Research Spotlight

Martits-Chalangari, K., Spak, C.W., Askar, M., Killian, A., Fisher, T.L., Atillasoy, E., Marshall, W.L., McNeel, D., Miller, M.D., Mathai, S.K. and Gottlieb, R.L. (2021). “ALVR109, an off-the-shelf partially HLA matched SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell therapy, to treat refractory severe COVID-19 pneumonia in a heart transplant patient: Case report.” Am J Transplant Dec 15. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

An unvaccinated adult male heart transplant recipient patient with recalcitrant COVID-19 due to SARS-CoV-2 delta variant with rising nasopharyngeal quantitative viral load was successfully treated with ALVR109, an off-the-shelf SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell therapy. Background immunosuppression included 0.1 mg/kg prednisone, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate mofetil 1 gm twice daily for historical antibody-mediated rejection. Prior therapies included remdesivir, corticosteroids, and tocilizumab, with requirement for high-flow nasal oxygen. Lack of clinical improvement and acutely rising nasopharyngeal viral RNA more than 3 weeks into illness prompted the request of ALVR109 through an emergency IND. The day following the first ALVR109 infusion, the patient’s nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA declined from 7.43 to 5.02 log(10) RNA copies/ml. On post-infusion day 4, the patient transitioned to low-flow oxygen. Two subsequent infusions of ALVR109 were administered 10 and 26 days after the first; nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA became undetectable on Day 11, and he was discharged the following day on low-flow oxygen 5 weeks after the initial diagnosis of COVID-19. The clinical and virologic improvements observed in this patient following administration of ALVR109 suggest a potential benefit that warrants further exploration in clinical trials.

Mozaffari, E., Chandak, A., Zhang, Z., Liang, S., Gayle, J., Thrun, M., Gottlieb, R.L., Kuritzkes, D.R., Sax, P.E., Wohl, D.A., Casciano, R., Hodgkins, P. and Haubrich, R. (2022). “Clinical Management of Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients in the United States.” Open Forum Infect Dis 9(1): ofab498.

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to characterize hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and describe their real-world treatment patterns and outcomes over time. METHODS: Adult patients hospitalized on May 1, 2020-December 31, 2020 with a discharge diagnosis of COVID-19 were identified from the Premier Healthcare Database. Patient and hospital characteristics, treatments, baseline severity based on oxygen support, length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) utilization, and mortality were examined. RESULTS: The study included 295657 patients (847 hospitals), with median age of 66 (interquartile range, 54-77) years. Among each set of demographic comparators, the majority were male, white, and over 65. Approximately 85% had no supplemental oxygen charges (NSOc) or low-flow oxygen (LFO) at baseline, whereas 75% received no more than NSOc or LFO as maximal oxygen support at any time during hospitalization. Remdesivir (RDV) and corticosteroid treatment utilization increased over time. By December, 50% were receiving RDV and 80% were receiving corticosteroids. A higher proportion initiated COVID-19 treatments within 2 days of hospitalization in December versus May (RDV, 87% vs 40%; corticosteroids, 93% vs 62%; convalescent plasma, 68% vs 26%). There was a shift toward initiating RDV in patients on NSOc or LFO (68.0% [May] vs 83.1% [December]). Median LOS decreased over time. Overall mortality was 13.5% and it was highest for severe patients (invasive mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [IMV/ECMO], 53.7%; high-flow oxygen/noninvasive ventilation [HFO/NIV], 32.2%; LFO, 11.7%; NSOc, 7.3%). The ICU use decreased, whereas mortality decreased for NSOc and LFO. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical management of COVID-19 is rapidly evolving. This large observational study found that use of evidence-based treatments increased from May to December 2020, whereas improvement in outcomes occurred over this time-period.

Olender, S.A., Perez, K.K., Go, A.S., Balani, B., Price-Haywood, E.G., Shah, N.S., Wang, S., Walunas, T.L., Swaminathan, S., Slim, J., Chin, B., De Wit, S., Ali, S.M., Soriano Viladomiu, A., Robinson, P., Gottlieb, R.L., Tsang, T.Y.O., Lee, I.H., Hu, H., Haubrich, R.H., Chokkalingam, A.P., Lin, L., Zhong, L., Bekele, B.N., Mera-Giler, R., Phulpin, C., Edgar, H., Gallant, J., Diaz-Cuervo, H., Smith, L.E., Osinusi, A.O., Brainard, D.M. and Bernardino, J.I. (2021). “Remdesivir for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Versus a Cohort Receiving Standard of Care.” Clin Infect Dis 73(11): e4166-e4174.

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: We compared the efficacy of the antiviral agent, remdesivir, versus standard-of-care treatment in adults with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (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 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, were hospitalized, had oxygen saturation ≤94% 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 [aOR] 2.03: 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-3.08, P < .001). At day 14, 7.6% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had died versus 12.5% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (aOR 0.38, 95% CI: .22-.68, P = .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. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04292899 and EUPAS34303.

Zhang, L., Poorbaugh, J., Dougan, M., Chen, P., Gottlieb, R.L., Huhn, G., Beasley, S., Daniels, M., Ngoc Vy Trinh, T., Crisp, M., Freitas, J.J., Vaillancourt, P., Patel, D.R., Nirula, A., Kallewaard, N.L., Higgs, R.E. and Benschop, R.J. (2021). “Endogenous Antibody Responses to SARS-CoV-2 in Patients With Mild or Moderate COVID-19 Who Received Bamlanivimab Alone or Bamlanivimab and Etesevimab Together.” Front Immunol 12: 790469.

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to SARS-CoV-2 are clinically efficacious when administered early, decreasing hospitalization and mortality in patients with mild or moderate COVID-19. We investigated the effects of receiving mAbs (bamlanivimab alone and bamlanivimab and etesevimab together) after SARS-CoV-2 infection on the endogenous immune response. METHODS: Longitudinal serum samples were collected from patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 in the BLAZE-1 trial who received placebo (n=153), bamlanivimab alone [700 mg (n=100), 2800 mg (n=106), or 7000 mg (n=98)], or bamlanivimab (2800 mg) and etesevimab (2800 mg) together (n=111). A multiplex Luminex serology assay measured antibody titers against SARS-CoV-2 antigens, including SARS-CoV-2 protein variants that evade bamlanivimab or etesevimab binding, and SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assays were performed. RESULTS: The antibody response in patients who received placebo or mAbs had a broad specificity. Titer change from baseline against a receptor-binding domain mutant (Spike-RBD E484Q), as well as N-terminal domain (Spike-NTD) and nucleocapsid protein (NCP) epitopes were 1.4 to 4.1 fold lower at day 15-85 in mAb recipients compared with placebo. Neutralizing activity of day 29 sera from bamlanivimab monotherapy cohorts against both spike E484Q and beta variant (B.1.351) were slightly reduced compared with placebo (by a factor of 3.1, p=0.001, and 2.9, p=0.002, respectively). Early viral load correlated with the subsequent antibody titers of the native, unmodified humoral response (p<0.0001 at Day 15, 29, 60 and 85 for full-length spike). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 treated with mAbs develop a wide breadth of antigenic responses to SARS-CoV-2. Small reductions in titers and neutralizing activity, potentially due to a decrease in viral load following mAb treatment, suggest minimal impact of mAb treatment on the endogenous immune response.

Drissi, M., Carr, E. and Housewright, C. (2022). “Sunscreen: a brief walk through history.” Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) 35(1): 121-123.

Full text of this article.

The sunscreens we see today were paved by our ancestors’ sun protection methods, followed by scientific discovery in the more recent era and the trials and errors of the sunscreen formulations that followed. This history highlights sun protection methods used over the centuries and the varying degrees of agreeable sensorial properties or comforts in these methods.