Search This Blog

Sunday, October 3, 2021

Molnupiravir: Thor's Hammer Delivers

 by Derek Lowe

I wrote here recently about molnupiravir, the unusually potent small-molecule viral polymerase inhibitor that Merck has in clinical trials, and mentioned that it looked like we would only hear about its current results in November or December. I'm glad to report that this prediction was wrong: the trial in early-stage coronavirus patients was stopped early due to efficacy, and the press release came out this morning! That name comes from Thor's hammer, in case you're wondering (Mjollnir), and for once one of these hype names seems to have delivered.

What data we have look quite encouraging: this study (MOVe-OUT) was done in unvaccinated at-risk patients who were newly diagonosed with the coronavirus. These patients had at least one known risk factor for severe disease (obese, 60 years old or older, diabetes, or heart disease), and in the standard-of-care placebo group, 14.1% of these patients (53/377) were hospitalized or died from the disease by day 29 after randomization. Meanwhile, in the treatment group (4 doses/day of molnupiravir orally for five days), 7.3% of the patients were hospitalized (29/385). And interestingly, there were 8 deaths in the control group and none in the treatment group. These numbers - an interim analysis of everyone who had been enrolled as of August 5 - were strong enough, as mentioned, for the independent monitoring committee (which met on Tuesday) to recommend that the trial be halted. Merck says that they will be applying for Emergency Use Authorization as soon as possible. No safety signals were observed (there were more adverse events in the control group), and initial indications are that it was similarly effective against different variants of the virus, including the now-ubiquitous Delta.

This is of great interest for several reasons, and the biggest is that this is a therapy that patients can take themselves, at home. As that earlier blog post mentioned, remdesivir recently showed that it can be useful if given in the earliest states of the disease, but since it's administered i.v., that patient population is not really available to be dosed that way! An oral pill is another matter, though. These are stronger numbers than I expected, to be honest, given that most single-drug antiviral regimens don't reach this level of efficacy. Every positive surprise in this pandemic is to be celebrated.

Merck has another trial ongoing looking at the drug as an outright preventative, where it's being given to people who are at high risk of developing the disease due to exposure to infected patients - after these results, people will be waiting eagerly to see that readout as well. We already know from the first molnupiravir trial results that it's not really effective in people who already have severe disease, so the earlier the better (and you don't get much earlier than not having quite caught the disease yet). But a prophylactic drug has its own complications - how long do you need to keep taking it, and how long can you without side effects, for starters.

People are already wondering if this drug is going to turn into an excuse for people not to get the vaccine. My own take on this is that at this point many of the people who are still vaccine-hesitant probably don't need another excuse. Far too many of them have already decided that they're not getting it, no matter what. But for those who haven't yet and are still wondering if they should, I would recommend looking at those numbers above. Note that Merck specifically was looking at unvaccinated patients, because if the trial had been run in vaccinated ones not enough people would even have been hospitalized yet to be able to tell if the drug was doing anything. If you're in one of those risk groups and you're not vaccinated, you are in the population that a drug company specifically sought out as most likely to end up in the hospital (or dead) if you catch the virus. You can, though, opt out of that group by getting vaccinated: your risk of either one of those outcomes goes down sharply, and what's more, you become less transmissible (and thus less dangerous) to those around you even if you are infected.

So I am still a strong advocate for getting vaccinated, obviously. But that doesn't take away from the news today: this is the first small-molecule antiviral oral therapy that has shown anything like these numbers. Molnupiravir looks like it could keep a lot of vulnerable patients out of the hospitals and out of the cemeteries, and I hope it gets deployed as quickly as possible. Congratulations to the team at Emory that discovered it years ago, to Ridgeback Therapeutics for licensing it for development, and to Merck for putting their resources behind it after that.


https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/molnupiravir-thor-s-hammer-delivers

Influenza lineage extinction during the COVID-19 pandemic?

 

COVID infection rates up over twice as much in fully reopened businesses v. partial openings

 Concerned about the economic toll of COVID-19 lockdowns, state and local governments began to experiment with lifting restrictions on businesses as early as last spring, leading to an ever-shifting array of rules that varied widely from place to place. Now, a new USC study of more than 80 counties nationwide reveals the difference more or less restrictive policies may have had on the spread of COVID-19.

The research, published in the Journal of Public Health, showed businesses that fully reopened during the height of the pandemic last fall saw more than a 10% rise in the COVID-19 infection rate in their first two weeks, nearly double the rise of establishments that only partially reopened, according to new USC research.

Among the businesses that fully reopened, with no additional restrictions in areas like capacity limits, gyms had the highest rise in infection rate, followed by hair salons and barber shops. Surprisingly, in this category, bars actually had the lowest change in infection rate among business types examined. But among businesses that only partially reopened, bars had the highest rise in infection rates, followed by gyms.

Alexander Bruckhaus

Alexander Bruckhaus

 “Bars were among the last businesses to open and at the time of the study, only 13 counties allowed bars to be fully open, so there were fewer data points to analyze” said co-first author Alexander Bruckhaus, a National Science Foundation Research Experience for Undergraduates fellow in the lab of Dominique Duncan, PhD, at the Laboratory of Neuro Imaging at the USC Stevens Neuroimaging and Informatics Institute (USC Stevens INI). “The high change in infection rate among partially reopened bars could be indicative that bars are a dangerous place to be during a pandemic because first, when people drink, they’re not wearing their masks, and second, they could be intoxicated, and they wouldn’t necessarily adhere to the safety precautions.”

On an aggregate level, fully reopened businesses were associated with an average 14-day infection rate increase of 10.124%. When businesses only partially reopened, a 5.765% associated increase in infection rate was observed.

Aubrey Martinez

Aubrey Martinez

The researchers looked at 83 counties, including Los Angeles County, that had reported at least 20,000 COVID-19 cases as of Nov. 4, 2020. That data set was cross-referenced with the dates when businesses either partially or fully reopened after a lockdown, as well as infection rates on the 1st and 14th days after reopening. The study included several types of businesses open to the public, including bars, restaurants, gyms, hair salons/barbers, public schools, houses of worship and “non-essential retail.”

The researchers also examined variables like mask usage frequency, median household income, population density and social distancing. They found a low degree of mask wearing was associated with a high rise in infection rates, particularly in restaurants, bars and gyms.

“When comparing other factors to the change in infection rate, mask usage plays a substantial role in curtailing/rising infection rates when restaurants and bars reopen,” the authors wrote.

Dominique Duncan

Dominique Duncan

The findings could help policymakers plan for future lockdowns by knowing which businesses and what types of openings tend to foster quicker spread of the virus.

“We believe this research gives great insight about the dynamics of certain types of business reopenings,” Bruckhaus said.

Co-first author Aubrey Martinez, like Bruckhaus an undergraduate research fellow in Duncan’s lab at USC Stevens INI, said the data show that reopenings of certain businesses shouldn’t be rushed. “If we had taken it slower, maybe we would have realized, ‘As we’re opening this particular business up and seeing cases rise, maybe we should hold off on reopening other similar types of things.’ ”

About the Study

Other co-authors included Rachael Garner; Marianna La Rocca, PhD; and Duncan, an assistant professor of neurology at USC Stevens INI. The study was supported by the National Science Foundation under Award Number 2027456 (COVID-ARC).

https://keck.usc.edu/covid-19-infection-rates-rose-more-than-twice-as-much-in-fully-reopened-businesses-than-those-with-partial-openings/

U.S. eyes Israeli military data for Pfizer COVID-19 booster safety

 U.S. health officials are hoping data on Israeli military personnel can help clarify the risk of heart muscle inflammation in younger people who have received Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 booster shots – a potential factor for U.S. regulators as they consider granting full approval of these boosters.

A condition called myocarditis has in rare cases been linked to the two-dose mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, mostly in younger males, but U.S. health officials are trying to better understand the risk.

“The real question that we have not yet answered is the safety data of an mRNA in young people vis-a-vis myocarditis,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser and the top U.S. infectious disease expert, said in a telephone interview.

“The Israelis will relatively soon have that data because they’re vaccinating everybody in the country I think from 12 years old up, including their military recruits,” Fauci added.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in August granted full approval for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine for people age 16 and older but the agency has not yet given full approval for its use as a booster shot. Instead, the FDA approved Pfizer’s booster under an emergency use authorization with approval on the full biologics license application (BLA) still pending.

In their review of Pfizer’s application regarding booster shots, FDA advisers in particular called out the lack of data on myocarditis in younger individuals.

Fauci said the Israel military data should help address the gap in safety information on mRNA vaccines, “which is one of the things that the advisory committee was interested in.” Fauci said he expects data from Israeli military recruits specifically to shed light on the safety of the vaccines in younger people in the context of myocarditis.

Biden’s administration had sought a broad campaign of boosters for all Americans in light of evidence of waning vaccine effectiveness over time.

The FDA and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in September narrowed the recommendation for the Pfizer/BioNTech booster to Americans 65 and older, adults with underlying medical conditions and adults in high-risk working and institutional settings.

Fauci has said he believes the proper regimen for the mRNA vaccines will end up being an initial two doses a few weeks apart, followed by a booster shot a few months later.

In June, the FDA added warnings to labels on the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines about rare cases of myocarditis in adolescents and young adults.

The FDA has granted emergency use authorization but not full approval to the Moderna vaccine as well as a one-dose Johnson & Johnson shot. The FDA on Friday said it will consider Moderna’s application for booster shots at an advisory panel meeting on Oct. 14, and J&J’s booster application on Oct. 15.

Israel’s national digitized database includes data from the country’s four healthcare providers, which administer the vaccines, as well as other institutions including the military.

Fauci said U.S. officials plan to follow up with the Israeli Health Ministry about vaccination data involving military recruits. The ministry, which regularly analyzes the data, has shared its findings on vaccine effectiveness and safety with bodies such as the FDA.

An Israeli health ministry spokeswoman said she was unaware of any specific study of boosters among military personnel.

https://whbl.com/2021/10/01/u-s-eyes-israeli-military-data-for-pfizer-covid-19-booster-safety/

A Few Skeptical U.S. Hospital Workers Choose Dismissal Over Vaccine

 Jennifer Bridges loved her job as a nurse at Houston Methodist Hospital, where she worked for eight years, but she chose to get fired rather than inoculated against COVID-19, believing that the vaccine was more of a threat than the deadly virus.

Bridges was among about 150 employees who were fired or resigned rather than comply with the requirement at Methodist, which was the country's first large health system to mandate vaccinations. About 25,000 other employees at the hospital system complied.

"I have never felt so strong about anything," said Bridges, 39, who lives in Houston. She was terminated from her $70,000 per year post on June 21, the deadline for employees to get a jab. "I did not feel there was proper research in this shot. It had been developed very quickly."

Houston Methodist is one of a growing number of private employers that have made vaccinations a requirement of the job. New York and California are among the states that have required vaccinations for healthcare workers.

Mandates have proven to be effective in boosting vaccination rates in healthcare. In New York, for example, Governor Kathy Hochul on Thursday said 92% of the state's more than 625,000 healthcare workers were inoculated, up from 73% on Aug. 16 when former Governor Andrew Cuomo laid down a Sept. 27 deadline for vaccinations.

Then-Health Commissioner Howard Zucker said the mandate would "help close the vaccination gap" and reduce the spread of the highly contagious Delta variant.

Even so, there are pockets of resistance in the healthcare field. Those interviewed by Reuters said they had been immunized for other diseases, but said a lack of long-term data on the three COVID vaccines available in the United States was reason enough for them to step into an uncertain future after years of job security.

Speaking in support of the vaccines available in the United States, medical experts have said they had received emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration in less than a year, instead of the usual several years, due to factors including ample funding and test subjects, piggybacking off earlier research, and international collaboration.

'SLAP IN MY FACE'

Many of the workers who walked away had enough financial wherewithal to allow them to stick to their convictions.

For Bridges, the high demand for nurses meant she could refuse the shot without sacrificing financial security. On the same day she was fired by Methodist, she started training for her next job at a private nursing company that has no vaccine mandate.

Nurse Katie Yarber also found a job after leaving Houston Methodist but only after going 12 weeks without a paycheck and depleting "a big chunk" of her savings. Still, she said she does not regret her decision to depart after 14 years of service.

Yarber, 35, said she would not get the vaccine because of her religious convictions, a stance that the hospital rejected. She is also wary of possible long-term side effects.

"I kind of felt like it was a slap in my face," said Yarber, who began working at the hospital as a medical records clerk before earning a nursing degree. "I went to work, I did my job, I did it with a smile. I was a really good employee."

Yarber, who said she has already had COVID, is now a work-from-home nurse case manager. She had a brief stint at Texas Children's Hospital but that ended when it too required vaccinations.

Carolyn Euart is one of about 175 workers dismissed last Monday after refusing vaccinations at Novant Health, a North Carolina hospital network. She is now considering a new career.

With 24 years as a patient services coordinator, Euart, 56, had planned to retire from Novant, but is now exploring opening a dessert restaurant and sweet shop.

After battling cancer since 2008, she felt the risk of a vaccine was greater than COVID, which four of her family members have had.

"I needed the job, but I didn't think that my job was worth my life," she said.

A Novant spokeswoman said on Tuesday that 99% of its more than 35,000 employees have been vaccinated against coronavirus.

Nationally, more than 77% of adults have received at least one vaccine dose, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The country's COVID death toll has surpassed 700,000, according to a Reuters tally.

In upstate New York, Andrew Kurtyko said he is ready to be fired from his $90,000 nursing job at Mount St. Mary's Hospital in Lewiston for refusing the shot. He knows he could earn more by working as a "travel nurse," taking temporary jobs around the country.

"Certainly with my years of experience, I'm pretty marketable," said Kurtyko, 47, a divorced father of a college student who has a mortgage to pay.

Like some other medical workers, Kurtyko questions the efficacy and safety of the vaccines. He is also seeking a religious exemption from the Catholic Hospital. If he is denied, he expects to lose his job on Oct. 12.

Bob Nevens, 47, Houston Methodist's top risk manager for 10 years, also prefers to take his chances with COVID over a vaccine. As a consequence, he became one of the country's first workplace mandate casualties in April.

Besides a lack of long-term data, Nevens said he refused Methodist's mandate because it did not acknowledge "natural immunity" for those who had already contracted COVID and because vaccine manufacturers are shielded from liability.

He said he was not worried about money.

"Financially, I'm fine," he said. "Mentally, it's exhausting, because I didn't want to make that decision. I had planned on retiring from Houston Methodist."

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-10-03/a-few-skeptical-us-hospital-workers-choose-dismissal-over-vaccine

Mayo Clinic researchers urge new approach to breast cancer prevention

 A commentary by Mayo Clinic Cancer Center researchers published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology Practice suggests that advances in breast cancer prevention research have resulted in new and innovative opportunities to modify breast cancer risk and potentially reduce breast cancer incidence and mortality.

"It is prudent for health care providers to be knowledgeable about the benefits of assessing individual breast cancer risk, and counsel and implement risk-reducing strategies with their patients, says Sandhya Pruthi, M.D., a Mayo Clinic internist and author of the commentary.

Dr. Pruthi says evidence-based, risk-reducing strategies include lifestyle modification, preventive anti-estrogen medications, surveillance breast imaging and genetic testing. Women at high risk of harboring a hereditary breast cancer mutation should consider prophylactic surgery to reduce risk. 

"Physicians should be recommending individualized risk assessments for their patients and counseling them on interventions that range from lifestyle modifications to the use of preventive (anti-estrogen) medications or conjugated equine estrogen," says Dr. Pruthi.

She says these strategies may be beneficial in reducing hormone-sensitive breast cancer tumors that have a good prognosis, and they also may be beneficial in preventing tumors that are not hormone-sensitive and have a poor prognosis.

"For many years, breast cancer prevention research has primarily focused on the use of anti-estrogen medications to reduce the incidence of favorable, hormone-sensitive breast cancers, but it is critical that we reexamine and implement other risk-reducing strategies to prevent unfavorable breast cancers, known as triple-negative tumors," says Dr. Pruthi.

She encourages women and their health care providers to consider a comprehensive approach to breast cancer prevention that includes risk assessment; awareness of modifiable lifestyle factors, including low-fat dietary interventions; and use of medications that reduce the risk of dying from breast cancer. 

Dr. Pruthi says her commentary was based on research conducted in two large randomized clinical trials: the Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification trial and the Women's Health Initiative randomized trial with conjugated equine estrogen in women with prior hysterectomy. She says both clinical trials demonstrated a reduction in death from breast cancer.

https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-researchers-advocate-new-approach-to-breast-cancer-prevention/

3rd COVID Vaccine Dose Boosts Protection in Solid Tumor Patients

 A third dose of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2; Comirnaty) could offer increased protection for cancer patients on active treatment, a new study suggested, as these patients typically don't produce antibody responses on par with healthy individuals.

One week after the administration of a third vaccine dose, neutralizing antibody responses improved in 80% of solid tumor patients undergoing chemotherapy, with adverse events that were mild in nature, reported Rachna T. Shroff, MD, MS, of the University of Arizona Cancer Center in Tucson, and colleagues.

"These results suggest that a third dose of BNT162b2 is safe, improves humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2, and could be immunologically beneficial for patients with cancer on active chemotherapy," the team wrote in the study online in Nature Medicine.

The study was designed to evaluate immune responses after the two-dose Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in patients with solid tumors on active immunosuppressive cancer therapy (n=53), compared with healthy controls (n=50). This was followed by a phase I trial of a third vaccine dose initiated in the cancer cohort based on the two-dose results.

The researchers found that after the first dose of the vaccine, almost the entire control cohort (except for one person) showed detectable virus neutralizing activity, with a median 90% plaque reduction neutralization test titer of 60. In the cancer patient cohort, however, only 67% had detectable neutralizing antibodies, with a median titer of 20.

After the second dose of vaccine, all healthy controls had virus-neutralizing antibodies, with a median titer of 540, while 80% of the cancer cohort had virus-neutralizing antibodies, with a median titer of 60.

"These results demonstrate that most of the cancer cohort generated protective antibodies, but at levels well below that of the control cohort after the second vaccine dose," the researchers wrote. "Similar patterns were observed for spike protein-specific serum antibodies and T cells, but the magnitude of each of these responses was diminished relative to the control cohort."

Of the 53 cancer patients, 20 participated in the phase I interventional trial to determine if immunity could be improved with a third vaccine dose.

There were no demographic differences among these patients compared with the original cancer cohort. Most had gastrointestinal cancers (75%, compared with 51% in the original cancer cohort), while the remainder had a breast cancer diagnosis (25%, compared with 42% in the original cancer cohort).

After the third vaccine dose, neutralizing antibody levels improved in 16 of the 20 patients, with titers reaching 180 or higher in 15 of the patients who improved. No improvements were observed in T-cell responses.

"In non-human primate and modeling studies, this level is protective against disease," Shroff and co-authors noted. "Nonetheless, the overall antibody increases induced by the booster immunization were fairly modest."

Adverse events after a third immunization ranged from injection site myalgia (45%) and generalized myalgia (15%), to bone pain (5%), fatigue (10%), chills (10%), and appetite loss (5%).

The cancer cohort was diverse in terms of cancer diagnoses, cytotoxic therapies administered, and the timing of the therapies relative to vaccine dose, making it difficult to draw conclusions about these factors and immune response, the researchers said.

They noted, however, that most of the initial non-responders had blood collected for immune analysis 7 to 14 days after their most recent cancer treatment. "This time course is aligned with a nadir in blood counts and the peak of myelosuppression from traditional chemotherapy agents," the team explained. "Although the numbers are too small to draw strong conclusions, these findings are certainly hypothesis-generating and merit further exploration to better understand the ideal timing for vaccination in patients on active immunosuppressive therapy."

Overall, the results suggest that most patients with cancer on active therapy will produce improved antibody levels after a third immunization, Shroff and co-authors concluded. "However, given the relatively modest increases in antibodies and recalcitrance of T cells, expectations should remain tempered as to the degree of benefit. Quantitative antibody tests can potentially be used to select individuals who need, and would most benefit from, a booster."

A study limitation, the team said, is that the median age of the cancer cohort was older than that of controls, meaning that some of the differences seen could be due to age rather than anticancer therapy. However, the only immunological parameter that showed an age-dependent effect was the level of anti-receptor-binding domain antibodies, which did indicate a decline with increasing age in the control group, but there were no such age-dependent differences in the cancer cohort, and no other immunological parameters were altered as a function of age.


Disclosures

The study was supported by NIH grants and by the University of Arizona.

Shroff reported research funding and other financial relationships with Merck, Rafael Pharmaceuticals, ImmunoVaccine, Bayer, SeaGen, Exelixis, Pieris, LOXO Oncology, Novocure, NuCana, QED, Servier, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Taiho, Incyte, Genentech, and Basilea; other co-authors also reported relationships with industry.