Search This Blog

Tuesday, April 6, 2021

Scholar Rock eyes phase 3 after confirming effects of SMA drug

 Scholar Rock has reported 12-month data on spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) candidate apitegromab. The readout is in line with the six-month data drop that sent Scholar Rock’s stock price soaring in October, teeing the biotech up to move into a pivotal study by the end of the year. 

SMA has rapidly gone from a completely unmet need to a disease served by several products. Yet, there are still opportunities for treatments that can improve on existing products, either as single agents or as part combination therapies. Scholar Rock showed its selective inhibitor of the activation of latent myostatin—a mechanism of action distinct from current treatments—could be such an improvement on existing options last year.

The 12-month update broadly confirms the encouraging earlier findings. Interpretation of the results is again complicated by the design of the open-label study, but most effects seen at six months have proven to be durable.

In some cases, the efficacy results improved between the six and 12-month readouts. A cohort of kids with type 2 SMA aged two years and older who began treatment with Biogen and Ionis’ Spinraza  before turning five years old experienced a mean improvement of 5.6 points on a motor scale after receiving 20-mg/kg infusions of apitegromab on top of their existing therapy for six months. At 12 months, the improvement was 7.1 points. Scholar Rock saw a similar trend in the lower dose arm.

Around one-third of participants in both the low and high-dose arm experienced at least a 10-point improvement on the motor function scale at 12 months. Roughly 60% of patients had a five-point increase.

The two other cohorts lack such evidence of deepening responses. In patients with type 2 or non-ambulatory type 3 SMA who began treatment with Spinraza aged five years or older, the mean increase on the motor scale at 12 months was 1.2 points. That result comes from a per-protocol analysis that excludes a patient who missed three apitegromab doses due to COVID-19 restrictions. At six months, the mean increase across the full cohort was 1.4 points.

A third cohort saw a worsening of the scores from six to 12 months. On another disease scale, the ambulatory type 3 SMA patients improved by 0.5 points after six months. By 12 months, the group had experienced a mean decline of 0.3 points. Scholar Rock also tracked numerical declines in the proportion of patients with three- and five-point improvements, although the size of the 23-subject cohorts makes it hard to draw firm conclusions from the trend.

Scholar Rock is now gearing up to put apitegromab through a phase 3 study designed to confirm the signs of efficacy seen in phase 2. The trial is set to start by the end of the year. Scholar Rock is also working to expand use of apitegromab. A proof-of-concept study in Becker muscular dystrophy is planned for next year.

https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/scholar-rock-eyes-phase-3-after-confirming-effects-sma-drug

Does Large Study Slam Door on Blood Type-COVID Link?

 There was no association with blood type and either susceptibility to COVID-19 infection or disease severity in a large cohort study, researchers said.

Among 11,000 patients, blood type A was not associated with increased viral positivity (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.93-1.01, P=0.11), hospitalization (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80-0.99, P=0.03) or ICU admission (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69-1.02, P=0.08) compared to type O, and neither were there associations with worse outcomes among patients type B or AB, reported Jeffrey Anderson, MD, of the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

Because each set underwent nine comparisons, significance for individual comparisons was set at P=0.006, meaning none of these associations were significant, they wrote in JAMA Network Open.

They noted conflicting research about blood types and COVID, with studies around the world finding links between the two -- particularly, increased susceptibility in people with type A and/or decreased risk with type O -- while others found no links.

"The smaller sample sizes and retrospective, observational nature of many prior studies, in addition to their striking heterogeneity of ABO associations with disease susceptibility and severity, could be due to chance variations, publication bias, differences in genetic background, geography and environment, and viral strains," they wrote.

Anderson's group examined data from Intermountain Healthcare, an integrated system of 24 hospitals and 215 clinics in Utah, Idaho, and Nevada. They looked at patients from March 3 to Nov. 2, 2020 who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 and had a recorded blood type, comparing positive versus negative tests, hospitalized versus non-hospitalized patients and ICU versus non-ICU patients.

Of the 107,796 individuals tested for COVID-19, 11,468 patients tested positive. Patients' mean age was 42, 77% were women, and most were white.

Among those who had COVID-19, hospitalization and ICU admission was associated with male sex and age. They also found non-white race, defined as African American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander was associated with viral positivity (13.9% vs 6.9%, respectively) and hospitalization (23.9% vs 11.3%) versus white race.

While Anderson and colleagues noted their sample was mostly white, with a minority contribution from other ethnicities, they added their results were similar when restricted to white race alone.

"Given the large and prospective nature of our study and its strongly null results, we believe that important associations of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 with ABO groups are unlikely and will not be useful factors associated with disease susceptibility or severity on either an individual or population level for similar environments and ancestries," they concluded.


Disclosures

Anderson disclosed no relevant relationships with industry. Co-authors disclosed support from Dell Loy Hansen Heart Foundation Heart Institute, Intermountain Research and Medical Foundation, AstraZeneca, PCORnet, GlaxoSmithKline, CareCentra, and LabMe.ai, as well as licensing of intellectual property from Alluceo and CareCentra.

Common Hospital PCR Covid Test Affected by Viral Variant

 One of the most popular SARS-CoV-2 molecular test brands used in U.S. hospital labs has been added to an FDA list of tests with potentially compromised accuracy for viral variants.

Three PCR tests made by Cepheid -- the Xpert Xpress, Xpert Xpress DoD, and Xpert Omni -- look for both the N2 and E target regions within viral RNA. But two independent single point mutations "reduce the test's sensitivity for detecting the N2 target," according to the FDA.

Since the E target can still be detected, a test that reads out positive for E but negative for N2 would be a "presumptive positive," the agency said.

FDA said the altered readout should not result in false positives, but the agency was providing the information "out of an abundance of caution."

Christina Wojewoda, MD, chair of the College of American Pathologists' microbiology committee and director of the microbiology lab at the University of Vermont Medical Center, said she didn't find the Cepheid results concerning given that the test does have multiple targets.

"Even if there's a change in the viral sequence that affects one of the primer-probe combinations, the other primer-probe combination is usually unaffected, and the test will still flag as positive," Wojewoda told MedPage Today. "On the Cepheid package insert, it says if only one of the two targets is detected ... it should be reported as a presumptive positive."

Wojewoda noted that test manufacturers developed their tests based on genes that would be less likely to change over time: "The N1, N2, and E regions didn't seem to have as much of a selection advantage," she said.

FDA says it continues to "gather additional information and work with the manufacturer to address this issue." Cepheid did not return a request for comment from MedPage Today as of press time.

On Jan. 8, FDA issued a similar communication about three other brands of commonly used molecular tests: TaqPath made by Thermo Fisher; Linea by Applied DNA Sciences; and Accula from Mesa Biotech.

The TaqPath, which is also a top choice of hospital labs, detects three target regions of viral RNA, including the region encoding the spike protein. That target now has reduced sensitivity, particularly for the B.1.1.7 variant, FDA said.

Still, the test should be able to detect the virus using the other two targets in combination with the "S-gene drop out."

"If local or state clinical laboratories have access to quick turnaround whole genome sequencing services, such as those using the EUA-authorized Illumina COVIDSeq Test, these labs should consider further characterizing the specimen with genetic sequencing when this pattern is identified," FDA stated.

Linea by Applied DNA Sciences looks for two targets within the genes for the virus's spike protein, S1 and S2, according to company spokesperson Sanjay Hurry. Detection of the S2 portion has been impacted by certain mutations, including one of the mutations in B.1.1.7, Hurry said.

"If S1 and S2 are positive, you have COVID," he said. "If you are positive for S1 and have S2 drop out, you're positive, and it indicates B.1.1.7."

Similar to TaqPath, FDA advised following up with whole-genome sequencing for such results with Linea if labs have such access.

Finally, for Mesa Biotech's Accula molecular test, FDA noted that samples with a mutation at position 28881 (GGG to AAC), which affects the viral nucleocapsid (N) protein, could be impacted. It's not clear how widespread that mutation is, and Mesa did not return a request for comment as of press time.

FDA created the new page for the impact of viral mutations on COVID-19 tests, which it says will be updated as new information becomes available. While the agency has previously acknowledged that variants could also have impacts on antigen and antibody tests, it has not yet issued any warnings about affected readouts for those tests.

The agency also issued a policy for evaluating the impact of viral mutations on COVID-19 tests in February.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/91941

WHO: AstraZeneca benefits outweigh risks; assessing latest data

 The World Health Organization expects there will be no reason to change its assessment that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine against COVID-19 outweigh any risks, a regulatory official told a news conference on Tuesday.

The WHO is closely studying the latest data alongside European and other regulators, in light of reports of blood clots among people who have been vaccinated, said Rogerio Gaspar, WHO director of regulation and prequalification.

He said the WHO expects to reach a fresh assessment on Wednesday or Thursday, but does not believe there will be a reason to change its advice that the benefits outweigh any risks.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-astrazeneca-who/who-says-astrazeneca-benefits-outweigh-risks-assessing-latest-data-idUSKBN2BT22E

Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics completes reverse merger, names CEO

 

  • Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics, Inc. (NYSE American: BTX) ("Brooklyn" or "the Company"), a biopharmaceutical company focused on exploring the role that cytokine-based therapy can have in treating patients with cancer, today announced the appointment of Howard J. Federoff, M.D., Ph.D., as Chief Executive Officer and President and a director as of 16 April 2021. Dr. Federoff succeeds Ronald Guido who was serving as Interim CEO and will remain on Brooklyn’s management team as Chief Development Officer.

"Dr. Federoff brings an unwavering focus on the patient as well as an outstanding record of clinical, academic and corporate achievement to Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics," said Charles Cherington, Director of Brooklyn. "Dr. Federoff’s unparalleled record of professional accomplishments and experience will be a tremendous asset to Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics as we advance the clinical development of IRX-2 as well as explore potential new opportunities. We look forward to working with Dr. Federoff to bring new treatment options to patients living with cancer and other serious diseases."

"Brooklyn’s IRX-2 product offers a significant opportunity to improve patient outcomes both as a monotherapy and in combination with other anti-cancer drugs including immune-oncology therapies," said Dr. Federoff. "My top priorities will be the clinical advancement of IRX-2 in solid tumor indications as well as seeking opportunities to in-license new therapeutic agents that can extend and enhance the lives of patients fighting cancer and other serious diseases. This is an exciting time in oncology drug development and I believe that Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics will be a leader in advancing patient care."

Dr. Federoff is a distinguished professor of neurology at the University of California, Irvine. He is the former CEO of UCI Health, vice chancellor for health affairs and dean of the UCI School of Medicine. Prior to joining UCI Health, Federoff was executive vice president of Health Sciences and executive dean at Georgetown University. Dr. Federoff has published more than 275 peer-reviewed and invited articles, and serves on editorial boards of five journals. He co-founded MedGenesis Therapeutix and Brain Neurotherapy Bio, both advancing therapeutics for neurologic diseases. He became CEO of the regenerative medicine company, Aspen Neuroscience, Inc, in San Diego. Aspen is developing an autologous iPSC drug product for Parkinson’s disease. Dr. Federoff chaired the NIH Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, the NHLBI Gene Therapy Resource and the Board of the Association of the Academic Health Centers. He has served as an advisor/director for several companies. He is an elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Inventors. He received his MD, MS and PhD in biochemistry from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. He completed his residency and clinical and research fellowships at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School.

Last week the company announced the completion of the reverse merger with NTN Buzztime, Inc. Brooklyn will focus on the advancement of IRX-2, its cytokine-based compound for the treatment of various cancers, as well as opportunities in the area of gene editing/cell therapy through its option agreement with Factor Bioscience/Novellus. Brooklyn's common stock will trade on the NYSE American Exchange under the ticker symbol "BTX" commencing on March 26, 2021.

"The reverse merger with NTN Buzztime is a major step forward for Brooklyn," said Ronald Guido, MS, MS Pharm. Med., Chief Executive Officer of Brooklyn. "We look forward to continuing to evaluate IRX-2, a human cell-derived IL-2 therapeutic in neoadjuvant (pre-surgical) and adjuvant (post-operative) treatment for advanced head and neck squamous cell cancer. IRX-2 has received both fast track designation and orphan drug designation from the FDA for this indication with topline results from our Phase 2b clinical trial expected in the first half of next year. IRX-2 is also being studied in clinical trials in multiple oncology indications, both as a single agent and in combination with other anti-cancer drugs including checkpoint inhibitors."

At the closing under the merger agreement, Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics LLC merged with a wholly owned subsidiary of NTN Buzztime and became a wholly owned subsidiary of NTN Buzztime, which changed its name to Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics, Inc. Immediately following the closing, the former members of Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics LLC collectively own approximately 96.25% of the outstanding common stock of Brooklyn and the stockholders of NTN Buzztime prior to the merger own the remaining 3.75% of Brooklyn’s outstanding common stock. Further, following the closing of the merger, there are approximately 41.5 million post-reverse split shares of common stock outstanding.


J&J's Covid-19 Vaccine: How Does the One-Dose Shot Compare With Others?

 Johnson & Johnson's Covid-19 vaccine was authorized for use in the U.S. by federal health regulators in late February and supplies of doses are ramping up. It is the third shot to be cleared after vaccines from Pfizer Inc. and its partner BioNTech SE and from Moderna Inc. And it is the first shot requiring just one dose, rather than two. Here's what we know and don't know:

How do the three Covid-19 vaccines compare?

They all work well, health experts say. The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna shots were more than 94% effective at preventing Covid-19 in their late-stage trials, while J&J's effectiveness was 66%. But the difference may be less than it seems. The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna shots were tested before the emergence of strains like one first identified in South Africa, which various studies have indicated eludes vaccines somewhat, though they still work against it. J&J's vaccine was tested in South Africa, and its effectiveness wasn't as high there as in other countries, hurting the vaccine's overall effectiveness. The J&J vaccine was 72% effective in the U.S. portion of its study.

Yet health experts say J&J's vaccine is plenty effective. Importantly, it was 85% effective against severe Covid-19 at least 28 days after vaccination. That suggests the vaccine should help many people avoid the kinds of serious cases that result in hospitalization and death.

Which Covid-19 vaccine should I get?

Health authorities have generally said people should take the first vaccine they can get because early supplies have been constrained. But if you do have a choice, there are some key differences that could guide your decision. J&J's vaccine is given as a single dose, which may be a more convenient option than the two doses required for both of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, given three or four weeks apart. Only the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is authorized for adolescents 16 and 17 years old, while J&J and Moderna's shots are cleared for those 18 and older.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says people who are allergic to the ingredients of a vaccine shouldn't take it. The vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna contain, among other ingredients, the genetic material RNA and a substance called polyethylene glycol, which has been associated with rare allergic reactions. The J&J vaccine contains an adenovirus, a virus that can cause the common cold, which is rendered harmless; polysorbate and other ingredients.

A healthy, younger woman with a history of an allergic reaction known as anaphylaxis may opt for J&J's vaccine because there appears to be a lower rate of such side effects than seen for the vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna, said Dr. Gregory Poland, a Mayo Clinic vaccine researcher and fellow with the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Conversely, a 65-year-old man with a blood type associated with higher risk of severe Covid-19 may opt for a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine because of the strong evidence of efficacy in both clinical trials and real-world use, he said.

When can I get J&J's shot?

A limited supply of doses has been available since the shot was authorized in late February. J&J said it delivered 20 million doses for U.S. use by the end of March, and it expects an additional 24 million in April. By the end of May, J&J expects it will have delivered a total of 100 million doses for use in the U.S.

How effective is J&J's Covid-19 vaccine?

It appears to work well. The vaccine's 66% effectiveness rate shows it can protect a majority of most vaccinated adults from moderate to severe Covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. And the vaccine was even more effective preventing severe disease specifically, posting the 85% rate. By comparison, an annual flu shot is considered to work well if it is 60% effective.

What are the side effects of J&J's vaccine?

The most common side effects among people who received the vaccine were injection-site pain, headache and fatigue. Most were mild to moderate. J&J has received preliminary reports of two cases of severe allergic reactions in vaccine recipients, one of which was anaphylaxis.

How was J&J's Covid-19 vaccine tested?

Starting in September, J&J enrolled more than 44,000 adults in the U.S. and several other countries including Brazil and South Africa in a clinical trial. The subjects received a single dose of either the vaccine or a placebo. Researchers counted how many people subsequently contracted moderate to severe Covid-19 starting 14 days after vaccination, until a certain number of people fell ill. Researchers then examined whether there were fewer vaccinated people than unvaccinated people among the Covid-19 cases. Researchers also monitored for side effects among the study subjects.

How does J&J's vaccine work?

The vaccine uses a harmless type of virus, called an adenovirus, which can cause cold symptoms. It is modified to contain the DNA of the so-called spike protein found on the surface of the new coronavirus. After injection, the cold-virus vector carries the DNA payload into human cells. Once inside the cells, the DNA payload causes the production of the spike protein. This, in turn, triggers an immune response that can later defend against the real coronavirus if a vaccinated person is exposed to it.

What don't we know about J&J's Covid-19 vaccine?

We don't know its safety and effectiveness in children, or among pregnant women, their fetuses or women nursing babies. We also don't know how long vaccine-induced protection will last. The company has started a study testing the vaccine in adolescents and is conducting a separate study testing whether adding a second dose improves its performance. Also uncertain is whether the vaccine can help curb the spread of the virus by infected people who don't have symptoms, a group that turns out to be responsible for a lot of transmission. A preliminary analysis by J&J gave tantalizing signs the company's vaccine could limit asymptomatic spread, by reducing infections that didn't cause symptoms in study subjects.

Does J&J's vaccine protect against new coronavirus strains?

The vaccine was less effective in South Africa and Latin America than in the U.S. That could be a sign the vaccine is less protective against strains circulating in those regions, though J&J is still conducting that analysis. J&J's vaccine was 57% effective in South Africa and 66% in Latin America, compared with 72% in the U.S. during the late-stage trial, according to J&J. Even at the lower levels of effectiveness in South Africa and Latin America, health experts say, J&J's vaccine works well. The company said it is working on a version of the vaccine targeting the variant first identified in South Africa. Even in study subjects there, the shot still performed above what health experts say is needed to protect many people and provide the community immunity needed to move to a post-pandemic life.

Have there been production problems with the J&J vaccine?

In late March, J&J said a batch of the main ingredient for its vaccine that was manufactured at a contractor's plant in Baltimore didn't meet quality standards. But no finished doses from the batch were distributed, and the contractor, Emergent BioSolutions Inc., plans to dispose of the batch. J&J says it still expects to meet its supply commitments for the vaccine.

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/JOHNSON-JOHNSON-4832/news/J-J-s-Covid-19-Vaccine-How-Does-the-One-Dose-Shot-Compare-With-Others-Update-32892294/

Europe medicines watchdog to update on AstraZeneca vaccine safety April 7 or 8

 The European medicines watchdog expects to hold a press conference this week updating the public on its review of rare blood clotting cases in people who have received the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, a spokeswoman said on Tuesday.

In an emailed response to questions, a spokeswoman for the European Medicines Agency said its pharmaceuticals risk assessment committee has not reached a conclusion in its current review of the vaccine’s safety, and it expects to hold a press briefing “as soon as the review is finalized,” either on April 7 or April 8.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-ema-astrazeneca/europe-medicines-watchdog-to-update-on-astrazeneca-vaccine-safety-april-7-or-8-idUSKBN2BT1NY