restoring the endothelium glycocalyx.114 Nonspecific polyclonal passive immunotherapy has also been used as a successful anti-inflammatory treatment option in clinical applications, such as IVIG treatment for encephalitis caused by West Nile virus72,73 and Chikungunya virus.80

Another key aspect of antibody-based passive immunotherapy is the polyclonal nature that results from the natural mode of B-cell response diversity. The extraordinarily broad range of binding specificities and diversity of antibodies are achieved through random rearrangement of antibody gene segments and junctional diversity, as well as somatic mutations and affinity maturation following infection or immunization.115 The resulting complex polyclonal response comprises multiple antibodies binding to multiple epitopes mediating a variety of effector functions, such as complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC), antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP), and antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC).116 This feature confers broad protection and is less likely to provide selective pressure for viral escape mutants, a significant difference from monoclonal antibody immunotherapy. For example, antibodies from convalescent patients with Chikungunya virus can cross-neutralize other alphaviruses, Mayaro virus and Una virus,117 and protect against Ross River virus musculoskeletal disease even with limited neutralizing activity.118 Cross-protection against related viruses provides added potential benefit of developing polyclonal antibody–based passive immunotherapy like HIG to treat viral EIDs.

Hyper immunoglobulins for the treatment of emerging infectious diseases: Key learnings from recent examples

To highlight some key learnings from the development of HIGs to address EID, this section will review recent efforts to address diseases caused by the Zika virus (ZIKV), influenza virus (FLU), and SARS-CoV-2. As HIG development continues, our understanding of passive immunity is expanding and it is critical to apply key learnings across programs to rapidly advance therapeutic solutions to the next EID.

Zika virus

Zika virus was first identified in a sentinel rhesus monkey in 1947 and was isolated from mosquitoes in 1948. It is primarily transmitted through the bite of infected female Aedes aegypti and potentially Aedes albopictus mosquitoes; however, sexual transmission has also been reported.119–121 Periodic ZIKV outbreaks have been reported since its identification. In 2007, there was a substantial outbreak on Yap Island, followed by an outbreak in French Polynesia in 2013, and in 2015 ZIKV spread to South and North America. By February 1, 2016, WHO declared ZIKV a public health emergency of international concern.122 As of July 2019, a total of 87 countries and territories have had evidence of autochthonous mosquito-borne transmission of ZIKV, distributed across 4 of the 6 WHO Regions.123 The virus may cause mild symptoms including fever, headache, malaise, arthralgia, myalgia, maculopapular rashes, and conjunctivitis,119 as well as more serious consequences including Guillain-Barré syndrome124 and other neurological impairments. Infection during pregnancy has been linked to serious adverse fetal and infant outcomes, such as microcephaly,125 ocular anomalies,126 intrauterine growth restriction,127 serious brain anomalies,128 and other congenital malformations.129

The emergence of ZIKV created an urgent unmet medical need to develop interventions that could address emerging endemics or local outbreaks. CP was tested and showed efficacy (Table 2); however, HIG offered several advantages as a sustainable therapeutic option to provide a bridge between the outbreak and vaccine availability and to be administered upon infection to deliver immediate protection. Therefore, development of HIGs was evaluated100,130–132 for prophylaxis of ZIKV infection in at-risk populations, including women of childbearing potential and pregnant women. ZIKV-HIG, manufactured from human plasma with high titers of anti- ZIKV antibodies, was shown to prevent and/or neutralize ZIKV infection in preclinical studies using an immune-deficient mouse model (Ifnar1–/–). The dose-dependent efficacy of ZIKV-HIG in comparison to vehicle control in both pre- (1 h before exposure) and postexposure (24 hours after exposure) settings was established in this highly robust animal model.100 ZIKV-HIG preclinical efficacy data are consistent with the notion that the neutralizing antibody levels confer protection from ZIKV infection, supported by both animal studies and clinical findings.101,133 Similarly, ZIKV-HIG manufactured from plasma from transgenic cattle with anti-ZIKV antibodies was shown to be effective in Ifnar1-/- mice when treated 1 or 3 days after challenge; no ZIKV-induced tissue damage was evident in the brain and testes and there was protection against testicular atrophy.130 Furthermore, studies have also shown that neutralizing antibodies prevent ZIKV vertical transmission during pregnancy in nonhuman primate and murine models.134,135

Because of the severe outcomes of ZIKV infection during pregnancy, immunotherapy to prevent transmission to the fetus would provide the most clinical benefit. Transplacental transfer of IgG during pregnancy provides passive immunity to the fetus and is critical to protecting newborns against infections and immunological diseases.136 For example, administration of cytomegalovirus-specific HIG to pregnant women with primary cytomegalovirus infection significantly reduced the rate of intrauterine transmission from 40% to 16%137; hepatitis A and hepatitis B (HBV) immunoglobulins are medically necessary to prevent the mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis viral infections138; and WinRho anti-D HIG has been routinely given to Rh-negative women and shown in both clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance to be safe and effective in the treatment of idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and in the prevention of Rh isoimmunization.139

Pregnant women are considered a vulnerable population with a high bar for therapeutic development to ensure safety and positive risk-benefit ratios. Hyper immunoglobulin products have well-established and robust safety profiles in pregnant and pediatric populations, supported by multiple clinical studies of the effectiveness, safety, and benefits of HIG therapy for pregnant women in diverse settings and by FDA-approved HIG products (Table 1). A stepwise approach for the clinical evaluation of ZIKV-HIG is required before studying the benefits for pregnant women, with initial safety being established in a phase 1 study in normal healthy volunteers.

Another key safety consideration for ZIKV-HIG development is the potential of ZIKV-HIG to cause antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), so additional evaluation of cross-reactivity and ADE of ZIKV and dengue virus (DENV) infection was completed in in vitro and in vivo systems (unpublished data). Antibody-dependent enhancement has previously been described for DENV, and during the ADE process, preexisting non-neutralizing or subneutralizing antibodies that recognize one serotype of DENV enhance subsequent different serotypes of DENV infection and pathogenesis.140 ZIKV and DENV are genetically and antigenically similar (~56% amino acid identity141), and cross-reactivities between them have been documented extensively.142,143 The cross-reactive antibodies have been demonstrated to have the capacity to both potentiate disease and mediate protection during flavivirus infection.143 To define the boundary of therapeutic efficacy and potential for ADE, ZIKV-HIG was shown to contain cross-reactive neutralizing and enhancing antibodies to DENV, with the potential to enhance ZIKV and DENV disease in an immune-deficient mouse model (unpublished data). However, evidence obtained in nonhuman primates and human cohorts established no correlation to ADE when ZIKV infection occurred in the presence of preexisting DENV immunity.144,145 Moreover, observations from arbovirus surveillance in Brazil suggest a decrease in DENV circulation after the ZIKV outbreak, possibly due to DENV cross-neutralization by ZIKV antibodies.146 More targeted studies are required to collect clinical and seroepidemiological surveillance data to establish whether ADE risk is present after passive administration of anti-ZIKV antibodies. The limitations of in vitro and in vivo models for evaluation of ADE for immunotherapy needs to be considered for HIG development for EID targets.

Influenza

Seasonal influenza remains a significant global public health burden and causes roughly a billion cases of respiratory illnesses per year, approximately 3 to 5 million of which are severe, and between 290,000 and 650,000 annual deaths worldwide despite vaccine and antiviral drug development efforts.147,148 Generally, influenza A (H1N1, H3N2) or B viruses cause mild or moderate respiratory infections, but they can also trigger serious complications such as pneumonia, secondary bacterial infections, respiratory failure, and death in the very young, geriatric, immunocompromised and other high-risk populations.149 Although neuraminidase (NA) inhibitors can be used to treat uncomplicated influenza when administered within the first 48 hours of onset of symptoms,150 there are no FDA-approved therapies for severe influenza in hospitalized patients. Because antibodies play a key role in reducing the severity of influenza infection,151 passive immunotherapy can be a potential strategy to treat influenza virus infection, modify the outcomes of severe disease, and provide additional benefit to the standard of care; however, the ability of a polyclonal immunotherapy to address the complexity of different influenza strains and cross-neutralization potential needs to be evaluated.

The antibody response to influenza virus infection is multifaceted and complex. On one hand, the majority of antibodies induced by immunodominant antigens hemagglutinin (HA) and NA recognize only the homologous antigenic subtype, so that the seasonal vaccine must be adjusted annually to reflect the specific antigenic drift. On the other hand, cross-reactive and broad neutralizing antibodies have been discovered that recognize the stalk domain of HA,152 conserved epitopes in the head domains of HA and NA153,154, and the ectodomain of M2.155 For the development of an influenza HIG (FLU-HIG), the potency of the product should be aligned with the seasonal vaccine strains recommended by WHO. There are a few items for consideration as it relates to this approach. Firstly, in the event that there is a mismatch of the circulating strain compared to the WHO vaccine recommendations, the potency of the product may not translate to clinical efficacy, so the potency assays for FLU-HIG may need to be adapted to these circulating strains to accurately identify the protective antibodies and predict clinical efficacy. Secondly, hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) or microneutralization assays measure neutralization of HA; however, the non-neutralizing, non-HA, or broadly cross-reactive antibodies may not be identified by these routine assays although they may contribute to efficacy and the protection may be dependent on effector function.156,157

The potential for antibody-based passive immunotherapy to improve outcomes of influenza infection for seasonal and pandemic strains has been evaluated in nonclinical and clinical studies158 with several HIG products from different sources including human, horse, and humanized cow plasma.159–162 Animal models used for the study of influenza viruses and therapies (including antivirals and vaccines) include mouse and ferret models. The ferret model is the gold standard because ferrets share similar lung physiology with humans, display human characteristics of influenza disease, and respond to human vaccines. In addition, the ferret model is well suited for studying both the pathogenicity and transmissibility of human and avian influenza viruses.163 FLU-HIG from human plasma was effective against H1N1 infection in a lethal mouse model and reduced lung viremia in a ferret infection model; however, in ferrets, there was no reduction of viral load in a nasal wash.162 A limitation of the ferret model is the rapid systemic clearance of human IgG (~14 h h by HAI assay) and limited bioavailability at the nasal passages.162 The finding of a substantially shorter half-life of human IgG in ferrets compared with humans highlighted the importance of interpreting the animal data used for HIG development within the context of specific species-biomolecules interaction.

The clinical benefit of different preparations of FLU-HIG derived from human plasma has been evaluated in several randomized controlled trials; however, the studies have been inconclusive. Some studies showed that the treatment of severe influenza infection with a FLU-HIG was associated with a lower viral load and reduced mortality,86,164 but a phase 3 trial using FLU-HIG–containing anti-influenza A and B antibodies was not able to demonstrate a significant clinical benefit for hospitalized patients, although data supported improvement for patients with influenza B.165 Another phase 2 study with a different FLU-HIG to evaluate a high and low dose of FLU-HIG (NCT03315104) was completed in 2019; the outcome of the study has not yet been published. Further understanding of how these FLU-HIG products differed in potency from the specific strains and dose is still needed. Multiple factors contribute to particular outcomes of a clinical trial and may account for the discrepancy observed in different trials. A few possible explanations for the differences between studies have been suggested, including how titers are measured (conventional HAI titers to assign potency may not be the appropriate surrogate for an effective humoral response in therapeutic studies), the potential for a disconnect in how well antibody affinity correlates with protection or neutralizing capacity, and what titers are required to treat versus prevent infection (treatment is likely to require much higher concentration of antibodies than that required for the correlate of immunity i.e. 1:40 or 1:80 titer).166 Further analysis of the role of neutralizing potency, the time to intervention, the ideal patient populations, and clinical outcomes, including use of an ordinal scale, are needed.

COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected millions of patients worldwide. As of December 1, there have been more than 63 million cases reported globally and more than 1.4 million deaths reported since its detection in early 2020.167 The COVID-19 pandemic has spread to more than 220 countries, demonstrating that globalization has increased the threat of EIDs.

There is an urgent need for therapeutic options to treat severe cases, prevent the progression of mild-moderate disease to severe disease and stop the spread of the virus. We know from our experience with influenza that even when a vaccine is available, vaccination rates vary and may not protect specific populations from infection, hospitalization, or mortality. Early in the outbreak, the strategy to rapidly develop a HIG product (COVID-HIG) from human plasma with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was advanced by multiple companies.168 As a therapeutic, the goal of COVID-HIG administration is to augment the humoral immune response to COVID-19 infection, potentially enhancing viral neutralization and clearance and limiting disease progression and viral replication that can lead to extensive tissue damage and inflammatory responses in the lungs and other organs before the host is able to develop neutralizing antibodies.169 Based on the established use of several licensed HIG products as a prophylactic treatment for other viral diseases (Table 1), COVID-HIG may also be effective as a postexposure prophylaxis to deliver passive immunity to high-risk populations, such as the geriatric, immunocompromised patients, and frontline healthcare workers.

In developing a COVID-HIG, it is essential to understand SARS-CoV-2 and the associated immune response. The use of CP helps build our understanding of the immune response and the requirements for COVID-19 therapy, yielding information about the required titer of neutralizing antibodies for an intervention, the timing of the intervention, and the impact of the antibody therapy. The availability of CP enables its use as a treatment early in an outbreak because it requires no processing and is available immediately after collection, and as such, case studies and controlled trials using CP were reported throughout the current COVID-19 pandemic. Some studies demonstrated reductions of mortality, increases in respiratory function, and decreases in inflammatory indices,102,170–172 whereas others showed no difference between CP and placebo.173 A key difference among these studies was the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titer and subclass contained in the CP used; these factors vary greatly depending on the individual and the time of collection post-recovery.174

On August 23, 2020, the FDA issued an emergency-use authorization for COVID-19 CP to treat hospitalized patients.109,175 However, they noted that well-controlled randomized clinical trials were still necessary to establish efficacy and determine the optimal product attributes and appropriate patient populations for treatment.176 Currently, the National Institutes of Health and other organizations are expanding study enrollment in randomized controlled studies to further evaluate CP as a treatment for patients hospitalized with COVID-19.175 The limitations for ongoing use of CP are the lack of consistency in specific antibodies in each dose, blood type-matching requirements and complexity of regulatory oversight because it is not a standardized product with regulatory approval,177 and transition to HIG in the treatment paradigm for COVID-19 is a logical next step.

An efficacious COVID-HIG dose needs to be determined based on a standardized level of neutralizing antibodies, although the polyclonality will include antibodies that are non-neutralizing and may add to efficacy of the treatment. The putative binding site of the neutralizing antibody target is not well defined; researchers have reported binding to the receptor-binding domain (RBD),178 the S1 domain of the trimer spike protein,179 and the full-length trimer spike protein.180 CP studies thus far have reported highly variable results regarding levels of antibodies against the three different antigens (RBD, S1 domain, and full-length spike protein).

The ability to manufacture COVID-HIG requires a sufficient source of plasma with antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. As we learn about SARS-CoV-2 over time, questions arise regarding the robustness, functionality, and durability of the antibody response as well as the sustainability of the response upon virus reexposure. The antibody response varies across patient populations; a recent study by Mount Sinai showed that although the majority of COVID-19–positive individuals had moderate to high titers of anti-spike antibodies,181 asymptomatic or mild cases resulted in lower antibody production compared with moderate or severe cases.182 In this study, convalescent patients were also determined to have higher antibody levels than inpatients, which supports a positive correlation between recovery and days since onset of the virus.182 Many factors have been suggested to have an effect on antibody levels, including sex, older age, ABO blood type, and hospitalization,183 but more comprehensive data sets are required to confirm any associations. The challenge for manufacture of a COVID-HIG product is accessing sufficient quantities of plasma with necessary levels of IgG antibodies to neutralize SARS-CoV-2; current efforts have suggested that approximately 55% of known convalescent patients are suitable donors (unpublished results). As COVID-19 vaccines become available, plasma from vaccinated donors may provide a more consistent source of plasma for COVID-HIG.

Like other RNA viruses, SARS-CoV-2 mutates frequently, resulting in enhanced virulence and evolution, which are requirements for the virus to survive.184 The neutralizing effects of COVID-19 treatments including monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies could be affected as the virus mutates over time, particularly with mutations that have occurred in the RBD. In genomic studies from SARS-CoV-2 isolates worldwide, single-point mutations were compared and segregated into six clusters worldwide, with four of them prominent in the United States.185,186 SARS-CoV-2 mutations thus far have occurred in the absence of strong positive selection pressure caused by natural immunity or other interventions, but is predicted to change under the selective pressure of widely deployed neutralizing antibody prophylactics.187 The virus may rapidly become resistant to single monoclonal antibodies; hence, combinations of 2 to 3 neutralizing antibodies or polyclonals for effective prophylaxis or treatment of COVID-19 have therefore been suggested.187 One point mutation in the spike protein (D614G) has occurred such that the G614 variant is now more commonly isolated than the original D614 variant. In vitro and animal studies have indicated that the G614 variant may have increased infectivity, and may be associated with higher viral loads and more severe infections. However, antibodies induced against the D614 variant were found to cross-neutralize against the G614 variant.188,189 Furthermore, antibodies in CP from New York City reacted to both D614 and G614 variants.190 Another point mutation, the N439K on the RBD, enables the virus to bind the human ACE2 receptor with higher affinity than the original variant. The antibodies in convalescent sera from 439 recovered individuals displayed lower potential for binding to the RBD of the K439 variant versus the N439 variant;191 whereas antibodies isolated from convalescent sera from 6 individuals who recovered from infection with SARS-CoV-2 N439K showed no difference in binding affinity between the 2 variants.191 These findings reiterate the importance of the polyclonality and heterogeneity offered by HIGs in the fight against multiple strains of SARS-CoV-2 when considering point mutations due to selective pressure and widespread exposure.

In addition to the COVID-HIG products derived from human plasma, several products derived from horse plasma have been advanced. Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (Costa Rica, NCT04610502),192 Hospital San Jose Tec de Monterrey (Mexico, NCT04514302),193 and D’Or Institute for Research and Education (Brazil, NCT04573855)194 all have Phase 1/2 trials at various stages, and Inmunova Inc (Argentina, NCT04494984)195 has a Phase 2/3 trial estimated to complete in December 2020. SAb Biotherapeutics has also initiated 2 Phase 1 clinical trials for COVID-HIG (SAB-185) manufactured from plasma using transgenic cattle expressing human immunoglobulin G.196,197 Data from these trials are anticipated to further contribute to knowledge on the immune response, potency requirements and efficacy of HIG products.

Future directions

As indicated above, the antibody response to viral or pathogenic infections in humans may be highly variable. One exploratory route to alleviate the need for human plasma includes the humanization of various animals (e.g., cows, pigs) to yield antibodies similar or equivalent to those produced by humans. As mentioned above, SAb Biotherapeutics has developed transgenic cattle engineered to possess a human artificial chromosome containing the human antibody heavy chain and kappa chain.198,199 The transgenic cattle platform has been used to develop HIGs against various viral pathogens including ZIKV,131 Ebola virus,200,201 Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus,91,202 seasonal influenza virus,203 and SARS-CoV-2.204 HIGs produced using this technology are being evaluated in clinical trials. As another humanization strategy, Xenothera (France) has engineered animals lacking specific enzymes so that the animals produce glycohumanized polyclonal antibodies.205 This technology was originally developed for xenotransplantation purposes, but the glycohumanized polyclonal antibodies derived from these animals have been clinically shown to confer immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients in a first-in-human study (NCT04431219).206 XAV-19, a glycohumanized polyclonal antibody against SARS-CoV-2, is currently being investigated in a phase 2 clinical trial (NCT04453384).207

As another strategy for HIG development, companies such as GigaGen and Symphogen have developed single-cell antibody discovery and development platforms to create recombinant polyclonal immunoglobulins. The process involves isolating and characterizing B cells from infectious disease patients to identify neutralizing antibodies and manufacturing polyclonal antibodies using a recombinant approach. Products based on this approach are in early development; they include Sym002 (smallpox (vaccinia) antibodies),208 GIGA-2050 (recombinant anti-coronavirus immunoglobulin),209,210 and recombinant IVIG.211

Furthermore, the mode of antibody administration is another avenue to explore. Generally, antibodies are administered via intravenous, subcutaneous, or intramuscular routes depending on the dose volume; however, companies are exploring administration directly to airways either by nebulization or aerosol delivery.212–214 This mode of administration may be particularly beneficial for respiratory pathogens, such as COVID-19; direct antibody deposition in the airway would bind to and neutralize SARS-CoV-2 virus particles and may enable a higher efficacy with a lower dose in inhibiting infections in the lung.215–217 This technology is being evaluated for antibody therapeutics including monoclonals,218–222 other modalities (nanobodies,223–225 IgY226,227), and possibly HIGs.216

Concluding remarks

Passive immunization remains an important treatment modality to provide the immediate benefit of protective antibody levels. For passive immunization with polyclonal therapies, the antibody source can be human or animal plasma. One of the most well-established and proven platforms for passive immunization is HIG, with more than 20 FDA-approved products to address a broad range of targets or pathogens. The ability to leverage these HIG platforms to expedite development of new products to address EIDs has been demonstrated, and the polyclonal nature of HIG offers advantages regarding strain heterogeneity and the potential for cross-neutralization. In addition, the well-defined safety profile of HIG is an important benefit particularly in vulnerable populations, such as geriatric, pediatric, pregnant, and immunocompromised individuals, who are often the most affected by EIDs. HIGs can be an effective treatment option throughout disease progression (pre-exposure, postexposure prophylaxis, early treatment to prevent severe symptoms; and late treatment for patients experiencing severe symptoms). Some common challenges remain, including defining a consistent, reliable, and scalable source of antibodies and determining the potency of the antibodies specific for each disease state. Overall, the key learnings from the many approved HIG products and candidates in development to address EID can provide a template for future response and a critical tool to address new and emerging threats.

Acknowledgments

Editorial support was provided by The Curry Rockefeller Group, LLC (Tarrytown, NY), and was funded by Emergent BioSolutions (Gaithersburg, MD). The authors would also like thank the TXBU Team for discussions.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by Emergent BioSolutions.

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

All authors are employees of Emergent BioSolutions and may own stock or stock options.

References

  • 1.Baxter D. Active and passive immunity, vaccine types, excipients and licensing. Occup Med (Lond). 2007;57(8):1–20. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqm110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pauna AM, Luca AC, Azoicăi D.. Influenza vaccination. Advantages and disadvantages. SEA-Pract Appl Sci. 2019;7(20).131–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Verma P, Thakur A, Deshmukh K, Jha A, Verma S. Routes of drug administration. Int J Pharm Stud Res. 2010;1:54–59. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Shibata Y, Baba M, Kuniyuki M. Studies on the retention of passively transferred antibodies in man. II. Antibody activity in the blood after intravenous or intramuscular administration of anti-HBs human immunoglobulin. Vox Sang. 1983;45(1):77–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1423-0410.1983.tb04126.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Reyneveld GI, Savelkoul HFJ, Parmentier HK. Current understanding of natural antibodies and exploring the possibilities of modulation using veterinary models. A review. Front Immunol. 2020;11(2139):2139. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.02139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Nguyen AA, Habiballah SB, Platt CD, Geha RS, Chou JS, McDonald DR. Immunoglobulins in the treatment of COVID-19 infection: proceed with caution! Clin Immunol. 2020;216:108459. doi: 10.1016/j.clim.2020.108459. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Logue J, Crozier I, Jahrling PB, Kuhn JH. Post-exposure prophylactic vaccine candidates for the treatment of human Risk Group 4 pathogen infections. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2020;19(1):85–103. doi: 10.1080/14760584.2020.1713756. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gronski P, Seiler FR, Schwick HG. Discovery of antitoxins and development of antibody preparations for clinical uses from 1890 to 1990. Mol Immunol. 1991;28(12):1321–32. doi: 10.1016/0161-5890(91)90034-h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.US Department of Health and Human Services . Guidance for industry - safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetic studies to support marketing of immune globulin intravenous (human) as replacement therapy for primary humoral immunodeficiency. Rockville (MD): US Food and Drug Administration; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Buchacher A, Iberer G. Purification of intravenous immunoglobulin G from human plasma–aspects of yield and virus safety. Biotechnol J: Healthcare Nutr Technol. 2006;1(2):148–63. doi: 10.1002/biot.200500037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Buchacher A, Curling JM. Chapter 42 - Current manufacturing of human plasma immunoglobulin G. In: Jagschies G, Lindskog E, Łącki K, Galliher P, editors. Biopharmaceutical processing. Cambridge, MA: Elsevier; 2018. p. 857–76. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Vandeberg P, Cruz M, Diez JM, Merritt WK, Santos B, Trukawinski S, Wellhouse A, José M, Willis T. Production of anti-SARS-CoV-2 hyperimmune globulin from convalescent plasma. bioRxiv. 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.11.18.388991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kamada Ltd . KEDRAB (rabies immune globulin [human]). Full prescribing information. Negev (Israel): Kamada Ltd.; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Emergent BioSolutions Canada Inc . CNJ-016 (Vaccinia immune globulin intravenous (Human) [VIGIV]). Full prescribing information. Winnipeg (Canada): Emergent BioSolutions Canada Inc.; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.CSL Behring . CytoGam® (Cytomegalovirus immune globulin intravenous (Human)). Full prescribing information. Kankakee (IL): CSL Behring; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Saol Therapeutics Inc . HepaGam B® (hepatitis B immune globulin intravenous [human]). Full prescribing information. Roswell (GA, USA): Saol Therapeutics Inc.; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Saol Therapeutics Inc . VARIZIG® ([Varicella zoster immune globulin (Human)]). Full prescribing information. Roswell (GA, USA): Saol Therapeutics Inc.; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.ADMA Biologics . Nabi-HB® (hepatitis B immune globulin [human]). Full prescribing information. Boca Raton (FL): ADMA Biologics; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Baum A, Fulton BO, Wloga E, Copin R, Pascal KE, Russo V, Giordano S, Lanza K, Negron N, Ni M, et al. Antibody cocktail to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein prevents rapid mutational escape seen with individual antibodies. Science. 2020;369(6506):1014–18. doi: 10.1126/science.abd0831. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lambkin R, McLain L, Jones SE, Aldridge SL, Dimmock NJ. Neutralization escape mutants of type A influenza virus are readily selected by antisera from mice immunized with whole virus: a possible mechanism for antigenic drift. J Gen Virol. 1994;75(Pt 12):3493–502. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-75-12-3493. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cao H, Shi Y. Convalescent plasma: possible therapy for novel coronavirus disease 2019. Transfusion. 2020;60(5):1078–83. doi: 10.1111/trf.15797. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Schier JG, Wiener SW, Touger M, Nelson LS, Hoffman RS. Efficacy of Crotalidae polyvalent antivenin for the treatment of hognosed viper (Porthidium nasutum) envenomation. Ann Emerg Med. 2003;41(3):391–95. doi: 10.1067/mem.2003.81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hammarlund E, Thomas A, Poore EA, Amanna IJ, Rynko AE, Mori M, Chen Z, Slifka MK. Durability of vaccine-induced immunity against tetanus and diphtheria toxins: a cross-sectional analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62(9):1111–18. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Joao C, Negi VS, Kazatchkine MD, Bayry J, Kaveri SV. Passive serum therapy to immunomodulation by IVIG: a fascinating journey of antibodies. J Immunol. 2018;200(6):1957–63. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1701271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dunman PM, Nesin M. Passive immunization as prophylaxis: when and where will this work? Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2003;3(5):486–96. doi: 10.1016/j.coph.2003.05.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Dixit R, Herz J, Dalton R, Booy R. Benefits of using heterologous polyclonal antibodies and potential applications to new and undertreated infectious pathogens. Vaccine. 2016;34(9):1152–61. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.01.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Gust AI. Role of passive immunotherapies in managing infectious outbreaks. Biologicals. 2012;40(3):196–99. doi: 10.1016/j.biologicals.2012.01.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bozzo J, Jorquera JI. Use of human immunoglobulins as an anti-infective treatment: the experience so far and their possible re-emerging role. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2017;15(6):585–604. doi: 10.1080/14787210.2017.1328278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.U.S. Food and Drug Administration . Immune globulins. [accessed 2020 December 9]. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/approved-blood-products/immune-globulins.
  • 30.Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research . List of licensed biological products with (1) reference product exclusivity and (2) biosimilarity or interchangeability evaluations to date. [accessed 2020 December 9]. https://www.fda.gov/media/89426/download.
  • 31.Grifols Therapeutics Inc . HyperRAB (Rabies immuno globulin (human). full prescribing information.). Full prescribing information. Research Triangle Park (NC, USA): Grifols: Grifols Therapeutics Inc.; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Grifols Therapeutics Inc . GamaSTAN® S/D (immune globulin [human]). Full prescribing information. Research Triangle Park: Grifols Therapeutics Inc.; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . FDA approval of an extended period for administering VariZIG for postexposure prophylaxis of varicella. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61(12):212. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Duchon JM, Levin MJ, Gershon AA. Safety and varicella outcomes in in utero-exposed newborns and preterm infants treated with varicella zoster immune globulin (VARIZIG): a subgroup analysis of an expanded-access program. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2020;9(4):449–53. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piz070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Levin MJ, Duchon JM, Swamy GK, Gershon AA. Varicella zoster immune globulin (VARIZIG) administration up to 10 days after varicella exposure in pregnant women, immunocompromised participants, and infants: varicella outcomes and safety results from a large, open-label, expanded-access program. PLoS One. 2019;14(7):e0217749. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Mehrabi A, Esmaeilzadeh M, Fonouni H, Hafezi M, Rahbari NN, Golriz M, Majlesara A, Rad MT, Sadeghi M, Schmidt J. The role of HBIg as hepatitis B reinfection prophylaxis following liver transplantation. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2012;397(5):697–710. doi: 10.1007/s00423-011-0795-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Emergent BioSolutions . ANTHRASIL (anthrax immune globulin intravenous [human]). Full prescribing information. Winnipeg (Canada): Emergent BioSolutions; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Grifols Therapeutics Inc . HyperTET (Tetanus immune globulin (human). Full prescribing information.). Full Prescribing Information. Research Triangle Park (NC, USA): Grifols: Grifols Therapeutics Inc.; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Baxalta Inc . BabyBIG (botulism immune globulin intravenous [human]). Full prescribing information. Westlake Village (CA, USA): Baxalta Inc; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Emergent BioSolutions . BAT (botulism antitoxin heptavalent). Full prescribing information. Winnipeg (MB, Canada): Emergent BioSolutions; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Emergent BioSolutions . BioThrax (anthrax vaccine adsorbed). Full prescribing information. Lansing (MI, USA): Emergent BioSolutions; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Shirkey HC. Tetanus immune globulin (human) in prophylaxis against tetanus. J Pediatr. 1965;67(4):643–46. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(65)80436-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Rasetti-Escargueil C, Popoff MR. Antibodies and vaccines against botulinum toxins: available measures and novel approaches. Toxins (Basel). 2019;11(9):528. doi: 10.3390/toxins11090528. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.May ML, Corkeron MA, Stretton M. Infant botulism in Australia: availability of human botulinum antitoxin for treatment. Med J Aust. 2010;193(10):614–15. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2010.tb04073.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Arnon SS, Schechter R, Maslanka SE, Jewell NP, Hatheway CL. Human botulism immune globulin for the treatment of infant botulism. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(5):462–71. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa051926. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.U.S. Food and Drug Administration . Code of federal regulations title 21 - subpart I: approval of new drug when human efficacy studies are not ethical or feasible. [accessed 2020 December 8]. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=314&showFR=1&subpartNode=21:5.0.1.1.4.9.
  • 47.U.S. Food and Drug Administration . Code of federal regulations title 21 - subpart H: approval of biological products when human efficacy studies are not ethical or feasible. [accessed 2020 December 8]. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=601&showFR=1&subpartNode=21:7.0.1.1.2.8.
  • 48.Allio T. Regulatory pathways for medical products used in biodefense. In: Defense against biological attacks. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG; 2019. p. 283–96. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Yu PA, Lin NH, Mahon BE, Sobel J, Yu Y, Mody RK, Gu W, Clements J, Kim H-J, Rao AK. Safety and improved clinical outcomes in patients treated with new equine-derived heptavalent botulinum antitoxin. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;66(suppl_1):S57–S64. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix816. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Richardson JS, Parrera GS, Astacio H, Sahota H, Anderson DM, Hall C, Babinchak T. Safety and clinical outcomes of an equine-derived heptavalent botulinum antitoxin treatment for confirmed or suspected botulism in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;70(9):1950–57. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz515. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Hendricks KA, Wright ME, Shadomy SV, Bradley JS, Morrow MG, Pavia AT, Rubinstein E, Holty JE, Messonnier NE, Smith TL, et al. Centers for disease control and prevention expert panel meetings on prevention and treatment of anthrax in adults. Emerg Infect Dis. 2014;20(2):e130687. doi: 10.3201/eid2002.130687. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Cui X, Nolen LD, Sun J, Booth M, Donaldson L, Quinn CP, Boyer AE, Hendricks K, Shadomy S, Bothma P, et al. Analysis of anthrax immune globulin intravenous with antimicrobial treatment in injection drug users, Scotland, 2009-2010. Emerg Infect Dis. 2017;23(1):56–65. doi: 10.3201/eid2301.160608. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Vollman KE, Acquisto NM, Bodkin RP. A case of tetanus infection in an adult with a protective tetanus antibody level. Am J Emerg Med. 2014;32(4):392e393–394. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2013.10.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Williams DJ, Faiz MA, Abela-Ridder B, Ainsworth S, Bulfone TC, Nickerson AD, Habib AG, Junghanss T, Fan HW, Turner M, et al. Strategy for a globally coordinated response to a priority neglected tropical disease: snakebite envenoming. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13(2):e0007059. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007059. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Dart RC, Seifert SA, Boyer LV, Clark RF, Hall E, McKinney P, McNally J, Kitchens CS, Curry SC, Bogdan GM, et al. A randomized multicenter trial of crotalinae polyvalent immune Fab (ovine) antivenom for the treatment for crotaline snakebite in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(16):2030–36. doi: 10.1001/archinte.161.16.2030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Mascarenas DN, Fullerton L, Smolinske SC, Warrick BJ, Seifert SA. Comparison of F(ab’)2 and Fab antivenoms in rattlesnake envenomation: first year’s post-marketing experience with F(ab’)2 in New Mexico. Toxicon. 2020;186:42–45. doi: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2020.08.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Gerardo CJ, Quackenbush E, Lewis B, Rose SR, Greene S, Toschlog EA, Charlton NP, Mullins ME, Schwartz R, Denning D. The efficacy of Crotalidae polyvalent immune Fab (ovine) antivenom versus placebo plus optional rescue therapy on recovery from copperhead snake envenomation: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;70(2):233–244. e233. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.04.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Offerman SR, Daubert GP, Clark RF. The treatment of black widow spider envenomation with antivenin latrodectus mactans: a case series. Perm J. 2011;15(3):76–81. doi: 10.7812/tpp/10-136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Hurst NB, Lipe DN, Karpen SR, Patanwala AE, Taylor AM, Boesen KJ, Shirazi FM. Centruroides sculpturatus envenomation in three adult patients requiring treatment with antivenom. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2018;56(4):294–96. doi: 10.1080/15563650.2017.1371310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Hauke TJ, Herzig V. Dangerous arachnids-Fake news or reality? Toxicon. 2017;138:173–83. doi: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2017.08.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Boyer LV, Theodorou AA, Berg RA, Mallie J, Arizona Envenomation I, Chavez-Mendez A, Garcia-Ubbelohde W, Hardiman S, Alagon A. Antivenom for critically ill children with neurotoxicity from scorpion stings. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(20):2090–98. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0808455. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Seifert SA. Abstracts from Venom Week 2009, June 1–4, 2009 Albuquerque, NM. J Med Toxicol. 2010;6(2):234–66. doi: 10.1007/s13181-010-0094-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Maiztegui JI, Fernandez NJ, de Damilano AJ. Efficacy of immune plasma in treatment of Argentine haemorrhagic fever and association between treatment and a late neurological syndrome. Lancet. 1979;2(8154):1216–17. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(79)92335-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Custer DM, Thompson E, Schmaljohn CS, Ksiazek TG, Hooper JW. Active and passive vaccination against hantavirus pulmonary syndrome with Andes virus M genome segment-based DNA vaccine. J Virol. 2003;77(18):9894–905. doi: 10.1128/jvi.77.18.9894-9905.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Medina RA, Mirowsky-Garcia K, Hutt J, Hjelle B. Ribavirin, human convalescent plasma and anti-beta3 integrin antibody inhibit infection by Sin Nombre virus in the deer mouse model. J Gen Virol. 2007;88(Pt2):493–505. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.82459-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Vial PA, Valdivieso F, Calvo M, Rioseco ML, Riquelme R, Araneda A, Tomicic V, Graf J, Paredes L, Florenzano M, et al. A non-randomized multicentre trial of human immune plasma for treatment of hantavirus cardiopulmonary syndrome caused by Andes virus. Antivir Ther. 2015;20(4):377–86. doi: 10.3851/IMP2875. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Cao RY, Han JF, Jiang T, Tian X, Yu M, Deng YQ, Qin ED, Qin CF. In vitro and in vivo characterization of a new enterovirus type 71-specific human intravenous immunoglobulin manufactured from selected plasma donors. J Clin Virol. 2011;51(4):246–49. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2011.05.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Zhou B, Zhong N, Guan Y. Treatment with convalescent plasma for influenza A (H5N1) infection. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(14):1450–51. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc070359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Lu J, Guo Z, Pan X, Wang G, Zhang D, Li Y, Tan B, Ouyang L, Yu X. Passive immunotherapy for influenza A H5N1 virus infection with equine hyperimmune globulin F(ab’)2 in mice. Respir Res. 2006;7:43. doi: 10.1186/1465-9921-7-43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Kong LK, Zhou BP. Successful treatment of avian influenza with convalescent plasma. Hong Kong Med J. 2006;12:489. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Dye JM, Herbert AS, Kuehne AI, Barth JF, Muhammad MA, Zak SE, Ortiz RA, Prugar LI, Pratt WD. Postexposure antibody prophylaxis protects nonhuman primates from filovirus disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(13):5034–39. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1200409109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Makhoul B, Braun E, Herskovitz M, Ramadan R, Hadad S, Norberto K. Hyperimmune gammaglobulin for the treatment of West Nile virus encephalitis. Isr Med Assoc J. 2009;11:151–53. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Srivastava R, Ramakrishna C, Cantin E. Anti-inflammatory activity of intravenous immunoglobulins protects against West Nile virus encephalitis. J Gen Virol. 2015;96(Pt6):1347–57. doi: 10.1099/vir.0.000079. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Gnann JW Jr., Agrawal A, Hart J, Buitrago M, Carson P, Hanfelt-Goade D, Tyler K, Spotkov J, Freifeld A, Moore T, et al. Lack of efficacy of high-titered immunoglobulin in patients with West Nile virus central nervous system disease. Emerg Infect Dis. 2019;25(11):2064–73. doi: 10.3201/eid2511.190537. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Frame JD, Verbrugge GP, Gill RG, Pinneo L. The use of Lassa fever convalescent plasma in Nigeria. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1984;78(3):319–24. doi: 10.1016/0035-9203(84)90107-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Guillaume V, Contamin H, Loth P, Grosjean I, Courbot MC, Deubel V, Buckland R, Wild TF. Antibody prophylaxis and therapy against Nipah virus infection in hamsters. J Virol. 2006;80(4):1972–78. doi: 10.1128/JVI.80.4.1972-1978.2006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Zhang Z, Xie YW, Hong J, Zhang X, Kwok SY, Huang X, Wong SW, Wong BL, Group SA. Purification of severe acute respiratory syndrome hyperimmune globulins for intravenous injection from convalescent plasma. Transfusion. 2005;45(7):1160–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2005.00179.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Yeh KM, Chiueh TS, Siu LK, Lin JC, Chan PK, Peng MY, Wan HL, Chen JH, Hu BS, Perng CL, et al. Experience of using convalescent plasma for severe acute respiratory syndrome among healthcare workers in a Taiwan hospital. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005;56(5):919–22. doi: 10.1093/jac/dki346. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Cheng Y, Wong R, Soo YO, Wong WS, Lee CK, Ng MH, Chan P, Wong KC, Leung CB, Cheng G. Use of convalescent plasma therapy in SARS patients in Hong Kong. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2005;24(1):44–46. doi: 10.1007/s10096-004-1271-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Scott SSO, Braga-Neto P, Pereira LP, Nobrega PR, de Assis Aquino Gondim F, Sobreira-Neto MA, Schiavon CCM. Immunoglobulin-responsive chikungunya encephalitis: two case reports. J Neurovirol. 2017;23(4):625–31. doi: 10.1007/s13365-017-0535-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Couderc T, Khandoudi N, Grandadam M, Visse C, Gangneux N, Bagot S, Prost JF, Lecuit M. Prophylaxis and therapy for Chikungunya virus infection. J Infect Dis. 2009;200(4):516–23. doi: 10.1086/600381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Fernandes AIV, Souza JR, Silva AR, Cruz S, Castellano LRC. Immunoglobulin therapy in a patient with severe Chikungunya fever and vesiculobullous lesions. Front Immunol. 2019;10:1498. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.01498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Erduran E, Bahadir A, Palanci N, Gedik Y. The treatment of Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever with high-dose methylprednisolone, intravenous immunoglobulin, and fresh frozen plasma. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2013;35(1):e19–24. doi: 10.1097/MPH.0b013e3182706444. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Salehi H, Salehi M, Adibi N, Salehi M. Comparative study between ribavirin and ribavirin plus intravenous immunoglobulin against Crimean Congo hemorrhagic fever. J Res Med Sci. 2013;18:497–500. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Kubar A, Haciomeroglu M, Ozkul A, Bagriacik U, Akinci E, Sener K, Bodur H. Prompt administration of Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF) virus hyperimmunoglobulin in patients diagnosed with CCHF and viral load monitorization by reverse transcriptase-PCR. Jpn J Infect Dis. 2011;64:439–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Hung IFN, To KKW, Lee CK, Lee KL, Yan WW, Chan K, Chan WM, Ngai CW, Law KI, Chow FL, et al. Hyperimmune IV immunoglobulin treatment: a multicenter double-blind randomized controlled trial for patients with severe 2009 influenza A(H1N1) infection. Chest. 2013;144(2):464–73. doi: 10.1378/chest.12-2907. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Chong JL, Sapari S, Kuan YC. A case of acute respiratory distress syndrome associated with novel H1N1 treated with intravenous immunoglobulin G. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2011;44(4):319–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jmii.2010.07.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Hung IF, To KK, Lee CK, Lee KL, Chan K, Yan WW, Liu R, Watt CL, Chan WM, Lai KY, et al. Convalescent plasma treatment reduced mortality in patients with severe pandemic influenza A (H1N1) 2009 virus infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(4):447–56. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciq106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Gordon CL, Langan K, Charles PG, Bellomo R, Hart GK, Torresi J, Johnson PD, Grayson ML. Pooled human immunoglobulin therapy in critically Ill patients with pandemic 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pneumonitis and immunoglobulin G2 subclass (IgG2) deficiency. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(3):422–26. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciq082. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Gouveia FL, Oliveira R, Lucena A, Cordeiro MT, Leite ACL. Production of intravenous human dengue immunoglobulin from Brazilian-blood donors. Braz J Pharm Sci. 2013;49:821–29. doi: 10.1590/S1984-82502013000400022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Beigel JH, Voell J, Kumar P, Raviprakash K, Wu H, Jiao JA, Sullivan E, Luke T, Davey RT Jr.. Safety and tolerability of a novel, polyclonal human anti-MERS coronavirus antibody produced from transchromosomic cattle: a phase 1 randomised, double-blind, single-dose-escalation study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(4):410–18. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30002-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Ko JH, Seok H, Cho SY, Ha YE, Baek JY, Kim SH, Kim YJ, Park JK, Chung CR, Kang ES, et al. Challenges of convalescent plasma infusion therapy in Middle East respiratory coronavirus infection: a single centre experience. Antivir Ther. 2018;23(7):617–22. doi: 10.3851/IMP3243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Arabi Y, Balkhy H, Hajeer AH, Bouchama A, Hayden FG, Al-Omari A, Al-Hameed FM, Taha Y, Shindo N, Whitehead J, et al. Feasibility, safety, clinical, and laboratory effects of convalescent plasma therapy for patients with Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection: a study protocol. Springerplus. 2015;4:709. doi: 10.1186/s40064-015-1490-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Wu XX, Gao HN, Wu HB, Peng XM, Ou HL, Li LJ. Successful treatment of avian-origin influenza A (H7N9) infection using convalescent plasma. Int J Infect Dis. 2015;41:3–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2015.10.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.van Griensven J, Edwards T, de Lamballerie X, Semple MG, Gallian P, Baize S, Horby PW, Raoul H, Magassouba N, Antierens A, et al. Evaluation of convalescent plasma for Ebola virus disease in Guinea. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(1):33–42. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1511812. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Sahr F, Ansumana R, Massaquoi TA, Idriss BR, Sesay FR, Lamin JM, Baker S, Nicol S, Conton B, Johnson W, et al. Evaluation of convalescent whole blood for treating Ebola Virus Disease in Freetown, Sierra Leone. J Infect. 2017;74(3):302–09. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2016.11.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Kraft CS, Hewlett AL, Koepsell S, Winkler AM, Kratochvil CJ, Larson L, Varkey JB, Mehta AK, Lyon GM 3rd, Friedman-Moraco RJ, et al. The use of TKM-100802 and convalescent plasma in 2 patients with Ebola virus disease in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61(4):496–502. doi: 10.1093/cid/civ334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Dowall SD, Jacquot F, Landon J, Rayner E, Hall G, Carbonnelle C, Raoul H, Pannetier D, Cameron I, Coxon R, et al. Post-exposure treatment of non-human primates lethally infected with Ebola virus with EBOTAb, a purified ovine IgG product. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):4099. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-03910-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Wang H, Wong G, Zhu W, He S, Zhao Y, Yan F, Rahim MN, Bi Y, Zhang Z, Cheng K, et al. Equine-origin immunoglobulin fragments protect nonhuman primates from Ebola virus disease. J Virol. 2019;93(5):e01548–01518. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01548-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Branche E, Simon AY, Sheets N, Kim K, Barker D, Nguyen AT, Sahota H, Young MP, Salgado R, Mamidi A, et al. Human polyclonal antibodies prevent lethal Zika virus infection in mice. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):9857. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-46291-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Berry N, Kempster S, Ham C, Jenkins A, Hall J, Page M, Mattiuzzo G, Adedeji Y, Hewson R, Giles E, et al. Passive immunisation of convalescent human anti-Zika plasma protects against challenge with New World Zika virus in cynomolgus macaques. NPJ Vaccines. 2020;5:86. doi: 10.1038/s41541-020-00234-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Shen C, Wang Z, Zhao F, Yang Y, Li J, Yuan J, Wang F, Li D, Yang M, Xing L, et al. Treatment of 5 critically ill patients with COVID-19 with convalescent plasma. JAMA. 2020;323(16):1582–89. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4783. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Liu STH, Lin HM, Baine I, Wajnberg A, Gumprecht JP, Rahman F, Rodriguez D, Tandon P, Bassily-Marcus A, Bander J, et al. Convalescent plasma treatment of severe COVID-19: a propensity score-matched control study. Nat Med. 2020;26(11):1708–13. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-1088-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Duan K, Liu B, Li C, Zhang H, Yu T, Qu J, Zhou M, Chen L, Meng S, Hu Y, et al. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma therapy in severe COVID-19 patients. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(17):9490–96. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2004168117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Jones KE, Patel NG, Levy MA, Storeygard A, Balk D, Gittleman JL, Daszak P. Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature. 2008;451(7181):990–93. doi: 10.1038/nature06536. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Priyadarsini SL, Suresh M, Huisingh D. What can we learn from previous pandemics to reduce the frequency of emerging infectious diseases like COVID-19? Glob Transit. 2020;2:202–20. doi: 10.1016/j.glt.2020.09.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Marston HD, Folkers GK, Morens DM, Fauci AS. Emerging viral diseases: confronting threats with new technologies. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6(253):253ps210. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3009872. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Lobermann M, Borso D, Hilgendorf I, Fritzsche C, Zettl UK, Reisinger EC. Immunization in the adult immunocompromised host. Autoimmun Rev. 2012;11(3):212–18. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2011.05.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Thijssen M, Devos T, Ejtahed HS, Amini-Bavil-Olyaee S, Pourfathollah AA, Pourkarim MR. Convalescent plasma against COVID-19: a broad-spectrum therapeutic approach for emerging infectious diseases. Microorganisms. 2020;8(11):1733. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8111733. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Roback JD, Guarner J. Convalescent plasma to treat COVID-19: possibilities and challenges. JAMA. 2020;323(16):1561–62. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4940. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Ciencewicki JM, Schouest KR, Gierman TM, Vandeberg PJ, Gooch BD. Plasma donors in the southwestern United States positively contribute to the diverse therapeutic antibody profile of immune globulin products. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):6850. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-63794-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Perez EE, Orange JS, Bonilla F, Chinen J, Chinn IK, Dorsey M, El-Gamal Y, Harville TO, Hossny E, Mazer B, et al. Update on the use of immunoglobulin in human disease: A review of evidence. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;139(3S):S1–S46. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2016.09.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.US Food and Drug Administration . CFR - Code of federal regulations title 21. [accessed 2020 December 8]. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=640&showFR=1&subpartNode=21:7.0.1.1.7.10
  • 114.Garraud O. Use of convalescent plasma in Ebola virus infection. Transfus Apher Sci. 2017;56(1):31–34. doi: 10.1016/j.transci.2016.12.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.VanBlargan LA, Goo L, Pierson TC. Deconstructing the antiviral neutralizing-antibody response: implications for vaccine development and immunity. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2016;80(4):989–1010. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00024-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Vanderven HA, Kent SJ. The protective potential of Fc-mediated antibody functions against influenza virus and other viral pathogens. Immunol Cell Biol. 2020;98(4):253–63. doi: 10.1111/imcb.12312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Martins KA, Gregory MK, Valdez SM, Sprague TR, Encinales L, Pacheco N, Cure C, Porras-Ramirez A, Rico-Mendoza A, Chang A, et al. Neutralizing antibodies from convalescent Chikungunya virus patients can cross-neutralize Mayaro and Una viruses. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2019;100(6):1541–44. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.18-0756. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Fox JM, Huang L, Tahan S, Powell LA, Crowe JE Jr., Wang D, Diamond MS. A cross-reactive antibody protects against Ross River virus musculoskeletal disease despite rapid neutralization escape in mice. PLoS Pathog. 2020;16(8):e1008743. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1008743. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Venturi G, Zammarchi L, Fortuna C, Remoli ME, Benedetti E, Fiorentini C, Trotta M, Rizzo C, Mantella A, Rezza G, Bartoloni A. An autochthonous case of Zika due to possible sexual transmission, Florence, Italy, 2014. Eurosurveillance. 2016;21(8):30148. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2016.21.8.30148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Petersen LR, Jamieson DJ, Powers AM, Honein MA. Zika virus. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(16):1552–63. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1602113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Petersen EE, Meaney-Delman D, Neblett-Fanfair R, Havers F, Oduyebo T, Hills SL, Rabe IB, Lambert A, Abercrombie J, Martin SW, et al. Update: interim guidance for preconception counseling and prevention of sexual transmission of Zika virus for persons with possible zika virus exposure - United States, Sep 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(39):1077–81. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6539e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Ai JW, Zhang Y, Zhang W. Zika virus outbreak: ‘a perfect storm’. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2016;5(1):e21. doi: 10.1038/emi.2016.42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.World Health Organization . Zika epidemiology update. [accessed 2020 December 8]. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/zika/zika-epidemiology-update-july-2019.pdf
  • 124.Uncini A, Shahrizaila N, Kuwabara S. Zika virus infection and Guillain-Barre syndrome: a review focused on clinical and electrophysiological subtypes. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2017;88(3):266–71. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2016-314310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Johansson MA, Mier-y-Teran-Romero L, Reefhuis J, Gilboa SM, Hills SL. Zika and the risk of microcephaly. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(1):1–4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1605367. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Ventura CV, Maia M, Travassos SB, Martins TT, Patriota F, Nunes ME, Agra C, Torres VL, van der Linden V, Ramos RC, et al. Risk factors associated with the ophthalmoscopic findings identified in infants with presumed Zika virus congenital infection. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134(8):912–18. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.1784. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Rasmussen SA, Jamieson DJ, Honein MA, Petersen LR. Zika virus and birth defects–reviewing the evidence for causality. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(20):1981–87. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr1604338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Brasil P, Pereira JP Jr., Moreira ME, Ribeiro Nogueira RM, Damasceno L, Wakimoto M, Rabello RS, Valderramos SG, Halai UA, Salles TS, et al. Zika virus infection in pregnant women in Rio de Janeiro. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(24):2321–34. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1602412. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Mlakar J, Korva M, Tul N, Popovic M, Poljsak-Prijatelj M, Mraz J, Kolenc M, Resman Rus K, Vesnaver Vipotnik T, Fabjan Vodusek V, et al. Zika virus associated with microcephaly. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(10):951–58. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1600651. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Stein DR, Golden JW, Griffin BD, Warner BM, Ranadheera C, Scharikow L, Sloan A, Frost KL, Kobasa D, Booth SA, et al. Human polyclonal antibodies produced in transchromosomal cattle prevent lethal Zika virus infection and testicular atrophy in mice. Antiviral Res. 2017;146:164–73. doi: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2017.09.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Siddharthan V, Miao J, Van Wettere AJ, Li R, Wu H, Sullivan E, Jiao J, Hooper JW, Safronetz D, Morrey JD, et al. Human polyclonal antibodies produced from transchromosomal bovine provides prophylactic and therapeutic protections against Zika virus infection in STAT2 KO Syrian hamsters. Viruses. 2019;11(2):92. doi: 10.3390/v11020092. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 132.Kamada Ltd . Kamada provides update on progress related to its proprietary hyper-immunoglobulin (IgGs) platform technology including its commercial anti-rabies IgG and its pipeline products anti-corona (COVID-19) and Anti-Zika IgGs. [accessed 2020 December 8]. https://www.biospace.com/article/releases/kamada-provides-update-on-progress-related-to-its-proprietary-hyper-immunoglobulin-iggs-platform-technology-including-its-commercial-anti-rabies-igg-and-its-pipeline-products-anti-corona-covid-19-and-anti-zika-iggs/.
  • 133.Maciejewski S, Ruckwardt TJ, Morabito KM, Foreman BM, Burgomaster KE, Gordon DN, Pelc RS, DeMaso CR, Ko S-Y, Fisher BE, et al. Distinct neutralizing antibody correlates of protection among related Zika virus vaccines identify a role for antibody quality. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12(547):eaaw9066. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaw9066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Shan C, Xie X, Luo H, Muruato AE, Liu Y, Wakamiya M, La JH, Chung JM, Weaver SC, Wang T, et al. Maternal vaccination and protective immunity against Zika virus vertical transmission. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):5677. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-13589-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Van Rompay KK, Keesler RI, Ardeshir A, Watanabe J, Usachenko J, Singapuri A, Cruzen C, Bliss-Moreau E, Murphy AM, Yee JL. DNA vaccination before conception protects Zika virus–exposed pregnant macaques against prolonged viremia and improves fetal outcomes. Sci Transl Med. 2019;11(523). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 136.Fouda GG, Martinez DR, Swamy GK, Permar SR. The impact of IgG transplacental transfer on early life immunity. Immunohorizons. 2018;2(1):14–25. doi: 10.4049/immunohorizons.1700057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Revello MG, Lazzarotto T, Guerra B, Spinillo A, Ferrazzi E, Kustermann A, Guaschino S, Vergani P, Todros T, Frusca T, et al. A randomized trial of hyperimmune globulin to prevent congenital cytomegalovirus. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(14):1316–26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1310214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Eke AC, Eleje GU, Eke UA, Xia Y, Liu J. Hepatitis B immunoglobulin during pregnancy for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis B virus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2(2):CD008545. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008545.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 139.Cromwell C, Tarantino M, Aledort LM. Safety of anti-D during pregnancy. Am J Hematol. 2009;84(4):261–62. doi: 10.1002/ajh.21376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 140.Pantoja P, Perez-Guzman EX, Rodriguez IV, White LJ, Gonzalez O, Serrano C, Giavedoni L, Hodara V, Cruz L, Arana T, et al. Zika virus pathogenesis in rhesus macaques is unaffected by pre-existing immunity to dengue virus. Nat Commun. 2017;8:15674. doi: 10.1038/ncomms15674. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 141.Chang -H-H, Huber RG, Bond PJ, Grad YH, Camerini D, Maurer-Stroh S, Lipsitch M. Systematic analysis of protein identity between Zika virus and other arthropod-borne viruses. Bull World Health Organ. 2017;95(7):517. doi: 10.2471/BLT.16.182105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 142.Priyamvada L, Hudson W, Ahmed R, Wrammert J. Humoral cross-reactivity between Zika and dengue viruses: implications for protection and pathology. Emerging Microbes Infect. 2019;6(1):1–6. doi: 10.1038/emi.2017.42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 143.Katzelnick LC, Gresh L, Halloran ME, Mercado JC, Kuan G, Gordon A, Balmaseda A, Harris E. Antibody-dependent enhancement of severe dengue disease in humans. Science. 2017;358(6365):929–32. doi: 10.1126/science.aan6836. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 144.Masel J, McCracken MK, Gleeson T, Morrison B, Rutherford G, Imrie A, Jarman RG, Koren M, Pollett S. Does prior dengue virus exposure worsen clinical outcomes of Zika virus infection? A systematic review, pooled analysis and lessons learned. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13(1):e0007060. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007060. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 145.McCracken MK, Gromowski GD, Friberg HL, Lin X, Abbink P, De La Barrera R, Eckles KH, Garver LS, Boyd M, Jetton D, et al. Impact of prior flavivirus immunity on Zika virus infection in rhesus macaques. PLoS Pathog. 2017;13(8):e1006487. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006487. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 146.Ribeiro GS, Kikuti M, Tauro LB, Nascimento LCJ, Cardoso CW, Campos GS, Ko AI, Weaver SC, Reis MG, Kitron U, on behalf of the Salvador Arboviral Research Group. Does immunity after Zika virus infection cross-protect against dengue? Lancet Global Health. 2018;6(2):e140–e141. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30496-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 147.Paget J, Spreeuwenberg P, Charu V, Taylor RJ, Iuliano AD, Bresee J, Simonsen L, Viboud C. Global seasonal influenza-associated mortality collaborator network and GLaMOR collaborating teams. Global mortality associated with seasonal influenza epidemics: new burden estimates and predictors from the GLaMOR Project. J Glob Health. 2019;9(2):020421. doi: 10.7189/jogh.09.020421. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 148.Krammer F. The human antibody response to influenza A virus infection and vaccination. Nat Rev Immunol. 2019;19(6):383–97. doi: 10.1038/s41577-019-0143-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 149.Su S, Chaves SS, Perez A, D’Mello T, Kirley PD, Yousey-Hindes K, Farley MM, Harris M, Sharangpani R, Lynfield R, et al. Comparing clinical characteristics between hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed influenza A and B virus infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59:252–55. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 150.Moscona A. Oseltamivir resistance—disabling our influenza defenses. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2633–36. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp058291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 151.Padilla-Quirarte HO, Lopez-Guerrero DV, Gutierrez-Xicotencatl L, Esquivel-Guadarrama F. Protective antibodies against influenza proteins. Front Immunol. 2019;10:1677. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.01677. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 152.Neerukonda SN, Vassell R, Weiss CD. Neutralizing antibodies targeting the conserved stem region of influenza hemagglutinin. Vaccines. 2020;8(3):382. doi: 10.3390/vaccines8030382. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 153.Chen YQ, Wohlbold TJ, Zheng NY, Huang M, Huang Y, Neu KE, Lee J, Wan H, Rojas KT, Kirkpatrick E, et al. Influenza infection in humans induces broadly cross-reactive and protective neuraminidase-reactive antibodies. Cell. 2018;173(2):417–429e410. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 154.Lee CC, Yang CY, Lin LL, Ko TP, Chang AH, Chang SS, Wang AH. An effective neutralizing antibody against influenza virus H1N1 from human B cells. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):4546. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-40937-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 155.Nachbagauer R, Choi A, Hirsh A, Margine I, Iida S, Barrera A, Ferres M, Albrecht RA, Garcia-Sastre A, Bouvier NM, et al. Defining the antibody cross-reactome directed against the influenza virus surface glycoproteins. Nat Immunol. 2017;18(4):464–73. doi: 10.1038/ni.3684. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 156.Kim JH, Reber AJ, Kumar A, Ramos P, Sica G, Music N, Guo Z, Mishina M, Stevens J, York IA, et al. Non-neutralizing antibodies induced by seasonal influenza vaccine prevent, not exacerbate A(H1N1)pdm09 disease. Sci Rep. 2016;6:37341. doi: 10.1038/srep37341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 157.Arunkumar GA, Ioannou A, Wohlbold TJ, Meade P, Aslam S, Amanat F, Ayllon J, García-Sastre A, Krammer F. Broadly cross-reactive, nonneutralizing antibodies against influenza B virus hemagglutinin demonstrate effector function-dependent protection against lethal viral challenge in mice. J Virol. 2019;93(6):e01696-18. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01696-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 158.Mair-Jenkins J, Saavedra-Campos M, Baillie JK, Cleary P, Khaw FM, Lim WS, Makki S, Rooney KD, Nguyen-Van-Tam JS, Beck CR, et al. The effectiveness of convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin for the treatment of severe acute respiratory infections of viral etiology: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis. J Infect Dis. 2015;211(1):80–90. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiu396. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 159.Vanderven HA, Wragg K, Ana-Sosa-Batiz F, Kristensen AB, Jegaskanda S, Wheatley AK, Wentworth D, Wines BD, Hogarth PM, Rockman S, et al. Anti-influenza hyperimmune immunoglobulin enhances Fc-functional antibody immunity during human influenza infection. J Infect Dis. 2018;218(9):1383–93. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiy328. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 160.Hohenadl C, Wodal W, Kerschbaum A, Fritz R, Howard MK, Farcet MR, Portsmouth D, McVey JK, Baker DA, Ehrlich HJ, et al. Hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin containing high titers of pandemic H1N1 hemagglutinin and neuraminidase antibodies provides dose-dependent protection against lethal virus challenge in SCID mice. Virol J. 2014;11(1):70. doi: 10.1186/1743-422X-11-70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 161.Herbreteau CH, Denizot M, Lowther S, Riddell S, Frazer L, Haining J, Arkinstall R, Payne J, Harper J, Johnson D, et al. Efficacy of a specific polyclonal equine F(ab’)2 against avian influenza (H5N1) in ferrets: synergy with oseltamivir. Immunotherapy. 2016;8(9):1021–32. doi: 10.2217/imt-2016-0062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 162.Qiu H, Andersen H, Tarbet EB, Muhammad FS, Carnelley T, Pronyk R, Barker D, Kodihalli S. Efficacy of anti-influenza immunoglobulin (FLU-IGIV) in ferrets and mice infected with 2009 pandemic influenza virus. Antiviral Res. 2020;180:104753. doi: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2020.104753. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 163.Belser J, Katz J, Tumpey T. The ferret as a model organism to study influenza A virus infection. Dis Model Mech. 2011;4:575–79. doi: 10.1242/dmm.007823. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 164.INSIGHT FLU005 IVIG Pilot Study Group . INSIGHT FLU005: an anti-influenza virus hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin pilot study. J Infect Dis. 2016;213(4):574–78. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiv453. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 165.Davey RT Jr, Fernández-Cruz E, Markowitz N, Pett S, Babiker AG, Wentworth D, Khurana S, Engen N, Gordin F, Jain MK, et al. Anti-influenza hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin for adults with influenza A or B infection (FLU-IVIG): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7(11):951–63. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30253-X. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 166.Kanjilal S, Mina MJ. Passive immunity for the treatment of influenza: quality not quantity. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7(11):922–23. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30265-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 167.World Health Organization . WHO coronavirus disease (COVID-19) dashboard. [accessed 2020 September 30]. https://covid19.who.int/
  • 168.Plasma Protein Therapeutics Association . [accessed 2020 December 8]. https://www.pptaglobal.org/
  • 169.Tay MZ, Poh CM, Renia L, MacAry PA, Ng LFP. The trinity of COVID-19: immunity, inflammation and intervention. Nat Rev Immunol. 2020;20(6):363–74. doi: 10.1038/s41577-020-0311-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 170.Fung M, Nambiar A, Pandey S, Aldrich JM, Teraoka J, Freise C, Roberts J, Chandran S, Hays SR, Bainbridge E, et al. Treatment of immunocompromised COVID-19 patients with convalescent plasma. Transpl Infect Dis. 2020;e13477. doi: 10.1111/tid.13477. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 171.Perotti C, Baldanti F, Bruno R, Del Fante C, Seminari E, Casari S, Percivalle E, Glingani C, Musella V, Belliato M, et al. 2020. Mortality reduction in 46 severe Covid-19 patients treated with hyperimmune plasma. A proof of concept single arm multicenter interventional trial. Haematologica. 2020;105(12):2834–2840. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2020.261784. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 172.Perotti C, Del Fante C, Baldanti F, Franchini M, Percivalle E, Vecchio Nepita E, Seminari E, De Silvestri A, Bruno R, Klersy C. Plasma from donors recovered from the new Coronavirus 2019 as therapy for critical patients with COVID-19 (COVID-19 plasma study): a multicentre study protocol. Intern Emerg Med. 2020;15(5):819–24. doi: 10.1007/s11739-020-02384-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 173.Khulood D, Adil MS, Sultana R, Nimra. Convalescent plasma appears efficacious and safe in COVID-19. Ther Adv Infect Dis. 2020;7:2049936120957931. doi: 10.1177/2049936120957931. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 174.Dogan M, Kozhaya L, Placek L, Gunter C, Yigit M, Hardy R, Plassmeyer M, Coatney P, Lillard K, Bukhari Z, et al. Novel SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody and neutralization assays reveal wide range of humoral immune response during COVID-19. medRxiv. 2020; doi: 10.1101/2020.07.07.20148106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 175.Estcourt LJ, Roberts DJ. Convalescent plasma for COVID-19. BMJ. 2020;370:m3516. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 176.U.S. Food and Drug Administration . EUA 26382: emergency use authorization (EUA) request. 2020.
  • 177.Marano G, Vaglio S, Pupella S, Facco G, Catalano L, Liumbruno GM, Grazzini G. Convalescent plasma: new evidence for an old therapeutic tool? Blood Transfus. 2016;14(2):152–57. doi: 10.2450/2015.0131-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 178.Steffen TL, Stone ET, Hassert M, Geerling E, Grimberg BT, Espino AM, Pantoja P, Climent C, Hoft DF, George SL. The receptor binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 spike is the key target of neutralizing antibody in human polyclonal sera. bioRxiv. 2020; preprint. doi: 10.1101/2020.08.07.241877. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 179.Chi X, Yan R, Zhang J, Zhang G, Zhang Y, Hao M, Zhang Z, Fan P, Dong Y, Yang Y, et al. A neutralizing human antibody binds to the N-terminal domain of the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. Science. 2020;369(6504):650–55. doi: 10.1126/science.abc6952. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 180.Yan R, Wang R, Ju B, Yu J, Zhang Y, Liu N, Wang J, Zhang Q, Chen P, Zhou B, et al. 2020. Structural basis for bivalent binding and inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 infection by human potent neutralizing antibodies. bioRxiv. 2020;preprint. doi: 10.1101/2020.10.13.336800 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 181.Wajnberg A, Amanat F, Firpo A, Altman DR, Bailey MJ, Mansour M, McMahon M, Meade P, Mendu DR, Muellers K, et al. Robust neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 infection persist for months. Science. 2020;370(6521):1227–30. doi: 10.1126/science.abd7728. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 182.Wang X, Guo X, Xin Q, Pan Y, Hu Y, Li J, Chu Y, Feng Y, Wang Q. Neutralizing antibodies responses to SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 inpatients and convalescent patients. Clin Infect Dis. 2020:ciaa721. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa721. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 183.Klein SL, Pekosz A, Park HS, Ursin RL, Shapiro JR, Benner SE, Littlefield K, Kumar S, Naik HM, Betenbaugh MJ, et al. Sex, age, and hospitalization drive antibody responses in a COVID-19 convalescent plasma donor population. J Clin Invest. 2020;130(11):6141–50. doi: 10.1172/JCI142004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 184.Duffy S. Why are RNA virus mutation rates so damn high? PLoS Biol. 2018;16(8):e3000003. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 185.Wang R, Chen J, Gao K, Hozumi Y, Yin C, Wei G. Characterizing SARS-CoV-2 mutations in the United States. Res Sq. 2020. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-49671/v1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 186.Wang R, Hozumi Y, Yin C, Wei GW. Decoding SARS-CoV-2 transmission and evolution and ramifications for COVID-19 diagnosis, vaccine, and medicine. J Chem Inf Model. 2020;60:5853–65. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.0c00501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 187.Van Egeren D, Novokhodko A, Stoddard M, Tran U, Zetter B, Rogers M, Pentelute BL, Carlson JM, Hixon M, Joseph-McCarthy D, et al. Risk of evolutionary escape from neutralizing antibodies targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. medRxiv. 2020; doi: 10.1101/2020.11.17.20233726. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 188.Lee CY-P, Amrun SN, Chee RS-L, Goh YS, Mak T-M, Octavia S, Yeo NK-W, Chang ZW, Tay MZ, Torres-Ruesta A, et al. Neutralizing antibodies from early cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection offer cross-protection against the SARS-CoV-2 D614G variant. bioRxiv. 2020; doi: 10.1101/2020.10.08.332544. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 189.Zhang L, Jackson CB, Mou H, Ojha A, Rangarajan ES, Izard T, Farzan M, Choe H. The D614G mutation in the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein reduces S1 shedding and increases infectivity. bioRxiv. 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.06.12.148726. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 190.Klumpp-Thomas C, Kalish H, Hicks J, Mehalko J, Drew M, Memoli MJ, Hall MD, Esposito D, Sadtler K. D614G spike variant does not alter IgG, IgM, or IgA spike seroassay performance. medRxiv. 2020; 2020.2007.2008.20147371. doi: 10.1101/2020.07.08.20147371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 191.Thomson EC, Rosen LE, Shepherd JG, Spreafico R, da Silva Filipe A, Wojcechowskyj JA, Davis C, Piccoli L, Pascall DJ, Dillen J, et al. The circulating SARS-CoV-2 spike variant N439K maintains fitness while evading antibody-mediated immunity. bioRxiv. 2020; 2020.2011.2004.355842. doi: 10.1101/2020.11.04.355842. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 192.Clinicaltrials.gov . Efficacy and Safety of Two Hyperimmune Equine Anti Sars-CoV-2 Serum in COVID-19 Patients (SECR-01). [accessed 2020 December 8]. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04610502.
  • 193.Clinicaltrials.gov . Safety and efficacy of anti-SARS-CoV-2 equine antibody fragments (INOSARS) for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. [accessed 2020 December 8]. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04514302.
  • 194.Clinicaltrials.gov . Treatment with anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin in patients with COVID-19. [accessed 2020 December 8]. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04573855.
  • 195.Clinicaltrials.gov . A study to investigate the pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of INM005 in patients with COVID-19. [accessed 2020 December 8]. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04494984.
  • 196.Clinicaltrials.gov . Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of SAB-185 in healthy participants. [accessed 2020 December 8]. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04468958.
  • 197.Clinicaltrials.gov . Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of SAB-185 in ambulatory participants with COVID-19. [accessed 2020 December 8]. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04469179.
  • 198.Monzani PS, Adona PR, Ohashi OM, Meirelles FV, Wheeler MB. Transgenic bovine as bioreactors: challenges and perspectives. Bioengineered. 2016;7(3):123–31. doi: 10.1080/21655979.2016.1171429. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 199.Gardner CL, Sun C, Luke T, Raviprakash K, Wu H, Jiao JA, Sullivan E, Reed DS, Ryman KD, Klimstra WB. Antibody preparations from human transchromosomic cows exhibit prophylactic and therapeutic efficacy against Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus. J Virol. 2017;91(14):e00226–00217. doi: 10.1128/JVI.00226-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 200.Dye JM, Wu H, Hooper JW, Khurana S, Kuehne AI, Coyle EM, Ortiz RA, Fuentes S, Herbert AS, Golding H, et al. Production of potent fully human polyclonal antibodies against Ebola Zaire Virus in transchromosomal cattle. Sci Rep. 2016;6(1):24897. doi: 10.1038/srep24897. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 201.Rosenke K, Bounds CE, Hanley PW, Saturday G, Sullivan E, Wu H, Jiao JA, Feldmann H, Schmaljohn C, Safronetz D. Human polyclonal antibodies produced by transchromosomal cattle provide partial protection against lethal Zaire Ebolavirus challenge in rhesus macaques. J Infect Dis. 2018;218(suppl_5):S658–S661. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiy430. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 202.Luke T, Wu H, Zhao J, Channappanavar R, Coleman CM, Jiao JA, Matsushita H, Liu Y, Postnikova EN, Ork BL, et al. Human polyclonal immunoglobulin G from transchromosomic bovines inhibits MERS-CoV in vivo. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8(326):326ra321. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf1061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 203.SAb Biotherapeutics . SAb biotherapeutics announces first participant dosed in phase 1 clinical trial of SAB-176 for seasonal influenza. [accessed 2020 November 18]. https://www.sabbiotherapeutics.com/2020/07/30/sab-biotherapeutics-announces-first-participant-dosed-in-phase-1-clinical-trial-of-sab-176-for-seasonal-influenza/.
  • 204.SAb Biotherapeutics . SAb biotherapeutics announces first participant dosed in phase 1 clinical trial of SAB-185 for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19. [accessed 2020 November 18]. https://www.sabbiotherapeutics.com/2020/08/11/sab-biotherapeutics-announces-first-participant-dosed-in-phase-1-clinical-trial-of-sab-185-for-the-treatment-and-prevention-of-covid-19/.
  • 205.Vanhove B, Duvaux O, Rousse J, Royer P-J, Evanno G, Ciron C, Lheriteau E, Vacher L, Gervois N, Oger R, et al. High neutralizing potency of swine glyco-humanized polyclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. bioRxiv. 2020; preprint. doi: 10.1101/2020.07.25.217158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 206.Clinicaltrials.gov . First in human study: LIS1, an induction treatment in kidney transplanted patients. [accessed 2020 December 8]. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04431219.
  • 207.Clinicaltrials.gov . Study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of XAV-19 in patients with COVID-19 induced moderate pneumonia (POLYCOR). [accessed 2020 December 8]. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04453384.
  • 208.Wang XZ, Coljee VW, Maynard JA. Back to the future: recombinant polyclonal antibody therapeutics. Curr Opin Chem Eng. 2013;2(4):405–15. doi: 10.1016/j.coche.2013.08.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 209.GigaGen I. GigaGen initiates large-scale manufacturing of its first-in-class recombinant hyperimmune drug for COVID-19, GIGA-2050. [accessed 2020 November 18]. http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/09/09/2091073/0/en/GigaGen-Initiates-Large-Scale-Manufacturing-of-its-First-in-Class-Recombinant-Hyperimmune-Drug-for-COVID-19-GIGA-2050.html.
  • 210.Keating SM, Mizrahi RA, Adams MS, Asensio MA, Benzie E, Carter KP, Chiang Y, Edgar RC, Gautam BK, Gras A, et al. Capturing and recreating diverse antibody repertoires as multivalent recombinant polyclonal antibody drugs. bioRxiv. 2020; 2020.2008.2005.232975. doi: 10.1101/2020.08.05.232975. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 211.GigaGen Inc . GigaGen receives NIH grant to develop production technology for recombinant intravenous immunoglobulin. [accessed 2020 November 18]. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/gigagen-receives-nih-grant-to-develop-production-technology-for-recombinant-intravenous-immunoglobulin-300582135.html.
  • 212.Bodier-Montagutelli E, Mayor A, Vecellio L, Respaud R, Heuze-Vourc’h N. Designing inhaled protein therapeutics for topical lung delivery: what are the next steps? Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2018;15(8):729–36. doi: 10.1080/17425247.2018.1503251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 213.Respaud R, Vecellio L, Diot P, Heuzé-Vourc’h N. Nebulization as a delivery method for mAbs in respiratory diseases. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2015;12:1–13. doi: 10.1517/17425247.2015.999039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 214.Leyva-Grado VH, Tan GS, Leon PE, Yondola M, Palese P. Direct administration in the respiratory tract improves efficacy of broadly neutralizing anti-influenza virus monoclonal antibodies. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59(7):4162–72. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00290-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 215.DeFrancesco L. COVID-19 antibodies on trial. Nat Biotechnol. 2020;38(11):1242–52. doi: 10.1038/s41587-020-0732-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 216.Vonarburg C, Loetscher M, Spycher MO, Kropf A, Illi M, Salmon S, Roberts S, Steinfuehrer K, Campbell I, Koernig S, et al. Topical application of nebulized human IgG, IgA and IgAM in the lungs of rats and non-human primates. Respir Res. 2019;20(1):99. doi: 10.1186/s12931-019-1057-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 217.Cruz-Teran C, Tiruthani K, McSweeney M, Ma A, Pickles R, Lai SK. Challenges and opportunities for antiviral monoclonal antibodies as COVID-19 therapy. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2021;169:100–17. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2020.12.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 218.Piepenbrink MS, Park J-G, Oladunni FS, Deshpande A, Basu M, Sarkar S, Loos A, Woo J, Lovalenti P, Sloan D, et al. Therapeutic activity of an inhaled potent SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing human monoclonal antibody in hamsters. bioRxiv. 2020; 2020.2010.2014.339150. doi: 10.1101/2020.10.14.339150. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 219.Rees V. 2020. Inhaled antibody treatment for COVID-19 shows success in pre-clinical trials. Eur Pharm Rev. Epub. https://www.europeanpharmaceuticalreview.com/news/130720/inhaled-antibody-treatment-for-covid-19-shows-success-in-pre-clinical-trials/. [Google Scholar]
  • 220.Diomics Corp . A human antibody nasal spray under development might have prevented White House infections, scientists at Diomics and Active Motif say. [accessed 2021 January 19]. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/a-human-antibody-nasal-spray-under-development-might-have-prevented-white-house-infections-scientists-at-diomics-and-active-motif-say-301148054.html.
  • 221.Lai SK, McSweeney MD, Pickles RJ. Learning from past failures: challenges with monoclonal antibody therapies for COVID-19. J Controlled Release. 2021;329:87–95. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2020.11.057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 222.Zhang H, Yang Z, Xiang J, Cui Z, Liu J, Liu C. Intranasal administration of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing human antibody prevents infection in mice. bioRxiv. 2020; doi: 10.1101/2020.12.08.416677. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 223.Gai J, Ma L, Li G, Zhu M, Qiao P, Li X, Zhang H, Zhang Y, Chen Y, Gong R. A potent neutralizing nanobody against SARS-CoV-2 with inhaled delivery potential. bioRxiv. 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.08.09.242867. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 224.Hanke L, Vidakovics Perez L, Sheward DJ, Das H, Schulte T, Moliner-Morro A, Corcoran M, Achour A, Karlsson Hedestam GB, Hallberg BM, et al. An alpaca nanobody neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 by blocking receptor interaction. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):4420. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18174-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 225.Konwarh R. Nanobodies: prospects of expanding the gamut of neutralizing antibodies against the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. Front Immunol. 2020;11:1531–1531. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01531. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 226.Pérez de la Lastra JM, Baca-González V, Asensio-Calavia P, González-Acosta S, Morales-delaNuez A. Can immunization of hens provide oral-based therapeutics against COVID-19? Vaccines. 2020;8(3):486. doi: 10.3390/vaccines8030486. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 227.Cohen J. Can a nose-full of chicken antibodies ward off coronavirus infections? Science. 2020; [Epub]. doi: 10.1126/science.abf6581. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES