Search This Blog

Sunday, September 4, 2022

ESMO22: Merck offers 5-year look at Keytruda's landmark lung cancer trials

 Keytruda’s Keynote-189 trial marked a watershed moment in the history of lung cancer drug development by showing a monster survival benefit. Now, Merck & Co. is giving a five-year look at the data that made the PD-1 inhibitor the standard of care in newly diagnosed patients.

After five years of Keytruda and chemotherapy, an estimated 19.4% of patients with newly diagnosed metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer were alive, versus 11.3% of those who received chemotherapy alone.

“Bear in mind that typically we’re thinking of five-year survival in this population of patients is on the order of around 5% from the era of just chemotherapy treatment,” Greg Lubiniecki, M.D., vice president of clinical research at Merck Research Laboratories, said in an interview ahead of a presentation of the updated Keynote-189 data at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) annual meeting.

The five-year survival rate in Keynote-189’s chemo control group appeared better than historical experience partly because the patients were allowed to receive Keytruda monotherapy after disease progression on their frontline treatment, Lubiniecki noted. But it’s still no match to the Keytruda-chemo combo group, which stressed the benefit of receiving Keytruda upfront in the first-line setting, he added.

Back in 2018, Keynote-189 shook the cancer community by showing that the addition of Keytruda to chemo could cut the risk of death by 51%. Thanks to that huge showing—and trial setbacks by competitors—Keytruda quickly established itself as the standard of care in newly diagnosed NSCLC.

Now, after a median 64.6 months of follow-up, the risk reduction remained strong at 40%, as patients on Keytruda and chemo lived a median 22 months, more than double the median 10.6 months that the chemo group experienced.

At ESMO 2022, Merck also provided a five-year update from the Keynote-407 trial, which has been supporting Keytruda’s use alongside chemo in newly diagnosed squamous NSCLC.

Again, Keytruda nearly doubled the five-year survival rate. An estimated 18.4% of patients on the Keytruda-chemo regimen were alive after five years, compared with 9.7% in the chemo group. After a median follow-up of 56.9 months, Keytruda cut the risk of death by 29%, in line with the original analysis of 36%. Patients who took Keytruda and chemo lived a median 17.2 months, versus 11.6 months for those on chemo.

With the metastatic NSCLC market settled, Merck has shifted Keytruda’s focus to treatment of earlier-stage disease around surgery.

The New Jersey pharma also provided a PD-L1 subgroup analysis of the closely watched Keynote-091 trial, which is testing postsurgery use of Keytruda in stage IB to IIIA NSCLC. As previously announced, Keytruda as an adjuvant therapy surprisingly only showed a non-significant 18% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death in patients with high PD-L1 expression covering at least 50% of tumor cells. Therefore, at the preplanned secondary interim analysis, the study has yet to hit the second of its dual primary endpoints.

Merck has attributed the lack of statistically significant benefit thus far to a better-than-expected performance from the placebo group and a smaller patient size for the PD-L1 subgroup.

According to data presented at ESMO 2022, Keytruda pared down the risk of event-free survival by 33% in patients with PD-L1 expression between 1% and 49% and by 22% in those with PD-L1-negative tumors.

The second interim analysis of Keynote-091 happened after 117 patients in the PD-L1-high group had died. Lubiniecki declined to impart information on what would trigger another analysis or how many analyses remain. But he did say that the treatment effect of Keytruda in the postsurgery setting is consistent with the results with the drug in the metastatic setting, meaning patients with higher PD-L1 expression are deriving a greater treatment effect.

At this point, trial investigators estimate that about 65.9% of Keytruda takers with high PD-L1 expression will still be alive and disease-free after three years, versus 57.6% of those in the placebo group. The estimated rates are 54.6% for Keytruda takers with PD-L1 expression between 1% and 49% and 55.5% for PD-L1-negative patients who took Keytruda.

Thanks to a first-in-class nod in October 2021, Roche’s Tecentriq is the only PD-1/L1 inhibitor allowed in adjuvant NSCLC, but it’s limited to PD-L1-positive patients.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/esmo-merck-offers-5-year-look-keytrudas-landmark-lung-cancer-trials-whats-next

China's Shenzhen to adopt tiered COVID measures; Chengdu extends lockdown

 China's southern tech hub of Shenzhen said it will adopt tiered anti-virus restriction measures starting on Monday, while the southwestern metropolis of Chengdu announced an extension of lockdown curbs, as the country grapples with fresh outbreaks.

Shenzhen, which went into a weekend lockdown on Saturday, announced a new round of COVID-19 testing, and vowed to "marshal all available resources, mobilise all forces, and take all possible measures" to stamp out the pandemic.

Separately, Chengdu, which placed its 21 million people under lockdown on Thursday, said the city will keep curbs in place for most of the city, and will conduct more mass testing from Monday to Wednesday.

China is sticking to its stringent zero-COVID policy, even as most other countries have relaxed restrictions and chosen to live with virus. As a result, fresh outbreaks have become a major risk to the world's second-biggest economy.

Currently, 33 cities are under partial or full lockdowns, affecting more than 65 million residents, according to an estimate by Chinese financial magazine Caixin.

In Shenzen, a city of 18 million people, an official said the risks were still considerable.

"Currently, the city's COVID situation is severe and complex. The number of new infections remains relatively high and community transmission risk still exists," Lin Hancheng, a Shenzhen public health official, told a news conference late on Sunday.

The city reported 89 new locally transmitted COVID infections for Sept 3, compared with 87 a day earlier.

THREE-TIER MANAGEMENT

Based on the results of the weekend testing, Shenzhen will classify its areas into three categories, reflecting low, medium, and high risk of infection, Lin said.

In areas deemed low risk, the city will remove restrictions that confined much of its population to residential compounds over the weekend, though lockdowns will remain in place in 'high' and 'medium' risk neighbourhoods.

Plans for 'Radical Intervention', Price-Setting, Suspending Derivatives Markets, Europe-Wide Margin Call Bailouts

 Just when you thought the narrative couldn't get any more idiotic, Europe shocks just about everyone.

A few days after the EU threatened commodity traders it would stage an "emergency intervention" to crush energy prices which were rising at a pace of about 20% per day (perhaps Europe can now print nat gas and electricity in addition to monetizing all deficits while injecting trillions in the process)...

Authorities: water pressure should be restored to all Jackson residents

 The city of Jackson says water pressure should be restored to all residents, and most are now experiencing normal pressure.

According to a press release, the total output at the O.B. Curtis Water Plant has increased to 90 psi, exceeding the city’s goal of 87 psi or better.

“The outlook continues to be positive. However, additional challenges as repairs and adjustments are made do leave potential for fluctuations in progress,” the press release said.

The city says all tanks saw increased storage levels overnight, and multiple tanks are approaching full. According to the city, no tanks are at low levels.

The city is continuing work on the membrane and conventional systems with city staff and mutual aid teams from Georgia and Florida rural water associations.

The focus for today is repair and maintenance work at the O.B. Curtis Water Plant to increase water quantity and water quality, the press release says.

The city also says repairing the Anhydrous Ammonia tank leak should be completed today.

“We are hopeful that we will be able to begin the sampling process midweek. This is contingent upon sustained pressure. We will need two rounds of clear samples to be able to remove the boil water notice. We will alert residents as soon as this happens,” the press release said.

If you are experiencing discolored water or no pressure, please alert the city of Jackson by using this online reporting tool https://arcg.is/0LDmjb.

https://www.wlbt.com/2022/09/04/authorities-water-pressure-should-be-restored-all-jackson-residents/

The mRNA Vaccine Patent Fight Expands

 BY DEREK LOWE

So Moderna has announced that they are filing patent infringement suit in the US and in Germany against Pfizer and BioNTech over mRNA vaccine intellectual property. This is not completely unexpected - and by that I don’t mean to imply that Moderna necessarily has a case, because I’m not sure if they do or not. It’s just that there is almost never an example of a breakthrough biopharma technology that does not end up setting off a flurry of patent lawsuits. For better or worse, this is the norm.

The see-you-in-court phase has actually been a bit delayed, honestly. You may recall that in the fall of 2020, Moderna announced that it would not enforce its COVID-19 related mRNA vaccine patents “while the pandemic continued”. That statement was updated earlier this year, when the company said that it would never seek to enforce those patents for any vaccine used in the 92 low- and middle-income countries in the GAVI “advance market commitment” agreement, but that it would expect other companies to license its technology for other markets. They now say that Pfizer and BioNTech have failed to do this, and thus the patent lawsuit.

Specifically, they say that Moderna patents filed between 2010 and 2016 have been infringed, and in their press release they highlight two features in particular. They point out that Pfizer took several mRNA vaccine candidates into clinical testing (including some that they say would not have infringed), but ultimately picked one “that has the exact mRNA chemical modification” as theirs. They say that they began developing this in 2010 and were the first to validate it in human trials in 2015. Without seeing the lawsuit itself (which I’m sure we’ll get a look at soon), they have to be talking about pseudouridine incorporation. I am not going to try to do a detailed evaluation of Moderna’s IP here - people get paid a lot of money to do that sort of thing, because it ain’t easy - and I am not going to pass any judgment on who has a case and who doesn’t. But this is surely not going to be as straightforward as the Moderna press release makes it sound (what patent fight ever is?) The first thing to know is that the pseudouridine idea, with its higher levels of transcription and lower immunogenicity, was discovered in 2008 by Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman and co-workers, and both Moderna and BioNTech licensed their patents. So there’s going to be a lot to work through here - not least because Moderna at first did not license this technology, claiming that it had its own modification and that BioNTech copied that. It’s a mess.

Moderna also says that “despite having many different options” that Pfizer and BioNTech “copied Moderna’s approach to encode for the full-length spike protein in a lipid nanoparticle formulation”. The company says that they developed this approach during their work on a MERS vaccine, the most recent new coronavirus outbreak in humans before COVID-19. Again, I am not going to deep-dive into this topic, but I would note that the development of cationic lipid nanoparticles for nucleic acid formulation and delivery is a story with a lot of chapters, many of which don’t necessarily have anything to do with Moderna. The press release (naturally enough) also does not mention that Moderna itself is being sued by at least two other companies who claim that their own cationic lipid IP is being infringed. BioNTech themselves were dosing mRNA in lipid nanoparticles in the clinic in 2014, and working out the differences and important details in all of these will keep the lawyers occupied for some time.

Finally, Moderna’s release specifically says that none of the patent rights that are at issue have anything to do with the IP generated during the collaboration with the NIH, stating that this “began only after the patented technologies at issue here were proven successful in clinical trials in 2015 and 2016”. Saying that is easy, but the press release does not mention that the NIH is in fact also in a dispute with Moderna, claiming that three of their scientists were left off of a Moderna patent application as inventors. Whether or not that dispute gets dragged into the Moderna-Pfizer-BioNTech lawsuit remains to be seen. (Note: an earlier version of this post read "suing Moderna" in that linked text, but they aren't quite at that stage, or not yet).

Like all of these situations, I think we can look for this one to drag on for years unless the parties can agree on some sort of settlement to make it all go away. Even if that’s how this eventually ends, it’ll be a while before everyone realizes that that’s the way to go - you generally see people giving their claims a ride in court to see how things hold up and then re-evaluating based on that legal performance. This has every sign of being long, slow, and complex, and it will keep a lot of IP attorneys occupied for years to come.

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/mrna-vaccine-patent-fight-expands

The Origins of the Pandemic - Under That Rug

 BY DEREK LOWE

It's a quiet late summer weekend - why don't we stir things up a bit, eh? I last wrote about the controversy over the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic here, after a preprint came out with a lot of hard evidence for the "Wuhan market" hypothesis (and conversely, no real evidence for the "lab leak" hypothesis). That paper was recently published here at Science as two papers, and no matter which side of that question a person takes, you'll have to deal with the data and the conclusions it reaches. My own opinion is that it makes a strong case for the market origin, and that alternative explanations are going to have to show why those lines of evidence don't say what they're appearing to say.

But it's also true that a big argument for the lab-leak hypothesis has been the behavior of the Chinese government itself. They have been obstructing investigations into that idea and vigorously contesting it in every way possible, which has naturally led to suspicion. Here's what I had to say about that back in February, specifically about the idea that the Chinese authorities had perhaps planted evidence to implicate the market rather than the labs:

The only other way that I can think of to easily explain these data would be systematic deception on the part of the Chinese authorities. That's not a paranoid statement - the Chinese government is systematically deceptive. After all, they bulldoze Uighur villages and ship the residents off to concentration camps that are visible from low Earth orbit, all the while denying that nothing is happening except perhaps some happy, smiling re-education here and there. No, the Chinese government is capable of treating its own people in the same fashion that the Wuhan merchants treat their raccoon dogs. But as the preprint notes, the authorities have attempted to be deceptive about the market hypothesis as well.

And that latter deception has only increased, as this article (again here at Science) demonstrates. There has been an increasing number of papers that appear to be trying to make it look as if the virus could not have originated in China in any form whatsoever. One adjective to describe that idea is "ridiculous", but full credit will be given for "unbelievable" and "Orwellian", too. For instance, how about the preprint describing a survey of viruses in 17,000 bats across China that found absolutely no strains related to SARS-CoV-2? Or the manuscripts that try to show how the virus could have come into China via imported frozen food? This exchange sums it up pretty well:

Science attempted to discuss these issues with George Gao, who until last month headed the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CCDC) and is a lead author on several key papers about the pandemic’s origins. “What can I say?” Gao texted back. “Best wishes.”

As the article shows, the Chinese government was originally open to the idea of a market origin, but that has tightened up greatly as 2020 went on. This party line already caused the March 2021 WHO report on the pandemic origins to say that there was no hard evidence that wild animals had been sold at the Wuhan market at all - which ironically gave the lab-leak theory more fuel. But that statement was an utter whitewash. There is plenty of photographic evidence of just that happening, as well as an entire study covering May of 2017 to November of 2019 (immediately prior to the pandemic) that was looking at tick-borne illnesses and extensively documented wild animal sales in the Wuhan markets. To claim otherwise, as the Chinese authorities do now, is idiotic.

As are the Chinese suggestions that the virus originated at a US lab in Maryland (a theory that the Foreign Ministry has aired several times). That joins the came-in-on-foreign-frozen-fish theory, the originated-in-humans-and-we-gave-it-to-the-animals theory, and the originated-in-animals-all-of-which-are-completely-outside-the-Chinese-borders theory. The only things these have in common is that they all shift the focus away from China and that contradict each other. The latest Science piece, which I very much encourage everyone to read in its entirety, finishes up this way:

There is no shame in admitting that the virus came from wild animals illegally sold at a market, (Chris Newman of Oxford) adds. “To leave it as an open question, it’s just going to breed intrigue about why the Chinese have not given us a clear explanation,” Newman says. “Why the smoke and mirrors? Whereas if they come up with something that we could all just accept, well, then it will be case closed. Can’t we persuade them that this is the right thing for everybody to do?”

I know the answer that that one. No, no one seems to be able to persuade the Chinese government of anything. The official line is that China has nothing to do with the outbreak in any way, that it's all the fault of foreigners and anti-Chinese forces, and that now the world must come together to find these culprits who are absolutely, positively, somewhere other than China. This reminds me of O. J. Simpson searching for his wife's murderer on the golf courses of Southern California. It is, to use a word that I was glad to see appear in Science in this context, bullshit.

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/origins-pandemic---under-rug

One Holdout, One Reluctant Yes as CDC Advisors Back New COVID Booster Shots

 The CDC's vaccine advisors on Thursday recommended updated COVID-19 booster shots from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna that target the latest Omicron subvariants, setting aside concerns about the lack of clinical trial data with the newly formulated vaccines.

In a pair of 13-1 votes, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended the bivalent vaccines from Pfizer (for individuals 12 and older) and Moderna (for individuals 18 and up) be administered a minimum of 2 months following a primary series or previous booster shot.

The updated mRNA shots contain components targeting Omicron's BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants, along with the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2; prior ACIP recommendations supporting the companies' monovalent mRNA vaccines as boosters have been revoked.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, officially endorsed the recommendations shortly after the ACIP meeting, saying the updated boosters are formulated to better protect against the most recently circulating variants.

"This recommendation followed a comprehensive scientific evaluation and robust scientific discussion," Walensky said in a statement. "If you are eligible, there is no bad time to get your COVID-19 booster and I strongly encourage you to receive it."

CDC said it expects updated COVID-19 boosters for pediatric groups under 12 will come under review "in the coming weeks."

This marks the first time the makeup of COVID-19 vaccines have been altered since their introduction in late 2020, and many ACIP members expressed reluctance about rubber-stamping the new rollout, with concerns ranging from the lack of human data on these particular bivalent shots to the timing of administration following prior vaccine doses.

"I really feel we need the human data," said Pablo Sanchez, MD, of Ohio State University in Columbus, who made the only vote against the new boosters. "It's a new vaccine, it's a new platform, there's a lot of vaccine hesitancy already."

But Sanchez added that he's considered high risk and will almost surely take it.

"I'm not against this, it makes sense," he said. "I think the vaccine will be similar to previous ones we've seen with mRNA."

Oliver Brooks, MD, of of Watts HealthCare Corporation in Los Angeles, qualified his vote, saying he voted yes because "it's the way seasonal influenza is done."

To keep pace with seasonal influenza variant changes, updates to influenza boosters are regularly recommended without clinical trial data.

Sarah Long, MD, of St. Christopher's Hospital for Children in Philadelphia, said she "reluctantly" voted yes, noting the potential to decrease hospitalization and death.

In a presentation earlier in the day, Sara Oliver, MD, MPH, of CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and the lead for ACIP's work group on COVID-19 vaccines, showed projections suggesting a delay in rolling out the BA.4/BA.5-targeted vaccines to November would result in 137,000 more hospitalizations and 9,700 more deaths.

Many ACIP members struggled with the recommended 2-month interval leading up to the new bivalent shot. Brooks and others said they would recommend their patients wait 6 months, unless there's a really good reason to get a booster after 2 months.

Questions about the lack of clinical trial data for both Moderna and Pfizer bivalent vaccines were woven throughout the day's discussions -- clinical data supporting the updated shots came from trials testing the companies' BA.1-targeting bivalent booster shots, which are being recommended in Europe.

Mouse models presented by representatives from Moderna and Pfizer suggested the BA.4/BA-5-directed boosters would increase neutralization for all Omicron variants.

Few ACIP members questioned the safety profile of the updated booster vaccines, which they expected would be similar to what was observed with the BA.1-targeted shots, though the committee expressed concern the new recommendations would lead to more administration errors.

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data presented by CDC's Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, detailed reports ranging from incorrect dosing and product administered to patients of an inappropriate age, as well as the use of expired products.

"We need to provide a clear planning for when changes will occur to labeling ... that's my request of both companies," ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, of Stanford Medicine in California, told the committee.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19vaccine/100513