Search This Blog

Monday, August 31, 2020

Cold Chain (And Colder Chain) Vaccine Distribution

OK, it looks like we’re finally going to be talking about a vaccine logistics issue that many people (including me) have been worried about. Specifically, how are these things going to be transported and stored? If you’re not in the biomedical field, that question might seem a bit boring and bring up mental pictures of 18-wheel trucks and forklifts of cartons, but remember, these vaccines generally aren’t dry powders. Some of them are infectious viruses themselves (the adenovirus vectors and others in that category), some of them are purified proteins (such as the Novavax candidate), and some of them are mRNAs that are packaged in very specific lipoprotein nanoparticles.

If that last category sounds like it might be the most fragile, well, you are correct-o-matic. There have been brief mentions of the stability of these candidates over the last few months, but now that things are getting very serious indeed, we’re starting to get a more detailed look at things. So let’s talk about the “cold chain”. That’s the distribution system for things (like most vaccines) that need to be kept refrigerated until they’re used in the clinic. This document from the WHO will tell you a lot more than you ever wanted to know (or thought there even was to know) about the subject. Details get down to how large the packages are (the vials in the middle will feel the effects of refrigeration last, and then warm up the slowest), the design of refrigerated trucks and their airflow, the various options for “cold pack” devices inside containers, where things are placed in chilled storage units of various sizes and how they’re retrieved, how long things need to be kept out at room temperature in order to be used and how long they must not be kept at room temperature before they have to be thrown away, and so on. There’s a lot of experience with this, and a lot of infrastructure.

But let’s qualify that last statement: there’s a lot of infrastructure in the developed world. Cold-chain distribution has always been a major challenge in places that are remote, less developed, or have generally higher ambient temperatures. You can probably think of plenty of locations that are all three of those at once. Ideally, you’d want something like a vaccine to be able to be distributed far and wide to all sorts of point-of-care locations, but in many instances people have to come to where the refrigeration is. Which is less desirable from a lot of angles.

And let’s qualify that earlier statement again: there’s a lot of infrastructure in the developed world for refrigerated cold-chain distribution. But what we’re looking at for the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech candidates, both of which are promising and are well into Phase II/III trials, is not just refrigeration. Moderna’s vaccine needs to be shipped and stored at -20 C (minus four Fahrenheit), while the Pfizer/BioNTech one needs to be at -70 C (-94 F). The former is enough of a challenge – freezer temperatures instead of refrigerator ones. But the latter. . .well, biology research labs all have freezers that go down that far (it’s where cell culture samples, oligonucleotide constructs, and recombinant proteins get stored), but you’re not going to find one down at the local pharmacy, which is perhaps where you were picturing lining up for a coronavirus shot.

This news sent both companies’ stock prices down late last week, because it’s definitely not what people wanted to hear. Pfizer has provided these details to the CDC about shipping and storage of their candidate: the vaccine can be shipped in “dry ice pack” boxes, but that dry ice will need to be replenished within 24 hours of receipt. The shipping carton needs to be closed within one minute of opening, and not opened more than twice per day. Vaccine vials, once removed, can be kept at refrigerator temperatures for up to 24 hours or at room temperature for no more than 2 hours after thawing. So this is going to take a very organized approach to make sure that the vaccine is handled properly without wastage. We’re looking at a lot of dry ice and a lot of orders for ultra-cold freezers if this is the candidate that gets heavy nationwide distribution. And mind you, I’m talking about organized distribution in Little Rock and Long Beach. What about La Paz and Lahore? What about Lubumbashi? Even back inside the US, what’s the nearest source of dry ice in Shiprock, New Mexico or Oceana, West Virginia?

A -70C storage regime looks like some type of centralized distribution for many areas; it just doesn’t seem practical for many point-of-care locations. It would be “thaw out a batch and get as many people through the door as you can before it goes bad”. Moderna’s candidate is surely easier to deal with, since we do at least have a lot more “standard freezer” type capacity both in distribution and local storage, but even that is going to require plenty of thought (and plenty of discipline on the receiving end). And there’s talk that a Moderna Emergency Use Authorization might include the lower temperatures anyway. Let’s keep an eye on this story, and on the requirements for the other vaccines in testing. You would have to expect the recombinant-protein candidates (Novavax and others) to need less stringent storage conditions, but I don’t know about the adenovirus vector ones (and very much look forward to more details). This could be a big factor.

Update: see the comments for thoughts from some cold-chain specialists. Some are saying that this is more doable than it looks (given sufficient spending!), but the end-user problem remains. . .

40 comments on “Cold Chain (And Colder Chain) Distribution”


  1. Gary Cornell says: 31 August, 2020 at 1:14 pm I did a back of envelope calculation about what will be needed to distribute the Pfizer vaccine, which it seems requires the most refrigeration (-70c), that may interest you, It’s actually quite doable if we get started now at building out the infrastructure: https://garycornell.com/2020/08/30/back-of-envelope-calculation-the-number-and-the-costs-of-freezers-needed-for-the-pfizer-vaccine/


Canada eyes ‘front of line’ for Covid vax, in deals with Novavax and J&J

Canada reached an agreement in principle on Monday with both Novavax Inc and Johnson & Johnson for millions of doses of their experimental coronavirus vaccines, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said.


Canada’s two agreements follow separate deals with Pfizer Inc and Moderna Inc announced weeks ago, and are the latest example of countries rushing to secure access to vaccines.

Canada is also in “the final stages of negotiations” to secure AstraZeneca’s potential vaccine and is in talks to secure more doses of the Pfizer vaccine candidate, Procurement Minister Anita Anand said.

“What we are trying to do is make sure that when a vaccine is developed, we are at the front of the line,” Anand told reporters.

Canada has a population of about 38 million, and the four vaccine agreements signed so far “give Canada at least 88 million doses with options to obtain tens of millions more,” Trudeau said when he announced the deals in Montreal.

All four agreements announced so far have options to purchase further doses if needed, officials said.

Trudeau also said the government will invest C$126 million (72.3 million pounds) over two years to build a biomanufacturing facility at the Human Health Therapeutics Research Centre in Montreal capable of producing up to 2 million doses of a vaccine per month by next year.

Last week, Canada’s National Research Council said it had ended its partnership on a coronavirus vaccine with China’s CanSino Biologics because the company lacked the authority to ship the vaccine.

Separately, Canada extended to the end of October a program to provide loans of up to C$40,000, a quarter of which is forgivable, to small businesses struggling amid the pandemic. It had been due to expire on Monday.

Novavax said it expects to finalize an advance purchase agreement to supply doses of the vaccine, beginning as early as the second quarter of next year.

Novavax has agreed to supply up to 76 million doses of its experimental vaccine, while Johnson & Johnson will supply up to 38 million doses of its vaccine candidate.

Both agreements are subject to the vaccines obtaining licenses from Health Canada.

Financial terms of the agreement were not disclosed.


I-Mab Results for 6 Months Ended June 30 and Corporate Update

Positive preliminary clinical trial results for lemzoparlimab (TJC4) demonstrate a differentiated drug profile in safety and pharmacokinetics in cancer patients

Joined the global effort against COVID-19 with plonmarlimab (TJM2) study which represents the first double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluating anti-GM-CSF antibody in severe COVID-19 patients    

The Company expects significant pipeline updates in H2 2020 including China registrational trial with CD38 antibody felzartamab (TJ202) as third-line monotherapy for multiple myeloma; the Company also expects IND approval for eftansomatropin (TJ101), a unique long acting growth hormone in the fourth quarter of 2020 and to initiate phase 3 study subsequently

The Company hosted conference call and webcast on August 31 at 8:00 a.m. ET.

The Company will host a live conference call and webcast on August 31, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. ET. Participants must register in advance of the conference call. Details are as follows:

Registration Link:http://apac.directeventreg.com/registration/event/8959387
Conference ID:8959387

Upon registering, each participant will receive a dial-in number, Direct Event passcode, and a unique access PIN, which can be used to join the conference call.

A webcast replay will be archived on the Company’s website for one year after the conclusion of the call at http://ir.i-mabbiopharma.com.

A telephone replay will be available approximately two hours after the conclusion of the call. To access the replay, please call +1-855-452-5696 (U.S.), +61-2-8199-0299 (International), 400-632-2162 (Mainland China), or 800-963-117 (Hong Kong). The conference ID number for the replay is 8959387.


AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate begins late-stage U.S. study

AstraZeneca Plc said on Monday it has begun enrolling adults for a U.S.-funded, 30,000-subject late-stage study of its high profile COVID-19 vaccine candidate.

Trial participants will receive either two doses of the experimental vaccine, dubbed AZD1222, four weeks apart, or a placebo, the company said.

The trial is being conducted under U.S. government’s Operation Warp Speed program, which aims to accelerate development, manufacturing and distribution of vaccines and treatments for COVID-19.

U.S. President Donald Trump has said a vaccine for the novel coronavirus could be available before the Nov. 3 presidential election, much sooner than most experts anticipate.

AstraZeneca, which is developing its vaccine in conjunction with Oxford University researchers, and Pfizer Inc with partner BioNTech SE have said they could have data by October to support U.S. emergency use authorization or approval of their respective vaccines.

AZD1222 is already undergoing late-stage clinical trials in Britain, Brazil and South Africa, with additional trials planned in Japan and Russia. The trials, together with the U.S. Phase III study, aim to enroll up to 50,000 participants globally.

The U.S. trial will evaluate whether the vaccine can prevent COVID-19 infection or keep the illness from becoming severe, the National Institutes of Health said in a statement here

It also will assess if the vaccine can reduce incidence of emergency department visits due to COVID-19.


Vascepa Mechanism Becomes Clearer… As Do Vessels

The mechanism behind the cardiovascular benefits of icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) was related to plaque regression and stabilization in people with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), according to the final results of EVAPORATE.

While people had lower plaque volume over time on statins and icosapent ethyl, the placebo group on statins alone showed continued progression of atherosclerosis from baseline to 18 months:

  • Low-attenuation plaque: -17% vs +109% (P=0.0061)
  • Non-calcified plaque: -19% vs +9% (P=0.0005)
  • Fibro-fatty plaque: -34% vs +32% (P=0.0002)
  • Fibrous plaque: -20% vs +1% (P=0.0028)
  • Calcified plaque: -1% vs +15% (P=0.0531)
  • Total plaque: -9% vs +11% (P=0.0019)

“These data highlight the early and substantial impact of icosapent ethyl on the atherothrombotic burden in the at-risk population,” reported Matthew Budoff, MD, of UCLA School of Medicine in Los Angeles, at a late-breaking trial session at the European Society of Cardiology virtual meeting.

EVAPORATE’s full 18-month results were simultaneously published online in European Heart Journal.

Investigators previously reported a slowing of plaque progression in the icosapent ethyl arm of the trial in the 9-month interim report.

Now, with the “widening separation of the plaque volumes” by 18 months, the “very early effect” of icosapent ethyl on imaging appears to track its increasing clinical benefit observed over time in REDUCE-IT, Budoff said.

“Markers of plaque burden have been shown to be powerful predictors of ASCVD events, as greater plaque burdens are associated with worse CV outcomes. Vulnerable plaque has been demonstrated to be a combination of LAP [low-attenuation plaque] … along with spotty calcification, a thin fibrous cap, and positive remodelling,” the EVAPORATE group noted.

“The study definitely shows a better outcome on plaque as measured by multidetector CT when comparing icosapent ethyl on plaque progression/regression. It is convincing that the drug reduced plaque volume, which would normally be expected to progress over time,” commented Philip Greenland, MD, of Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.

However, there is still “no real understanding of how the drug does what it does clinically,” and EVAPORATE does not provide answers as to how icosapent ethyl might reduce plaque volumes, Greenland told MedPage Today.

The trial enrolled 80 people at three centers. Eligibility criteria included triglyceride levels 135-499 mg/dL and LDL cholesterol 40-115 mg/dL on statin therapy.

Study participants were randomized to icosapent ethyl 4 g/day (n=40) or mineral oil placebo (n=40). Both groups stayed on statin therapy and were told to maintain a low cholesterol diet.

CT angiography at 18 months was completed by 31 patients in the icosapent ethyl group and 37 in the placebo arm. Of those 68 patients, mean age was 57.4, and 54.4% were men. The two arms shared similar baseline characteristics.

“The study definitely shows a better outcome on plaque as measured by multidetector CT when comparing icosapent ethyl on plaque progression/regression. It is convincing that the drug reduced plaque volume, which would normally be expected to progress over time,” commented Philip Greenland, MD, of Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.

However, there is still “no real understanding of how the drug does what it does clinically,” and EVAPORATE does not provide answers as to how icosapent ethyl might reduce plaque volumes, Greenland told MedPage Today.

The trial enrolled 80 people at three centers. Eligibility criteria included triglyceride levels 135-499 mg/dL and LDL cholesterol 40-115 mg/dL on statin therapy.

Study participants were randomized to icosapent ethyl 4 g/day (n=40) or mineral oil placebo (n=40). Both groups stayed on statin therapy and were told to maintain a low cholesterol diet.

CT angiography at 18 months was completed by 31 patients in the icosapent ethyl group and 37 in the placebo arm. Of those 68 patients, mean age was 57.4, and 54.4% were men. The two arms shared similar baseline characteristics.


The mechanism behind the cardiovascular benefits of icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) was related to plaque regression and stabilization in people with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), according to the final results of EVAPORATE.

While people had lower plaque volume over time on statins and icosapent ethyl, the placebo group on statins alone showed continued progression of atherosclerosis from baseline to 18 months:

  • Low-attenuation plaque: -17% vs +109% (P=0.0061)
  • Non-calcified plaque: -19% vs +9% (P=0.0005)
  • Fibro-fatty plaque: -34% vs +32% (P=0.0002)
  • Fibrous plaque: -20% vs +1% (P=0.0028)
  • Calcified plaque: -1% vs +15% (P=0.0531)
  • Total plaque: -9% vs +11% (P=0.0019)

“These data highlight the early and substantial impact of icosapent ethyl on the atherothrombotic burden in the at-risk population,” reported Matthew Budoff, MD, of UCLA School of Medicine in Los Angeles, at a late-breaking trial session at the European Society of Cardiology virtual meeting.

EVAPORATE’s full 18-month results were simultaneously published online in European Heart Journal.

Investigators previously reported a slowing of plaque progression in the icosapent ethyl arm of the trial in the 9-month interim report.

Now, with the “widening separation of the plaque volumes” by 18 months, the “very early effect” of icosapent ethyl on imaging appears to track its increasing clinical benefit observed over time in REDUCE-IT, Budoff said.

“Markers of plaque burden have been shown to be powerful predictors of ASCVD events, as greater plaque burdens are associated with worse CV outcomes. Vulnerable plaque has been demonstrated to be a combination of LAP [low-attenuation plaque] … along with spotty calcification, a thin fibrous cap, and positive remodelling,” the EVAPORATE group noted.

“The study definitely shows a better outcome on plaque as measured by multidetector CT when comparing icosapent ethyl on plaque progression/regression. It is convincing that the drug reduced plaque volume, which would normally be expected to progress over time,” commented Philip Greenland, MD, of Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.

However, there is still “no real understanding of how the drug does what it does clinically,” and EVAPORATE does not provide answers as to how icosapent ethyl might reduce plaque volumes, Greenland told MedPage Today.

The trial enrolled 80 people at three centers. Eligibility criteria included triglyceride levels 135-499 mg/dL and LDL cholesterol 40-115 mg/dL on statin therapy.

Study participants were randomized to icosapent ethyl 4 g/day (n=40) or mineral oil placebo (n=40). Both groups stayed on statin therapy and were told to maintain a low cholesterol diet.

CT angiography at 18 months was completed by 31 patients in the icosapent ethyl group and 37 in the placebo arm. Of those 68 patients, mean age was 57.4, and 54.4% were men. The two arms shared similar baseline characteristics. https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html

Plaque analysis was performed using semi-automated QAngio CT software.

“There were no significant differences in basic lipid measures of total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglyceride levels from baseline to follow-up with either therapy,” the investigators reported.

This is consistent with icosapent ethyl’s “pleiotropic, non-lipid effects,” they reasoned. “Icosapent ethyl has been shown to have anti-thrombotic, antiplatelet, anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant, anti-arrhythmic, and pro-resolving effects which could have beneficial effects on multiple steps of the atherosclerotic pathway.”

Previous work suggested that the drug’s benefit largely depended on the concentration of omega-3 fatty acid eicosapentaenoic acid, the purity of which sets icosapent ethyl apart from other fish oil products.

A major limitation of EVAPORATE was its small sample size, Budoff acknowledged, though he said the trial was nevertheless powered to detect differences in the primary and various secondary endpoints.

The presenter also addressed prior concerns around mineral oil potentially contributing to plaque progression and adverse events in REDUCE-IT. https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html

The rate of plaque progression was similar between the mineral oil placebo of EVAPORATE and cellulose-based placebo in the Garlic5 study, “so we have high confidence that the benefits seen in this trial with icosapent ethyl represent icosapent ethyl’s beneficial effects on atherosclerosis and not harm of mineral oil,” he said.

In December, icosapent ethyl received FDA marketing approval for the reduction of cardiovascular risk in adults with elevated triglycerides.

Disclosures

EVAPORATE was funded by Amarin.

Budoff disclosed relevant relationships with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer.

Primary Source

European Society of Cardiology