Search This Blog

Saturday, April 10, 2021

Lots of conflicting advice on when vaccinees can resume high risk activities

It’s been over a year since my office shut down. Over a year since I went to a bar, a fitness class, a movie theater, a concert, a Knicks game, or to the many other public events that were once centerpieces of my social life.

But there’s finally, finally a finish line in sight. There are three safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines authorized and available in the US — and at least 90 percent of all adults will be eligible to receive one by April 19th. If our current vaccination pace continues, 75 percent of adults will have at least one dose by early summer. Reader, I am dying to get back to my favorite activities, and I can tell that people around me are, too.

But according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, vaccinated people aren’t out of the woods yet. The agency’s current guidelines still severely limit some activities that are a big part of many people’s “normal” and some people’s livelihoods: theaters, concerts, bars, sporting events, and the like.

Now, I know concerts aren’t more important than public health, and I’m happy to follow expert advice for as long as needed to stop the spread of COVID-19. But that hasn’t stopped me from wondering “when?” When can our pre-pandemic lives resume, without distancing, capacity limits, quarantines, and other restrictions? When can I go clubbing again?

Lately, there’s been a lot of great writing about what vaccinated people should and shouldn’t do right now. But that didn’t help me get a clear picture of what the future might hold. So I spoke to seven experts, who have all been involved in studying or treating COVID-19, about a slightly different question. I asked them: What signs are we waiting for? When will we know that we can get back to “normal”?

Those are difficult questions to answer because there are a lot of uncertain variables, and the situation is changing rapidly. The US is averaging over 3 million doses per day, and some states are already dropping their pandemic restrictions — but COVID-19 cases are still on the rise, and officials are worried about an upcoming surge. To understand what our “normality” goalposts are, it’s important to first understand what those unknowns are and why the CDC is asking people to keep being patient after they get their shot.

LET’S START WITH THE BASICS: IF I’M FULLY VACCINATED, WHY SHOULD I STILL AVOID CROWDS?

When you’re fully vaccinated, you want to avoid coming into close contact with unvaccinated people. For one, no vaccine is 100 percent effective. Some experts I spoke to believe they’re effective enough that vaccinated people can justifiably stop worrying about their own risk, while others continued to urge caution. But everyone agreed that while we have data on the efficacy of the vaccines in preventing you from getting severe COVID yourself, we have less information about how well they prevent you from potentially passing it to unvaccinated people. Every expert I spoke to cited this as a reason vaccinated people still needed to be cautious while COVID is widespread in their area. It’s also mentioned in the CDC’s guidance.

I pressed on this, though, because it’s not the case that we have no information on this topic. Preliminary studies from Israel have indicated that Pfizer’s vaccine greatly reduces transmission, and the CDC recently found even more evidence that Pfizer’s and Moderna’s shots are highly effective at preventing infection in vaccinated frontline workers. So I asked the experts how much more information they’d need before they were comfortable with vaccinated people returning to public crowds.

I got a wide variety of responses here. Brian Cruz, regional medical director of PhysicianOne Urgent Care, says he’s waiting for more peer-reviewed studies. The Pfizer data from Israel, for example, isn’t peer reviewed, and the researchers have stated that further study is needed. And while the CDC’s findings indicate that the US vaccines are likely effective in preventing COVID infection, Cruz notes, they don’t settle the question of whether a vaccinated person can be an asymptomatic carrier. He doesn’t think it’ll take too long for all of that to be cleared up. “There’s a strong push to get that information out,” he tells me. “I think we’re getting to that point.”

Others don’t feel that they’ll be satisfied with transmission research at any point in the near future. Before a majority of people are vaccinated, “regardless of the science that might come up ... I don’t think it’s responsible to gather in medium or large-sized groups,” says epidemiologist Matthew Weissenbach, senior director of clinical affairs at Wolters Kluwer.

Epidemiologist Brian Castrucci, who is president of the de Beaumont Foundation, stressed that uncertainty around transmission is less of a concern when a high proportion of people are protected. “This is a novel virus and a novel vaccine. We’re going to be learning for a while as to how it interacts and how it works,” he says. What we do know, he adds, is that “the more people who are vaccinated, the less the virus has a path forward.”

With those answers in mind, I began asking about the future.

WHEN CAN I GO SEE HAMILTON IN THE ROOM WHERE IT HAPPENS — INSTEAD OF ON TV?

You can’t control who else attends large public events (theater, clubbing, concerts, religious services, basketball games, and the like), and a vaccinated person will run the risk of coming into close contact with unvaccinated people.

Some of these events can happen in a low-risk manner with modifications — small religious gatherings outdoors with six feet between participants, for example. But I wanted to know what it will take to get the full nine yards back: indoor crowds, full capacity, screaming and cheering, the works.

The big thing to look out for with local events is the pace of vaccination in your community, since most venues like bars, churches, and, yes, theaters, largely draw local patrons. (There are exceptions, of course — more on those later.) The CDC is reporting vaccination rates, case counts, hospital utilization, deaths, and other metrics by county.

Experts say they’ll be watching for a few things. One is case counts. A positive test rate of 0.5 percent or lower would be a good sign, according to Mireya Wessolossky, an infectious disease specialist at UMass Memorial Medical Center and associate professor at UMass Medical School. Another is hospitalizations. “There need to be no people in the hospital, or once in a while,” Wessolossky says. Another is the overall direction of cases and hospitalizations — “What we need to see is that all the trends continue in the right direction as we start to get back to normality,” said Andrew Catchpole, virologist and chief scientific officer at hVivo.

And a fourth is the proportion of people in your community who are vaccinated. Most of the experts I spoke to said they’ll be most comfortable with large, public events when the area in question has a vaccinated proportion sufficient for herd immunity — the point at which enough people are immune to a disease that a community as a whole is protected, including those who don’t have immunity themselves.

WHEN CAN I HAVE MY BIRTHDAY PARTY?

Here’s the good news: your birthday party, book club meeting, and other personal gatherings should be fine now, provided that everyone invited is fully vaccinated. So if you’ve been holding out on throwing an indoor birthday party, you should be waiting until two weeks after everyone on your invite list has had their shots.

Weddings are the one area where experts seem to diverge. Weissenbach thinks they should wait for herd immunity (or should be held outdoors, with distancing precautions) since there are likely to be outside staff involved with ambiguous vaccination status. “You probably have food vendors, you probably have a DJ,” he says. “I’m not super comfortable with it.”

Others were tentatively okay with indoor weddings of fully vaccinated guests sooner. But everyone did agree that for weddings (or parties or other sorts of indoor, unmasked, and close gatherings) with unvaccinated guests, herd immunity is the goal.

OKAY, COOL. SO HOW MANY PEOPLE NEED TO BE VACCINATED FOR HERD IMMUNITY AGAINST COVID-19?

Unfortunately, we won’t know that for a while. The threshold for herd immunity varies between diseases, and COVID-19 is a new virus. The best we can do for now is make educated guesses based on our knowledge of other viruses.

It’s possible that COVID’s number is very high — a population needs a 95 percent vaccination rate to achieve herd immunity against measles. However, COVID is unlikely to be as contagious as measles, and many of the experts I spoke to were comfortable with a rough estimate of 70 to 80 percent. That’s also the range Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, projected in mid-December. “I would feel good about 70 to 80 percent,” says Castrucci.

Some were more optimistic: Michelle Prickett, an associate professor at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, says she’d be okay lifting some restrictions above the 50 percent mark. And others are less so. Catchpole tells me, “To operate at maximum safety and minimum risk, we’d want to see as close to a 100 percent takeup of the vaccine as possible before pre-pandemic normality is brought back.”

Plenty of factors could impact what those thresholds are, and how long it takes to reach them. But overall, this goalpost is clear: we want a large majority of people to be fully vaccinated.

GOT IT. SO CAN I PLAN TO ATTEND THE STANLEY CUP PLAYOFFS THIS YEAR?

This year’s Super Bowl was not a COVID superspreader event, according to health officials. Fifty-seven cases were linked to official Super Bowl festivities, and 25 people were exposed at the events — over 280,000 people participated. That said, this year’s Super Bowl was held in an open-air stadium at less than half capacity, and fans were required to wear masks and adhere to social-distancing measures. So I asked what it would take for the experts to go back to indoor games with full crowds.

Castrucci says nationwide vaccine rates are more important here than local numbers — the 70 to 80 percent threshold is the goal. Even if they’re taking place in your area, big sporting events and gatherings at similar scale may bring in fans from all across the country. You may not know whether other attendees you’ll encounter are vaccinated, where they came from, or what vaccine rates are in their area. “Something like a Super Bowl, that’s something to be thoughtful about,” Castrucci says. “We’re only going to be as safe as the group that is vaccinated least.”

SEVENTY TO 80 PERCENT SEEMS HIGH — ARE WE ACTUALLY GOING TO HIT THESE NUMBERS?

I got a chorus of emphatic yeses; the experts I asked believe that number is realistic. “A little bit of patience and we’re going to get to that point,” says Cruz.

The segment of people who plan to get a vaccine is promising. A recent poll indicated that 69 percent of US adults had already gotten the vaccine or were willing to get one (and that proportion may be much higher in your region). And nearly everyone who gets the first dose of a two-shot vaccine has been getting their second one within the recommended window. Kids also make up 22 percent of the US population, and it’s looking like 12- to 15-year-olds could have access to shots before the next school year. Opening up that bracket will likely make up for some adult hesitancy.

It’s also likely that more hesitant people will be pushed to get the shot if schools and other institutions make COVID vaccines mandatory. And there’s also a normalization factor at play. “Once someone initially resistant to getting a vaccine shot knows other people within their peer group who have had a vaccination, they’re more likely to change their mind,” says Catchpole.

WHAT ABOUT THAT CANCUN VACATION I’VE BEEN PUTTING OFF?

International travel will take longer. Many countries around the world are not open to US tourists, and some that are have still highly discouraged leisure travel and are requiring arrivals to test and quarantine before they can enter. If you’re planning an international vacation, that’s going to be an even longer waiting game than getting tickets to any big event. Some experts caution that countries might open their borders prematurely but still recommend that fully vaccinated people keep six feet of distance from others during their trips and quarantine before and after.

Wessolossky says travelers should be looking at the proportion of people who have been vaccinated at their destination, once it’s open (as well as other metrics like positive test rates and hospitalizations). That’s especially true because if you’re vacationing, you may want to visit restaurants, bars, or other indoor attractions where the virus and variants of the virus can spread easily.

SHOOT, NOW I’M THINKING ABOUT VARIANTS. HOW DO THEY FACTOR INTO VACATION PLANNING?

Even if the country you’re aiming to visit is open and vaccinated at high rates, Wessolossky says, it would be a bad idea to visit if there’s a new variant circulating there and you can’t find research on how it interacts with your vaccine.

But like transmission, variants aren’t a topic we know nothing about. Some current research suggests that while our vaccines may be less effective against some concerning variants, they likely still provide some degree of protection. So I asked: what information are we waiting on regarding the variants we’re currently worried about, and given that future variants are a perpetual question mark, will we ever know enough?

The answer to both questions appears to be infrastructure: tests for detecting variants aren’t yet approved for diagnostic use in the US, and only a small number of US labs can validate them, so variant-focused contact tracing is difficult. “If we had the science infrastructure to sequence variants … things would become clearer,” Castrucci says. “We haven’t made those investments.”

Prickett says she’s waiting for the US to scale up that monitoring and testing capacity before she’ll feel comfortable with total normality. “The best way to get a hold of variants is to do early observation, and we need a bit more infrastructure here in the US and globally,” she says. The Biden administration has committed nearly $200 million to expanding that capacity.

Weissenbach says variants just underscore the need for countries to reach herd immunity. “It’s like a wildfire in California,” he says. “They’re going to continue to crop up. We’re just trying to put a squash on it.”

BOTTOM LINE: WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR?

After getting such a wide variety of answers to so many of my questions, I am left hopeful but also frustrated. How should laypeople like me navigate our lives post-vaccine when even medical experts disagree?

While it may seem tempting to draw the conclusion that this all comes down to a value judgment — you should weigh your risk tolerance against how much you value your wedding or vacation and make your own decision — that doesn’t sit right with me. Our risk is our business, sure, but we’re also asked to restrict our behavior to keep other people safe. And I’ll be brutally honest: I miss live entertainment, traveling, and even indoor dining enough that if I really believed that my post-vaccine decisions came down solely to my own risk-reward calculus, I’d probably drop all pre-vaccine restrictions as soon as I was two weeks out from that last shot. That’s a decision I think every expert in this article would agree is the wrong one because there’s an element of responsibility in the equation as well.

Some folks will certainly disregard all public health guidelines and start globetrotting immediately after their second shot. Others may swear off concerts for the rest of their lives. But many people (myself included) feel an obligation not to contribute to spread but would also benefit from knowing there’s an end in sight — knowing that there’s a time coming when the risk of spread will be low enough that we can go back to our favorite pre-pandemic joys with science on our side.

So here’s my takeaway, for what it’s worth. Experts across disciplines have conflicting advice. As vaccination rates rise, we’ll likely see some authorities relax their demands, while others continue to urge caution. Governors will allow things to open, and people on Twitter will urge you not to go. It’s going to be a confusing time, and different areas will move at different paces. But for the riskiest indoor activities, there’s a tentative finish line in sight: we’re waiting for a large majority of our communities to be fully vaccinated, and for cases and hospitalizations to decline. Here’s my mental finish line: with the caveat that variants and other circumstances could change the equation, and that precautions should be eased carefully rather than thrown to the winds, 70 to 80 percent is the rough threshold I’m watching for.

To gut check this conclusion I turned to Ben Bates, a professor at Ohio University who studies health communication and messaging. He’s not surprised that I’d had trouble finding straight answers. He emphasizes that communicating public-health guidance is challenging, and he thinks some of the expert messaging around COVID has underweighted the value of social gatherings. “The way science and public health work is you want to accumulate as much evidence as possible and test it over and over,” Bates says. “By nature these are very cautious, conservative people. I don’t think we’ll hear for a good long time ‘It is now absolutely safe to go out.’”

But Bates thinks the prospect of US communities hitting a high vaccination threshold, and seeing a subsequent decline in community transmission, is “quite realistic” and agrees that it’s a reasonable milestone to wait for that fairly balances risk aversion against the costs of restrictions and the high value of social gatherings. “Politicians, and business folks, and church leaders and so on will rightly say, ‘This is the kind of number you said would help protect us, and we’ve reached that number,” Bates says. “That’s when I think things will be pretty darn opened up.”

https://www.theverge.com/22370176/covid-19-vaccinated-people-cdc-guidance-herd-immunity

Medline Industries Reported Hiring Goldman Sachs to Explore Sale

 Medline Industries Inc. is exploring a sale that could value the big medical-supply company at as much as $30 billion and mark the latest in a recent string of large leveraged-buyout bids.

The family-owned company has hired Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to run the process, according to people familiar with the matter. There's no guarantee the company will ultimately be sold. The process is at an early stage, the people said, with some adding that an IPO or minority investment is also a possibility.

Northfield, Ill.-based Medline is likely to attract private-equity bidders, partly because industry players could struggle to swallow such a big rival, the people said.

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/THE-GOLDMAN-SACHS-GROUP-12831/news/Medline-Industries-Has-Hired-Goldman-Sachs-to-Explore-a-Sale-Sources-Say-32930037/

Can employers mandate Covid vax under emergency authorizations? It’s complicated

 As the US ramps up vaccinations to more than 3 million people daily, some employers are beginning to do what schools across the country do every year: mandate vaccinations.


One of the major differences between any Covid-19 vaccine mandate and others for childhood vaccines is that the three authorized Covid-19 vaccines — from Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J — have not been granted full FDA approvals yet.


That difference has already been the source of two lawsuits — one from employees of the Los Angeles Unified School District and another from a New Mexico corrections officer (who was not able to halt the mandate) — which claim that a Covid-19 vaccine mandate is not legal because the vaccines are still technically experimental.


The section of the law addressing EUAs directs the HHS Secretary to inform individuals “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product” under an EUA, which some (like those filing suit) have asserted to mean that any wider mandates are prohibited until the vaccines win full approval.


But some legal experts think the courts will consider not only the ramifications of the current pandemic, but the way in which the FDA signed off on the vaccines, which, as the FDA’s vaccines lead Peter Marks made clear in comments prior to the first EUA, was more of an “EUA-plus” than a typical EUA.


Wen Shen, legislative attorney at the Congressional Research Service, explained in a recent report on Covid-19 vaccine mandates, “In particular, courts will likely consider whether requiring vaccines subject to an EUA — including the specific steps taken by FDA in issuing the EUA — under the specified conditions of the mandate is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest given the nature of the pandemic.”


The EUA statute also makes clear that the HHS Secretary should provide this option to refuse vaccines under EUAs, but it does not provide any instructions to employers or universities.


UC Hastings College of Law professor Dorit Reiss and co-authors recently explained in a Stat News op-ed, “Those arguing that the EUA statute prohibits mandates by at-will employers are claiming that this federal law is changing existing state employment law on the topic by mere implication. They are reading in a broad prohibition covering all employers and universities in the U.S. that is not, in fact, in the statute.”


In the New Mexico case, a corrections officer sought to immediately prevent the county from mandating Covid-19 vaccinations on the grounds that there is a lot the FDA doesn’t know about these experimental vaccines, but the judge said in March that the mandate will not be halted, at least initially, without providing the county with an opportunity to respond.


Both Pfizer and Moderna now have enough safety data to file for full approvals for their Covid-19 vaccines. A Pfizer spokesperson said the company’s filing will come either later this month or next month, and Moderna previously said its filing will come sometime later this year.


When the FDA approves both vaccines (even if the J&J vaccine is still under an EUA), the legal case against employers’ Covid-19 vaccine mandates may disappear.


“An employee can push back if they can make a case the only vaccine they can get is on EUA, but it’s a much weaker case,” Reiss told Endpoints News. “If employers want to avoid that, especially large employers, an easy out is to contract for BLA [biologics license application] vaccines and offer them on-site,” which she said is what Rutgers University is doing after mandating Covid-19 vaccinations.


But Reiss also said she thinks preliminary injunction hearings for the two lawsuits in Los Angeles and New Mexico will occur before any Covid-19 vaccines win full approval.


“A big step in those lawsuits is whether there will be a preliminary injunction — that will tell us a lot about the chances, since the main debate is a question of law, not facts,” Reiss said.


In addition to employer vaccination mandates, Shen notes in the CRS report that states can also enact vaccine mandates. And although Congress may not directly require states or localities to pass mandatory vaccination laws or implement federal vaccination laws, Congress can incentivize (but not coerce) states to create such mandates.

https://endpts.com/can-employers-mandate-covid-19-vaccines-under-emergency-authorizations-its-complicated/

Biotech week ahead, April 12

 Contrary to the strength in the broader market, biotech stocks ended the week ending April 9 lower. The weakness partly reflected a preference for risky bets at the expense of defensives such as healthcare stocks.

FDA news flow of the week was mostly bordering on the negative. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. ACAD 1.4% was handed down a complete response letter for its regulatory application seeking expansion of the label of its Nuplazid to include dementia-related psychosis.

The biggest headline of the week was a disclosure by FibroGen, Inc. FGEN 1.28% that it had fudged data for its anemia drug, which sent its shares down about 48% during the week.

Provention Bio, Inc. PRVB 17.82% shares came under pressure after it communicated a likely delay in the approval of its Type 1 diabetes treatment candidate teplizumab. The company also said the FDA is not convinced with the pharmacokinetic data from the bridging study of teplizumab that was done to establish its comparability with an existing product from Eli Lilly and Company LLY 0.96%. Data from Lilly's product was submitted as part of the teplizumab biologic license application.

Two biopharma companies debuted on the Nasdaq following their initial public offerings, raising a combined $221.3 million.

Here are the key catalytic events for the unfolding week:

Conferences

American Association of Cancer Research, or AACR, Annual Meeting 2021 (virtual event): April 10-15

20th Annual Needham Virtual Healthcare Conference: April 12-15

The International Society of Nephrology, or ISN, World Congress of Nephrology, or WCN (virtual event): April 15-19

American Academy of Neurology, AAN, 2021 Meeting: April 17-22

PDUFA Dates

The FDA is scheduled to rule on the new drug application filed by Avenue Therapeutics, Inc. ATXI 2.24%, a Fortress Biotech, Inc. FBIO 11.48%, for its intravenous tramadol for the treatment of moderate to severe pain.


Clinical Readouts/Presentations

AACR Meeting Presentations

Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Inc. CMPI 0.86%: new translational data from the Phase 1b trial of CMP-001 in subjects with advanced melanoma (Sunday)

Blueprint Medicines Corporation BPMC 0.09%: interim analysis of Phase 2 data for avapritinib in patients with advanced systemic mastocytosis (Sunday)

Mirati Therapeutics, Inc. MRTX 1.84% and BeiGene, Ltd. BGNE 2.02%: Phase 1b safety/tolerability and preliminary antitumor activity data for Mirati's sitravatinib plus BeiGene's tislelizumab in patients with advanced platinum-resistant ovarian cancer as well as patients with PD-(L)1 refractory/resistant unresectable or metastatic melanoma (Sunday)

Beigene: results from the Phase 3 study of tislelizumab versus docetaxel as second or third-line therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (Monday)

Affimed N.V. AFMD 23.45%: positive initial clinical data from an investigator-sponsored Phase 1 study evaluating cord blood-derived natural killercells pre-complexed with Affimed's innate cell engager AFM13 (Tuesday)

WCN Meeting Presentations

Chinook Therapeutics, Inc. KDNY 3.06%: Gd-IgA1 biomarker data in healthy volunteers from Parts 1 and Part 2 of the ongoing phase 1 study of BION-1301 in immunoglobin A nephropathy, as well as data from the phase 1 intravenous to subcutaneous bioavailability study in healthy volunteers (Thursday)

AAN Meeting Presentations

TG Therapeutics, Inc. TGTX 4.09%: results of the ULTIMATE I & II Phase 3 trials evaluating ublituximab in relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (Saturday)

Revance Therapeutics, Inc. RVNC 1.37%: results from its ASPEN-1 Phase 3 clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of DaxibotulinumtoxinA for Injection for the treatment of cervical dystonia in adults (Saturday)

Standalone Releases

Auris Medical Holding Ltd. EARS 10.8% is scheduled to provide a business update on its pre-clinical asset AM-301 on Tuesday. AM-301 is being evaluated for protection against airborne viruses and allergens on Tuesday, April 13, 2021.

Earnings

Theratechnologies Inc. THTX 1.6% (Wednesday, before the market open)
Affimed N.V. AFMD 23.45% (Thursday, before the market open)
Centogene N.V. CNTG 5.94% (Thursday, before the market open)

IPOs

IPO Quiet Period Expiry

Gain Therapeutics, Inc. GANX 0.14%
Instil Bio, Inc. TIL 0.94%
Finch Therapeutics Group, Inc. FNCH 1.88%
Connect Biopharma Holdings Limited CNTB 3.66%
Universe Pharmaceuticals INC UPC 3.13%
Movano IncMOVE 4.69%      

https://www.benzinga.com/general/biotech/21/04/20567086/the-week-ahead-in-biotech-april-11-17-avenue-therapeutics-fda-decision-and-conference-presentatio

AACR: Bristol Opdivo one-ups Merck Keytruda with presurgery lung cancer win

 Bristol Myers Squibb’s Opdivo may be less popular than Merck & Co.’s Keytruda among physicians treating non-small cell lung cancer, but it has just notched an important clinical win for earlier use that its archrival can’t yet tout.

Patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer who took a combination of Opdivo and chemotherapy before surgery were nearly 14 times more likely to show no signs of cancer cells in their resected tissue compared with those who got chemo alone. The results were shared at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

Bristol Myers was quick to point out that the data, coming from the phase 3 CheckMate-816 trial, represents the first time that presurgery use of a PD-1/L1 combo showed a significant improvement in the so-called complete pathological response in patients with NSCLC that could be surgically removed.

The study enrolled patients with stage IB to IIIA NSCLC. While 24% of Opdivo-chemo takers enjoyed no residual viable tumors in their resected tissues and lymph nodes, only 2.2% of patients on solo chemo could say the same.

An improvement greater than 20% is “meaningful and encouraging” and serves as “an early indicator of the potential for long-term outcomes,” Mark Rutstein, who leads Opdivo development at Bristol, said in an interview.


Rutstein declined to comment on the company’s regulatory path from here—specifically, whether the company plans to use just these pathological response data for a filing with the FDA. The study remains ongoing to see if the Opdivo-chemo regimen can prevent tumors from returning—the study’s co-primary endpoint—or if it can extend patients’ lives.

No major difference in efficacy stood out among different key patient subgroups, Rutstein pointed out. Similar benefits were shared among patients with different PD-L1 expression levels, across the disease stages, as well as with squamous or non-squamous disease.

What’s more, adding Opdivo didn’t hurt patients’ eligibility for surgery; 83% of patients on Opdivo underwent surgery, versus 75% for chemotherapy.


Moving treatment to early-stage cancer before or after surgery in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings represents the next frontier for PD-1/L1 inhibitors, as the class has successfully established new treatment standards for many metastatic diseases.

The idea is that early use of immunotherapy might prevent cancer from returning. When a patient’s disease recurs in the early-stage setting, it marks the transition from a curable state to incurable, Rutstein explained. In NSCLC, up to 55% of patients will recur after surgery, representing a high unmet need, he said.

With the latest CheckMate-816 victory, Bristol now has four wins under its belt in neoadjuvant and adjuvant use. It already bears an approval for use after surgery in melanoma. In another first-in-class win, post-surgery use of Opdivo recently showed it could cut the risk of disease returning or death by 30% over placebo in high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. The drug also topped placebo in adjuvant esophageal cancer, fending off a recurrence for almost two years in the CheckMate-577 trial.


The CheckMate-816 trial previously had another arm combining Opdivo and Bristol’s CTLA4 inhibitor Yervoy. But the company stopped enrollment in that arm for “expediency and pragmatism” after seeing encouraging data from an outside study for the Opdivo-chemo cocktail, Rutstein explained, saying that the decision predated results from the Checkmate-915 trial, which showed the Opdivo-Yervoy pairing wasn’t better than Opdivo alone in adjuvant melanoma.

Bristol’s also conducting the CheckMate-77T trial, testing whether adding Opdivo in both neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings can stave off cancer recurrence in stage IIA to IIIB NSCLC.

Other PD-1/L1 players are eyeing early NSCLC use as well. Merck has the Keynote-671 trial for neoadjuvant Keytruda and chemotherapy plus adjuvant Keytruda. Roche has a similar Impower030 trial for Tecentriq, and AstraZeneca for Imfinzi.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/marketing/aacr-bristol-myers-opdivo-one-ups-merck-s-keytruda-presurgery-win-earlier-lung-cancer

Life sciences pump more cash than ever into R&D, but drug price limits could stifle that: CBO

 As a Democrat-led U.S. government is looking to once again up the pressure on drug pricing, a new report has shown biopharmas are in fact reinvesting more and more sales revenue into R&D.

This is according to a new report out from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that shows in 2019, the pharma industry spent $83 billion dollars on R&D: When adjusted for inflation, that amount is about 10 times what the industry spent per year in the 1980s. In the last decade, U.S. approvals for new meds have also more than doubled.

The argument has long been that biopharma companies, and pharma in particular, spend a lot of money on aggressive sales and marketing, sometimes as much if not more than on R&D.

Drug prices have also go up every year, sometimes by 10% or 20% across the board, massively inflating the price of, say, an insulin first marketed in 2010, making it hugely expensive 10 years later despite being no more innovative, and much higher than the rates of inflation.

Drugs are certainly expensive: High-priced meds, especially for rare diseases and cancer, which can cost upward of $500,000 a year per patient, can and regularly does bankrupt families. Biopharma has always maintained that its prices are high because it has such high R&D costs, and the CBO report goes some way toward agreeing with that argument.

It also warns against putting restrictions on pricing, should it negatively impact R&D spend. “If expected profitability of new drugs declined—because of a change in federal policy, a shift in demand or supply, a revision in the balance of power between drug companies and drug buyers, or for any other reason—the expected returns on drug R&D would decline as well,” the CBO report stated.

“Lower expected returns would probably mean fewer new drugs, because there would be less incentive for companies to spend on R&D.”

It has been, however, smaller biotech companies that have been funneling more money into its R&D overall, the report found. Smaller biopharmas, i.e., those that make $500 million a year or less, now account for more than 70% of the nearly 3,000 drugs in phase 3.

https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/life-sciences-pumping-more-cash-than-ever-into-r-d-but-drug-pricing-limits-could-stymie