Search This Blog

Monday, November 23, 2020

Merck adds to COVID-19 clinical programs through OncoImmune acquistion

 

  • Merck (NYSE:MRK) through its subsidiary to acquire all outstanding shares of OncoImmune for an upfront payment of $425M in cash.
  • Additionally, OncoImmune shareholders will be eligible to receive sales-based payments and payments contingent on the successful achievement of certain regulatory milestones.
  • OncoImmune recently announced positive top-line findings from an interim efficacy analysis of a Phase 3 study evaluating its lead therapeutic candidate CD24Fc for the treatment of patients with severe and critical COVID-19.
  • The coimpany will accelerate development of CD24Fc, a candidate for the treatment of patients with severe and critical COVID-19
  • Under the agreement, prior to the completion of the acquisition, OncoImmune will spin-out certain rights and assets unrelated to the CD24Fc program to a new entity to be owned by the existing shareholders of OncoImmune.
  • In connection with the closing of the acquisition, Merck will invest $50M, and become a minority shareholder, in the new entity.
  • The closing of the acquisition is subject to approval and is expected before the end of 2020.
  • https://seekingalpha.com/news/3638577-merck-adds-to-suite-of-covidminus-19-clinical-programs-through-oncoimmune-acquistion

Efficacy of Astra-Oxford vaccine ranges from 62% to 90%, depending on dosage

  • Following the vaccine trial successes of Pfizer and Moderna, which both showed efficacy rates of around 95%, AstraZeneca (NASDAQ:AZN) and the University of Oxford have released an interim analysis of their clinical trials.
  • One regimen, given to some 2,700 people, showed an effectiveness of 90% when trial participants received a half dose, followed by a full dose at least one month apart. The other dosing regimen, given to nearly 9,000 people, showed 62% efficacy when given as two full doses at least one month apart. The combined analysis from both dosing regimens found average vaccine effectiveness of 70%.
  • Despite the lower efficacy, the British shot has some distribution advantages. While vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have to be stored frozen, the Astra-Oxford jab can be kept at refrigerator temperature and comes at a potentially lower cost.
  • AstraZeneca also said there were no serious adverse safety events and the vaccine was tolerated well across both dosing groups. Late-stage clinical trials of the vaccine are continuing in the U.S. following a pause during most of September and October.
  • "Excitingly, we've found that one of our dosing regimens may be around 90% effective and if this dosing regime is used, more people could be vaccinated with planned vaccine supply," said Professor Andrew Pollard, chief investigator of the Oxford Vaccine Trial.
  • The stakes for lower- and middle-income nations are immense, as the shot accounts for more than 40% of the supplies going to those countries.
  • AstraZeneca is already preparing regulatory submission of the data to health authorities around the world that have a framework in place for conditional or early approval.
  • https://seekingalpha.com/news/3638540-efficacy-of-astra-oxford-vaccine-ranges-from-62-to-90-depending-on-dosage

 

Sunday, November 22, 2020

COVID Cold Chain: How a Vaccine Will Get to You

 Two drug companies have now reported highly successful results from phase III trials of COVID-19 vaccines. On November 18 Pfizer and partner BioNTech said their vaccine was 95 percent effective at preventing the disease, based on full trial results. Two days earlier Moderna reported its vaccine was 94.5 percent effective, based on interim data.

Both Pfizer and Moderna use the same genetically engineered vaccine approach, which involves messenger RNA molecules. Assuming the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorizes the vaccines for “emergency use,” each firm will have to ramp up production and distribution tremendously. Pfizer expects to produce up to 50 million doses worldwide in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion in 2021. Moderna intends to manufacture approximately 20 million doses in 2020 and 500 million to one billion in 2021. A person receiving either vaccine will need two doses, administered three or four weeks apart.

Multiple steps are needed to deliver so many little glass vials of vaccine to local hospitals and pharmacies, where the medication can be injected into a person’s arm. Moderna’s vaccine has to be shipped at –20 degrees Celsius (–4 degrees Fahrenheit), and it can then be stored at that temperature for six months. Once thawed and kept in a refrigerator between two and eight degrees C (36 to 46 degrees F) it is good for up to 30 days. Pfizer’s vaccine must be kept at –70 degrees C (–94 degrees F)—a much greater challenge. Once transferred to a refrigerator, it must be administered within five days.

In the U.S., Moderna will manufacture its vaccine in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Indiana. It will ship vials to McKesson Corporation’s distribution center in Irving, Tex., the hub of the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed vaccination initiative. Moderna also plans to manufacture the intervention in Switzerland and Spain. Pfizer will make its U.S. vaccine in Kalamazoo, Mich. It is not distributing through Operation Warp Speed, so it will ship large thermal boxes of filled vials, jammed with dry ice, via companies such as UPS and FedEx to locations around the country. Pfizer also has a production site in BelgiumOn November 16 the company launched a pilot program to test its delivery plan to four states: Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas and New Mexico.

The system for distributing products (including meat and chemicals) at low temperatures is known as the “cold chain.” What will it take for this network to successfully disperse massive numbers of vials? How is vaccine safely preserved? How many facilities can even handle the challenge, and how will that affect who gets vaccinated and when? Scientific American asked Julie Swann, a professor and head of the department of industrial and systems engineering at North Carolina State University, to reveal the details. Swann specializes in health care supply chains, and she was on loan to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the emergency response to the 2009 H1N1 swine flu pandemic.


Moderna’s shipping temperature will be –20 degrees C. Is that typical for frozen products? And is Pfizer’s temperature of –70 degrees C extreme?

There are different cold chains. The ultralow chain, the deep freeze, is the one at –70 degrees C. There’s the “frozen” chain, at –20 degrees C, which is more like a regular freezer. And then [there is] the refrigerated chain: Many vaccines, like flu vaccines, are refrigerated between two and eight degrees C. Only a couple have to be frozen to –20 C, such as [those for] varicella and zoster. The Ebola vaccine did have an ultracold supply chain. Some animal vaccines, like vaccines for chickens, are kept ultracold, too.

What kind of facilities can handle –70 degrees C?

Not that many. Large universities certainly have such storage in their research labs, and some large hospitals [do]—but not the average physician’s office or pharmacy. Pharmacy chain distribution centers may have that storage—the “sub-80 freezers” [boxes that can refrigerate down to –86 degrees C]. So they could possibly send vaccines from there to their retail stores, all of which will have preplanned who is going to get vaccinated.

The vaccines don’t have to stay frozen right up to the time of inoculation.

The CDC has a playbook for states, publicly available, that lays out what you can do with vaccine type A or vaccine type B. It says once a facility receives a thermal shipper [such as that from Pfizer], it has to replace the dry ice within 24 hours and again every five days. And you can only open the box one or two times a day. After day 15 from when the vials were produced, they have to be transferred to refrigerated temperatures and used within five days. So there is some time to vaccinate people.

Pfizer’s thermal shipper holds 975 vials. Trucks will take the shippers to planes that will fly them in all directions. About half of medical products are shipped on commercial flights, though, and those flights are way down. Will that be a problem?

I don’t see that as a challenge in the U.S. Cargo companies need to make money right now, so they’ll run extra flights if they need to get the 50 million doses to the locations. You can imagine a hub-and-spoke system shipping direct to centers around the country. They want to cut the extra two days off the lead time: Moderna vaccine first goes to the McKesson distribution center and, from there, goes to the providers—that probably adds a couple of days. Worldwide, however, the challenge of a Pfizer vaccine is quite significant. One study estimated there are only 25 or 30 countries that have the ultracold infrastructure.

Each Pfizer vial actually supplies five doses. How is that handled?

The place doing immunization adds a dilutant, creating five doses. At that point the solution is good for six hours. So a clinic has to figure out how many health care workers or customers will be vaccinated, and it starts the dilution process for that day.

It sounds like places need to line up a lot of recipients so vaccine is not wasted.

What I’ve seen is that each Pfizer tray has 195 vials, each with five doses, so that’s about 1,000 doses. And a box can hold up to five trays. If, in the beginning, you are prioritizing by vaccinating just frontline workers who are handling COVID-19 patients, you’d want to line up enough people at one location to use a tray of vaccines within five days, or have people from the region come to you. States could also purchase sub-80 freezers. The New York State plan says it will set up several regional distribution centers. If they do that, then they will probably have sub-80 freezers at each location. I don’t know if their plan will change now that Moderna has come out with more information.

I think most states will not have the resources to set up regional distribution centers. What I would do if I were them is look for large hospitals that do have the freezers and use those as the points of distribution. I would certainly partner with the regional pharmacies. And I would look at models where you drive some of it around: ship it to one place, then drive a local van around with refrigeration that can store vials for five days. And you can ask people to drive to locations to get vaccinated. I think all of these [steps] will happen. Of course, there will be questions of equity, at least in the beginning, when vaccination is dependent on just the Pfizer vaccine.

What about spoilage? Pharmaceutical companies report that from 5 to 20 percent of other vaccines spoil during distribution.

That will have be factored in. There is a way to monitor the thermal shipper with a temperature probe. In the ideal world, the monitoring would go down to the individual vial, but I don’t know if current technology will allow that. We could look at how Ebola vaccine has been distributed around Africa; it is a specialized cold chain.

What about production quality control?

In usual vaccine production and shipping, potency and stability are checked. Certainly, Pfizer and Moderna are doing that.

All of this is complicated by the fact that each person has to receive two injections, three or four weeks apart. So immediately, the number of people who could be vaccinated is cut in half.

Right. And for each person, your second dose has to be the same as your first dose, either Pfizer or Moderna. But does that persist over time? What if scientists find that people need a booster after two years? Does it matter, then, if I had Pfizer or Moderna the first time around? I’m hoping that it does not, but I’ve not gotten a clear answer.

We’ll all need accurate records.

There are a lot of challenges with the information side of the supply chain. The companies are sending product to distributors, but they are not responsible for who gets vaccinated. That’s the hospitals and pharmacies. How do the manufacturers know when and where to ship product? The different [players] have to do a lot of information sharing.

That’s largely how public health works. There’s one system for ordering and shipping vaccines, but it doesn’t tell you anything after a vaccine has arrived at a location. Then, typically, each state uses its own system for registering who receives vaccine—that’s called the immunization registry. Those two systems don't talk to each other, so without the addition of another layer, it’s difficult for states to know this location has 50 doses left, this location is completely out—that kind of information. The federal government did invest in a system that would allow such capability, but states may be using their own.

There are systems that can do this—like those that coordinate diagnostic testing. But they will have to be rolled out. They provide two real advantages: One is that you can tell consumers where they can go to get [a] vaccine—not where it’s been shipped but if there’s any left. And if companies know where the inventory is, they can make better decisions about where to send the next batch. Or localities can increase public messaging to raise demand for a vaccine, because we know there will be issues with people being hesitant to get it.

I imagine the vaccination prioritization schedules that we’re just hearing about could make information tracking even harder—you know, frontline workers should get the vaccines first, then teachers, and so on.

The National Academy of Medicine recommends phases: first high-risk workers in health care facilities plus first responders, then people with underlying conditions that put them at high risk, then, later, teachers, then young adults, then the rest of us. There is also talk about sending the early vaccines to areas of high prevalence of disease. All of that complicates the information side of the vaccination challenge.

Because it’s likely that only large institutions could provide ultracold storage, it has been suggested that Pfizer’s vaccine could end up going to cities and Moderna’s vaccine could end up going to less densely populated areas. But these are commercial companies. Why would they limit their markets?

You can imagine that the Pfizer boxes might be more appropriate for densely populated cities. When we have sufficient supply of any vaccine you want, then the market will choose Moderna over Pfizer—as long as the safety and efficacy are high enough—because of the refrigeration difference. But in the early stages, with so many people everywhere needing vaccine, I think a lot of decisions will be made based on what is best for the system. If we find there is a difference in safety and efficacy, however, then we get into questions of equity: Are you sending an inferior vaccine to the cities or to the rural areas?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-covid-cold-chain-how-a-vaccine-will-get-to-you/

Germany may start COVID-19 vaccine program in December: health minister

 Germany could start administering shots of COVID-19 vaccines as soon as next month, Health Minister Jens Spahn was quoted as saying.

“There is reason to be optimistic that there will be approval for a vaccine in Europe this year,” Spahn said in an interview with publishing group RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland. “And then we can start right away.”

Spahn said that he had asked Germany’s federal states to have their vaccination centres ready by mid-December and that this was going well. “I would rather have a vaccination centre ready a few days early than an approved vaccine that isn’t being used immediately.”

Germany has secured more than 300 million vaccine doses via the European Commission, bilateral contracts and options, Spahn said, adding that this was more than enough and even left room to share with other countries.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-germany-vaccine/germany-may-start-covid-19-vaccine-programme-in-december-health-minister-idUSKBN2820UV

Should COVID-19 usher in the age of personal responsibility in healthcare?

 “For years, health care workers have been raising the alarm that the [system] is in crisis — calling on the government for better funding for our hospitals and better working conditions for ourselves.”

While this may sound like the voice of a stressed, frontline healthcare worker in the US, as they deal with a broken healthcare system in the fight against COVID-19, in actuality, these are quotes directly from the New York Times Op-Ed, I’m a Doctor in Britain. We’re Heading Into the Abyss. Despite the very public struggles of government-sponsored healthcare systems, like the National Health Service in the UK, to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, the situation has revived emphatic calls for a move to a national healthcare system here in the United States. According to an article in The Guardian, America's extreme neoliberal healthcare system is putting the country at risk; they claim “single-payer healthcare can’t prevent a novel virus like COVID-19 but it could help us plan, coordinate and save lives.”

If countries similar to the US also proved ill-prepared for the COVID-19 pandemic, experiencing serious shortages in staff and supplies as a result of a surge in demand, why is the current pandemic a good argument for moving to a national healthcare system? The ability of a healthcare system to respond adequately during any pandemic will always be directly related to the severity of the illness, which determines demand for healthcare services. On October 6th, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revised their guidance on people who are at increased risk of a severe illness from COVID-19 to include adults who are obese, overweight, and those who smoke or have a history of smoking. Also included on the list of risk factors are chronic diseases, such as heart disease and type II diabetes.

Obesity makes it more difficult to breathe, requires scarce specialized equipment and manpower, and uses higher quantities of drugs and other transient medical goods. Diabetes makes it much more difficult and labor intensive to manage a patient on a ventilator. Their lack of control over their blood concentrations and sensitivity to medication can lead to difficult to treat medical conditions like acidosis. For heart disease patients, COVID-19 can attack and further weaken the heart muscle, lead to blood clots, and causes the heart to work faster and harder as the respiratory system is damaged.

An argument in favor of a national healthcare system in response to COVID-19 might make sense if countries with such systems performed better for obesity and these chronic conditions, and they do, but only marginally so. Obesity rates for adults 18-years and older in the US is a whopping 37% but AustraliaCanada, and the UK closely follow at 30%, 31%, and 30%, respectively. For a point of comparison, Japan, which has fared remarkably well during the pandemic, despite criticism over the Japanese government’s handling of the outbreak, has an obesity rate of just 4%. There is a similar story for type II diabetes: 9.1% for the US, and 7.3%, 7.2%, and 7.7% for the aforementioned anglosphere countries, and cardiovascular diseases: 30% for the US, and 28%, 25%, and 25% for the others.

Obesity, overweight, and chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease and type II diabetes, are largely the result of individual health behaviors, like food choices and level of physical activity, and not genetics. But what incentive does someone have to adopt healthy behaviors if the cost of any resulting healthcare they might need is covered by a third-party payer, government or private? Perhaps this is why, according to the Milken Institute, treatment for chronic health conditions totaled $1.1 trillion in the US in 2016, equivalent to nearly 6% of GDP. Similarly, 70% of healthcare spending in the UK is spent on treating long-term conditions. In all four countries discussed, the US, Australia, Canada, and the UK, and globally, rates of chronic disease are increasing at an alarming rate. Across the world, health systems focused on “sick care” are unprepared and unequipped to promote healthy lifestyles, which has resulted in high levels of the discussed COVID-19 cofactors throughout the world.

Despite the obvious role of the individual in determining their health status, healthcare reform efforts in the US have primarily focused on changing physician and provider reimbursements to improve their incentives for providing the “right” care. While this is a step in the right direction, true population health change, and we can now add to this pandemic resilience, will not occur until people are incentivized to take responsibility for their own health and adopt healthy behaviors. Moving to a national healthcare system would only serve to weaken these incentives, as everyone becomes eligible for care paid for by the collective.

However, healthcare is not immune to the issue of scarcity. As populations get sicker, national healthcare systems will have to develop new and creative ways to ration healthcare services and control demand; the scope of healthcare will have to broaden into health behaviors, and a government monopoly on healthcare will thus necessitate its involvement in the everyday lifestyle choices of its citizens. What form will that take? It might start out small, such as a tax on sugary beverages, which have been enacted in some US cities, and may advance to banning the sale of junk food, which we have seen occur recently in other countries. These restrictions could feasibly infiltrate healthcare services more directly, for example, BMI ceilings for those needing bypass surgery. While this may seem like a dark, dystopian future, these mechanisms are already put in place for really scarce resources. Consider organ transplants where the “deservingness” of the patient is always a factor in deciding which life to save.

The very real fears of the doctor expressed at the start of this piece, being put in a position of deciding “who gets care” as a result of COVID-19, could become the “new normal” under national healthcare systems that create collective accountability for the outcomes of individual actions. When health status today is so dependent upon individual choices in lifestyle, such a system promises nothing more than moral and financial bankruptcy. The US healthcare system is definitely flawed, but national healthcare systems are not the “silver bullet” they have been made out to be for curing what truly ails us. Perhaps, as we consider further healthcare reform in this election year, the legacy of COVID-19 should be to usher in the age of personal responsibility in healthcare.

Danielle J. Durant, PhD, MBA, MS, is Assistant Professor of Healthcare Management at Widener University and Austin Klein is a MD/MBA-HCM student at Sidney Kimmel Medical College & Widener University.

https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/should-covid-19-usher-in-the-age-of-personal-responsibility-in-healthcare-

India says local COVID-19 vaccine final trials could end within 2 months

 India's health minister said on Sunday a locally-developed COVID-19 vaccine candidate could complete its final trials in a month or two, raising hopes for a rapid roll-out in a country with the world's second highest number of infections.

The state-run Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and privately-held Bharat Biotech this month started third-stage trials of COVAXIN, in a process that would involve 26,000 volunteers. It is the most advanced Indian experimental vaccine.

"We are in the process of developing our indigenous vaccines, in the process of completing our third-phase trials in the next one or two months," Harsh Vardhan told a web conference on the pandemic.

He reiterated the government's plan was to immunise 200 million to 250 million Indians by July.

An ICMR scientist told Reuters earlier this month the vaccine could be launched in February or March, although Bharat Biotech separately told Reuters on Friday that results of the late-stage trials were expected only between March and April.

Vardhan, however, said in September the government could opt for emergency vaccine authorisation, particularly for the elderly and people in high-risk workplaces.

Indian officials have said they expect to rely on COVAXIN and four other locally-tested candidates to control COVID-19, as they do not expect early access to sufficient quantities of those developed by Pfizer and Moderna.

The other experimental vaccines on trial in India are the one being developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University that is being manufactured by the Serum Institute of India; Russia's Sputnik-V; Zydus Cadila's ZyCoV-D and lastly one that Biological E. Ltd is developing with Baylor College of Medicine and Dynavax Technologies Corp.

Serum's CEO said on Friday the AstraZeneca vaccine could be delivered to Indian healthcare workers and the elderly by January.

India on Sunday recorded 45,209 new infections, taking the total to 9.09 million, only behind that of the United States. Deaths rose by 501 to 133,227, with Delhi recording the highest number of daily fatalities in the country over the last few days.

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/DYNAVAX-TECHNOLOGIES-CORP-19120561/news/India-says-local-COVID-19-vaccine-final-trials-could-end-within-two-months-31843441/

COVAX must start talks with COVID-19 vaccine makers - Merkel

 German Chancellor Angela Merkel has urged COVAX, an initiative set up to provide COVID-19 vaccines to poorer countries, to start talks immediately with producers.

"I am concerned that there are no negotiations," Merkel told journalists on Sunday after the G20 summit, at which leaders of the 20 biggest economies vowed to spare no effort to supply COVID-19 drugs, tests and vaccines to the world affordably and fairly.

Merkel said that, unlike COVAX, the European Union and the United States were already advanced in their efforts to secure vaccine doses.

"The most important thing is that COVAX now negotiates with producers of potential vaccines with the money it has," Merkel said.

Dozens of countries have signed up to the global vaccine plan known as COVAX, which was set up by the World Health Organization and the GAVI vaccine group to provide vaccine doses for countries that could not otherwise afford them.

It has so far raised $5 billion, including over 500 million euros ($600 million) from Germany. 

https://www.marketscreener.com/news/latest/COVAX-must-start-talks-with-COVID-19-vaccine-makers-Merkel--31843507/