Search This Blog

Tuesday, April 20, 2021

Herpes zoster following BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune

 Victoria Furer, Devy Zisman, Adi Kibari, Doron Rimar, Yael Paran, Ori Elkayam

PDF: https://academic.oup.com/rheumatology/advance-article-pdf/doi/10.1093/rheumatology/keab345/37052188/keab345.pdf

Abstract

Objectives

As global vaccination campaigns against COVID-19 disease commence, vaccine safety needs to be closely assessed. The safety profile of mRNA-based vaccines in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD) is unknown. The objective of this report is to raise awareness to reactivation of herpes zoster (HZ) following the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination in patients with AIIRD.

Methods

The safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination was assessed in an observational study monitoring post-vaccination adverse effects in patients with AIIRD (n = 491) and controls (n = 99), conducted in two Rheumatology Departments in Israel.

Results

The prevalence of HZ was 1.2% (n = 6) in patients with AIIRD compared with none in controls. Six female patients aged 49 ± 11 years with stable AIIRD: rheumatoid arthritis (n = 4), Sjogren’s syndrome (n = 1), and undifferentiated connective disease (n = 1), developed the first in a lifetime event of HZ within a short time after the first vaccine dose in 5 cases and after the second vaccine dose in one case. In the majority of cases, HZ infection was mild, except a case of HZ ophthalmicus, without corneal involvement, in RA patient treated with tofacitinib. There were no cases of disseminated HZ disease or postherpetic neuralgia. All but one patient received antiviral treatment with a resolution of HZ-related symptoms up to 6 weeks. Five patients completed the second vaccine dose without other adverse effects.

Conclusion

Epidemiologic studies on the safety of the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines in patients with AIIRD are needed to clarify the association between the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination and reactivation of zoster.


https://academic.oup.com/rheumatology/advance-article/doi/10.1093/rheumatology/keab345/6225015#usercomments

In Latin American first, Argentina to produce Russia's Sputnik V vax

 Argentina will be the first Latin American country to produce Russia's Sputnik V coronavirus vaccine, according to Russia's RDIF sovereign fund, which financed the development of the shot.

A deal to this end has been struck with Argentina's Richmond pharmaceutical company, the fund announced on Tuesday.

The vaccine technology has been transferred to Richmond and full-scale production should start in June, RDIF said in a statement.

"Sputnik V is approved in more than 10 countries of Latin and Central America and production in Argentina will help facilitate deliveries to other partners in the region," it quoted RDIF executive director Kirill Dmitriev as saying.

Richmond has already produced a first batch of 21,000 doses, which will be sent for quality control to Russia's Gamaleya research institute, which developed the vaccine.

It will start in June to produce a million doses per month for a year, by when a new plant should be in service that is meant to produce five million doses per month.

"It will be a great opportunity to advance in the fight against the pandemic not only in Argentina, but also in Latin America," said Argentina's President Alberto Fernandez.

Richmond has received a government credit of some 30 million pesos (about $300,000), and will receive another 13 million pesos in financial assistance, it said.

On December 23, Argentina became the first Latin American country to approve Sputnik V, receiving 300,000 doses the following day to begin its immunization campaign.

Argentina has to date received nearly eight million vaccine doses, including almost 4.8 million doses of Sputnik V.

Some 5.6 million Argentines have received at least one vaccine dose to date, and 800,000 have received two shots.

Russia registered Sputnik V last August ahead of large-scale clinical trials, prompting concern among experts over the fast-track process.

But later reviews have been largely positive, with the medical journal The Lancet publishing results showing it to be safe and more than 90 percent effective.

The Russian vaccine has been approved for use in 60 countries.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210420-in-latin-american-first-argentina-to-produce-russia-s-sputnik-v-vaccine

J&J to Cooperate in Study of Rare Clots Linked to COVID-19 Vax

 A German scientist studying extremely rare blood clots linked to AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine said on Tuesday Johnson & Johnson has agreed to work with him on the research after similar serious side effects emerged in recipients of its shot.

Andreas Greinacher, a transfusion medicine expert at Greifswald University, announced the collaboration after the European Medicines Agency said it would add a label to J&J's vaccine warning of unusual blood clots with low platelet counts. AstraZeneca's shot has a similar warning.

As with AstraZeneca, the EMA said benefits of getting J&J's shot still outweigh the clotting risk, a position Greinacher backs, too.

Greinacher, who on Tuesday released a new paper offering a potential explanation for the complications, wants J&J vaccine samples to study in his lab. Since mid-March his team has been analyzing specimens from people who suffered clots after getting AstraZeneca's shot.

"We agreed today with (J&J) that we will work together," Greinacher said during a news conference. "My biggest need, which I've expressed to the company, is I would like to get access to the vaccine, because the J&J vaccine is not available in Germany."

Johnson & Johnson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The EMA said on Tuesday it suspects the vaccine may trigger an unwanted immune response, but safety committee chairwoman Sabine Straus said it has not identified specific risk factors.

"It would be very helpful if we know beforehand, whether it might be some kind of genetic disorder, or something else in the blood vessels," Straus told reporters.

Greinacher does not believe such a prognostic test is likely, based on experience with a similar disorder called heparin-induced thrombocytopenia that has defied efforts to identify why some people may be predisposed to the serious condition.

"We even completely gene-sequenced 3,000 of these patients, and we couldn't find a genetic predisposition," he said.

In Greinacher's new, not yet peer-reviewed, paper he suggests the technology behind AstraZeneca's shot, some of its ingredients and the powerful immune reaction it induces, may contribute to a cascade of events that overpowers numerous mechanisms that normally keep the human immune system under control.

Health regulators and scientists are exploring whether the clotting problem may affect the whole class of so-called viral vector vaccines, which EMA's Straus said was possible while noting differences in the two shots.

Both the AstraZeneca and J&J vaccines use a common cold virus, albeit different ones, to ferry instructions to cells to produce an immune response. J&J's shot uses a human adenovirus, while AstraZeneca uses a chimpanzee adenovirus.

"Individuals are different, and only if by coincidence, nine or 10 weaknesses are coming together, then we have a (problem)," Greinacher said. "Otherwise, our in-built security systems block it, and keep us safe."

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2021-04-20/j-j-to-cooperate-in-study-of-rare-clots-linked-to-covid-19-vaccine-german-scientist-says

Some answers, many more questions on Covid-19

 Less than a year and a half ago, the world was blissfully, dangerously ignorant of the existence of a coronavirus that would soon turn life on earth on its head.

In the 16 months since the SARS-CoV-2 virus burst into the global consciousness, we’ve learned much about this new health threat. People who contract the virus are infectious before they develop symptoms and are most infectious early in their illness. Getting the public to wear masks, even homemade ones, can reduce transmission. Vaccines can be developed, tested, and put into use within months. As they say, where there’s a will, there’s a way.

But many key questions about SARS-2 and the disease it causes, Covid-19, continue to bedevil scientists.

STAT was curious which questions topped scientists’ lists. So, we asked a bunch. More than two dozen virologists, epidemiologists, immunologists, and evolutionary biologists shared with us their top question. (Some … cheated, submitting several.)

There was surprising diversity in the questions, though many cluster around certain themes, such as the nature of immunity or the impact of viral variants. Knowing what scientists still want to learn shows us how far we’ve come — and how far we have left to go to solve the mysteries of SARS-2 and Covid-19.

What accounts for the wide variety of human responses to this virus?

Some people who contract SARS-2 never know they’re infected. Others have flu-like symptoms — some mild, some more debilitating. Some recover completely, others go on to suffer from the puzzling condition that’s come to be known as long Covid. Some die.

What predisposes individuals to those various and varied outcomes? That’s the question that perplexes Angela Rasmussen, a virologist affiliated with the Georgetown Center for Global Health Science and Security.

An obvious answer might be how much virus individuals are exposed to when they get infected. In other words, lots of virus equals more severe disease. But Rasmussen said animal studies don’t show dose as being a factor here. Some preexisting health problems, like diabetes, seem to put people at higher risk of getting more severely ill, but even they don’t explain all the variability. Some people without comorbidities, as they’re called, become profoundly ill.

“To me the data (and all the virus research I’ve ever done) suggests the host response is a major determinant, if not THE major determinant, of disease severity,” Rasmussen wrote. She wants to know why some immune systems handle the virus with ease while others get swamped.

How much immunity is enough immunity?

Florian Krammer, a professor of vaccinology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, submitted only one question and it was very specific: He wants to know the exact measurements of antibodies needed to fend off asymptomatic Covid and symptomatic disease. “I guess you could say that I want to know which type of immune response indicates protection,” said Krammer. “It is likely indicated by a single antibody titer for each of the types of protection.”

Nahid Bhadelia, medical director of the special pathogens unit at Boston Medical Center, is also eager to quantify how much immunity is enough, so we can determine who is protected and who needs to have their immunity boosted. “We do this for measles now, for example — if there is an exposure, we check antibodies,” said Bhadelia.

Sarah Cobey, associate professor of viral ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, thinks the issue might be more complicated. In her view, beyond specific antibody levels, physiological factors that vary from individual to individual are probably also part of the equation. “It would be nice to know exactly what we should measure and how to interpret it,” she said.

This could be among the factors that help explain why there’s so much variability in people’s susceptibility to the virus, and the severity of disease they experience if they contract it. “Knowing how well a partially immune population could transmit the virus at any time could dramatically improve forecasting and the potential for effective policy responses,” Cobey added.

How often will reinfections happen and what will they be like?

So far, the vast majority of people who contracted Covid haven’t caught it again. If this coronavirus is like its cousins — four human coronaviruses that cause colds — reinfections will occur. How often will they happen? Will they be milder? What’s the impact of the variants — viruses that have acquired significant mutations — on reinfections, asked Kristian Andersen, an immunologist at the Scripps Research Institute.

Paul Bieniasz, head of the laboratory of retrovirology at Rockefeller University, has similar questions. “Are we headed for a situation akin to what occurs with the seasonal coronaviruses where the virus and reinfection is common but associated with only mild disease, with periodic reinfection providing boosts to immunity?” he asked. “Alternatively, will infection in those with waning immunity be associated with an unacceptable disease burden, necessitating a constant ongoing battle, with updated vaccines to keep viral prevalence and disease low?”

Put another way, how long will immunity last?

Soumya Swaminathan, the World Health Organization’s chief scientist, would like to know how long immunity lasts — immunity after infection and after vaccination. Knowing this would allow for better use of scarce vaccines, she suggested.

Natalie Dean, a biostatistician at the University of Florida, also listed this as her question, noting that the answers will tell us how achievable herd immunity is, and whether and when vaccine booster shots will be needed. “It could be that protection against infection is comparatively short-lived, but protection against severe disease is longer lasting,” Dean said. “It could be that vaccine-induced protection has a different durability than infection-induced protection.”

How are viral variants going to impact the battle against Covid-19?

Variants have changed the virus in disadvantageous ways. Some, like B.1.1.7, have made it substantially more transmissible. Another, B.1.351, appears to be able to at least partially evade the immune protections generated by previous infection or immunization. The variants are top of mind for a number of experts.

“My question is: What impact will these variants have on vaccine-related protection, effective treatment and what the ultimate impact this virus will be on our world for years to come,” said Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Diseases Research and Policy.

John Moore, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medical College, is of the same mindset.

“I wish I knew the outcome of the ongoing battle between the vaccines and the variants, both here in the USA and globally,” he said. “Will the more troubling … antibody-resistant variants reduce vaccine efficacy to an extent that compromises national and international efforts to control the pandemic via the current generation of vaccines?”

What is long Covid, who is at risk of developing it, and can it be prevented?

“My top ‘I wish we knew’ about Covid is by far what drives long Covid,” said Akiko Iwasaki, a virologist and immunologist at Yale University. The condition has been given a formal name, post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or PASC. (Sequelae is a fancy word for after effects.)

Significant numbers of people who contract the disease report debilitating and varied symptoms weeks and months after recovering. Brain fog. Deep fatigue. Shortness of breath. Why this happens is a mystery.

Iwasaki noted that other chronic syndromes are triggered by viral infections. “I think we have a unique opportunity to understand once and for all how acute viral infection can lead to long-term symptoms so we can design better therapy against this debilitating disease and potentially other viral-induced chronic fatigue syndrome,” she said.

Krutika Kuppalli, an infectious diseases physician at the Medical University of South Carolina, wonders if factors that put people at risk of developing long Covid can be identified, so that the risk can be lessened. And Andersen, of Scripps Research Institute, would like to know the frequency at which long Covid occurs and how cases break down by age and severity of symptoms during the initial infection.

What’s the deal with Covid and kids?

Children are largely — but not entirely — spared Covid’s wrath. Younger children especially seem to have few or mild symptoms in most cases. A few develop a Kawasaki disease-like syndrome a few weeks after infection.

Caitlin Rivers, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, wants to know more about the disease in children — for instance, are kids who have asymptomatic infection likely to transmit the virus, and how frequently? “I think the disease dynamics in children are still not well understood,” she said, noting that while many studies have looked at symptomatic illness in children, few have used study designs that would find asymptomatic infections in this age group.

How big a role do asymptomatically infected people actually play in SARS-2 transmission?

The fact that some portion of infected people never develop symptoms but do transmit the virus really threw a monkey wrench into efforts to contain and control the virus. A further complication: Infected people can transmit a day or two before they know they are sick, when they are pre-symptomatic.

Saskia Popescu, an infectious disease specialist and assistant professor in George Mason University’s biodefense program, wishes we had a clearer picture on how infectious asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic people actually are. “We have few studies truly doing continued testing to identify asymptomatic infection right when it happens and then doing follow up analysis into how infectious that might be,” she said. Popescu wonders how often the virus picked up from these people on swabs taken for polymerase chain reaction testing (you know it by now as PCR) is actually infectious virus, or whether there’s a period of shedding of non-infectious viral junk. “Is this person truly infectious and needs isolation and contact tracing or am I just getting viral fragments?” she wondered.

What does the future hold for SARS-2, evolutionarily and otherwise?

Emma Hodcroft, a molecular epidemiologist at the Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine in Bern, Switzerland, would like to know how many more mutational tricks the virus has up its sleeve. “Are there many more ‘large-effect’ mutations that the virus could make to significantly change transmission … or will mutations in the future be in smaller ‘steps’ as we see with many endemic viruses?” she wondered.

Adam Kucharski had a related question. Kucharski, an associate professor of infectious diseases epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, would like to know what the impact of evolutionary pressure will be on the virus as immunity to it grows. As increasing numbers of people have some protection, either from previous infection or vaccination, the virus will have to evolve to continue to be able to infect people. Knowing more about this will help with decisions on when and how to update vaccines, he said.

Rivers wondered about the near term: What will the autumn look like? “Vaccine coverage will (hopefully) be high in the U.S. by the fall, but that will not be the case for much of the world. Knowing whether we can expect a winter wave would help countries to prepare,” she said.

Can we figure out who might become a superspreader?

SARS-2 shares a bizarre feature with its older cousins, SARS-1 and MERS, a camel virus that occasionally triggers small outbreaks on the Arabian Peninsula. The majority of people who catch this bug don’t infect anyone else. Most of the transmission is done by a small number of people, potentially fewer than 20% of those who become infected. A lot of experts don’t like the term superspreader; some prefer to talk about superspreading events. Any way you slice it, though, a minority of people are responsible for a majority of cases.

Last summer Ben Cowling, a professor of infectious diseases epidemiology at the University of Hong Kong, co-wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times on the phenomenon, arguing that if authorities focused on preventing the types of activities that allow superspreading to occur — crowded events, sharing close spaces with others — more onerous measures wouldn’t be needed.

Now Cowling wonders if there is a way to figure out the types of people who are more likely to be superspreaders.

It’s the question that weighs on Vineet Menachery’s mind, too. “If we can decipher what makes a person a superspreader, I think it could change the dynamics of outbreaks and how we deal with them, now and in the future,” said Menachery, a coronavirus expert at the University of Texas Medical Branch.

There aren’t obvious clues to pursue. “We know the virus that comes from superspreaders is not different in terms of its genetic sequence. We know there is no link with disease severity. There is no evidence for age, sex, or co-morbidities in driving this phenomena,” Menachery said.

Can we learn more quicker from the study of the genetic sequences of SARS-2 viruses?

When genetic sequencing picks up evidence of viruses that have acquired combinations of mutations, they are initially designated “variants of interest.” If any of these variants displays worrisome behavior, they get upgraded to “variants of concern.” That only happens, though, when epidemiological investigations — which can take some time — show that the changes are giving the viruses new powers. The ability to spread faster. The ability to cause more severe disease. The ability to evade the immunity generated by previous infection or vaccines.

Marion Koopmans, head of virology at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, wonders if that process could be flipped. “Is it possible to find genomic markers for key properties that should raise a flag?” she asked.

Better yet, can science predict where the virus is heading, asked Ali Ellebedy, an associate professor of pathology and immunology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. “Knowing the answers to these questions now would greatly help us prepare for next winter by readying the appropriate interventions,” he said.

The impact of the nonpharmaceutical interventions

In the mid-2000s, when concern ran high that the deadly bird flu virus H5N1 appeared poised to trigger a pandemic, public health experts began a desperate search for mitigation tools to use until vaccines and drugs could be developed to deal with the threat. These tools took on the apt moniker nonpharmaceutical interventions — NPIs for short. Examples included closing schools, halting in-person church services, and banning mass gatherings.

These were largely thought to be Hail Marys — unlikely to have a big impact, but the best options in a time of few options. Yet with SARS-2, these measures, which included social-distancing in virtually all facets of life, clearly slowed transmission. They also came with enormous economic and societal costs.

Müge Çevik, a clinical lecturer in infectious diseases and medical virology at the University of St. Andrews School of Medicine in Scotland, would like to know: Which worked best and which were the most cost-effective?

“Because many interventions were implemented simultaneously, it is challenging to disentangle the individual contribution of different NPIs. Therefore, we still struggle to make evidence-based decisions regarding which NPI to implement or lift, the importance and magnitude of certain NPIs in reducing transmission, and the associated harms,” she wrote.

Ran Balicer, director of Israel’s Clalit Research Institute, has a related question. “What is the level of transmission to be expected in a mostly vaccinated population (in different uptake levels), if some or all NPIs are dropped?” he asked. Knowing the answer would help countries figure out how to safely choreograph their pandemic exit strategies. Balicer, who with colleagues who have been researching the real-world effectiveness of Covid vaccines, said Israel is trying to come up with answers, removing NPIs layer by layer to see if the impact can be measured.

These tools have proven to be so extraordinarily effective at stopping transmission that some countries that implemented them quickly have managed to prevent the virus from taking hold. People in South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, for instance, have led fairly normal lives throughout the pandemic. But elsewhere, people and politicians have bristled at tools perceived to be an infringement on individual liberties.

Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s leading coronavirus expert, has preached repeatedly during the WHO’s frequent Covid press conferences that spread of SARS-2 can be stopped — if only countries would use the tools. Her question: What are the barriers to compliance of proven public health interventions and how can that problem best be addressed?

The differences between SARS-2 and its older cousin, SARS-1

The 2002-2003 SARS outbreak showed the world the disruptive power of coronaviruses. Ever since, scientists have worried about this large family of viruses, found in bats and others animals. The camel coronavirus, MERS, which was first spotted in 2012, underscored the threat: Coronaviruses are species jumpers.

But the virus that caused the original SARS outbreak, now called SARS-1, did not know some of the tricks SARS-2 has in its repertoire. Some coronavirus experts marvel at the differences between the two.

Stanley Perlman, a microbiologist at the University of Iowa, would like to know: Why is it SARS-2 can infect and make copies of itself — a process called replication — in the cells of the upper airways, something that SARS-1 did not do? SARS-1 replicated in cells deep in the lungs, which is why people who contracted that virus were only infectious when they were really sick — limiting how many people they could infect. SARS-2 has a huge advantage, because it replicates in the upper airways. People infected with SARS-2 — even those whose symptoms are so mild they don’t know they are infected — have opportunities to transmit the virus every time they sneeze, cough, even speak.

Adding to the puzzle: Both viruses infect by attaching to ACE-2 receptors on human cells, yet they choose cells in different parts of the body.

Finding out why SARS-2 can replicate in the upper airways could help drug developers figure out how to prevent it from happening, Perlman said. It would also help scientists assess the pandemic risks posed by other coronaviruses that might jump from an animal species.

Susan Weiss, who like Perlman is a longtime coronavirus researcher, is also interested in learning why people infected with SARS-2 can transmit to other people if they are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic. That didn’t happen with SARS-1 or MERS, she noted.

Last but not least: Where did SARS-2 come from?

Analysis of the genetic sequences of SARS-2 viruses retrieved from some of the earliest people known to have been infected suggests the virus started transmitting among people sometime in the autumn of 2019. The original source of the virus is almost certainly a bat, but how did a bat virus find its way into humans? Were pangolins or mink or other wild animals sold as exotic foods in China’s wet markets the spark for the worst pandemic in a century?

Inquiring minds want to know — and not just for curiosity’s sake. Knowing the virus’ route will help the world prepare for future outbreaks. Research shows there are lots of bat coronaviruses we haven’t yet met.

A panel of international experts traveled to China earlier this year to dig into the question, but so far hasn’t come to a firm conclusion. Whether it ever will remains to be seen. Koopmans, of Erasmus Medical Center, was a member of the commission. She submitted several questions, the last of which was simply “The origin … of course.”

Kuppalli, the infectious diseases physician at the Medical University of South Carolina, said the opportunity to answer this key question could slip away, noting: “The longer we get away from the start of the pandemic the harder it will be to find out these answers.”

https://www.statnews.com/2021/04/20/we-know-a-lot-about-covid-19-experts-have-many-more-questions/

KalVista hit with a clinical hold on 2nd asset

 A midstage test of KalVista Pharmaceuticals’ hereditary angioedema (HAE) hopeful KVD824 has been slapped with an FDA clinical hold as it demands more preclinical data and changes to its protocol.

The U.K.-U.S. biotech said in a statement that: “An Investigational New Drug Application was submitted earlier in 2021 for a phase 2 clinical trial to evaluate KVD824 as a potential prophylactic treatment for the prevention of HAE attacks [a severe swelling of the skin].

“The FDA letter requests further information and analysis related to certain preclinical studies of KVD824 submitted to support the planned phase 2 trial. Refinements were also proposed to the intended KVD824 phase 2 study protocol. No new studies were requested nor was it suggested that new data be generated to initiate the phase 2 trial.”

It gave no more details as to the FDA’s demands but did say that the planned trial of KVD824 will likely now not start this quarter.


The news was so different two months ago: KalVista’s oral plasma kallikrein inhibitor scored a key trial win when it reduced the use of rescue medication in patients suffering swelling attacks associated with a rare disease.

The phase 2 results, posted in February, boosted KalVista’s prospects of establishing KVD900 as an alternative to injectable treatments such as Takeda’s Firazyr and Pharming’s Ruconest. Its shares rocketed up 200% on those data.

The biotech’s CEO, Andrew Crockett, was keen to stress that this “does not impact our activities or expectations with regard to KVD900 […] for which we continue to prepare for an End of phase 2 FDA meeting and commencement of our phase 3 efficacy trial.” The biotech's shares were down 11% premarket on the news.

https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/kalvista-hit-a-clinical-hold-second-asset-as-fortunes-ebb-and-flow

Bharat Biotech, government cash and partners in hand, aims for 700M COVID shots a year

 With COVID-19 cases mounting, India has equipped local drugmaker Bharat Biotech with government cash to rapidly scale up its vaccine output this year. 

Bharat plans to upgrade at two plants to boost production of its COVID-19 vaccine Covaxin to nearly 700 million doses a year, Mint reports. The lift comes after the Indian government awarded the drugmaker nearly $200 million to upgrade capacity amid a sharp rise in local coronavirus infections.

Bharat has more help on the way, too, thanks to a trio of government-funded manufacturing partners that will come online later this year. The country has tasked Bharat with doubling its vaccine output by June and producing around 100 million doses per month by September.

To hit that target, Bharat is beefing up capacity at one of its three plants in Hyderabad and repurposing an existing animal vaccine factory in Bengaluru. The company says it has locked up raw materials, packaging supplies and more, and is now sourcing its adjuvant domestically in a bid to cut out imports.


Bharat expects to kick off production in about two months, Mint previously reported.

The company also tapped local vaccine juggernaut Indian Immunologicals to produce drug substance for the vaccine, which snared emergency clearance in India alongside AstraZeneca’s shot in early January. The new partners have already started tech transfer, Bharat said in a statement quoted by Mint.

Indian Immunologicals is one of three manufacturers India tasked with shoring up Covaxin supplies, alongside Maharashtra government-owned Haffkine Biopharmaceutical and Bharat Immunologicals and Biologicals.

The government awarded Haffkine 650 million rupees (around $8.63 million) to start manufacturing 20 million doses per month six months from now, while Indian Immunologicals and Bharat Immunologicals have received undisclosed sums to each manufacture around 10 million to 15 million doses a month, Mint reports.


Bharat says it’s looking to forge manufacturing upgrades with its partners in other countries, too. The company has teamed up with gene therapy specialist Ocugen stateside, which is on deck for clinical development, regulatory filing and commercialization in the U.S. Under the deal, the companies will split potential Covaxin profits in the U.S., with Ocugen in line for 45%.

Meanwhile, Bharat and local compatriot the Serum Institute of India got some major relief from the government. India on Monday approved a 30 billion rupee ($400 million) grant for the Serum Institute and around 15 billion rupees ($199.27 million) for Bharat to scale up their vaccine making operations, Times of India reports.

With cash in hand, the Serum Institute aims to produce more than 100 million doses of its AstraZeneca-licensed shot per month by the end of May, up from around 70 million doses per month now.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/bharat-biotech-government-cash-hand-aims-for-700-million-covid-19-vaccines-per-year

J&J won't pursue Erleada, Zytiga prostate cancer combo after trial results disappoint

 Johnson & Johnson won't file regulatory submissions for its prostate cancer combo of Erleada and Zytiga after the pair failed to reach key secondary trial goals, including overall patient survival. 

The New Jersey drug giant based its decision on findings from the combo’s phase 3 ACIS study, which were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Genitourinary Cancers Symposium in February.

The trial tested J&J’s androgen receptor inhibitor Erleada with its aging prostate cancer med Zytiga and corticosteroid prednisone in patients with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The patients had previously received androgen deprivation therapy. 

The trial met its primary endpoint, showing the three-drug combo reduced the risk of radiographic progression or death in patients by 31% over Zytiga and prednisone. But it failed to show “significant benefit” in key secondary endpoints, including life extension, time to chronic opioid use, time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, and time to pain progression, J&J said.


Not all is lost, J&J says. The study generated “valuable scientific outcomes and insights in subgroups of patients" which warrant further investigation, Janssen’s Kiran Patel, vice president of clinical development, solid tumors, said in a statement.

“These data will be important in informing future programs in our pipeline, as we look to build upon our leadership and commitment in bringing transformational therapies to patients diagnosed with prostate cancer,” Patel added.

After generics launched in late 2018, copycats have been weighing on revenues for J&J’s Zytiga. The med generated $50 million in U.S. sales during the first quarter, J&J reported Tuesday, a 64% drop compared with the same quarter last year. 


Meanwhile, sales for Erleada are on the rise. The company reported that U.S. sales of Erleada reached $171 million in the first quarter, a 44% increase compared with the same period last year.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/after-falling-short-trial-j-j-won-t-pursue-erleada-and-zytiga-prostate-cancer-therapy