Search This Blog

Tuesday, November 16, 2021

Can Moderna Deliver A Highly Effective Flu Vaccine?

 Moderna, Inc.'s 

 vaccine franchise has further legs to play out, according to an analyst at Morgan Stanley.

The Moderna Analyst: Matthew Harrison has an Equal-weight rating and a $313 price target for Moderna shares.

The Moderna Thesis: The success of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines has led to the development of additional respiratory vaccines using the technology, Harrison said in a note.


The next key vaccine readout, the analyst said, will be on Moderna's lead flu candidate, code-named mRNA-1010, in the coming weeks to months.

Current flu vaccines suffer from relatively low efficacy, evident in low antibody titers, and a mismatch of encoded antigens to flu proteins circulating during the season, the analyst said. Based on Morgan Stanley's modeling, a mean HAI titer of about 1,500 would translate to a 90% effective vaccine.

Earnings
Analyst Ratings
Options
Dividends

A highly effective vaccine can have seroconversion rates above the 50-60% from current flu vaccines, the analyst said.

"We believe Moderna can achieve this threshold, which should increase investor confidence in the LT vaccine franchise," the analyst wrote in the note.

https://www.benzinga.com/analyst-ratings/analyst-color/21/11/24132121/can-moderna-deliver-a-highly-effective-flu-vaccine

Outcomes for hospitalized COVID patients taking immunosuppressants similar to non-immunosuppressed

 A large, nationwide study of COVID-19 cases led by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has found that people taking medications that suppress the immune system -- for example, to prevent transplant rejection or to treat cancer -- overall do not have a higher risk of dying from COVID-19 or being put on a ventilator than non-immunosuppressed hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The researchers analyzed electronic health records of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 from January 2020 to June 2021, covering 222,575 individuals, including 16,494 -- 7 percent of the total cases in the study period -- in which patients had been on immunosuppressive medications prior to hospitalization. The researchers separated these medications into 17 classes and found that none were associated with a significantly increased risk of being put on a ventilator -- an indication of severe COVID-19 illness.

The results were published online November 15 in The Lancet Rheumatology.

"In general, people taking immunosuppressive medications may be reassured that they can safely continue to do so during this pandemic," says study lead author Kayte Andersen, MSc, a doctoral candidate in the Bloomberg School's Department of Epidemiology.

"These findings are encouraging and important, given how commonly these medications are used," says G. Caleb Alexander, Professor of Epidemiology at the Bloomberg School.

Estimates suggest that there are approximately 10 million immunocompromised people in the U.S. People who take immunosuppressive drugs for organ transplants, autoimmune diseases, cancers and other conditions were considered, at the outset of the pandemic, as being at potentially increased risk of severe outcomes, given their weakened immune systems. On the other hand, some of the damage to lungs and other organs in severe COVID-19 comes less from direct viral damage and more from immune overactivation. By the summer of 2020, doctors were treating severe COVID-19 with immunosuppressive drugs such as dexamethasone. It was not initially clear whether the long-term use of immunosuppressive drugs increased or decreased the risk of severe COVID-19.

In a smaller, preliminary study published earlier this year, Andersen, Alexander, and their colleagues found no significant association between the chronic use of immunosuppressive drugs and ventilator or mortality risk -- suggesting that perhaps any increased susceptibility to infection and viral spread may be balanced by a decreased susceptibility to harmful inflammation. This earlier study analyzed the health records of more than 2,000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients from the Johns Hopkins Medicine network.

The new study, drawing from a nationwide dataset gathered by the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, covered a sample of COVID-19 patients that was over 100 times larger than the preliminary study. The study found that overall, hospitalized COVID-19 patients taking immunosuppressive drugs did not face significant increases in the risk of COVID-19 death compared with non-immunosuppressed hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Of the 303 drugs examined in the study, the authors found that one drug, rituximab, a monoclonal antibody preparation that targets antibody-producing B cells, was associated with a substantially increased risk of death compared to medically similar hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Rituximab is used for serious medical conditions like cancer or an autoimmune disorder that has not responded to other treatments.

The analysis included 153 cancer patients taking rituximab and 100 patients taking rituximab for a rheumatologic condition. After accounting for sex, age, medical conditions, and other factors, the risk of death for the cancer patients taking rituximab was more than double and the risk for patients with a rheumatologic condition was nearly three-quarters higher compared with medically similar people in the study.

"Given the finding, patients taking rituximab should discuss their options with their doctor," says Andersen. "At a minimum, people who take rituximab should continue to protect themselves from developing COVID-19. It also makes it all the more important that people around those taking rituximab get vaccinated."

A commentary accompanying the paper in The Lancet Rheumatology discusses the rituximab finding and suggests two potential paths for patients and clinicians -- proceeding with rituximab or using alternative therapies.

Andersen and colleagues' analysis also linked a relatively new class of immunosuppressive drugs called JAK inhibitors, which are used to treat arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and other inflammatory conditions, to a significantly lower risk -- 58 percent -- of COVID-19-related in-hospital death. JAK inhibitors such as baricitinib have recently been used to treat severe COVID-19.

"Long-term Use of Immunosuppressive Medicines and In-Hospital COVID-19 Outcomes: a Retrospective Cohort Study Using Data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative" was co-authored by Kathleen M. Andersen, Benjamin Bates, Emaan Rashidi, Amy Olex, Roslyn Mannon, Rena Patel, Jasvinder Singh, Jing Sun, Paul Auwaerter, Derek Ng, Jodi Segal, Brian Garibaldi, Hemalkumar Mehta, and G. Caleb Alexander.

Andersen received doctoral training support from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Pharmacoepidemiology T32 Training Program (T32HL139426).


Story Source:

Materials provided by Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public HealthNote: Content may be edited for style and length.


Journal Reference:

  1. Kathleen M Andersen, Benjamin A Bates, Emaan S Rashidi, Amy L Olex, Roslyn B Mannon, Rena C Patel, Jasvinder Singh, Jing Sun, Paul G Auwaerter, Derek K Ng, Jodi B Segal, Brian T Garibaldi, Hemalkumar B Mehta, G Caleb Alexander, Melissa A Haendel, Christopher G Chute. Long-term use of immunosuppressive medicines and in-hospital COVID-19 outcomes: a retrospective cohort study using data from the National COVID Cohort CollaborativeThe Lancet Rheumatology, 2021; DOI: 10.1016/S2665-9913(21)00325-8

Why drug used to treat critically ill COVID-19 patients may only benefit males

 A new study from the University of Calgary shows how dexamethasone, the main treatment for severe COVID-19 lung infections, alters how immune cells work, which may help male patients, but has little to no benefit for females.

These remarkable findings are the result of a multidisciplinary study published in Nature Medicine, led by Dr. Jeff Biernaskie, PhD, professor, Comparative Biology and Experimental Medicine in the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine (UCVM) and Dr. Bryan Yipp, MD, associate professor, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine.

"We found that the males derived benefit from the steroids, and the females, at both the cellular level and at the population level, received limited benefit," says Yipp, Tier II Canada Research Chair in Pulmonary Immunology, Inflammation and Host Defense. "Currently, it's possible the mainstay therapy for severe COVID-19 that we're giving everybody is only benefiting half the population. This is a big problem."

How do our bodies battle COVID-19 infection?

At the onset of the pandemic, hospitals' treatments of the severely ill were not yet informed by research into how effective the drugs were under COVID-19 conditions. Steroids were the first identified drugs with proven benefit, but they were only moderately successful at reducing deaths, and exactly what they did was not understood.

In addition, when the study began, no one knew exactly how immune cells would react to COVID-19 infection at a cellular level. Why did some people get really sick while others did not? Why did certain drugs help some but not others?

"To be able to develop new treatments, we wanted to study how different people respond to SARS-CoV2 infection and how different immune responses dictate the severity of their disease," says Biernaskie, the Calgary Firefighters Burn Treatment Society Chair in Skin Regeneration and Wound Healing.

Yipp and Biernaskie sought to better understand how steroids helped and, at the same time, evaluate why a clinical trial of steroids in COVID-19 showed they only helped some males, but not females.

When Yipp accessed the provincial eCRITICAL database of all ICU admissions during the pandemic, he discovered that the introduction of dexamethasone therapy in Alberta reduced the number of males dying but had no affect on the female population. "That was an unsettling observation."

Analyzing thousands of immune cells from ICU patients

Blood was collected from both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients who were admitted to Calgary ICUs in severe respiratory distress. Researchers in the Biernaskie lab used cutting-edge single cell RNA sequencing and bioinformatics techniques to simultaneously analyze the functional states of thousands of immune cells from each patient. This allowed them to document cellular behaviours at different stages of the disease (COVID-19 or non-COVID infections) and to measure treatment effects.

"We sampled as many patients as we could, not just at one time point but at a follow-up time point so we could get an idea of the evolution of the disease and the evolution of the immune response," says Biernaskie.

In most viral infections, proteins called interferons work to clear the virus quickly. But with COVID-19, rather than working fast, "the interferon response trickles along, which actually fuels the fire of inflammation, and then you get worse organ damage," says Yipp.

"What we found was that specifically in males, we see an exaggerated neutrophil interferon response, that is significantly restrained when a patient is given dexamethasone,'' says Biernaskie. "But with females, relative to males, their neutrophil interferon response was much more tempered, so dexamethasone had little effect."

Find therapies that benefit more people

After identifying the reasons why there's a sex bias in the way dexamethasone works, Yipp believes that the way forward is for researchers to figure out how to make therapies that benefit more people, or individualized therapies, also known as precision or personalized medicine, so that a blanket approach isn't being used.

Biernaskie and Yipp credit significant contributions from the trainees and junior scientists involved in the research, including Dr. Nicole Rosin and Sarthak Sinha who spent countless hours managing the project and analyzing the results.

The project was supported by a grant Biernaskie and Yipp received from the Thistledown Foundation and by the Calgary Firefighters Burn Treatment Society, "who enthusiastically supported my request to divert some of the CFBTS Chair funds to support this initiative early on in the pandemic," Biernaski says.


Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Calgary. Original written by Collene Ferguson, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.


Journal Reference:

  1. Sarthak Sinha, Nicole L. Rosin, Rohit Arora, Elodie Labit, Arzina Jaffer, Leslie Cao, Raquel Farias, Angela P. Nguyen, Luiz G. N. de Almeida, Antoine Dufour, Amy Bromley, Braedon McDonald, Mark R. Gillrie, Marvin J. Fritzler, Bryan G. Yipp, Jeff Biernaskie. Dexamethasone modulates immature neutrophils and interferon programming in severe COVID-19Nature Medicine, 2021; DOI: 10.1038/S41591-021-01576-3

Penicillin significantly reduces rheumatic heart disease progression in children

 A regular, affordable antibiotic treatment significantly reduced the risk of underlying rheumatic heart disease progression in children and adolescents, according to a new study.

The research, led by the Murdoch Children's Research Institute (MCRI), Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Uganda Heart Institute and the Children's National Hospital in Washington, also showed that early screening was critical in preventing serious rheumatic heart disease progression and death in young children.

Rheumatic heart disease affects 40.5 million people globally and causes at least 306,000 deaths every year. The chronic disease is caused by damage to the valves of the heart, following a case of Strep throat.

Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Associate Professor Andrea Beaton said that until this study, it was unknown if antibiotics were effective at preventing the progression of latent rheumatic heart disease.

"The trial is the first contemporary randomized controlled trial in rheumatic heart disease. The results are incredibly important on their own, but also demonstrate that high-quality clinical trials are feasible to address this neglected cardiovascular disease," she said.

The trial involved 818 Ugandan children aged 5-17 years with latent rheumatic heart disease. The participants either received four-weekly injections of penicillin for two years, or no treatment. All underwent echocardiography screening, where ultrasound waves produce images of the heart, at the start and end of the trial.

The findings from the screenings, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, reported just three (0.8 per cent) participants who received penicillin experienced latent rheumatic heart disease progression, compared to 33 (8.3 per cent) who didn't receive the treatment.

MCRI's Dr Daniel Engelman said the results showed a significant reduction in disease development and was more substantial than what was predicated.

"The results suggest that for every 13 children with latent disease who receive treatment for two years, one child will be prevented from developing more severe disease. As a preventative strategy for a severe, chronic disease, this is a very important finding," he said.

MCRI Professor Andrew Steer said screening for latent rheumatic heart disease was critical to stop progression because heart valve damage was largely untreatable.

"Children with latent rheumatic heart disease have no symptoms and we cannot detect the mild heart valve changes clinically," he said.

"Currently, most patients are diagnosed when the disease is advanced, and complications have already developed. This late diagnosis is associated with a high death rate at a young age, in part due to the missed opportunity to benefit from preventative antibiotic treatment. If patients can be identified early, there is an opportunity for intervention and improved health outcomes."

Uganda Heart Institute Dr Emmy Okello said the Ugandan government should strengthen programs that promote screening of rheumatic heart disease and the availability of penicillin.

In 2018 Uganda supported the World Health Organization's resolution to make the condition a global priority.

"Our study found a cheap and easily available penicillin can prevent progression of latent rheumatic heart disease into more severe, irreversible valve damage that is commonly seen in our hospitals with little or no access to valve surgery," Dr Okello said.


Story Source:

Materials provided by Murdoch Childrens Research InstituteNote: Content may be edited for style and length.


Journal Reference:

  1. Andrea Beaton, Emmy Okello, Joselyn Rwebembera, Anneke Grobler, Daniel Engelman, Juliet Alepere, Lesley Canales, Jonathan Carapetis, Alyssa DeWyer, Peter Lwabi, Mariana Mirabel, Ana O. Mocumbi, Meghna Murali, Miriam Nakitto, Emma Ndagire, Maria C.P. Nunes, Isaac O. Omara, Rachel Sarnacki, Amy Scheel, Nigel Wilson, Meghan Zimmerman, Liesl Zühlke, Ganesan Karthikeyan, Craig A. Sable, Andrew C. Steer. Secondary Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Latent Rheumatic Heart DiseaseNew England Journal of Medicine, 2021; DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2102074

How many Americans have coronavirus antibodies? Blood donations show vast majority do

 More than 80% of Americans have coronavirus antibodies acquired through infection or vaccination, according to a new study of over 1.4 million blood donations across the U.S. The study, published Thursday in the journal JAMA, included blood samples of Americans 16 and older collected by 17 different organizations from all 50 states, Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico.

 Donations represent 74% of the U.S. population, researchers said. Estimates show that from July to December 2020 — before vaccines were available — the percentage of Americans 16 years or older with coronavirus antibodies from infection jumped from 3.5% to 11.5%. By May 2021, the percentage of Americans with infection-derived antibodies increased to about 20%. 

But when researchers combined the number of people with antibodies from either infection or vaccination, they found about 83% of Americans had earned them. (Federal health officials authorized the first COVID-19 vaccine on Dec. 14, 2020). Hispanic and Black people were the most likely to have antibodies from infection, a finding consistent with case trends since the pandemic started. By May 2021, however, more Asian and white people had coronavirus antibodies from either infection or vaccination, likely because these groups received vaccinations at greater rates than Hispanic and Black people.

 Adults aged 65 and older were the least likely to have antibodies from infection, the study found. Researchers say that data could be explained by their weaker immune systems being unable to develop antibodies or their greater participation in COVID-19 preventive behaviors, such as physical distancing and mask wearing, compared to younger people. 

Researchers note their analysis was done before the delta variant rose to dominance in the U.S. and triggered a fourth wave of infections. Many more people have been vaccinated since data collection, too, suggesting the study’s estimates may be higher than reported.

 More than 175.5 million Americans are fully vaccinated as of Sept. 3, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracker — about 53% of the total population. The study also excluded blood donations from people younger than 16, meaning much remains unknown about the prevalence of antibodies in younger people. 

The research will continue until at least December 2021, the researchers said. Results will be posted on the CDC website.


https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article253987048.html