Robert L. Gottlieb M.D. Ph.D.

Carey, S.A., Afzal, A., Jamil, A., Williams, S. and Gottlieb, R.L. (2020). “Outpatient COVID-19 surveillance testing in orthotopic heart transplant recipients.” Clin Transplant Sep 25;e14105. [Epub ahead of print.]. e14105.

Full text of this article.

COVID-19 case fatality rate in the United States is currently reported at 4.8% based on the confirmed cases of COVID-19. However, there are conflicting reports of estimated deaths in the post-cardiac transplantation patient population associated with COVID-19. METHODS: Observational, retrospective analysis of a large cohort of post Orthotopic Heart Transplantation (OHT) patients in a high volume heart transplantation program in Dallas, Texas underwent outpatient COVID-19 screening and testing for both SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal RT-PCR and anti-SARS-CoV2 IgG serology as a result of a clinic protocol to facilitate re-opening of face-to-face outpatient clinical visits. RESULTS: The full outpatient cohort tested at time of their clinic visit tested negative for COVID-19 by nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Only 2 patients tested seropositive for anti-SARS-COV2 IgG. Five positive inpatient cases were also identified and all, but one recovered. CONCLUSION: A COVID-19 surveillance protocol can be easily instituted in this high-risk population and facilitate safe transplant clinic operation. As the cases and prevalence increase across the United States, further strategies will need to be developed to determine the best course of action to help manage this select population while minimizing their exposure to the ongoing pandemic.

Spinner, C.D., Gottlieb, R.L., Criner, G.J., Arribas López, J.R., Cattelan, A.M., Soriano Viladomiu, A., Ogbuagu, O., Malhotra, P., Mullane, K.M., Castagna, A., Chai, L.Y.A., Roestenberg, M., Tsang, O.T.Y., Bernasconi, E., Le Turnier, P., Chang, S.C., SenGupta, D., Hyland, R.H., Osinusi, A.O., Cao, H., Blair, C., Wang, H., Gaggar, A., Brainard, D.M., McPhail, M.J., Bhagani, S., Ahn, M.Y., Sanyal, A.J., Huhn, G. and Marty, F.M. (2020). “Effect of Remdesivir vs Standard Care on Clinical Status at 11 Days in Patients With Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.” Jama 324(11): 1048-1057.

Full text of this article.

IMPORTANCE: Remdesivir demonstrated clinical benefit in a placebo-controlled trial in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its effect in patients with moderate disease is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of 5 or 10 days of remdesivir treatment compared with standard care on clinical status on day 11 after initiation of treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, open-label trial of hospitalized patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and moderate COVID-19 pneumonia (pulmonary infiltrates and room-air oxygen saturation >94%) enrolled from March 15 through April 18, 2020, at 105 hospitals in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The date of final follow-up was May 20, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive a 10-day course of remdesivir (n = 197), a 5-day course of remdesivir (n = 199), or standard care (n = 200). Remdesivir was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg/d. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was clinical status on day 11 on a 7-point ordinal scale ranging from death (category 1) to discharged (category 7). Differences between remdesivir treatment groups and standard care were calculated using proportional odds models and expressed as odds ratios. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates difference in clinical status distribution toward category 7 for the remdesivir group vs the standard care group. RESULTS: Among 596 patients who were randomized, 584 began the study and received remdesivir or continued standard care (median age, 57 [interquartile range, 46-66] years; 227 [39%] women; 56% had cardiovascular disease, 42% hypertension, and 40% diabetes), and 533 (91%) completed the trial. Median length of treatment was 5 days for patients in the 5-day remdesivir group and 6 days for patients in the 10-day remdesivir group. On day 11, patients in the 5-day remdesivir group had statistically significantly higher odds of a better clinical status distribution than those receiving standard care (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.09-2.48; P = .02). The clinical status distribution on day 11 between the 10-day remdesivir and standard care groups was not significantly different (P = .18 by Wilcoxon rank sum test). By day 28, 9 patients had died: 2 (1%) in the 5-day remdesivir group, 3 (2%) in the 10-day remdesivir group, and 4 (2%) in the standard care group. Nausea (10% vs 3%), hypokalemia (6% vs 2%), and headache (5% vs 3%) were more frequent among remdesivir-treated patients compared with standard care. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with moderate COVID-19, those randomized to a 10-day course of remdesivir did not have a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care at 11 days after initiation of treatment. Patients randomized to a 5-day course of remdesivir had a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care, but the difference was of uncertain clinical importance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04292730.

Spinner, C.D., Gottlieb, R.L., Criner, G.J., Arribas López, J.R., Cattelan, A.M., Soriano Viladomiu, A., Ogbuagu, O., Malhotra, P., Mullane, K.M., Castagna, A., Chai, L.Y.A., Roestenberg, M., Tsang, O.T.Y., Bernasconi, E., Le Turnier, P., Chang, S.C., SenGupta, D., Hyland, R.H., Osinusi, A.O., Cao, H., Blair, C., Wang, H., Gaggar, A., Brainard, D.M., McPhail, M.J., Bhagani, S., Ahn, M.Y., Sanyal, A.J., Huhn, G. and Marty, F.M. (2020). “Effect of Remdesivir vs Standard Care on Clinical Status at 11 Days in Patients With Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.” Jama Aug 21;e2016349. [Epub ahead of print.].

Full text of this article.

IMPORTANCE: Remdesivir demonstrated clinical benefit in a placebo-controlled trial in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its effect in patients with moderate disease is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of 5 or 10 days of remdesivir treatment compared with standard care on clinical status on day 11 after initiation of treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, open-label trial of hospitalized patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and moderate COVID-19 pneumonia (pulmonary infiltrates and room-air oxygen saturation >94%) enrolled from March 15 through April 18, 2020, at 105 hospitals in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The date of final follow-up was May 20, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive a 10-day course of remdesivir (n = 197), a 5-day course of remdesivir (n = 199), or standard care (n = 200). Remdesivir was dosed intravenously at 200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg/d. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was clinical status on day 11 on a 7-point ordinal scale ranging from death (category 1) to discharged (category 7). Differences between remdesivir treatment groups and standard care were calculated using proportional odds models and expressed as odds ratios. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates difference in clinical status distribution toward category 7 for the remdesivir group vs the standard care group. RESULTS: Among 596 patients who were randomized, 584 began the study and received remdesivir or continued standard care (median age, 57 [interquartile range, 46-66] years; 227 [39%] women; 56% had cardiovascular disease, 42% hypertension, and 40% diabetes), and 533 (91%) completed the trial. Median length of treatment was 5 days for patients in the 5-day remdesivir group and 6 days for patients in the 10-day remdesivir group. On day 11, patients in the 5-day remdesivir group had statistically significantly higher odds of a better clinical status distribution than those receiving standard care (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.09-2.48; P = .02). The clinical status distribution on day 11 between the 10-day remdesivir and standard care groups was not significantly different (P = .18 by Wilcoxon rank sum test). By day 28, 9 patients had died: 2 (1%) in the 5-day remdesivir group, 3 (2%) in the 10-day remdesivir group, and 4 (2%) in the standard care group. Nausea (10% vs 3%), hypokalemia (6% vs 2%), and headache (5% vs 3%) were more frequent among remdesivir-treated patients compared with standard care. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with moderate COVID-19, those randomized to a 10-day course of remdesivir did not have a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care at 11 days after initiation of treatment. Patients randomized to a 5-day course of remdesivir had a statistically significant difference in clinical status compared with standard care, but the difference was of uncertain clinical importance.

Olender, S. A., K. K. Perez, A. S. Go, B. Balani, E. G. Price-Haywood, N. S. Shah, S. Wang, T. L. Walunas, S. Swaminathan, J. Slim, B. Chin, S. De Wit, S. M. Ali, A. Soriano Viladomiu, P. Robinson, R. L. Gottlieb, T. Y. O. Tsang, I. H. Lee, R. H. Haubrich, A. P. Chokkalingam, L. Lin, L. Zhong, B. N. Bekele, R. Mera-Giler, J. Gallant, L. E. Smith, A. O. Osinusi, D. M. Brainard, H. Hu, C. Phulpin, H. Edgar, H. Diaz-Cuervo and J. I. Bernardino (2020). “Remdesivir for Severe COVID-19 versus a Cohort Receiving Standard of Care.” Clin Infect Dis Jul 24;ciaa1041. [Epub ahead of print.].

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: We compared the efficacy of the antiviral agent, remdesivir, versus standard-of-care treatment in adults with severe COVID-19 using data from a phase 3 remdesivir trial and a retrospective cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 treated with standard-of-care. METHODS: GS-US-540-5773 is an ongoing phase 3, randomized, open-label trial comparing two courses of remdesivir (remdesivir-cohort). GS-US-540-5807 is an ongoing real-world, retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes in patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (non-remdesivir-cohort). Inclusion criteria were similar between studies: patients had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, were hospitalized, had oxygen saturation 94% or lower on room air or required supplemental oxygen, and had pulmonary infiltrates. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the treatment effect of remdesivir versus standard-of-care. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with recovery on day 14, dichotomized from a 7-point clinical status ordinal scale. A key secondary endpoint was mortality. RESULTS: After the inverse probability of treatment weighting procedure 312 and 818 patients were counted in the remdesivir- and non-remdesivir-cohorts, respectively. At day 14, 74.4% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had recovered versus 59.0% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (adjusted odds ratio 2.03: 95% confidence interval 1.34-3.08, p<0.001). At day 14, 7.6% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had died versus 12.5% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (adjusted odds ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval: 0.22-0.68, p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative analysis, by day 14, remdesivir was associated with significantly greater recovery and 62% reduced odds of death versus standard-of-care treatment in patients with severe COVID-19.

Gottlieb, R. L., T. Sam, S. Y. Wada, J. F. Trotter, S. K. Asrani, B. Lima, S. M. Joseph, G. V. Gonzalez-Stawinski and S. A. Hall (2017). “Rational heart transplant from a hepatitis c donor: New antiviral weapons conquer the trojan horse.” J Card Fail 23(10): 765-767.

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: Donors with hepatitis C (HCV) viremia are rarely used for orthotopic heart transplantation (HT) owing to post-transplantation risks. New highly effective HCV antivirals may alter the landscape. METHODS: An adult patient unsuitable for bridging mechanical support therapy accepted a heart transplant offer from a donor with HCV viremia. On daily logarithmic rise in HCV viral load and adequate titers to ensure successful genotyping, once daily sofosbuvir (400 mg)-velpatasvir (100 mg) (Epclusa; Gilead) was initiated empirically pending HCV genotype (genotype 3a confirmed after initiation of therapy). RESULTS: We report the kinetics of acute hepatitis C viremia and therapeutic response to treatment with a new pangenotypic antiviral agent after donor-derived acute HCV infection transmitted incidentally with successful cardiac transplantation to an HCV-negative recipient. Prompt resolution of viremia was noted by the 1st week of a 12 week course of antiviral therapy. Sustained virologic remission continued beyond 12 weeks after completion of HCV therapy (SVR-12). CONCLUSIONS: The availability of effective pangenotypic therapy for HCV may expand donor availability. The feasibility of early versus late treatment of HCV remains to be determined through formalized protocols. We hypothesize pharmacoeconomics to be the greatest limitation to widespread availability of this promising tool.