Search This Blog

Tuesday, May 3, 2022

Incyte Shares Jump On Revised FY22 Sales Guidance

 

  • Incyte Corporation's  Q1 adjusted EPS reached $0.55, compared to $0.67 posted a year ago. Analysts had estimated $0.68. 
  • Sales increased 21% Y/Y to $733.24 million, missing the consensus of $750.66 million.
  • The company's operating expenses increased 22% to $616.69 million, with the cost of sales up 45.8%, R&D costs up 15%, and SG&A costs up 36.3%.
  • The company reported an operating income of $166.01 million, compared to $98.79 million posted a year ago.
  • Product and royalty revenues increased 20% Y/Y due to higher Jakafi, Pemazyre, and Opzelura revenues and higher royalty revenues from Jakavi and Olumiant. 
  • Jakafi net product revenues increased 17% Y/Y, primarily driven by growth in patient demand. 
  • The 49% growth in Olumiant royalty revenues reflects an increase in net product sales due to the use of Olumiant for the treatment of COVID-19.
  • Guidance: Incyte expects FY22 Jakafi net product revenues at $2.33 billion - $2.4 billion (versus prior guidance of $2.3 billion - $2.4 billion) and other Hematology/Oncology net product revenues of $210 million - $240 million.

CDC restates recommendation for masks on planes, trains

 U.S. health officials on Tuesday restated their recommendation that Americans wear masks on planes, trains and buses, despite a court ruling last month that struck down a national mask mandate on public transportation.

Americans age 2 and older should wear a well-fitting masks while on public transportation, including in airports and train stations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended, citing the current spread of coronavirus and projections of future COVID-19 trends.

For months, the Transportation Security Administration had been enforcing a requirement that passengers and workers wear masks.

The government had repeatedly extended the mandate, and the latest one had been set to expire May 3. But a federal judge in Florida struck down the rule on April 18. The same day, the TSA said it would no longer enforce the mandate.

The CDC asked the Justice Department to appeal the decision, which the department did. On Tuesday, CDC officials declined to comment on the status of the appeal. DOJ officials did not immediately respond to a request for information.

https://thehill.com/news/ap/ap-health/cdc-restates-recommendation-for-masks-on-planes-trains/

Kezar topline lupus data disappoints

 

  • Most patients saw clinically meaningful improvements in the primary endpoint measure of Total Improvement Score (TIS), but no differentiation from placebo was observed
  • Zetomipzomib demonstrates a favorable safety and tolerability profile, including in the PRESIDIO Open-label Extension Study where weekly zetomipzomib has been administered for up to an additional 77 weeks
  • Topline data from MISSION Phase 2 trial of zetomipzomib in lupus nephritis (LN) is on track and expected in June 2022, consistent with previous guidance

How coronavirus is getting closer to flu

 Hours after a federal judge struck down the federal mask mandate covering air travel and other public transportation last month, Delta Airlines celebrated the move in a statement saying that Covid-19 “has transitioned to an ordinary seasonal virus.” By the next day, after an intense backlash from public health experts, Delta had taken the offending language down.

“‘Ordinary viruses don’t cause 1 million deaths in one country in just 2 years,” tweeted epidemiologist Jessica Malaty Rivera, a senior adviser at the Rockefeller Foundation’s Pandemic Prevention Institute.

SARS-CoV-2 remains a long way from being ordinary. It has not yet found seasonal cadence — take the recent surge in Europe and the U.K., which comes just weeks after the initial Omicron wave subsided — and it’s still capable of inflicting mass death and disability (see Hong Kong’s lethal last few months).

But there are signs that the virus — and our relationship to it — is shifting in subtle ways that make it more like seasonal flu than it was at the start of the pandemic.

When everyone’s a superspreader, no one is

One of the most intriguing shifts involves how Covid now spreads from person to person.

Early on, a hallmark of SARS-CoV-2 transmission was that the majority of infections hit a dead end. A 2020 study from Hong Kong found that 80% of new infections were caused by just 10% to 20% of cases, often in indoor superspreading events. That meant most people didn’t spread the virus to anyone else.

Scientists call this phenomenon of patchy transmission “overdispersion.” Dispersion is a measure of how uniformly a pathogen spreads — does it steadily chug along or break out randomly in big bursts? And though its importance has long been overlooked, understanding dispersion is critical for developing effective infection prevention strategies.

“It’s a reason why some infections are more controllable than others, even for the same reproductive number,” said Benjamin Cowling, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of Hong Kong who led the 2020 study on overdispersion. It’s a lesson some countries learned right away.

When Hitoshi Oshitani, a virologist and infectious disease specialist at Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine saw data from Japan’s retrospective contact tracing teams, he realized that most transmission was being caused by a few infectious people gathering in poorly ventilated indoor spaces like gyms and restaurants. If they could cut the occurrence of those potential superspreading events, they had a chance at containing the virus. Oshitani, who advises the Japanese government, suggested a simple mantra that became key to the country’s Covid-19 success: avoid closed spaces, crowded places, and close-contact settings — later known as the Three C’s.

But as more infectious variants have emerged, Oshitani’s team has observed changing transmission patterns in Japan. Rural areas that avoided SARS-CoV-2 surges in earlier waves have been inundated with Omicron, he told STAT via email. Clusters are also showing up more in schools and nursing homes. And some data indicate that secondary attack rates in households are higher for Omicron — meaning if someone brings the virus home, more people they share a roof with are likely to contract it.

Studies in Norway and in the U.S. have also shown that Omicron spreads much more easily in households, suggesting that superspreading events may be becoming less important as primary drivers of contagion chains.

It’s not that superspreaders have become less super in their spreading; it’s that with Omicron, everyone else may be catching up with them.

“Epidemiologically the Omicron variant is quite different from previous strains,” Oshitani wrote. “The level of overdispersion is also probably different. But we need more data to adjust our public health responses.”

Cowling is also trying to understand how Omicron and other variants are changing the degree to which the virus spreads through clusters. But it’s become much harder to study as contact tracing programs in Hong Kong have buckled under the deluge of new cases.

“They had trouble keeping up with 100 cases a day in late 2020,” Cowling said. At the peak of Hong Kong’s fifth wave, earlier this year, between 50,000 and 100,000 new cases were being reported daily. “The system basically broke down,” he said. “So I’m not sure what exactly we’re going to be able to show beyond what was happening in the very early stages of that wave.”

To Seema Lakdawala, a microbiologist at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, these steeper, shorter waves of infection caused by Delta, Omicron, and now BA.2 look like signs of a potentially important shift in the virus’s behavior.

“It could be that more individuals are now forward-transmitting and we’re seeing a move away from cluster transmission to one that is more linear like you would expect for flu,” she said. The original strain of SARS-CoV-2 was estimated to have a dispersion parameter, k, of around 0.1, meaning that fewer than 20% of people infected passed on the virus to someone else. Pandemic influenza is less sparing. With a of around 1, it reliably hops hosts more than 60% of the time, based on estimates from the 1918 pandemic.

A recent modeling study led by Lidia Morawska at Queensland University of Technology found that the Delta variant is less reliant on superspreading events, with a k of 0.49. Her team hasn’t yet repeated the work for Omicron, but she expects that its preference for the upper respiratory tract, where it replicates at astonishing rates, probably results not just in more transmission, but more uniformity in who transmits to others.

“Even a very short time is sufficient to inhale enough of this virus to be infected,” Morawska said. “Short enough that ventilation may not have had a chance to remove the virus from the air.”

That’s why she and others are now pushing for the use of germicidal ultraviolet light, which can zap infectious viral particles in the air, killing them in an instant. This technology could have prevented the Gridiron superspreader event last month in Washington, University of Maryland aerobiologist Don Milton argued in a recent New York Times op-ed. Disinfecting UV light “should become the norm for large indoor gatherings where meals are served and masks cannot be worn,” he wrote.

Less susceptible targets

But the virus is just one component of what makes for a superspreading event. The other is the host network where it lands — which is a function of the current levels of population immunity and how many contacts people are making.

“Based on everything we’ve seen throughout the pandemic, the underlying population susceptibility seems to be the primary driver of spread,” said Emily Gurley, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University. “I think that’s more important than changes in the virus itself.”

That means that even as SARS-CoV-2 has evolved to be more contagious, it is encountering a small and ever-shrinking proportion of the population whose bodies have never seen some version of it before. Most people, through prior infection, vaccination, or a combination of the two now have immune systems capable of fending off the deadliest outcomes of contracting SARS-CoV-2. And that’s starting to look a lot like what happened when pandemic flu transitioned to seasonal flu.

We’re not at an immunological détente yet. Over the last decade, seasonal flu killed about 30,000 people each year, on average. Covid-19 killed 148,000 people in the first four months of 2022 alone. Last year it was the third leading cause of death in the U.S., after heart disease and cancer.

But we’re not impossibly far away. And the availability of effective early treatments like Paxlovid in addition to vaccines will also continue to tilt the scales away from an encounter with SARS-CoV-2 turning into a lethal or disabling one, for most people. (Although millions of immunocompromised Americans remain at risk of those worst outcomes.)

“A lot of it comes down to immunological diversity,” said William Hanage, an epidemiologist at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

“Gatherings are less likely to be as significant a component of spread at this point, but superspreading events will continue to be possible,” he said. “That’s what we’re seeing in D.C. at the moment. People who have avoided Covid thus far are making contacts they weren’t making six months ago, and so the virus is just making hay with all those contacts.”

It drives home another thing about dispersion — it can change based on people’s behavior too. In a study that is currently under review, Cowling’s team found that as Hong Kong got more strict about limiting large gatherings and requiring masks in public places during initial waves of the virus, its overdispersion actually went up, completely contradicting what they expected.

“We thought if we stop the superspreader events then the secondary case numbers will be ones or twos not tens or twenties,” said Cowling. “And that happened some. But what also happened is there were a lot more people who didn’t transmit to anyone. We think of overdispersion as just the big numbers, but it’s also the zeroes.”

And the zeroes are a lot harder to keep track of. So it’s possible that superspreading events have been overestimated for Covid-19 because they’re big dramatic events—like the Skagit Valley Chorale or the Gridiron gala.

It’s also possible that flu might actually be more like Covid-19 than we appreciate. “I suspect that there’s actually a lot of superspreading with flu, we just haven’t studied it in the same way that we have for this coronavirus,” said Cowling.

‘Flu-like’ genetic drift

Flu and SARS-CoV-2 are starting to resemble each other at a more basic level too — how they evolve.

During the first year and a half of the pandemic, new variants of concern arose from distantly related branches of the SARS-CoV-2 family tree. Delta didn’t arise from Beta, which didn’t arise from Alpha. The constellation of mutations each new strain acquired that gave it a competitive advantage evolved independently. Omicron was an even more extreme example of this.

The variant popped onto the scene in South Africa at the end of 2021 looking like a version of the virus that hadn’t been seen in someone since mid-2020, leading experts to speculate it went underground either in an immunocompromised person’s body or into a different species entirely.

But since Omicron has spread around the world, the new variants that have emerged and outpaced it — BA.2, BA.1, BA.4, and others — have all splintered off from the same starting point. This sort of ladder-like accumulation of mutations is something much more characteristic of how influenza evolves. In general, there’s one major lineage that “drifts” year to year, inching toward more immune escape and higher transmissibility, rather than leaping out of nowhere.

This could be good news, because more stable, predictable evolution would make it easier to develop meaningful Covid-19 vaccines and boosters, better tuned to handle whichever version of the virus will be circulating six to 12 months from now, as Trevor Bedford, a computational biologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center pointed out in a recent Twitter thread.

But, as he noted, it’s hard to say how long this “flu-like drift” will last before another huge evolutionary jump, like Omicron, might take place.

“Nobody knows what this virus is going to do next,” said Hanage. That’s why he thinks the viral videos of flight attendants collecting masks sends the wrong message. “This is not a thing that ends in a way that people understand. The pandemic will be done but not in the way that most people think of as done.”

https://www.statnews.com/2022/05/03/more-uniformly-infectious-more-treatable-more-genetically-predictable-how-coronavirus-is-getting-closer-to-flu/

Don’t panic about unvaccinated kids

 In the United States, some parents — and more than a few physicians — are still panicking about unvaccinated children.

Last week, Politico reported that the US Food and Drug Administration might wait until this summer to consider authorising a vaccine for children under five years old. Only a few days earlier, a judge had struck down the nationwide mask mandate on airplanes, prompting angry reactions from some who claimed that the ruling would result in dead children. Some parents have loudly proclaimed that they will continue to shield their kids from social interactions until a vaccine is available. And in New York City, children aged between two and four are still required to mask in schools because they are too young to be vaccinated.

As Covid restrictions and mandates have been dropped across the America and the Western world, unvaccinated kids have become a rallying cause for Americans unable or unwilling to leave the pandemic behind. But the truth is that children under five don’t need to wear masks and don’t need to have their lives put on hold pending vaccination. Hysteria about the risk to them is not just unhelpful but harmful. It deprives them of a normal childhood without any countervailing justification.

A decision on vaccines for young children is probably a few months away, given that U.S. public health authorities want to consider the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine data together. While some parents are understandably angry and frustrated with delay, the FDA is right to be cautious here. Young children are at low risk from the virus and the benefits of vaccinating them are uncertain. Even if the vaccines are approved, it is not clear that they will make a big enough difference to justify placing restrictions on children in the interim.

First, consider that the FDA has not tasked the vaccine makers with proving that their vaccine lowers rates of hospitalisation in kids. Nor do they have to show that the vaccines reduce MIS-C (an inflammatory condition that may arise after infection) or even rates of Covid infection. Rather, the FDA has asked Pfizer and Moderna to prove that their vaccines, at the dose given to kids, generate levels of antibodies that are comparable (or “non-inferior”) to levels of antibodies generated among older, fully vaccinated people. This is a low benchmark, and means that, in practice, the trials being run to clear it are very small. Indeed, they may be too small to detect reliable signals for the most important benefit — reduction in severe Covid — and for harms.

Yet so far, Pfizer has failed to clear even this very low bar. Two doses of three micrograms of the Pfizer vaccine (1/10th the adult dose) fell short in December of 2020, to the disappointment of many. The FDA allowed the company to take another shot at it, literally, by adding a third dose. In late January of this year, there was buzz that the FDA would take the unprecedented step of authorising the vaccine despite the failed trial because it looked like it might reduce infections, but just a week later, Pfizer announced they would wait for the results of the 3rd dose before seeking approval. The flip-flop generated national news and outrage from some parents and doctors.

Then, on March 23, 2022, Moderna announced that its children’s vaccine — two doses of 25 micrograms, or 1/4 the adult dose — did generate sufficient antibody levels, again raising hopes that FDA approval would be forthcoming. But only limited results have been released so far. We don’t know the full spectrum of adverse effects, nor the impact on the outcomes we really care about: cases, severe disease, hospitalisations, MISC-C, and deaths. These outcomes are especially important for conducting a cost-benefit analysis for Moderna, which has clearly been linked to higher rates of myocarditis in young men than has the Pfizer vaccine.

As the clinical trials have dragged on, moreover, the landscape of kids and Covid has changed. Children have always been at relatively low risk, but newer variants appear to be even less risky for them. A recent preprint from the UK suggests that children infected with Omicron were less likely to be hospitalised with severe disease than children infected with the alpha or delta variants. We have also learned that MIS-C is less common often with the newer variants. Delta was less likely to trigger the condition than alpha, and CDC data suggests that omicron was less likely to trigger it than delta.

More generally, it makes no sense to be overly cautious about low-risk children at a time when the United States is dropping most restrictions for adults. The risk to an unvaccinated healthy child under five is often lower than the risk to their vaccinated or even boosted parent. Natural immunity is also powerful and prevalent. It protects strongly against reinfection and even hospitalisation after reinfection. Not that the data here is from adults — naturally immune children are so rarely hospitalised that it is difficult to conduct studies on them.

Most kids have already had Covid, even if they and their parents don’t know it. Prior to the omicron wave, up to half of American children had been infected, and the virologist Trevor Bedford estimates that omicron might have since infected 40% of Americans. Although there is surely some overlap between the two numbers, most kids have probably already had Covid at least once, and it would be difficult for a vaccine to offer them any significant further protection. Finally, we have learned that vaccination has rapidly waning protection against symptomatic infection. Some studies report that vaccine effectiveness in those aged 5-11 for symptomatic Covid is less than 20%.

If you put all this together, the story becomes clear. The vaccine trials have been inconclusive. Most children have had Covid already, and the ability for a vaccine to further improve their health is limited. Finally, they are at extremely low risk to begin with. Parents may encourage their offspring to get vaccinated if and when vaccines become available, but they should not be consumed with fear pending FDA approval. Nor should they prevent their children from living a normal life.

Vinay Prasad is Associate Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco. He is a practising hematologist and oncologist, and author of more than 300 peer-reviewed publications

https://unherd.com/2022/05/dont-panic-about-unvaccinated-kids/

Question Your Doctor

 Over the past two years many Americans found themselves in this situation: diagnosed with COVID-19, they were not feeling horribly ill, yet not feeling great either. Turning to their doctors for advice, what most heard was the equivalent of, “Stay home, and if you turn blue, call 911.” If they inquired about “unapproved” therapies to prevent themselves from getting sicker, doctors often reacted with dismissiveness and even scorn. Beyond rebuffing their patients’ honest questions, many doctors also failed to recommend basic antiviral remedies such as vitamin C, zinc, quercetin, and vitamin D.

We will never know how many lives were lost because of doctors’ refusal to think independently, to consider each patient as a human being deserving of individualized assessment, and to make their patients aware of the risks and benefits of the full range of early preventative therapies.

But moving forward from that tragedy, at least we can draw a vital understanding: far too many doctors, cocooned within medical societies and hospital bureaucracies (which in turn act at the behest of big pharma, insurance giants, and the federal government), share a hive mentality that can do real harm to the patients in their care. Indeed, this has been the case for decades – the COVID-19 pandemic only brought it to light with blazing clarity. Some of us on the front lines have long seen it in everything from the over-prescription of harmful statins, to the use of estrogen replacement therapy in women that increased their risk of cancer. In those and numerous other examples, doctors have eschewed independent thought (and independent review of the original research) in favor of unquestioning obedience to algorithms passed down from on high.

Now what? In light of everything we’ve learned during the pandemic, a patient who continues to heedlessly trust this system with their health is akin to a battered wife returning to an abusive husband. People must begin questioning their doctors. And if they get the wrong answers (or the questions are batted away), they need to walk away and find another doctor.

Of course, the first thing each of us should do is optimize our own health outcomes, via exercise, proper nutrition, and reading up on topics salient to ourselves and our families. Still, most of us will need to have contact with the healthcare system at one point or another. Daunting as it can be to question a doctor, imbued with the supposed authority of a white coat and stethoscope, we must remember that each of us is our own best advocate.

Based on my personal and professional experience, here are a handful of litmus test questions to quickly gauge whether your doctor is independent and open to evidence and evolving data or part of the rotting, self-serving medical establishment:

  1. Does the doctor practice what he/she preaches?

This one is easy and does not even have to be asked aloud. Does the doctor sitting before you have a gut hanging halfway to the floor? Your doctor doesn’t have to be an athlete, but he or she needs to be healthy. It’s frankly shocking that many doctors cannot button up their white coats because of their bulging waistline. If you want to probe further, you might ask what the doctor recommends by way of exercise and nutrition? If that draws a perfunctory reply, or something along the lines of “Well, personally I get all the exercise I need all day seeing patients and I grab a couple of energy bars during my break,” nod politely and move on to someone else.

  1. What is the doctor’s opinion on medical society guidelines?

Medical societies usually update guidelines every five years or so. For example, the guideline for what is considered high cholesterol has been revised downward over the years, and as a result we have more people diagnosed with ‘high cholesterol’ and taking statins. An honest and independent doctor will acknowledge that the American Heart Association receives millions of dollars in donations from big pharma, and therefore their guidelines and so-called ‘cardiovascular risk calculator’ are literally programmed to put everyone on a statin. Yet the incidence of heart disease continues to skyrocket. Ask your doctor for their opinion on why this and other guidelines have changed, and if following those changes made patients healthier.  

  1. Does the doctor use a ‘one size fits all’ approach?

Individual patients have different forms of disease and react differently to medications. For example, many patients with autoimmune thyroid disease who need thyroid replacement medication swear that natural desiccated thyroid hormone works much better than synthetic thyroid hormone. A good doctor will listen to a patient who knows his own body, a bad doctor will recite the medical establishment’s line that synthetic thyroid hormone works best for everyone.

  1. How does your doctor approach mental health issues?

In the wake of the pandemic, we now face a mental health epidemic. Does your doctor address depression and a

nxiety by quickly writing a SSRI or benzodiazepine prescription and wishing you good luck? Mental health issues are never solved by pills alone, and a good doctor will realize that a holistic approach (which may or may not require medication) is the way tackle mental health problems.

  1. Is ‘let’s wait and see’ an option?

If you only have time for one question, this is it. The financial incentives of our failing healthcare system will always push some sort of action – be it pills, a procedure, a surgery, or a hospital admission. The wait and see approach doesn’t make money for anyone, but it is often the wisest option for the patient. This philosophy also aligns with Hippocrates’ original principle of “First, do no harm.”

Above all else, trust your gut. If you feel like you are being rushed, pressured to take pills, or that the focus is more on the number of some test result than on you, don’t hesitate to push back. If enough people do that, maybe one day we can witness the birth of a new system that truly cares for health.

Paracelsus is an American physician and author of the newly released book "First Do No Harm" (Calamo Press).

https://www.realclearbooks.com/articles/2022/05/02/question_your_doctor_830181.html