Search This Blog

Tuesday, September 28, 2021

COVID-19 pill developers aim to top Merck, Pfizer efforts

 As Merck & Co and Pfizer Inc prepare to report clinical trial results for experimental COVID-19 antiviral pills, rivals are lining up with what they hope will prove to be more potent and convenient oral treatments of their own.

Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Pardes Biosciences, Japan's Shionogi & Co Ltd and Novartis AG said they have designed antivirals that specifically target the coronavirus while aiming to avoid potential shortcomings such as the need for multiple pills per day or known safety issues.

Infectious disease experts stressed that preventing COVID-19 through wide use of vaccines remains the best way to control the pandemic. But they said the disease is here to stay and more convenient treatments are needed https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/inside-race-find-covid-19-treatment-pill-2021-05-21.

"We need to have oral alternatives for suppression of this virus. We have people who aren't vaccinated getting sick, people whose vaccine protection is waning, and people who can't get vaccinated," said Dr. Robert Schooley, an infectious diseases professor at UC San Diego School of Medicine.

Pfizer and Merck, as well as partners Atea Pharmaceuticals and Roche AG have all said they could seek emergency approval for their COVID-19 antiviral pills this year.

Rivals are at least a year behind. Pardes began an early-stage trial last month, Shionogi plans to start large-scale clinical trials by year-end, Enanta aims to start human trials early next year and Novartis is still testing its pill in animals.

Enanta Chief Executive Jay Luly said re-purposing drugs originally developed for other viral infections is not an unreasonable approach. But it is not known how potent they will be against COVID-19 or how well they can target lung tissue, where the virus takes hold.

The risk is "if it's not a great effort ...you'll end up losing time," Luly said.

Biden's Vax Mandate To Be Enforced By Fining Companies $70,000 To $700,000?

 By Adam Andrzejewski, CEO/Founder of OpenTheBooks.com; originally published in Forbes

President Joe Biden didn’t just announce a Covid-19 vaccine mandate on companies employing 100 or more people, he plans to enforce it.

On Saturday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House quietly tucked an enforcement mechanism into their $3.5 trillion “reconciliation” bill, passed it out of the Budget Committee, and sent it to the House floor.

Buried on page 168 of the House Democrats’ 2,465-page mega bill is a tenfold increase in fines for employers that “willfully,” “repeatedly,” or even seriously violate a section of labor law that deals with hazards, death, or serious physical harm to their employees.

The increased fines on employers could run as high as $70,000 for serious infractions, and $700,000 for willful or repeated violations—almost three-quarters of a million dollars for each fine. If enacted into law, vax enforcement could bankrupt non-compliant companies even more quickly than the $14,000 OSHA fine anticipated under Biden’s announced mandate.

The Biden Administration has already started implementing its vaccine mandate enforcement blueprint:

  • The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) set precedent this summer and published an emergency Covid-19 rule in the Federal Register taking jurisdiction over and providing justification for Covid-19 being a workplace hazard for healthcare employment.

  • Early in September, Biden announced his 100-or-more employee Covid-19 vaccine mandate and tasked OSHA with drafting an enforcement rule to exert emergency vaccine compliance authority over companies with 100 or more employees.

  • The legislative provision that passed the Budget Committee raises the OSHA fines for non-compliance 10 times higher – and up to $700,000 for each “willful” or “repeated” violation. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not announced when the House will vote on the reconciliation bill that includes the new OSHA fines.

  • If the legislation is enacted, OSHA could levy draconian fines to enforce Biden’s vaccine mandate, a move that could rapidly bankrupt non-compliant companies. The Biden mandate affects employers collectively employing an estimated 80 million workers.

The Democrats are playing hardball.                      

President Biden embraced an aggressive stance earlier this month when he challenged Republicans who are threatening lawsuits over what they decry as his federal overreach: “Have at it. … We’re playing for real here. This isn’t a game.”

The Legislation

The provision tucked in the House reconciliation budget bill (on page 168) that increases OSHA fines reads:

SEC. 21004. ADJUSTMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES.

(a) OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970.—Section 17 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 666) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—

  (A) by striking ‘‘$70,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$700,000’’; and

(B) by striking ‘‘$5,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$50,000’’;

(2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘$7,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$70,000’’; and

(3) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘$7,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$70,000’’

That provision would change existing law relating to OSHA’s enforcement fines, the very same section of law whose fines OSHA referenced in its June Covid-19 healthcare worker rule and is likely to use again to enforce its forthcoming vaccine compliance rules.

The Existing Law

29 U.S.C.§ 666 lays out OSHA enforcement fine levels. The 1970-enacted law reads:

29 U.S. Code § 666 - Civil and criminal penalties

(a) Willful or repeated violation Any employer who willfully or repeatedly violates the requirements of section 654 of this title, any standard, rule, or order promulgated pursuant to section 655 of this title, or regulations prescribed pursuant to this chapter may be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $70,000 for each violation, but not less than $5,000 for each willful violation

(b) Citation for serious violation Any employer who has received a citation for a serious violation of the requirements of section 654 of this title, of any standard, rule, or order promulgated pursuant to section 655 of this title, or of any regulations prescribed pursuant to this chapter, shall be assessed a civil penalty of up to $7,000 for each such violation [emphasis added].

Each year, OSHA adjusts these penalties for inflation, so for 2021, the fines are not actually capped at $70,000 and $7,000, but $136,532 and $13,653 per violation. If House Democrats get their way, by enacting the page 168 changes, those fines would increase to $700,000 for willful and repeated violations and $70,000 for serious violations.  

Section 654, cross-referenced in the OSHA enforcement penalty code, outlines the law requiring workplaces to be “free from recognized hazards” causing harm or death:

29 U.S. Code § 654 - Duties of employers and employees

(a) Each employer

(1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;

(2) shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this chapter.

(b) Each employee shall comply with occupational safety and health standards and all rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this chapter which are applicable to his own actions and conduct [emphasis added].

OSHA has already published a rule this year claiming Covid-19 is a workplace hazard, and the agency is using this provision of law to assert and enforce its authority. It is likely the new rule to enforce Biden’s mandate will also use this authority, and by extension use the fines upon enforcement.

Huge Crippling OSHA Fines, Likely By Design

The crippling change described on page 168 of the Democrats’ bill isn’t a typo or a clerical error. It was inserted by design and, likely, with the hope that no one would notice before Democrats ram the bill through Congress.

If enacted, it could bankrupt a whole host of companies that do not believe they should have to comply with the Biden administration’s mandate or harbor the cost of intrusive, weekly tests.

In its June 2021 emergency rule affecting health care workers, OSHA complained it was having a hard time motivating employers with its paltry $13,653 fine:

“OSHA has been limited in its ability to impose penalties high enough to motivate the very large employers who are unlikely to be deterred by penalty assessments of tens of thousands of dollars, but whose noncompliance can endanger thousands of workers …”

The Critics

Some have openly discussed businesses defying the mandate and taking their risks with OSHA fines. For example, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) tweeted that businesses “should openly rebel” against any OSHA rule.

It’s one thing to defy a $14,000 fine. It’s quite another to risk incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. One or two disgruntled employees, for example, could bring an employer $70,000-$140,000 in OSHA fines. If considered “willful,” as per Rep. Roy’s tweet — just three “violations” could quickly become a $2.1 million OSHA fine.

Conclusion:

If its provision becomes law, the Biden administration may force American businesses to choose between vaccinating their employees, testing them weekly for Covid-19, or going bankrupt under crippling OSHA fines.

In September, Biden warned the tens of millions of Americans who have declined vaccination against Covid-19, “We’ve been patient. But our patience is wearing thin, and your refusal has cost all of us.”

Now the Democrats in the House are hoping to make employers foot the bill for that “cost” in the form of fines and bankruptcy.

Republicans might want to read page 168 of the Democrats’ bill. After all, as we like to say at OpenTheBooks.com, the text of the bill is online in real time.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bidens-vax-mandate-be-enforced-fining-companies-70000-700000

US To Exclude Travelers Vaccinated With Russia's Sputnik V Despite Distribution To 70 Countries

 A week ago the US relaxed prior pandemic restrictions on foreign travelers entering the country, announcing that vaccination proof and a negative Covid test would be required. However, one major foreign-produced vaccine will now be deemed not eligible as proof one is fully vaccinated.

Beginning in November, US rules will exclude Russia's Sputnik V vaccine as being considered an acceptable vaccine, the Washington Post reports, potentially impacting millions of travelers given that the Russian-produced vaccine could eventually see distribution to 70 other countries.

The Post indicated that for any non-citizen traveling inbound, they must be vaccinated with a shot on either the FDA or World Health Organization (WHO) list of 'emergency use' approved inoculations.

The United Kingdom also recently imposed travel restrictions which only recognizes specific vaccines as valid, which excludes Sputnik. Though US and international health officials have raised concerns over the manufacturing process utilized in making Sputnik V, Moscow sees the US and global bodies as playing politics over the science.

For example, earlier in the pandemic there were widespread accusations the State Department was waging an 'infowar' in Latin America specifically to dissuade countries from receiving Sputnik from Russia.

Days ago Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at the UN General Assembly meeting in New York urged mutual recognition of vaccines, saying that Moscow is ready to fight Covid as "our common enemy":

"COVID-19 is our common enemy. We support mutual recognition of vaccines approved by national oversight bodies, in the interests of lifting restrictions on international travel of citizens as soon as possible."

But the suspicion remains that in the case of Russia, Washington will continue to red flag its shot, despite mounting evidence that it's just as safe and effective as Western developed and manufactured vaccines.

For now it appears yet another example of the "trust the science" mantra being in reality supplanted by pure politics, or in this case geopolitical and economic rivalry and competition, which tends to distrust all things Russian.

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/us-exclude-travelers-vaccinated-russias-sputnik-v-despite-distribution-70-countries

Steroid nasal sprays may help improve outcomes in severe COVID-19

 A recent Cleveland Clinic study found that patients who regularly use steroid nasal sprays are less likely to develop severe COVID-19-related disease, including a 20 to 25% lower risk of hospitalization, ICU admission and mortality. The study was published in Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

Joe Zein, M.D, Ph.D., a pulmonologist at Cleveland Clinic and Ronald A. Strauss, M.D., an allergist-immunologist and Director of the Cleveland Allergy and Asthma Center, and colleagues at Cleveland Clinic followed 72,147 COVID-19 positive individuals, ages 18 years and older, within the Cleveland Clinic health system from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021. Of that cohort, 12,608 (17.5%) were hospitalized, 2,935 (4.1%) were admitted to ICU and 1,880 (2.6%) died during hospitalization. Within this group, 10,187 (14.1%) patients were receiving a steroid nasal spray—also known as intranasal —prior to COVID-19 infection.

Patients who used intranasal corticosteroids prior to COVID-19 illness were 22% less likely to be hospitalized, 23% less likely to be admitted to the , and 24% less likely to die from COVID-19 during hospitalization compared to patients not on intranasal corticosteroids.

While the findings of the study encourage patients who use intranasal corticosteroids chronically to continue to do so as needed, it does not suggest that intranasal corticosteroids should be used to treat or prevent COVID-19 in any way. The theory behind the study, which was based on reports that intranasal corticosteroid in vitro (in the laboratory) decreased the protein receptor ACE2, allowing the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 to enter cells and, spread the disease.

Intranasal corticosteroids are nasal sprays in the steroid family of medicines. These medicines are sprayed or inhaled into the nose to help relieve the stuffy nose, irritation, allergies, and other nasal problems. They can be bought over the counter, or prescribed. To date, the precise role intranasal corticosteroids play in reducing the severity of COVID-19 infection has not been determined. However, based on the study's findings and the fact that ACE2 expression is highest in the nasal mucosa, it can be hypothesized that by suppressing viral load and receptor expression in the nose, intranasal corticosteroids use can be effective against severe disease. Future studies will be needed to corroborate these findings.

"This study shows the importance of the nose in COVID-19 infection," said Dr. Zein. "The nose, in this instance is the gateway to our bodies, allowing the virus to enter and replicate within. The use of intranasal corticosteroids may help disrupt that gateway."

"Our findings are particularly significant, as decreased COVID-19 hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and mortality could alleviate the strain on health care systems with  across the globe, especially in developing countries where there is limited access to vaccines and where mutations in SARS-CoV-2 have emerged," Dr. Strauss added.


Explore further

New research provides clues to developing better intranasal vaccines for COVID-19 and flu

More information: Ronald Strauss et al, Intranasal Corticosteroids Are Associated with Better Outcomes in Coronavirus Disease 2019, The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice (2021). DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2021.08.007
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-09-steroid-nasal-outcomes-severe-covid-.html

Study suggests R rate for tracking pandemic should be dropped in favor of 'nowcasts'

 When the COVID-19 pandemic emerged in 2020, the R rate became well-known shorthand for the reproduction of the disease. Yet a new study suggests it's time for 'A Farewell to R' in favor of a different approach based on the growth rate of infection rather than contagiousness.

The study, published in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface and led by researchers from the University of Cambridge, is based on time series models developed using classical statistical methods. The models produce nowcasts and forecasts of the daily number of new cases and deaths that have already proved successful in predicting new COVID-19 waves and spikes in Germany, Florida and several states in India.

The study is co-authored by Andrew Harvey and Paul Kattuman, whose time series  reflecting epidemic trajectories, known as the Harvey-Kattuman model, was introduced last year in a paper published in Harvard Data Science Review.

"The basic R rate quickly wanes in usefulness as soon as a pandemic begins," said Kattuman, from Cambridge Judge Business School. "The basic R rate looks at the number of infections expected to result from a single infectious person in a completely susceptible population, and this changes as immunity builds up and measures such as social distancing are imposed."

In later stages of a pandemic, the researchers conclude that use of the effective R rate which takes these factors into account is also not the best route: the focus should be not on contagiousness, but rather on the growth rate of new cases and deaths, examined alongside their predicted time path so a trajectory can be forecasted.

"These are the numbers that really help guide policymakers in making the crucial decisions that will hopefully save lives and prevent overcrowded hospitals as a pandemic plays out—which, as we have seen with COVID-19, can occur over months and even years," said Kattuman. "The data generated through this time-series model has already proved accurate and effective in countries around the world."

The study examines waves and spikes in tracking an epidemic, noting that after an epidemic has peaked, daily cases begin to fall as policymakers seek to prevent new spikes morphing into waves. The monitoring of waves and spikes raises different issues, primarily because a wave applies to a whole nation or a relatively large geographical area, whereas a spike is localized.

Therefore, a localized outbreak in a country with low national infection numbers can result in a jump in the national R rate, as occurred in the Westphalia area of Germany in June 2020 after an outbreak at a meat processing factory. However, this sort of jump does not indicate that there has been a sudden change in the way the infection spreads and so has few implications for overall policy.

The Harvey-Kattuman model has been adapted into two trackers. The two Cambridge academics worked with the National Institute of Economic and Social Research to produce a UK tracker which is published biweekly by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. In addition, they produce an India tracker which is published by the Center for Health Leadership and Excellence at Cambridge Judge Business School. District-level  trajectory forecasts using the model are used by public health policymakers in three states in India—Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Kerala—to identify regions at high risk and to frame containment and relaxation policies.


Explore further

COVID-19 spread model shows how vaccination affects pandemic

More information: A Farewell to R: Time Series Models for Tracking and Forecasting Epidemics, Journal of the Royal Society Interface (2021). royalsocietypublishing.org/rsi … .1098/rsif.2021.0179
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-09-tracking-pandemic-favour-nowcasts.html

Vaccination guards against certain bacterial infections, slows spread of superbugs

 Vaccines that boost immunity against bacteria can protect the immunized from contracting drug-resistant infections, according to a team of scientists in the U.K. who also underscore that the shots can slow the spread of resistant strains in populations.

Scientists who developed a four-pronged mathematical model to better understand the impact of vaccination on antimicrobial resistance also found that while vaccination can prevent drug resistance, ironically, it also can help promote it in populations. What's needed is the right kind of vaccination strategy to keep resistant strains at bay, the scientists say.

The British team modeled the dynamics of vaccination and drug resistance across 27 European countries to draw a series of new conclusions about vaccination and its relationship on the control and spread of superbugs.

This startling way of understanding the drivers of drug resistance hails from the research of Dr. Nicholas Davies of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. He and co-author, Dr. Katherine Atkins and a team of scientists, developed a modeling system that takes into account the diversity of bacterial species and competition among them as reasons for the evolution of drug resistant strains.

Writing in Science Translational Medicine Davies, Atkins and collaborators examined penicillin consumption and penicillin "nonsusceptibility"—resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae—across the 27 countries. Their mathematical modeling shows how antibiotic-sensitive and antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae—also known as —frequently co-exist in populations. Vaccination strategies have to be undertaken carefully to avoid tipping the balance in favor of superbug spread, they say.

"Competition and diversity are key to antibiotic resistance evolution and determine whether vaccines will prevent or increase resistant infections," Davies and colleagues assert.

Strep pneumoniae is a common and pervasive microbe that can invade many parts of the body causing serious, sometimes life-threatening infections. It can infiltrate the lungs, where it causes pneumococcal pneumonia; the ears, where it manifests as otitis media, the cause of infectious earaches; the nasal passages, where it gives rise to sinusitis; the blood, where the dangerous infection known as bacteremia can occur. Pneumococcus also can cause brain and spinal cord infections, diagnosed as bacterial meningitis.

Like Davies and his research group, teams of scientists worldwide have tackled the impact of pneumococcal vaccines on drug-resistant pneumococcal strains. A key to understanding many of these studies has been grasping this point: Having only limited pneumococcal vaccinations within a population can tip the balance in favor of increased pneumococcal infections among both children and adults and excessive use of . This, in turn, gives rise to enhanced opportunities for the evolution—and spread—of tough-to-fight drug resistant strains. In short, more people wind up being treated with antibiotics rather than avoiding them. Excessive use of antibiotics is a driver of drug resistance.

"Vaccines against bacterial pathogens can protect recipients from becoming infected with potentially antibiotic-resistant pathogens. However, by altering the selective balance between antibiotic-sensitive and antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains, vaccines may also suppress—or promote the spread of antibiotic resistance—among unvaccinated individuals," the Davies team wrote.

Atkins said the research lays the groundwork for a better understanding of the dynamics between vaccines and drug resistance.

"Our study does not look at the currently licensed pneumococcal vaccines that are both safe and effective and reduce life threatening disease globally," said co-author Atkins. "Instead we looked at the impact of the new generation of pneumococcal vaccines," she said, noting "our results underscore the need for a highly effective [universal] vaccine because it would reduce the burden of both drug sensitive and drug resistant infections."

The analysis by Davies and colleagues arrives as the World Health Organization has stepped up its campaign dissuading the abuse, misuse and overuse of all antimicrobials, including antibiotics. Global antibiotic use increased 65% between 2000 and 2015, according to WHO, despite highly publicized efforts to halt unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions for humans and the use of antibiotics in feed products given to animals farmed for their meat.

WHO predicts drug resistance could kill more people worldwide than cancer by 2050 unless steps are taken now to reverse course on driving the global incidence of antimicrobial resistance. As it now stands, overexposure to the medications continues to give rise to untreatable superbugs. One solution, at least with respect to pneumococcal infections, some scientists say, is the development of vaccines that boost immunity against a wider variety of pneumococcal serotypes.

Currently, pneumococcal vaccines target only a portion of the known 100-plus pneumococcal serotypes. One commonly prescribed pneumococcal vaccine, PCV13, also known as Prevnar, targets 13 serotypes of Streptococcus pneumoniae: serotypes 1, 3, 4, 5, 6A, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 19A, 19F, 18C, and 23F. The vaccine known as PPSV23 targets more—23 serotypes of the bacteria, including the 13 in Prevnar. There are, however, dozens of other pneumococcal serotypes for which there is no vaccine.

Davies, Atkins and colleagues contend that the "intersection of bacterial vaccines and antibiotic resistance needs more study." Their four mathematical models, for instance, capture potential patterns in antibiotic resistance. The models also reveal country-specific factors, such as differences in competition between drug-resistant and drug-sensitive bacteria. The scientists discovered that the type of pneumococcal vaccine deployed determined much of any given 's impact on the evolution of antibiotic resistance. For example, the researchers predicted that universal, non-serotype-specific vaccines that accelerate clearance of bacteria may be better at preventing the spread of antibiotic resistant serotypes than vaccines that simply block acquisition of infection.

But while the British team examined patterns of , other research groups have explored how vaccination saves money while preventing the emergence of drug resistant bacteria.

In the United States, scientists at North Carolina State University, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found broad economic savings when vaccines are used to mitigate the development of antimicrobial resistance.

Focusing on pneumococcal infections in Ethiopia, Drs. Andrew Stringer and Sachiko Ozawa using their own , found that vaccinating against pneumococcus helped slow the emergence of bacteria resistant to amoxicillin by nearly 15%. Vaccination slowed the emergence of bacteria resistant to ceftriaxone less significantly—only 0.59%—but the trend was in the right direction, findings showed.

Maintaining pneumococcal vaccination at the level identified in the model, the U.S. researchers estimated that would contribute an additional $7.67 million in annual savings for Ethiopia. Moreover, the money would not be lost to treating illnesses caused by drug-resistant pneumococcal infections.

"We wanted to model the value of vaccinating—not only to show that vaccination reduces death or disability from these diseases, but also to quantify whether vaccination can slow ," Stringer, an assistant professor of veterinary and global health at North Carolina State, said in a statement.

In the U.K., Davies and colleagues' four models capture potential patterns in antibiotic resistance. For example, vaccines with a high level of effectiveness are needed to reduce resistance in their model of a high-burden region where pneumococcal infections and antibiotic resistance are high. These findings "[highlight] that policies for managing antibiotic resistance with vaccines must be tailored to a specific pathogen and setting," the authors concluded.

More information: Nicholas G. Davies et al, Modeling the effect of vaccination on selection for antibiotic resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae, Science Translational Medicine (2021). DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaz8690

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-09-vaccination-bacterial-infections-superbugs-populations.html

ViiV Gets FDA Priority Review for Cabotegravir Long-Acting for HIV Prevention

 ViiV Healthcare, the specialist HIV company majority owned by GlaxoSmithKline PLC, on Tuesday said the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted priority review to its cabotegravir long-acting pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, therapy.

ViiV said cabotegravir, if approved, would be the first, long-acting therapy for the prevention of HIV for individuals at risk of sexually acquired HIV-1 infection who have a negative HIV-1 test prior to initiation.

The FDA grants priority review to medicines that have the potential to provide significant improvements in the treatment of a serious disease, and the designation shortens the review period. ViiV said the agency set a target action date of Jan. 24, 2022, for the application.

ViiV, formed in November 2009, is majority owned by GlaxoSmithKline, with Pfizer Inc. and Shionogi & Co. as shareholders. The company said it plans to initiate submissions of cabotegravir long-acting for PrEP to other regulatory authorities by the end of the year.

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/GLAXOSMITHKLINE-PLC-9590199/news/ViiV-Gets-FDA-Priority-Review-for-Cabotegravir-Long-Acting-for-HIV-Prevention-36536098/