Search This Blog

Sunday, April 16, 2023

COVID and Aspergillus Are Dangerous Bedfellows

 These days, invasive fungal pathogens are making medical news -- as well they should.

In Fall 2022, a World Health Organization (WHO) reportopens in a new tab or window named 19 key fungal threats, thus creating the agency's first-ever "fungal priority pathogens" list. WHO also called for better diagnostics and monitoring of antifungal drug resistance, as well as further research, innovation, and public health measures to control invasive fungal pathogens.

I believe the message was overdue. While some people equate "superbugs" solely with bacteria, specialists who care for immunocompromised patients have long dealt with life-threatening and drug-resistant fungi. Today, experts also worry that environmental factors, including climate change, will nurture scary new species.

For today let's consider Aspergillus -- a ubiquitous, sporulating fungus that has long inflicted myriad harms, from allergic airway disease in asthmatics to fatal, necrotizing pneumonia in people lacking white cells to tangled hyphal spheres (aka "fungus balls") in old, burnt-out pulmonary cavities.

Now we have yet another woe to add to the list: Aspergillus is invadingopens in a new tab or window lungs already damaged by SARS-CoV-2.

How Often -- and Why -- Does Aspergillosis Follow COVID?

No one has a definitive answer to the question of how often aspergillosis follows COVID-19, but consider data from a multinational studyopens in a new tab or window published in 2021 in which up to 15% of 823 intensive care unit (ICU) patients in Europe suffered coronavirus disease-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA). Not surprisingly, underlying conditions influenced individual outcomes. In this cohort, for example, the mortality of CAPA was 30% in patients with a solid organ transplant or neutropenia as opposed to 16% in patients without these additional risks.

Aspergillus is no stranger to Ashrit Multani, MD, my UCLA infectious diseases colleague who's an expert in pathogenic fungi, especially in patients with compromised immune systems. So, I recently asked whether he was surprised when he started seeing severely ill patients with COVID suffer aspergillosis.

"No, it didn't surprise me too much," Multani said. "I think it was just a matter of time before we started to see more and more cases. We've seen similar issues with viral infections...for example, there's been plenty reported in the literature about aspergillosis following flu."

Sure enough, I found a paperopens in a new tab or window that outlined significant similarities between influenza and SARS-CoV-2. In particular, both viruses produce lymphopenia and lytic infections that, in turn, up the risk that Aspergillus sitting in the trachea of an already-sick person will later invade their lungs.

How exactly does this happen? Some patients experience severe COVID as a result of the life-threatening inflammation it can cause in the lungs of high-risk individuals. While clinicians have tried using different medications to tamp down this inflammation, they can often be a double edged-sword. For example, dexamethasone (a corticosteroid) and tocilizumab (Actemra; a monoclonal antibody that inhibits a pro-inflammatory receptor) have both been shown to save lives but carry significant risks for further infectious complications, including aspergillosis. For Multani, he sometimes uses a different, often life-saving agent called baricitinib (Olumiant) -- an immune modulator first developed for rheumatoid arthritis -- that is less likely to incite Aspergillus.

An Illustrative Case

When speaking with Multani, I asked for a sketch of a typical COVID-Aspergillus case. Here's what he shared:

During the Delta wave of 2021, a fully-vaccinated, immunosuppressed patient contracted COVID 6 years following a kidney transplant for diabetic nephropathy. She entered the ICU with an oxygen saturation of 78% but never needed intubation. Her treatment included 5 days of remdesivir (Veklury), 10 days of dexamethasone, and a single dose of tocilizumab. A few days after receiving the monoclonal antibody she was well enough to go home.

One week later, however, she returned to the emergency department. She was now saturating at 70% on 2 liters of oxygen. Her sputum grew Aspergillus fumigatus. After starting on isavuconazole (Cresemba) for the fungus, she slowly improved but still needed supplemental oxygen when discharged.

Then, except for an intercurrent illness due to human metapneumovirus, the patient steadily improved, both clinically and radiologically, while completing a 3-month course of antifungal therapy.

"So, this was a happy story, right?" I said to Multani.

"Absolutely. Today, she's doing fine," he replied, adding how grateful he was for newer, oral antifungals like the one that saved his patient.

That said, there are many others with the same double whammy of COVID plus Aspergillusopens in a new tab or window who have not fared so well.

Take Note and Prepare

Fungi are all around us, and most of us never know. But for certain patients, the natural environment holds a genuine threat. And, quite possibly, so do more than a few healthcare settings.

"Aspergillus is a saprophytic, conidial mold isolated abundantly from soil, construction dust, and hospitals," reads the opening sentence of an excellent reviewopens in a new tab or window published in August 2018, less than 2 years before the current pandemic began.

In light of this, I asked my colleague, how do we know that certain COVID patients aren't acquiring their Aspergillus infections in the ICU, either from equipment used in respiratory care, or even ventilators?

"Well, that's a very good question," Multani replied. "We have looked into this when we've seen similar bugs popping up in the hospital, like a cryptic species called Aspergillus lentulus [recently cultured] from a couple of non-COVID ICU patients. In that case, we asked the lab to check and learned they were not genomically related."

In short, that meant the two Aspergillus isolates did not originate from the same source.

For Multani and me, we're lucky to be able to obtain genomic profiles at our medical center, and to access certain types of antifungal drug susceptibility testing.

But, looking down the road -- with or without another pandemic -- this is exactly what every modern hospital may need in order to care for growing ranks of immunosuppressed patients in whom fungal infections and antifungal resistance will only rise over the next few years.

My final take-home? It's time for medical personnel to ramp up their knowledge of fungi. The WHO delivered an important wake-up call to clinicians and scientists alike. Now we must all take note and prepare for the coming storm.

Claire Panosian Dunavan, MD, is a professor of medicine and infectious diseases at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and a past-president of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. You can read more of her writing in the "Of Parasites and Plaguesopens in a new tab or window" column.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/parasites-and-plagues/104025

AACR: AstraZeneca 1st look at Imfinzi's resectable lung cancer showing, fuels debate

 AstraZeneca has offered the first look at the benefit of a PD-1/L1 inhibitor when used both before and after surgery in resectable non-small cell lung cancer. But the data raise more questions than answers.

PD-1/L1 inhibitors are already approved for use either before or after surgery in early-stage NSCLC. Industry watchers were looking to AstraZeneca’s phase 3 AEGEAN trial for early clues about whether both treatment settings are necessary to achieve optimal outcomes.

But those who were hoping for a big treatment effect and a conclusive answer may be disappointed.

Using Imfinzi before and after surgery pared down the risk of disease recurrence, progression or death by 32% in patients with resectable stage 2 to 3b NSCLC, according to the AEGEAN data presented at the AACR annual meeting 2023. Imfinzi conferred that event-free survival (EFS) benefit as a pre-surgical addition to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by Imfinzi alone post-surgery in the adjuvant setting. The regimen’s comparator was neoadjuvant chemo alone.

The 32% figure, however, is lower than the 37% EFS risk reduction Bristol Myers Squibb’s Opdivo initially posted in the CheckMate-816 trial. In that study, the PD-1 inhibitor was only used in the neoadjuvant setting alongside chemotherapy for early-stage NSCLC.

In a longer-term follow-up, Opdivo’s magnitude of benefit fell slightly but still came in at 32%.

In CheckMate-816, neoadjuvant Opdivo was given for three cycles. In AEGEAN, Imfinzi was given for four cycles before surgery and then up to 12 cycles after surgery.

Taken at face value, the results from the two trials suggest that Imfinzi’s efficacy in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings compares with Opdivo's in neoadjuvant alone. If this reading proves true, sales prospects for the anti-PD-1/L1 class could take a hit because it would mean patients need shorter treatment periods for positive outcomes.

But in an interview with Fierce Pharma, John Heymach, M.D., Ph.D., chair of MD Anderson Cancer Center’s thoracic/head and neck cancer practice, and lead investigator of the AEGEAN study, cautioned against comparing the two trials directly because of several differences.

For one, AEGEAN enrolled patients with stage 2 to 3b cancer while the Opdivo trial included stage 1b to 3a. And to further complicate the comparison, the staging standards between the two studies were also different, Heymach noted.

Although Imfinzi’s EFS win spanned different subgroups, the size of the benefit was smaller in stage 3b patients, reaching a 17% risk reduction, Heymach noted.

Including different cancer stages in a trial is a double-edged sword, Heymach explained. On one hand, the likelihood of recurrence goes up in later-stage tumors, potentially giving post-surgery adjuvant therapy more room to show a risk reduction. But on the other hand, the chance for a complete tumor resection during surgery is lower for more advanced tumors, hurting prospects for preventing recurrence.

In Imfinzi’s case, the lower complete resection rate appeared to have played a bigger role in the trade-off.  

On the other primary endpoint of AEGEAN, Imfinzi did perform better at clearing signs of cancer in resected tissues. Altogether 17.2% of patients achieved the so-called pathological complete response (pCR) after receiving neoadjuvant Imfinzi and chemo, versus 4.3% for chemo alone.

Investigators recorded a pCR improvement for stage 3b patients as well, but the magnitude was smaller at 10.2% for the Imfinzi arm versus 3.1% for control, Heymach noted.

By comparison, in CheckMate-816, Opdivo’s chemo combo delivered a larger pCR rate of 24%, versus 2.2% for neoadjuvant chemo alone.

 pCRMedian EFS

 

PD-(L)1ControlDeltaPD-(L)1ControlRisk reduction
AstraZeneca
AGEAN
17.2%4.3%12.9%Not Reached25.9 mo32%

Bristol Myers
CheckMate-816

24%2.2%21.8%31.6 mo21.8 mo37%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Besides the patient population difference, Heymach suggested that Imfinzi’s EFS benefit might expand over time because of the neoadjuvant-plus-adjuvant design. The AEGEAN trial hit its goal at an interim analysis after a median follow up of 11.7 months. At that time, only about 65% of patients had acutally started their adjuvant treatment.

“We still haven’t seen the benefits of the full adjuvant period because of how quickly the study was read out as positive at the first analysis,” Heymach said.

Susan Galbraith, Ph.D., AstraZeneca’s oncology R&D chief, also suggested that much of the Imfinzi regimen’s benefit is going to be seen with longer-term follow-up. For now, investigators have only recorded 32% of what’s needed for a final EFS analysis, she noted.

On the flip side, that short follow-up time could raise some doubts about weather neoadjuvant Imfinzi is driving the EFS benefit so far, given that adjuvant Imfinzi has yet to fully kick in. But one could also argue that adjuvant Imfinzi did pull its weight because neoadjuvant Imfinzi’s pCR advantage appeared smaller than Opdivo’s, yet the two regimens eventually achieved similar EFS improvements. But its exact contribution is almost impossible to tease out.

“I do think that further maturity of this data will be important,” Galbraith said. The question is: Will the FDA think so, too?

AZ has shared the AEGEAN data with the FDA and continues to talk to the agency, Galbraith said. She declined to offer any details on progress until the FDA accepts a potential filing. Data on patients’ overall survival remain immature, and Galbraith wouldn’t share which direction the survival trend is heading. But she did note that in CheckMate-816, neoadjuvant Opdivo only start to separate from control on overall survival at about 15 months of follow-up.

Still, all those explanations might simply not matter because not many doctors will dig into those trial nuances. It’s also tough to know whether Imfinzi would be much better than Opdivo even after adjusting for trial differences.

The question then is: Is it because Imfinzi is simply a weaker checkpoint inhibitor in resectable NSCLC that it needed longer, perioperative treatment to reach the same effect? In other words, can the AEGEAN trial results be extrapolated to the entire PD-1/L1 class?

Industry watchers may get more clarity on that question soon from another trial.

Days before AZ announced the AEGEAN trial success in March, Merck said the phase 3 Keynote-671 trial had hit the EFS endpoint for Keytruda in a similar neoadjuvant-plus-adjuvant regimen. Keytruda has had the most success in NSCLC, including a recent broad FDA approval as a postsurgery adjuvant treatment.

Merck has yet to share detailed results from Keynote-671. It’d be a big win for Merck if Keytruda showed an EFS improvement that’s meaningfully higher than neoadjuvant Opdivo’s 37%, which SVB Securities analyst Daina Graybosch, Ph.D., previously labeled “impressive.”

As Graybosch projected in a note a year ago, early-stage cancer treatment will become a major growth point for Keytruda, representing about a third of the drug’s total sales in 2025. Long durations of treatment in the adjuvant setting are a key driver of revenues, she said.

Despite Imfinzi’s and Keytruda’s trial wins, there’s still a need to understand which patients may be able to avoid further adjuvant treatment and those who might require even more intensive adjuvant regimens, Heymach said.

Besides the broader question about the overall necessity of adjuvant treatment, it’s not clear whether patients who’ve achieved a pCR after neoadjuvant immunotherapy still need to continue treatment. But neither AEGEAN nor Keynote-671 could answer that question.

For now, Heymach said that given AEGEAN’s largely consistent signal in various patient subgroups, including in PD-L1-negative patients, he would consider the Imfinzi regimen for any eligible patients under the drug’s label, and especially for patients with low PD-L1 expression who have a substantial risk of relapse.

As expected, Imfinzi’s EFS benefit was most pronounced in patients with high levels of PD-L1 expression. But the drug also chalked up a 24% risk reduction among PD-L1-negative patients.

Imfinzi showed “good activity across the levels of PD-L1 expression,” Galbraith said, “in both squamous and non-squamous patient populations, and in both combination with carboplatin and cisplatin. So all of that is important for the applicability of the treatment across the patient populations.”

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/astrazeneca-first-look-imfinzi-resectable-lung-cancer-data-fueling-treatment-debate

AACR 2023 – not so fast for Keytruda in biliary tract cancer

 Merck & Co looked like it might match Astrazeneca with a first-line biliary track cancer approval, but full results from the Keynote-966 study have added uncertainty. Keynote-966, testing Keytruda plus chemo, was toplined positive for overall survival versus chemo in January, but data just presented at AACR raise fresh questions. Though on a cross-trial basis the all-important OS result looks similar to that seen in Astra’s registrational Topaz-1 study of Imfinzi plus chemo, the numerical PFS benefit in Keynote-966 is not statistically significant. More puzzlingly, there is no remission rate benefit at all in the Merck trial, which also saw a greater rate of severe adverse events overall and a numerically higher rate of treatment-related deaths than Topaz-1. It was already clear that Imfinzi’s win in Topaz-1 was borderline, but with no immunotherapies approved first line the FDA gave the Astra drug a swift green light last September. Whether the agency will be similarly generous to Keytruda is now the question.

The battle in 1st-line bile duct cancer
 
 
Topaz-1Keynote-966
Imfinzi + chemo, vs chemoKeytruda + chemo, vs chemo
mOS12.8mth vs 11.5mth12.7mth vs 10.9mth
HR=0.80 (p=0.021)HR=0.83 (p=0.003)
mPFS7.2mth vs 5.7mth6.5mth vs 5.6mth
HR=0.75 (p=0.001)HR=0.86 (p=0.23)*
ORR26.6% vs 18.7%28.7% vs 28.5%*
Grade 3/4 AEs75.7% vs 77.8%85.3% vs 84.1%
Treatment-related deaths2/341 vs 1/3448/533 vs 3/536
Note: *not statistically significant. Source: Asco-GI 2022 & AACR 2023.

https://www.evaluate.com/vantage/articles/events/conferences-snippets/aacr-2023-not-so-fast-keytruda-biliary-tract-cancer

Roche Tecentriq plus Avastin cuts return of adjuvant liver cancer in Phase 3

 

  • In the first-ever positive Phase III trial in the adjuvant hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) setting, Tecentriq plus Avastin reduced the risk of disease recurrence by 28%1
  • Up to 80% of people with this type of HCC experience disease recurrence, at which point they are faced with poorer prognosis and shorter survival2
  • These data will be presented at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2023 and included in the official press programme

Moderna cancer vaccine with Merck's Keytruda delays return of deadly skin cancer

 

An experimental mRNA vaccine developed by Moderna Inc combined with Merck & Co's blockbuster immunotherapy Keytruda cut the risk of death or recurrence of the most deadly skin cancer by 44% compared Keytruda alone, U.S. researchers reported at a medical meeting on Sunday.

The findings suggest that adding a personalized cancer vaccine based on mRNA technology to Keytruda, which revs up the immune response, could prolong the time patients have without recurrence or death, said Dr. Jeffrey Weber of the NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, who presented the findings.

"From a general cancer therapeutic standpoint, this is a potential major breakthrough," Dr. Ryan Sullivan, a melanoma expert at Mass General Cancer who worked on the study, said in a statement.

The results, presented at American Association for Cancer Research meeting in Orlando, Florida, add data details to partial findings released by the companies in December.

The Merck/Moderna collaboration is one of several combiningpowerful drugs that unleash the immune system to target cancerswith mRNA vaccine technology. BioNTech SE and Gritstone Bio Inc are working on competing cancer vaccines based on mRNA technology.

Moderna's vaccine is custom-built based on an analysis of a patient's tumors after surgical removal. The vaccines are designed to train the immune system to recognize and attack specific mutations in cancer cells.

Merck's Keytruda, which is approved to treat melanoma and many other cancers, belongs to a class of widely used immunotherapies known as checkpoint inhibitors designed to disable the PD-1, or programmed death 1, protein that helps cancer evade the immune system.

The midstage trial enrolled men and women at high risk of their melanoma returning.

Among 107 study subjects who received both the experimental vaccine, mRNA-4157/V940, and Keytruda, the cancer returned in 24 subjects (22.4%) within two years of follow-up, compared with 20 out of 50 (40%) who received Keytruda alone.

There was little difference in response rates among people whose tumors had a lot of mutations - a typical predictor of immunotherapy response - and those whose tumors did not.

Severe side effects were similar between the two arms of the study, the scientists reported. Fatigue was the most common side effect reported by patients specifically associated with the vaccine.

Merck said the companies are in talks with U.S. regulators about design of a late-stage trial, which is likely needed for approval of the combination regimen.

It could take three or four years before the results of the larger trials are known, Eliav Barr, Merck's head of global clinical development and chief medical officer, said in an interview.

Barr said it took Moderna about eight weeks to design a personalized mRNA vaccine for each patient.

In the past, similar experimental cancer vaccines were developed targeting a single tumor mutation, or neoantigen.

Moderna's mRNA technology allowed for the inclusion of as many as 34 neoantigens, which Barr called "astonishing."

Currently, scientists cannot predict which single mutation is important in generating an anti-tumor response. With mRNA technology in combination with Keytruda, "we can create this shotgun approach ... that can create a more potent immune response," Barr said.

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/MODERNA-INC-47437573/news/Moderna-cancer-vaccine-with-Merck-s-Keytruda-delays-return-of-deadly-skin-cancer-43510052/

Former CIA Officer: Controlled Leak To Prepare Public For "Crash Landing" Of U.S. Foreign Policy

 


Former CIA officer Larry Johnson, who did presidential daily briefings during the George H.W. Bush administration, told "Judging Freedom" host Andrew Napolitano that he thinks the latest leak of Ukraine War documents is an inside job.

About the source, he said: "I'd put it above the CIA. This is elements connected to the Director of National Intelligence... There's no way that some National Guardsman doing [temporary duty] at Fort Bragg would have access to that."

"The information was leaked for [a purpose], to prepare the U.S. public for the crash landing that's going to take place with respect to U.S. foreign policy," he said.


"The documents are real. I’m not saying the documents are fabrications, they are not. But this cover story that's been manufactured to explain how these documents came to be produced, it just falls apart... This thing is too tidy a package, this has been wrapped up nice and neatly, this is like an episode of 'Law And Order.'"

LARRY JOHNSON: This is a coordinated media strategy, this is a disinformation campaign. The documents are real. I’m not saying the documents are fabrications, they are not. But this cover story that's been manufactured to explain how these documents came to be produced, it just falls apart. It simply falls apart based on one document, which is listed as "CIA Operations Center Report: Top Secret." I worked in the CIA operations center, and I helped prepare those reports, that's an internal CIA document. No one on a U.S. military base anywhere in the world will have access to that kind of document.

ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Who or what is spreading the misinformation? Is this CIA feeding garbage to their friends in the American and British media?

LARRY JOHNSON: I'd put it above the CIA. This is elements connected to the Director of National Intelligence. That's the one place you can bring together CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, all the key elements. They are the one place in the U.S. government where you can assemble all this material. And the way this was so neatly packaged up -- until I saw that CIA document, I was inclined to believe that this was the work of a whistleblower wanting to flag the problems about the public discrepancy about what Lloyd Austin, the Secretary of Defense, and Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the lies they were telling in public, as opposed to the actual reality of what they were being briefed on, in top secret briefings.

ANDREW NAPOLITANO: How embarrassed is the Biden White House, the Pentagon, and Langley (CIA), over these leaks?

LARRY JOHNSON: Some are embarrassed and horrified by it, but the strategy that is underway is the information was leaked for [a purpose], to prepare the U.S. public for the crash landing that's going to take place with respect to U.S. foreign policy. The crash landing in Ukraine, in China, the fact we're already seeing elements--

ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Are you saying this was a controlled leak?

LARRY JOHNSON: Yes.

ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Done by management, not done by some Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning-type?

LARRY JOHNSON: There are some elements within management that thought this was a good idea. This shows how unprofessional and ridiculous it is, and dangerous. This information was leaked about Israel. Part of that comes from a FISA, it's got a FISA classification on it, which does necessarily mean this is Department of Justice/FBI territory. So again, there's no way that some National Guardsman doing [temporary duty] at Fort Bragg would have access to that.

And I'm not basing that on what happened to me 40 years ago... I worked in SCIFs and I still have friends who do... None of them have seen anything like this, particularly that CIA Operations Center document, or the FISA document... This thing is too tidy a package, this has been wrapped up nice and neatly, this is like an episode of "Law And Order."


Watch the full segment below:

Greenwald: Corporate Journalists Report Classified Info All The Time: "Authorized Leaks," Anonymous Sources

 Glenn Greenwald said the Massachusetts Air National Guardsman that allegedly published top-secret Pentagon documents is receiving the wrath of the media because he dared to deliver an "unauthorized leak." Greenwald on Friday told FOX News host Jesse Watters that the people who are speaking the loudest against the leaker are those who call themselves journalists that receive "authorized leaks" from the U.S. intelligence apparatus.


Greenwald said we should want to know about the contents of the leak but it gives the national security state a reason to clamp down harder and take away rights.

"Anybody whoever has picked up the 'New York Times,' 'The Washington Post' or has the misfortune of hearing MSNBC or CNN knows that corporate journalists, every single day, report classified information that has been leaked. They go on TV all the time and they say anonymous sources told us X, Y, and Z," Greenwald said.


"Yet, none of this kind of uproar ever happens because those are authorized leaks," Greenwald continued. "These are things the CIA or the FBI or the Pentagon want the American people to hear. It's a form of propaganda. What's different here is that this was an unauthorized leak. It reveals that the Biden administration has been lying about the extent of their role in Ukraine and a whole variety of other things about this extremely important war."

"Whatever your views on what war are we should want to know about this, but they don't want us to know about it," he said. "So now it's suddenly we have to clamp down harder. We have to keep things more secret. We have to spy on you and take away your rights. And the amazing thing is as you just showed the people demanding this most loudly are people who call themselves journalists. They're the ones down at the Pentagon saying do more to keep everything secret except for the things you tell us to tell the American people."

"You showed Edward Snowden in the package you put together and that was the reporting we did now 10 years ago or so. And what that showed was under Obama in the name of the war on terror, all this immense, mass indiscriminate spying aimed at the American people is being conducted. Courts ultimately ruled it was unconstitutional in the legal. But it never really went anywhere, Jesse. They still have this gigantic spying system in place. Not on Al-Qaeda or China or ISIS, but at the American people. That is the framework of the U.S. security state. They regard American citizens as enemies and they are using this incident now as an excuse to justify even more domestic spying," Greenwald said.