Federal Practitioner

An investigational chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T-cell) construct targeting two antigens on multiple myeloma cells showed promise in a first-in-humans trial, investigators said.

Among 16 patients with relapsed/refractory, heavily pretreated multiple myeloma who received the dual-targeting construct GC012F, the overall response rate was 93.8%, and all of six patients who received the cells at the highest of three dose levels had stringent complete responses (sCR) and were negative for minimal residual disease (MRD) at 6 months follow-up, reported Weijun Fu, MD, PhD, from Shanghai (China) Changzheng Hospital in an oral abstract presented during the virtual American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

GC012F is a novel CAR-T cell platform targeting both the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is universally expressed on malignant plasma cells, and CD19, which is expressed on both multiple myeloma cells and progenitors, Dr. Fu said.

“Targeting CD19 can trigger elimination of malignant cells by CAR T. Our preclinical work demonstrated more effective elimination of multiple myeloma clone-forming cells by BCMA and CD19 dual CAR T, so targeting both BCMA and CD19 antigens could improve efficacy and reduce relapse,” he said.

The construct is created using the FasTCAR platform that, according to manufacturer Gracell Biotechnologies (Shanghai), allows for cell culturing and expansion within 24-36 hours, rather than 2-3 weeks required for other CAR T-cell products.
 

Investigator-initiated trial

In a phase 1 investigator-initiated trial, 16 patients with a median age of 56 (range 27-71) years were enrolled. The patients all had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma according to 2016 International Myeloma Working Group criteria, with a life expectancy of at least 3 months and adequate organ function.

The median time since diagnosis was 3 years (range 1-10). All but one of the 16 patients had high-risk disease, 3 had double-hit disease (the presence of two deletions, gain of function, or p53 mutation), and 5 patients had one or more extramedullary plasmacytomas. Four of the patients had received therapy with an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

Following lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, the patients received the CAR T cells in a single infusion at dose levels of either 1, 2, or 3 times 10⁵ cells/kg.

As of the cutoff date in July 2020, 15 of the 16 patients had a clinical response, including 9 with a CR or sCR, and 6 with a very good partial response (VGPR). As noted before, all of the six patients treated at the highest dose level had a sCR. At the median follow-up of 7.3 months, the median duration of response had not been reached.

Among all patients evaluable for response at month 1 (14 patients), 11 were MRD negative by flow cytometry. At month 3 all 11 evaluable patients were MRD negative, and all of 10 patients evaluable at 6 months were also MRD negative.

As with other CAR T-cell constructs, all patients developed the cytokine-release syndrome (CRS), with grade 1 or 2 severity in 14 patients, and grade 3 in 2 patients. The median time to onset of CRS was 6 days (range 2-10), and the median duration was 4 days (range 1-8 days).

No cases of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) were observed.

One patient treated at the middle dose level presented with fever and died shortly after day 78 of an unknown cause during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two patients died of extramedullary disease; each had achieved MRD negativity.

Investigators continue to follow the patients and are enrolling new patients in the ongoing study.
 

‘Interesting approach’

Sandy W. Wong, MD, from the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California San Francisco, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the dual-targeted approach is interesting, in light of a case report presented at ASH 2020 of a patient with multiple myeloma who had a partial response to CAR T-cell therapy with a different construct and who developed a subsequent biallelic loss of BCMA that resulted in resistance to CAR T-cell therapy.

“This raises the idea that, if we perhaps had a dual-targeted CAR T, perhaps we will prolong progression-free survival, in order to avoid antigen escape. So I do think the concept is very interesting and does deserve further study,” she said.

CD19 is thought to be expressed on myeloma stem cells, “so the question is: Are patients not being cured because there is a reservoir of myeloma cells, and targeting CD19 is thought to get at this putative myeloma stem cell? but that remains to be seen,” she added.

Dr. Wong comoderated the session where Dr. Fu presented the data.

The study was supported by participating medical centers and Gracell Biotechnologies. Dr. Fu and Dr. Wong reported no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Jiang H et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 178.

An investigational chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T-cell) construct targeting two antigens on multiple myeloma cells showed promise in a first-in-humans trial, investigators said.

Among 16 patients with relapsed/refractory, heavily pretreated multiple myeloma who received the dual-targeting construct GC012F, the overall response rate was 93.8%, and all of six patients who received the cells at the highest of three dose levels had stringent complete responses (sCR) and were negative for minimal residual disease (MRD) at 6 months follow-up, reported Weijun Fu, MD, PhD, from Shanghai (China) Changzheng Hospital in an oral abstract presented during the virtual American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

GC012F is a novel CAR-T cell platform targeting both the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is universally expressed on malignant plasma cells, and CD19, which is expressed on both multiple myeloma cells and progenitors, Dr. Fu said.

“Targeting CD19 can trigger elimination of malignant cells by CAR T. Our preclinical work demonstrated more effective elimination of multiple myeloma clone-forming cells by BCMA and CD19 dual CAR T, so targeting both BCMA and CD19 antigens could improve efficacy and reduce relapse,” he said.

The construct is created using the FasTCAR platform that, according to manufacturer Gracell Biotechnologies (Shanghai), allows for cell culturing and expansion within 24-36 hours, rather than 2-3 weeks required for other CAR T-cell products.
 

Investigator-initiated trial

In a phase 1 investigator-initiated trial, 16 patients with a median age of 56 (range 27-71) years were enrolled. The patients all had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma according to 2016 International Myeloma Working Group criteria, with a life expectancy of at least 3 months and adequate organ function.

The median time since diagnosis was 3 years (range 1-10). All but one of the 16 patients had high-risk disease, 3 had double-hit disease (the presence of two deletions, gain of function, or p53 mutation), and 5 patients had one or more extramedullary plasmacytomas. Four of the patients had received therapy with an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

Following lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, the patients received the CAR T cells in a single infusion at dose levels of either 1, 2, or 3 times 10⁵ cells/kg.

As of the cutoff date in July 2020, 15 of the 16 patients had a clinical response, including 9 with a CR or sCR, and 6 with a very good partial response (VGPR). As noted before, all of the six patients treated at the highest dose level had a sCR. At the median follow-up of 7.3 months, the median duration of response had not been reached.

Among all patients evaluable for response at month 1 (14 patients), 11 were MRD negative by flow cytometry. At month 3 all 11 evaluable patients were MRD negative, and all of 10 patients evaluable at 6 months were also MRD negative.

As with other CAR T-cell constructs, all patients developed the cytokine-release syndrome (CRS), with grade 1 or 2 severity in 14 patients, and grade 3 in 2 patients. The median time to onset of CRS was 6 days (range 2-10), and the median duration was 4 days (range 1-8 days).

No cases of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) were observed.

One patient treated at the middle dose level presented with fever and died shortly after day 78 of an unknown cause during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two patients died of extramedullary disease; each had achieved MRD negativity.

Investigators continue to follow the patients and are enrolling new patients in the ongoing study.
 

‘Interesting approach’

Sandy W. Wong, MD, from the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California San Francisco, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the dual-targeted approach is interesting, in light of a case report presented at ASH 2020 of a patient with multiple myeloma who had a partial response to CAR T-cell therapy with a different construct and who developed a subsequent biallelic loss of BCMA that resulted in resistance to CAR T-cell therapy.

“This raises the idea that, if we perhaps had a dual-targeted CAR T, perhaps we will prolong progression-free survival, in order to avoid antigen escape. So I do think the concept is very interesting and does deserve further study,” she said.

CD19 is thought to be expressed on myeloma stem cells, “so the question is: Are patients not being cured because there is a reservoir of myeloma cells, and targeting CD19 is thought to get at this putative myeloma stem cell? but that remains to be seen,” she added.

Dr. Wong comoderated the session where Dr. Fu presented the data.

The study was supported by participating medical centers and Gracell Biotechnologies. Dr. Fu and Dr. Wong reported no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Jiang H et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 178.

An investigational chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T-cell) construct targeting two antigens on multiple myeloma cells showed promise in a first-in-humans trial, investigators said.

Among 16 patients with relapsed/refractory, heavily pretreated multiple myeloma who received the dual-targeting construct GC012F, the overall response rate was 93.8%, and all of six patients who received the cells at the highest of three dose levels had stringent complete responses (sCR) and were negative for minimal residual disease (MRD) at 6 months follow-up, reported Weijun Fu, MD, PhD, from Shanghai (China) Changzheng Hospital in an oral abstract presented during the virtual American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

GC012F is a novel CAR-T cell platform targeting both the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is universally expressed on malignant plasma cells, and CD19, which is expressed on both multiple myeloma cells and progenitors, Dr. Fu said.

“Targeting CD19 can trigger elimination of malignant cells by CAR T. Our preclinical work demonstrated more effective elimination of multiple myeloma clone-forming cells by BCMA and CD19 dual CAR T, so targeting both BCMA and CD19 antigens could improve efficacy and reduce relapse,” he said.

The construct is created using the FasTCAR platform that, according to manufacturer Gracell Biotechnologies (Shanghai), allows for cell culturing and expansion within 24-36 hours, rather than 2-3 weeks required for other CAR T-cell products.
 

Investigator-initiated trial

In a phase 1 investigator-initiated trial, 16 patients with a median age of 56 (range 27-71) years were enrolled. The patients all had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma according to 2016 International Myeloma Working Group criteria, with a life expectancy of at least 3 months and adequate organ function.

The median time since diagnosis was 3 years (range 1-10). All but one of the 16 patients had high-risk disease, 3 had double-hit disease (the presence of two deletions, gain of function, or p53 mutation), and 5 patients had one or more extramedullary plasmacytomas. Four of the patients had received therapy with an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

Following lymphodepletion with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, the patients received the CAR T cells in a single infusion at dose levels of either 1, 2, or 3 times 10⁵ cells/kg.

As of the cutoff date in July 2020, 15 of the 16 patients had a clinical response, including 9 with a CR or sCR, and 6 with a very good partial response (VGPR). As noted before, all of the six patients treated at the highest dose level had a sCR. At the median follow-up of 7.3 months, the median duration of response had not been reached.

Among all patients evaluable for response at month 1 (14 patients), 11 were MRD negative by flow cytometry. At month 3 all 11 evaluable patients were MRD negative, and all of 10 patients evaluable at 6 months were also MRD negative.

As with other CAR T-cell constructs, all patients developed the cytokine-release syndrome (CRS), with grade 1 or 2 severity in 14 patients, and grade 3 in 2 patients. The median time to onset of CRS was 6 days (range 2-10), and the median duration was 4 days (range 1-8 days).

No cases of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) were observed.

One patient treated at the middle dose level presented with fever and died shortly after day 78 of an unknown cause during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two patients died of extramedullary disease; each had achieved MRD negativity.

Investigators continue to follow the patients and are enrolling new patients in the ongoing study.
 

‘Interesting approach’

Sandy W. Wong, MD, from the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California San Francisco, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the dual-targeted approach is interesting, in light of a case report presented at ASH 2020 of a patient with multiple myeloma who had a partial response to CAR T-cell therapy with a different construct and who developed a subsequent biallelic loss of BCMA that resulted in resistance to CAR T-cell therapy.

“This raises the idea that, if we perhaps had a dual-targeted CAR T, perhaps we will prolong progression-free survival, in order to avoid antigen escape. So I do think the concept is very interesting and does deserve further study,” she said.

CD19 is thought to be expressed on myeloma stem cells, “so the question is: Are patients not being cured because there is a reservoir of myeloma cells, and targeting CD19 is thought to get at this putative myeloma stem cell? but that remains to be seen,” she added.

Dr. Wong comoderated the session where Dr. Fu presented the data.

The study was supported by participating medical centers and Gracell Biotechnologies. Dr. Fu and Dr. Wong reported no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Jiang H et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 178.

For 2021, the American Diabetes Association offers new guidance on assessing patients’ financial and social barriers to care, especially given the COVID-19 pandemic, individualizing treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes, and use of diabetes technology.

As it does every year, the annual update incorporates new clinical information that has become available since the last guideline, with occasional revisions during the year as needed. “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2021,” was published online as a supplement to Diabetes Care.

The new standards advise that patients be assessed for food and housing insecurity, social support, and “cost-related medication nonadherence,” and those found to have difficulty referred to appropriate community resources.

“Clinicians need to be sensitive to the fact that patients may have very good reasons for not taking their medication, [as in] if they can’t afford it,” ADA chief science & medical officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Dr. Gabbay noted that “a heightened awareness” of social determinants of health is weaved throughout the 2021 standards because of the pandemic, with information on the topic derived from a July 2020 joint consensus statement in Diabetes Care, endorsed by a number of other societies, as well as a November publication also in Diabetes Care.

“We made several recommendations that speak to social determinants of health, placing an emphasis on engaging in conversations around this subject and screening for related issues such as food insecurity that weren’t there previously,” he said.

“Screening tools are suggested. It helped us to have an in-depth scientific review of the literature to know the prevalence of this in people with diabetes. ... Having the science to put it in was a key step,” Dr. Gabbay noted.
 

Consider kidney, heart disease in type 2 treatment individualization

Recent data from trials such as CREDENCE and DAPA-HF, among others, have been added to inform the choice of pharmacologic treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes with comorbid diabetic kidney disease and chronic heart failure.

“ADA has been advocating individualization of treatment based on comorbidities for a while, but we’ve taken more steps in that direction. Beyond lifestyle for all individuals with type 2 diabetes, clinicians want to think early on about which comorbidities patients have and then think about the appropriate treatment based on that,” Dr. Gabbay said.

And for the third year in a row, the section on cardiovascular disease and risk management has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology.

“All the things in that section are very much aligned with ACC and that’s been a great partnership,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Now, ADA is in discussions with other professional societies representing relevant specialties to create further such unified messages.

“What we all want to avoid is having multiple different guidelines. We want to speak with one voice and find common ground as much as possible. … It makes it much easier for clinicians to know what to do. That’s the goal of all this,” he noted.
 

Diabetes technology: The rise of CGM during pandemic and beyond

New information about continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been added to the diabetes technology section. Use of CGM is now recommended for anyone with diabetes who takes multiple daily injections or uses an insulin pump, regardless of age or diabetes type. The document provides expanded advice on use of time in range data for glycemic monitoring, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic when remote monitoring is preferable.

Insurers are increasingly covering CGM for patients on insulin, but it’s far from universal. While the ultimate goal is to ensure access to CGM for everyone with diabetes, those treated with multiple daily insulin doses are the priority for now.

“Our hope is that as there’s greater evidence there will be more movement towards coverage. There are still so many people for whom it’s quite clear they would benefit because they’re on insulin but don’t have access to it. That’s an important area that ADA is advocating for, and it’s reflected in the standards of care,” Dr. Gabbay said.

In another technology-related revision, the term “blinded” CGM has been replaced with “professional CGM,” because clinic-based use of the devices can be “blinded” to the patient or monitored in real-time by both the patient and clinician. Also, a new recommendation has been added to address skin reactions associated with diabetes technology use.

Information about use of CGM in hospital settings during the COVID-19 pandemic has also been added in the technology section.

The COVID-19 pandemic comes up again in the section on vaccines.

“We mention that people with diabetes should be considered high priority [for COVID-19 vaccines], and that’s something that ADA is strongly advocating for because 40% of COVID-19 deaths have been in people with diabetes,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Dr. Gabbay reported being on the advisory boards of Onduo, Health Reveal, Vida Health, Lark, and Form Health.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

For 2021, the American Diabetes Association offers new guidance on assessing patients’ financial and social barriers to care, especially given the COVID-19 pandemic, individualizing treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes, and use of diabetes technology.

As it does every year, the annual update incorporates new clinical information that has become available since the last guideline, with occasional revisions during the year as needed. “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2021,” was published online as a supplement to Diabetes Care.

The new standards advise that patients be assessed for food and housing insecurity, social support, and “cost-related medication nonadherence,” and those found to have difficulty referred to appropriate community resources.

“Clinicians need to be sensitive to the fact that patients may have very good reasons for not taking their medication, [as in] if they can’t afford it,” ADA chief science & medical officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Dr. Gabbay noted that “a heightened awareness” of social determinants of health is weaved throughout the 2021 standards because of the pandemic, with information on the topic derived from a July 2020 joint consensus statement in Diabetes Care, endorsed by a number of other societies, as well as a November publication also in Diabetes Care.

“We made several recommendations that speak to social determinants of health, placing an emphasis on engaging in conversations around this subject and screening for related issues such as food insecurity that weren’t there previously,” he said.

“Screening tools are suggested. It helped us to have an in-depth scientific review of the literature to know the prevalence of this in people with diabetes. ... Having the science to put it in was a key step,” Dr. Gabbay noted.
 

Consider kidney, heart disease in type 2 treatment individualization

Recent data from trials such as CREDENCE and DAPA-HF, among others, have been added to inform the choice of pharmacologic treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes with comorbid diabetic kidney disease and chronic heart failure.

“ADA has been advocating individualization of treatment based on comorbidities for a while, but we’ve taken more steps in that direction. Beyond lifestyle for all individuals with type 2 diabetes, clinicians want to think early on about which comorbidities patients have and then think about the appropriate treatment based on that,” Dr. Gabbay said.

And for the third year in a row, the section on cardiovascular disease and risk management has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology.

“All the things in that section are very much aligned with ACC and that’s been a great partnership,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Now, ADA is in discussions with other professional societies representing relevant specialties to create further such unified messages.

“What we all want to avoid is having multiple different guidelines. We want to speak with one voice and find common ground as much as possible. … It makes it much easier for clinicians to know what to do. That’s the goal of all this,” he noted.
 

Diabetes technology: The rise of CGM during pandemic and beyond

New information about continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been added to the diabetes technology section. Use of CGM is now recommended for anyone with diabetes who takes multiple daily injections or uses an insulin pump, regardless of age or diabetes type. The document provides expanded advice on use of time in range data for glycemic monitoring, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic when remote monitoring is preferable.

Insurers are increasingly covering CGM for patients on insulin, but it’s far from universal. While the ultimate goal is to ensure access to CGM for everyone with diabetes, those treated with multiple daily insulin doses are the priority for now.

“Our hope is that as there’s greater evidence there will be more movement towards coverage. There are still so many people for whom it’s quite clear they would benefit because they’re on insulin but don’t have access to it. That’s an important area that ADA is advocating for, and it’s reflected in the standards of care,” Dr. Gabbay said.

In another technology-related revision, the term “blinded” CGM has been replaced with “professional CGM,” because clinic-based use of the devices can be “blinded” to the patient or monitored in real-time by both the patient and clinician. Also, a new recommendation has been added to address skin reactions associated with diabetes technology use.

Information about use of CGM in hospital settings during the COVID-19 pandemic has also been added in the technology section.

The COVID-19 pandemic comes up again in the section on vaccines.

“We mention that people with diabetes should be considered high priority [for COVID-19 vaccines], and that’s something that ADA is strongly advocating for because 40% of COVID-19 deaths have been in people with diabetes,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Dr. Gabbay reported being on the advisory boards of Onduo, Health Reveal, Vida Health, Lark, and Form Health.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

For 2021, the American Diabetes Association offers new guidance on assessing patients’ financial and social barriers to care, especially given the COVID-19 pandemic, individualizing treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes, and use of diabetes technology.

As it does every year, the annual update incorporates new clinical information that has become available since the last guideline, with occasional revisions during the year as needed. “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2021,” was published online as a supplement to Diabetes Care.

The new standards advise that patients be assessed for food and housing insecurity, social support, and “cost-related medication nonadherence,” and those found to have difficulty referred to appropriate community resources.

“Clinicians need to be sensitive to the fact that patients may have very good reasons for not taking their medication, [as in] if they can’t afford it,” ADA chief science & medical officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Dr. Gabbay noted that “a heightened awareness” of social determinants of health is weaved throughout the 2021 standards because of the pandemic, with information on the topic derived from a July 2020 joint consensus statement in Diabetes Care, endorsed by a number of other societies, as well as a November publication also in Diabetes Care.

“We made several recommendations that speak to social determinants of health, placing an emphasis on engaging in conversations around this subject and screening for related issues such as food insecurity that weren’t there previously,” he said.

“Screening tools are suggested. It helped us to have an in-depth scientific review of the literature to know the prevalence of this in people with diabetes. ... Having the science to put it in was a key step,” Dr. Gabbay noted.
 

Consider kidney, heart disease in type 2 treatment individualization

Recent data from trials such as CREDENCE and DAPA-HF, among others, have been added to inform the choice of pharmacologic treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes with comorbid diabetic kidney disease and chronic heart failure.

“ADA has been advocating individualization of treatment based on comorbidities for a while, but we’ve taken more steps in that direction. Beyond lifestyle for all individuals with type 2 diabetes, clinicians want to think early on about which comorbidities patients have and then think about the appropriate treatment based on that,” Dr. Gabbay said.

And for the third year in a row, the section on cardiovascular disease and risk management has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology.

“All the things in that section are very much aligned with ACC and that’s been a great partnership,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Now, ADA is in discussions with other professional societies representing relevant specialties to create further such unified messages.

“What we all want to avoid is having multiple different guidelines. We want to speak with one voice and find common ground as much as possible. … It makes it much easier for clinicians to know what to do. That’s the goal of all this,” he noted.
 

Diabetes technology: The rise of CGM during pandemic and beyond

New information about continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been added to the diabetes technology section. Use of CGM is now recommended for anyone with diabetes who takes multiple daily injections or uses an insulin pump, regardless of age or diabetes type. The document provides expanded advice on use of time in range data for glycemic monitoring, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic when remote monitoring is preferable.

Insurers are increasingly covering CGM for patients on insulin, but it’s far from universal. While the ultimate goal is to ensure access to CGM for everyone with diabetes, those treated with multiple daily insulin doses are the priority for now.

“Our hope is that as there’s greater evidence there will be more movement towards coverage. There are still so many people for whom it’s quite clear they would benefit because they’re on insulin but don’t have access to it. That’s an important area that ADA is advocating for, and it’s reflected in the standards of care,” Dr. Gabbay said.

In another technology-related revision, the term “blinded” CGM has been replaced with “professional CGM,” because clinic-based use of the devices can be “blinded” to the patient or monitored in real-time by both the patient and clinician. Also, a new recommendation has been added to address skin reactions associated with diabetes technology use.

Information about use of CGM in hospital settings during the COVID-19 pandemic has also been added in the technology section.

The COVID-19 pandemic comes up again in the section on vaccines.

“We mention that people with diabetes should be considered high priority [for COVID-19 vaccines], and that’s something that ADA is strongly advocating for because 40% of COVID-19 deaths have been in people with diabetes,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Dr. Gabbay reported being on the advisory boards of Onduo, Health Reveal, Vida Health, Lark, and Form Health.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The antibody–drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan (SG) appears to be effective across biomarker subgroups for women with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) that has progressed after multiple lines of therapy, a biomarker evaluation from the phase 3 ASCENT trial shows.

But both an observer and the lead study author cautioned that the results were hypothesis generating.

Nonetheless, the data suggest the drug yields good survival outcomes in comparison with placebo in both BRCA1/2-positive and -negative patients and is effective even for those with low expression of the target protein, trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (Trop-2).

The research was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2020.

Study presenter Sara Hurvitz, MD, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Los Angeles, urged caution in interpreting the data, given the small sample sizes in the Trop-2–low subgroup and germline BRCA1/2-positive subgroup.

Jennifer K. Litton, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, who was not involved in the research, echoed those comments.

She told Medscape Medical News that the numbers, particularly for the BRCA1/2 analysis, were “very small.”

She added: “This was not a prespecified group, so it represents an interesting analysis to be hypothesis generating for future studies but not anything applicable to current clinical practice.”

Nevertheless, Litton said the data from the primary analysis of ASCENT remain “practice changing” for women with mTNBC who have received at least two previous lines of therapy.

As to whether SG will eventually move beyond this advanced setting, she emphasized that “more trials would need to be done and reported evaluating its role in other settings, and hopefully expanding its usefulness for patients.”

SG is a first-in-class drug comprising an antibody directed at Trop-2, which is highly expressed in breast cancer, and linked to SN-38, the active metabolite of irinotecan.

On the basis of positive phase 1/2 trial data, SG was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients with mTNBC who experience disease progression after at least two prior therapies.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, primary results from ASCENT that were presented at ESMO 2020 showed that SG improved progression-free survival (PFS) by nearly 4 months and overall survival by more than 5 months for women with pretreated mTNBC compared to chemotherapy.
 

Study details

At SABCS, Hurvitz presented an exploratory biomarker evaluation of data from the trial regarding the association between SG efficacy and Trop-2 expression, as well as germline BRCA1/2 mutation status.

She reminded the audience that, in ASCENT, 529 patients with mTNBC who had experienced disease progression after undergoing at least two chemotherapy regimens for advanced disease were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous SG on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle or physician’s choice of treatment.

Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

For the current analysis, which focused on patients who did not have brain metastases, the team studied primary or metastatic archival biopsy or surgical specimens collected at study entry.

These were analyzed using a validated immunohistochemistry assay. Tumors were categorized as Trop-2–low, –medium, or –-high expressers on the basis of H-score, which is a weighted summation of percent staining. In addition, germline BRCA1/2 mutation status was determined at baseline.

Mutation status was known for 149 SG patients and 143 control patients. Of those, the majority (57% and 54%, respectively) were BRCA1/2 negative.

Among 151 SG patients for whom Trop-2 expression status was available, 56% had tumors of high expression; 26%, medium expression; and 18%, low expression. In the control group, Trop-2 expression was known in 139 patients, of whom 52% had tumors of high expression; 25%, medium expression; and 23%, low expression.

Hurvitz reported that, although median PFS among patients given SG decreased with decreasing Trop-2 expression, it remained longer than that seen with control treatment. In patients with tumors of Trop-2–high status, median PFS was 6.9 months with SG, vs. 2.5 for patients who underwent control treatment. This fell to 5.6 months vs. 2.2 months in the Trop-2–medium group and 2.7 months vs 1.6 months in Trop-2–low group.

A similar pattern was seen for overall survival. In the Trop-2–high group, median overall survival was 14.2 months with SG, vs. 6.9 months with control therapy; 14.9 months vs. 6.9 months in the Trop-2–medium group; and 9.3 months vs. 7.6 months in the Trop-2–low group.

Again, the objective response rate fell from 44% to 38% and then to 22% with SG in the Trop-2–high, –medium, and –low groups, compared with 1%, 11%, and 6%, respectively, with control treatment.

There did not seem to be any interaction between Trop-2 expression and treatment-related adverse events of special interest. Rates of neutropenia, diarrhea, and anemia were consistently higher in SG-treated patients than in those given placebo.

Hurvitz said the objective response rate was markedly higher with SG vs. control treatment in both BRCA1/2-positive and -negative patients, at 19% vs. 6% in the positive group and 33% vs. 6% in the negative group.

This was reflected in improved median PFS with SG in both subgroups, at 4.6 months vs. 2.5 months with control therapy in BRCA1/2-positive patients and 4.9 months vs. 1.6 months in BRCA1/2-negative patients.

Overall survival was 15.6 months with SG, vs. 4.4 months with control treatment in BRCA1/2-positive patients. In BRCA1/2-negative patients, the respective figures were 10.9 months and 7.0 months.

The study was sponsored by Immunomedics. Hurvitz has financial ties to Immunomedics and multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Litton has financial ties to multiple companies, including Medscape and companies developing and marketing breast cancer therapies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The antibody–drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan (SG) appears to be effective across biomarker subgroups for women with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) that has progressed after multiple lines of therapy, a biomarker evaluation from the phase 3 ASCENT trial shows.

But both an observer and the lead study author cautioned that the results were hypothesis generating.

Nonetheless, the data suggest the drug yields good survival outcomes in comparison with placebo in both BRCA1/2-positive and -negative patients and is effective even for those with low expression of the target protein, trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (Trop-2).

The research was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2020.

Study presenter Sara Hurvitz, MD, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Los Angeles, urged caution in interpreting the data, given the small sample sizes in the Trop-2–low subgroup and germline BRCA1/2-positive subgroup.

Jennifer K. Litton, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, who was not involved in the research, echoed those comments.

She told Medscape Medical News that the numbers, particularly for the BRCA1/2 analysis, were “very small.”

She added: “This was not a prespecified group, so it represents an interesting analysis to be hypothesis generating for future studies but not anything applicable to current clinical practice.”

Nevertheless, Litton said the data from the primary analysis of ASCENT remain “practice changing” for women with mTNBC who have received at least two previous lines of therapy.

As to whether SG will eventually move beyond this advanced setting, she emphasized that “more trials would need to be done and reported evaluating its role in other settings, and hopefully expanding its usefulness for patients.”

SG is a first-in-class drug comprising an antibody directed at Trop-2, which is highly expressed in breast cancer, and linked to SN-38, the active metabolite of irinotecan.

On the basis of positive phase 1/2 trial data, SG was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients with mTNBC who experience disease progression after at least two prior therapies.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, primary results from ASCENT that were presented at ESMO 2020 showed that SG improved progression-free survival (PFS) by nearly 4 months and overall survival by more than 5 months for women with pretreated mTNBC compared to chemotherapy.
 

Study details

At SABCS, Hurvitz presented an exploratory biomarker evaluation of data from the trial regarding the association between SG efficacy and Trop-2 expression, as well as germline BRCA1/2 mutation status.

She reminded the audience that, in ASCENT, 529 patients with mTNBC who had experienced disease progression after undergoing at least two chemotherapy regimens for advanced disease were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous SG on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle or physician’s choice of treatment.

Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

For the current analysis, which focused on patients who did not have brain metastases, the team studied primary or metastatic archival biopsy or surgical specimens collected at study entry.

These were analyzed using a validated immunohistochemistry assay. Tumors were categorized as Trop-2–low, –medium, or –-high expressers on the basis of H-score, which is a weighted summation of percent staining. In addition, germline BRCA1/2 mutation status was determined at baseline.

Mutation status was known for 149 SG patients and 143 control patients. Of those, the majority (57% and 54%, respectively) were BRCA1/2 negative.

Among 151 SG patients for whom Trop-2 expression status was available, 56% had tumors of high expression; 26%, medium expression; and 18%, low expression. In the control group, Trop-2 expression was known in 139 patients, of whom 52% had tumors of high expression; 25%, medium expression; and 23%, low expression.

Hurvitz reported that, although median PFS among patients given SG decreased with decreasing Trop-2 expression, it remained longer than that seen with control treatment. In patients with tumors of Trop-2–high status, median PFS was 6.9 months with SG, vs. 2.5 for patients who underwent control treatment. This fell to 5.6 months vs. 2.2 months in the Trop-2–medium group and 2.7 months vs 1.6 months in Trop-2–low group.

A similar pattern was seen for overall survival. In the Trop-2–high group, median overall survival was 14.2 months with SG, vs. 6.9 months with control therapy; 14.9 months vs. 6.9 months in the Trop-2–medium group; and 9.3 months vs. 7.6 months in the Trop-2–low group.

Again, the objective response rate fell from 44% to 38% and then to 22% with SG in the Trop-2–high, –medium, and –low groups, compared with 1%, 11%, and 6%, respectively, with control treatment.

There did not seem to be any interaction between Trop-2 expression and treatment-related adverse events of special interest. Rates of neutropenia, diarrhea, and anemia were consistently higher in SG-treated patients than in those given placebo.

Hurvitz said the objective response rate was markedly higher with SG vs. control treatment in both BRCA1/2-positive and -negative patients, at 19% vs. 6% in the positive group and 33% vs. 6% in the negative group.

This was reflected in improved median PFS with SG in both subgroups, at 4.6 months vs. 2.5 months with control therapy in BRCA1/2-positive patients and 4.9 months vs. 1.6 months in BRCA1/2-negative patients.

Overall survival was 15.6 months with SG, vs. 4.4 months with control treatment in BRCA1/2-positive patients. In BRCA1/2-negative patients, the respective figures were 10.9 months and 7.0 months.

The study was sponsored by Immunomedics. Hurvitz has financial ties to Immunomedics and multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Litton has financial ties to multiple companies, including Medscape and companies developing and marketing breast cancer therapies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The antibody–drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan (SG) appears to be effective across biomarker subgroups for women with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) that has progressed after multiple lines of therapy, a biomarker evaluation from the phase 3 ASCENT trial shows.

But both an observer and the lead study author cautioned that the results were hypothesis generating.

Nonetheless, the data suggest the drug yields good survival outcomes in comparison with placebo in both BRCA1/2-positive and -negative patients and is effective even for those with low expression of the target protein, trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (Trop-2).

The research was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2020.

Study presenter Sara Hurvitz, MD, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Los Angeles, urged caution in interpreting the data, given the small sample sizes in the Trop-2–low subgroup and germline BRCA1/2-positive subgroup.

Jennifer K. Litton, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, who was not involved in the research, echoed those comments.

She told Medscape Medical News that the numbers, particularly for the BRCA1/2 analysis, were “very small.”

She added: “This was not a prespecified group, so it represents an interesting analysis to be hypothesis generating for future studies but not anything applicable to current clinical practice.”

Nevertheless, Litton said the data from the primary analysis of ASCENT remain “practice changing” for women with mTNBC who have received at least two previous lines of therapy.

As to whether SG will eventually move beyond this advanced setting, she emphasized that “more trials would need to be done and reported evaluating its role in other settings, and hopefully expanding its usefulness for patients.”

SG is a first-in-class drug comprising an antibody directed at Trop-2, which is highly expressed in breast cancer, and linked to SN-38, the active metabolite of irinotecan.

On the basis of positive phase 1/2 trial data, SG was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients with mTNBC who experience disease progression after at least two prior therapies.

As reported by Medscape Medical News, primary results from ASCENT that were presented at ESMO 2020 showed that SG improved progression-free survival (PFS) by nearly 4 months and overall survival by more than 5 months for women with pretreated mTNBC compared to chemotherapy.
 

Study details

At SABCS, Hurvitz presented an exploratory biomarker evaluation of data from the trial regarding the association between SG efficacy and Trop-2 expression, as well as germline BRCA1/2 mutation status.

She reminded the audience that, in ASCENT, 529 patients with mTNBC who had experienced disease progression after undergoing at least two chemotherapy regimens for advanced disease were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous SG on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle or physician’s choice of treatment.

Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

For the current analysis, which focused on patients who did not have brain metastases, the team studied primary or metastatic archival biopsy or surgical specimens collected at study entry.

These were analyzed using a validated immunohistochemistry assay. Tumors were categorized as Trop-2–low, –medium, or –-high expressers on the basis of H-score, which is a weighted summation of percent staining. In addition, germline BRCA1/2 mutation status was determined at baseline.

Mutation status was known for 149 SG patients and 143 control patients. Of those, the majority (57% and 54%, respectively) were BRCA1/2 negative.

Among 151 SG patients for whom Trop-2 expression status was available, 56% had tumors of high expression; 26%, medium expression; and 18%, low expression. In the control group, Trop-2 expression was known in 139 patients, of whom 52% had tumors of high expression; 25%, medium expression; and 23%, low expression.

Hurvitz reported that, although median PFS among patients given SG decreased with decreasing Trop-2 expression, it remained longer than that seen with control treatment. In patients with tumors of Trop-2–high status, median PFS was 6.9 months with SG, vs. 2.5 for patients who underwent control treatment. This fell to 5.6 months vs. 2.2 months in the Trop-2–medium group and 2.7 months vs 1.6 months in Trop-2–low group.

A similar pattern was seen for overall survival. In the Trop-2–high group, median overall survival was 14.2 months with SG, vs. 6.9 months with control therapy; 14.9 months vs. 6.9 months in the Trop-2–medium group; and 9.3 months vs. 7.6 months in the Trop-2–low group.

Again, the objective response rate fell from 44% to 38% and then to 22% with SG in the Trop-2–high, –medium, and –low groups, compared with 1%, 11%, and 6%, respectively, with control treatment.

There did not seem to be any interaction between Trop-2 expression and treatment-related adverse events of special interest. Rates of neutropenia, diarrhea, and anemia were consistently higher in SG-treated patients than in those given placebo.

Hurvitz said the objective response rate was markedly higher with SG vs. control treatment in both BRCA1/2-positive and -negative patients, at 19% vs. 6% in the positive group and 33% vs. 6% in the negative group.

This was reflected in improved median PFS with SG in both subgroups, at 4.6 months vs. 2.5 months with control therapy in BRCA1/2-positive patients and 4.9 months vs. 1.6 months in BRCA1/2-negative patients.

Overall survival was 15.6 months with SG, vs. 4.4 months with control treatment in BRCA1/2-positive patients. In BRCA1/2-negative patients, the respective figures were 10.9 months and 7.0 months.

The study was sponsored by Immunomedics. Hurvitz has financial ties to Immunomedics and multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Litton has financial ties to multiple companies, including Medscape and companies developing and marketing breast cancer therapies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A phase 1 first-in-human study demonstrated synthetic T-cell receptor and antigen receptor (STAR) technical feasibility, clinical safety and efficacy in treating CD19+ relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to senior study author Peihua Lu, MD, Beijing Lu Daopei Institute of Hematology, Beijing, China. STAR T cells were found to be superior to conventional chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells with respect to signaling capacity, cytokine production and antitumor potency in an animal model study, according to Dr. Lu’s presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
 

Remission can be improved

While CAR T-cell therapy has demonstrated high response rates in patients with B-cell malignancies, remission durability and safety can be improved, Dr Lu said. Her team developed STAR, a novel double-chain chimeric receptor consisting of two protein modules, each containing an antibody light or heavy chain variable region, the T cell receptor (TCR) alpha or beta chain constant region fused to the OX-40 costimulatory domain. The 2 modules are linked by a self-cleaving Furin-p2A sequence that allows the modules to be proteolytically separated and reconstituted. In preclinical in vitro research, STAR-T-cells showed a much faster and stronger cell activation, compared with CAR T cells and superior target cell–killing ability, and higher levels of interferon-y after coculture with the CD19+ Raji cell. In a murine in vivo study, STAR-T cells had higher antileukemia activity, compared with CAR-T cells, and significantly inhibited tumor cell growth, Dr. Lu stated. All animals were sustainably tumor free 5 days after STAR-T cell injection.

The first-in-human study included 18 CD19+ relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL (median age 22.5 years) patients, with a median bone marrow blast level pre–CAR T of 15.3%.

The manufacture success rate was 100% and took about 9 days (7-13). Transduction efficacy was 57.4% (41.0%-78.2%). Subjects received a conditioning regimen of intravenous fludarabine (25mg/m² per day) and cyclophosphamide (250mg/m² per day) for 3 days followed by a single STAR T-cell infusion. Patients were given the option, after they achieved complete remission (CR), of proceeding to consolidation allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT).
 

100% MRD negative

On day 14 following transplant, 18/18 had achieved minimal residual disease–negative complete response/CRi (with incomplete hematologic recovery). One patient relapsed after allogeneic transplant, becoming minimal residual disease positive on day 28. After a median follow-up of 105 days, 11/18 bridged into allo-HSCT without relapse. Among the seven patients who did not undergo allo-HSCT, one relapsed on day 58 and died on day 63. The patient had CNS leukemia and 87% bone marrow blasts before receiving STAR T. The others, Dr. Lu said, remain in CR.

Mild cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in only 10 patients (55.6%), with grade 1 CRS in 8 patients and grade 2 in 2 patients. Grade 3 neurotoxicity occurred in two patients.

Reporting cellular kinetics of STAR T cells in peripheral blood by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS)/quantitative PCR showed the highest STAR-T proliferation ratio (STAR/CD3) of 88.1%. Median peak level was 4.9 x 10⁴ copies number/mcg genomic DNA. The peak time was day 8.5 and the longest detection time was 6 months after STAR T infusion (STAR T ratio, 0.46%-1.85%). High in vivo proliferation and persistence was observed regardless of infusion dose.
 

STAR holds promise

Dr. Lu concluded: “The phase 1 first-in-human study demonstrated technical feasibility, clinical safety and efficacy of STAR T in treating CD19+ relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.” She noted also that long-term observation of these patients and studies of larger patient cohorts are warranted to evaluate a beneficial advantage of the STAR T over the conventional CAR T product.

Asked about future directions in the discussion period, Dr. Lu responded that “this product holds great promise, No. 1 because it is actually between a T-cell receptor and a CAR T, and so clearly has fewer side effects. It potentially can recognize and target the tumor intracellular antigen better than a conventional CAR T. It is easier to construct – and holds great promise for treating solid tumors.”

Dr. Lu reported that she had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Lu P et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 270.

A phase 1 first-in-human study demonstrated synthetic T-cell receptor and antigen receptor (STAR) technical feasibility, clinical safety and efficacy in treating CD19+ relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to senior study author Peihua Lu, MD, Beijing Lu Daopei Institute of Hematology, Beijing, China. STAR T cells were found to be superior to conventional chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells with respect to signaling capacity, cytokine production and antitumor potency in an animal model study, according to Dr. Lu’s presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
 

Remission can be improved

While CAR T-cell therapy has demonstrated high response rates in patients with B-cell malignancies, remission durability and safety can be improved, Dr Lu said. Her team developed STAR, a novel double-chain chimeric receptor consisting of two protein modules, each containing an antibody light or heavy chain variable region, the T cell receptor (TCR) alpha or beta chain constant region fused to the OX-40 costimulatory domain. The 2 modules are linked by a self-cleaving Furin-p2A sequence that allows the modules to be proteolytically separated and reconstituted. In preclinical in vitro research, STAR-T-cells showed a much faster and stronger cell activation, compared with CAR T cells and superior target cell–killing ability, and higher levels of interferon-y after coculture with the CD19+ Raji cell. In a murine in vivo study, STAR-T cells had higher antileukemia activity, compared with CAR-T cells, and significantly inhibited tumor cell growth, Dr. Lu stated. All animals were sustainably tumor free 5 days after STAR-T cell injection.

The first-in-human study included 18 CD19+ relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL (median age 22.5 years) patients, with a median bone marrow blast level pre–CAR T of 15.3%.

The manufacture success rate was 100% and took about 9 days (7-13). Transduction efficacy was 57.4% (41.0%-78.2%). Subjects received a conditioning regimen of intravenous fludarabine (25mg/m² per day) and cyclophosphamide (250mg/m² per day) for 3 days followed by a single STAR T-cell infusion. Patients were given the option, after they achieved complete remission (CR), of proceeding to consolidation allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT).
 

100% MRD negative

On day 14 following transplant, 18/18 had achieved minimal residual disease–negative complete response/CRi (with incomplete hematologic recovery). One patient relapsed after allogeneic transplant, becoming minimal residual disease positive on day 28. After a median follow-up of 105 days, 11/18 bridged into allo-HSCT without relapse. Among the seven patients who did not undergo allo-HSCT, one relapsed on day 58 and died on day 63. The patient had CNS leukemia and 87% bone marrow blasts before receiving STAR T. The others, Dr. Lu said, remain in CR.

Mild cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in only 10 patients (55.6%), with grade 1 CRS in 8 patients and grade 2 in 2 patients. Grade 3 neurotoxicity occurred in two patients.

Reporting cellular kinetics of STAR T cells in peripheral blood by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS)/quantitative PCR showed the highest STAR-T proliferation ratio (STAR/CD3) of 88.1%. Median peak level was 4.9 x 10⁴ copies number/mcg genomic DNA. The peak time was day 8.5 and the longest detection time was 6 months after STAR T infusion (STAR T ratio, 0.46%-1.85%). High in vivo proliferation and persistence was observed regardless of infusion dose.
 

STAR holds promise

Dr. Lu concluded: “The phase 1 first-in-human study demonstrated technical feasibility, clinical safety and efficacy of STAR T in treating CD19+ relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.” She noted also that long-term observation of these patients and studies of larger patient cohorts are warranted to evaluate a beneficial advantage of the STAR T over the conventional CAR T product.

Asked about future directions in the discussion period, Dr. Lu responded that “this product holds great promise, No. 1 because it is actually between a T-cell receptor and a CAR T, and so clearly has fewer side effects. It potentially can recognize and target the tumor intracellular antigen better than a conventional CAR T. It is easier to construct – and holds great promise for treating solid tumors.”

Dr. Lu reported that she had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Lu P et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 270.

A phase 1 first-in-human study demonstrated synthetic T-cell receptor and antigen receptor (STAR) technical feasibility, clinical safety and efficacy in treating CD19+ relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), according to senior study author Peihua Lu, MD, Beijing Lu Daopei Institute of Hematology, Beijing, China. STAR T cells were found to be superior to conventional chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells with respect to signaling capacity, cytokine production and antitumor potency in an animal model study, according to Dr. Lu’s presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
 

Remission can be improved

While CAR T-cell therapy has demonstrated high response rates in patients with B-cell malignancies, remission durability and safety can be improved, Dr Lu said. Her team developed STAR, a novel double-chain chimeric receptor consisting of two protein modules, each containing an antibody light or heavy chain variable region, the T cell receptor (TCR) alpha or beta chain constant region fused to the OX-40 costimulatory domain. The 2 modules are linked by a self-cleaving Furin-p2A sequence that allows the modules to be proteolytically separated and reconstituted. In preclinical in vitro research, STAR-T-cells showed a much faster and stronger cell activation, compared with CAR T cells and superior target cell–killing ability, and higher levels of interferon-y after coculture with the CD19+ Raji cell. In a murine in vivo study, STAR-T cells had higher antileukemia activity, compared with CAR-T cells, and significantly inhibited tumor cell growth, Dr. Lu stated. All animals were sustainably tumor free 5 days after STAR-T cell injection.

The first-in-human study included 18 CD19+ relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL (median age 22.5 years) patients, with a median bone marrow blast level pre–CAR T of 15.3%.

The manufacture success rate was 100% and took about 9 days (7-13). Transduction efficacy was 57.4% (41.0%-78.2%). Subjects received a conditioning regimen of intravenous fludarabine (25mg/m² per day) and cyclophosphamide (250mg/m² per day) for 3 days followed by a single STAR T-cell infusion. Patients were given the option, after they achieved complete remission (CR), of proceeding to consolidation allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT).
 

100% MRD negative

On day 14 following transplant, 18/18 had achieved minimal residual disease–negative complete response/CRi (with incomplete hematologic recovery). One patient relapsed after allogeneic transplant, becoming minimal residual disease positive on day 28. After a median follow-up of 105 days, 11/18 bridged into allo-HSCT without relapse. Among the seven patients who did not undergo allo-HSCT, one relapsed on day 58 and died on day 63. The patient had CNS leukemia and 87% bone marrow blasts before receiving STAR T. The others, Dr. Lu said, remain in CR.

Mild cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in only 10 patients (55.6%), with grade 1 CRS in 8 patients and grade 2 in 2 patients. Grade 3 neurotoxicity occurred in two patients.

Reporting cellular kinetics of STAR T cells in peripheral blood by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS)/quantitative PCR showed the highest STAR-T proliferation ratio (STAR/CD3) of 88.1%. Median peak level was 4.9 x 10⁴ copies number/mcg genomic DNA. The peak time was day 8.5 and the longest detection time was 6 months after STAR T infusion (STAR T ratio, 0.46%-1.85%). High in vivo proliferation and persistence was observed regardless of infusion dose.
 

STAR holds promise

Dr. Lu concluded: “The phase 1 first-in-human study demonstrated technical feasibility, clinical safety and efficacy of STAR T in treating CD19+ relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.” She noted also that long-term observation of these patients and studies of larger patient cohorts are warranted to evaluate a beneficial advantage of the STAR T over the conventional CAR T product.

Asked about future directions in the discussion period, Dr. Lu responded that “this product holds great promise, No. 1 because it is actually between a T-cell receptor and a CAR T, and so clearly has fewer side effects. It potentially can recognize and target the tumor intracellular antigen better than a conventional CAR T. It is easier to construct – and holds great promise for treating solid tumors.”

Dr. Lu reported that she had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Lu P et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 270.

The Food and Drug Administration has clarified its guidance on administration of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, stating that it is safe for people with any history of allergies, but not for those who might have a known history of severe allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.

The warning is included in the FDA’s information sheet for health care providers, but questions are arising as to whether the vaccine – which was authorized for emergency use by the FDA on Friday – should not be given to anyone with a history of allergies.

Sara Oliver, MD, an epidemic intelligence service officer with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported at a Dec. 11 meeting of the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices that two U.K. health care workers with a history of significant allergic reactions had a reaction to the Pfizer vaccine. A third health care worker with no history of allergies developed tachycardia, Dr. Oliver said.

“I want to reassure the public that although there were these few reactions in Great Britain, these were not seen in the larger clinical trial datasets,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, during a press briefing on Dec. 12.

The Pfizer vaccine “is one that we’re comfortable giving to patients who have had other allergic reactions besides those other than severe allergic reactions to a vaccine or one of its components,” he said.

Dr. Marks suggested that individuals let their physicians know about any history of allergic reactions. He also noted that the federal government will be supplying vaccine administration sites, at least initially, with epinephrine, diphenhydramine, hydrocortisone, and other medications needed to manage allergic reactions.

The FDA is going to monitor side effects such as allergic reactions very closely, “but I think we still need to learn more and that’s why we’re going to be taking precautions. We may have to modify things as we move forward,” said Dr. Marks.

Dr. Oliver said that on Dec. 12 the CDC convened an external panel with experience in vaccine safety, immunology, and allergies “to collate expert knowledge regarding possible cases,” and that the FDA is getting more data from U.K. regulatory authorities.
 

Pregnancy concerns

Agency officials had little to say, however, about the safety or efficacy of the vaccine for pregnant or breastfeeding women.

The FDA’s information to health care professionals noted that “available data on Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”

Additionally, the agency stated, “data are not available to assess the effects of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on the breastfed infant or on milk production/excretion.”

Dr. Marks said that, for pregnant women and people who are immunocompromised, “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis.” He suggested that individuals consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.

“Certainly, COVID-19 in a pregnant woman is not a good thing,” Dr. Marks said.

An individual might decide to go ahead with vaccination. “But that’s not something we’re recommending, that’s something we’re leaving up to the individual,” he said.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has clarified its guidance on administration of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, stating that it is safe for people with any history of allergies, but not for those who might have a known history of severe allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.

The warning is included in the FDA’s information sheet for health care providers, but questions are arising as to whether the vaccine – which was authorized for emergency use by the FDA on Friday – should not be given to anyone with a history of allergies.

Sara Oliver, MD, an epidemic intelligence service officer with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported at a Dec. 11 meeting of the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices that two U.K. health care workers with a history of significant allergic reactions had a reaction to the Pfizer vaccine. A third health care worker with no history of allergies developed tachycardia, Dr. Oliver said.

“I want to reassure the public that although there were these few reactions in Great Britain, these were not seen in the larger clinical trial datasets,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, during a press briefing on Dec. 12.

The Pfizer vaccine “is one that we’re comfortable giving to patients who have had other allergic reactions besides those other than severe allergic reactions to a vaccine or one of its components,” he said.

Dr. Marks suggested that individuals let their physicians know about any history of allergic reactions. He also noted that the federal government will be supplying vaccine administration sites, at least initially, with epinephrine, diphenhydramine, hydrocortisone, and other medications needed to manage allergic reactions.

The FDA is going to monitor side effects such as allergic reactions very closely, “but I think we still need to learn more and that’s why we’re going to be taking precautions. We may have to modify things as we move forward,” said Dr. Marks.

Dr. Oliver said that on Dec. 12 the CDC convened an external panel with experience in vaccine safety, immunology, and allergies “to collate expert knowledge regarding possible cases,” and that the FDA is getting more data from U.K. regulatory authorities.
 

Pregnancy concerns

Agency officials had little to say, however, about the safety or efficacy of the vaccine for pregnant or breastfeeding women.

The FDA’s information to health care professionals noted that “available data on Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”

Additionally, the agency stated, “data are not available to assess the effects of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on the breastfed infant or on milk production/excretion.”

Dr. Marks said that, for pregnant women and people who are immunocompromised, “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis.” He suggested that individuals consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.

“Certainly, COVID-19 in a pregnant woman is not a good thing,” Dr. Marks said.

An individual might decide to go ahead with vaccination. “But that’s not something we’re recommending, that’s something we’re leaving up to the individual,” he said.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has clarified its guidance on administration of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, stating that it is safe for people with any history of allergies, but not for those who might have a known history of severe allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.

The warning is included in the FDA’s information sheet for health care providers, but questions are arising as to whether the vaccine – which was authorized for emergency use by the FDA on Friday – should not be given to anyone with a history of allergies.

Sara Oliver, MD, an epidemic intelligence service officer with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported at a Dec. 11 meeting of the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices that two U.K. health care workers with a history of significant allergic reactions had a reaction to the Pfizer vaccine. A third health care worker with no history of allergies developed tachycardia, Dr. Oliver said.

“I want to reassure the public that although there were these few reactions in Great Britain, these were not seen in the larger clinical trial datasets,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA, during a press briefing on Dec. 12.

The Pfizer vaccine “is one that we’re comfortable giving to patients who have had other allergic reactions besides those other than severe allergic reactions to a vaccine or one of its components,” he said.

Dr. Marks suggested that individuals let their physicians know about any history of allergic reactions. He also noted that the federal government will be supplying vaccine administration sites, at least initially, with epinephrine, diphenhydramine, hydrocortisone, and other medications needed to manage allergic reactions.

The FDA is going to monitor side effects such as allergic reactions very closely, “but I think we still need to learn more and that’s why we’re going to be taking precautions. We may have to modify things as we move forward,” said Dr. Marks.

Dr. Oliver said that on Dec. 12 the CDC convened an external panel with experience in vaccine safety, immunology, and allergies “to collate expert knowledge regarding possible cases,” and that the FDA is getting more data from U.K. regulatory authorities.
 

Pregnancy concerns

Agency officials had little to say, however, about the safety or efficacy of the vaccine for pregnant or breastfeeding women.

The FDA’s information to health care professionals noted that “available data on Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”

Additionally, the agency stated, “data are not available to assess the effects of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on the breastfed infant or on milk production/excretion.”

Dr. Marks said that, for pregnant women and people who are immunocompromised, “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis.” He suggested that individuals consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.

“Certainly, COVID-19 in a pregnant woman is not a good thing,” Dr. Marks said.

An individual might decide to go ahead with vaccination. “But that’s not something we’re recommending, that’s something we’re leaving up to the individual,” he said.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In mid-November, Pfizer/BioNTech were the first with surprising positive protection interim data for their coronavirus vaccine, BNT162b2. A week later, Moderna released interim efficacy results showing its coronavirus vaccine, mRNA-1273, also protected patients from developing SARS-CoV-2 infections. Both studies included mostly healthy adults. A diverse ethnic and racial vaccinated population was included. A reasonable number of persons aged over 65 years, and persons with stable compromising medical conditions were included. Adolescents aged 16 years and over were included. Younger adolescents have been vaccinated or such studies are in the planning or early implementation stage as 2020 came to a close.

These are new and revolutionary vaccines, although the ability to inject mRNA into animals dates back to 1990, technological advances today make it a reality.¹ Traditional vaccines typically involve injection with antigens such as purified proteins or polysaccharides or inactivated/attenuated viruses. mRNA vaccines work differently. They do not contain antigens. Instead, they contain a blueprint for the antigen in the form of genetic material, mRNA. In the case of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines, the mRNA provides the genetic information to synthesize the spike protein that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells. Each type of vaccine is packaged in proprietary lipid nanoparticles to protect the mRNA from rapid degradation, and the nanoparticles serve as an adjuvant to attract immune cells to the site of injection. (The properties of the respective lipid nanoparticle packaging may be the factor that impacts storage requirements discussed below.) When injected into muscle (myocyte), the lipid nanoparticles containing the mRNA inside are taken into muscle cells, where the cytoplasmic ribosomes detect and decode the mRNA resulting in the production of the spike protein antigen. It should be noted that the mRNA does not enter the nucleus, where the genetic information (DNA) of a cell is located, and can’t be reproduced or integrated into the DNA. The antigen is exported to the myocyte cell surface where the immune system’s antigen presenting cells detect the protein, ingest it, and take it to regional lymph nodes where interactions with T cells and B cells results in antibodies, T cell–mediated immunity, and generation of immune memory T cells and B cells. A particular subset of T cells – cytotoxic or killer T cells – destroy cells that have been infected by a pathogen. The SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine from Pfizer was reported to induce powerful cytotoxic T-cell responses. Results for Moderna’s vaccine had not been reported at the time this column was prepared, but I anticipate the same positive results.

The revolutionary aspect of mRNA vaccines is the speed at which they can be designed and produced. This is why they lead the pack among the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates and why the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided financial, technical, and/or clinical support. Indeed, once the amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined (a relatively easy task these days) it’s straightforward to synthesize mRNA in the lab – and it can be done incredibly fast. It is reported that the mRNA code for the vaccine by Moderna was made in 2 days and production development was completed in about 2 months.²

A 2007 World Health Organization report noted that infectious diseases are emerging at “the historically unprecedented rate of one per year.”³ Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Zika, Ebola, and avian and swine flu are recent examples. For most vaccines against emerging diseases, the challenge is about speed: developing and manufacturing a vaccine and getting it to persons who need it as quickly as possible. The current seasonal flu vaccine takes about 6 months to develop; it takes years for most of the traditional vaccines. That’s why once the infrastructure is in place, mRNA vaccines may prove to offer a big advantage as vaccines against emerging pathogens.
 

Early efficacy results have been surprising

Both vaccines were reported to produce about 95% efficacy in the final analysis. That was unexpectedly high because most vaccines for respiratory illness achieve efficacy of 60%-80%, e.g., flu vaccines. However, the efficacy rate may drop as time goes by because stimulation of short-term immunity would be in the earliest reported results.

Preventing SARS-CoV-2 cases is an important aspect of a coronavirus vaccine, but preventing severe illness is especially important considering that severe cases can result in prolonged intubation/artificial ventilation, prolonged disability and death. Pfizer/BioNTech had not released any data on the breakdown of severe cases as this column was finalized. In Moderna’s clinical trial, a secondary endpoint analyzed severe cases of COVID-19 and included 30 severe cases (as defined in the study protocol) in this analysis. All 30 cases occurred in the placebo group and none in the mRNA-1273–vaccinated group. In the Pfizer/BioNTech trial there were too few cases of severe illness to calculate efficacy.

Duration of immunity and need to revaccinate after initial primary vaccination are unknowns. Study of induction of B- and T-cell memory and levels of long-term protection have not been reported thus far.
 

Could mRNA COVID-19 vaccines be dangerous in the long term?

These will be the first-ever mRNA vaccines brought to market for humans. In order to receive Food and Drug Administration approval, the companies had to prove there were no immediate or short-term negative adverse effects from the vaccines. The companies reported that their independent data-monitoring committees hadn’t “reported any serious safety concerns.” However, fairly significant local reactions at the site of injection, fever, malaise, and fatigue occur with modest frequency following vaccinations with these products, reportedly in 10%-15% of vaccinees. Overall, the immediate reaction profile appears to be more severe than what occurs following seasonal influenza vaccination. When mass inoculations with these completely new and revolutionary vaccines begins, we will know virtually nothing about their long-term side effects. The possibility of systemic inflammatory responses that could lead to autoimmune conditions, persistence of the induced immunogen expression, development of autoreactive antibodies, and toxic effects of delivery components have been raised as theoretical concerns.^4-6 None of these theoretical risks have been observed to date and postmarketing phase 4 safety monitoring studies are in place from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the companies that produce the vaccines. This is a risk public health authorities are willing to take because the risk to benefit calculation strongly favors taking theoretical risks, compared with clear benefits in preventing severe illnesses and death.

What about availability?

Pfizer/BioNTech expects to be able to produce up to 50 million vaccine doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses in 2021. Moderna expects to produce 20 million doses by the end of 2020, and 500 million to 1 billion doses in 2021. Storage requirements are inherent to the composition of the vaccines with their differing lipid nanoparticle delivery systems. Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT162b2 has to be stored and transported at –80° C, which requires specialized freezers, which most doctors’ offices and pharmacies are unlikely to have on site, or dry ice containers. Once the vaccine is thawed, it can only remain in the refrigerator for 24 hours. Moderna’s mRNA-1273 will be much easier to distribute. The vaccine is stable in a standard freezer at –20° C for up to 6 months, in a refrigerator for up to 30 days within that 6-month shelf life, and at room temperature for up to 12 hours.

Timelines and testing other vaccines

Strong efficacy data from the two leading SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and emergency-use authorization Food and Drug Administration approval suggest the window for testing additional vaccine candidates in the United States could soon start to close. Of the more than 200 vaccines in development for SARS-CoV-2, at least 7 have a chance of gathering pivotal data before the front-runners become broadly available.

Testing diverse vaccine candidates, based on different technologies, is important for ensuring sufficient supply and could lead to products with tolerability and safety profiles that make them better suited, or more attractive, to subsets of the population. Different vaccine antigens and technologies also may yield different durations of protection, a question that will not be answered until long after the first products are on the market.

AstraZeneca enrolled about 23,000 subjects into its two phase 3 trials of AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19): a 40,000-subject U.S. trial and a 10,000-subject study in Brazil. AstraZeneca’s AZD1222, developed with the University of Oxford (England), uses a replication defective simian adenovirus vector called ChAdOx1.AZD1222 which encodes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. After injection, the viral vector delivers recombinant DNA that is decoded to mRNA, followed by mRNA decoding to become a protein. A serendipitous manufacturing error for the first 3,000 doses resulted in a half dose for those subjects before the error was discovered. Full doses were given to those subjects on second injections and those subjects showed 90% efficacy. Subjects who received 2 full doses showed 62% efficacy. A vaccine cannot be licensed based on 3,000 subjects so AstraZeneca has started a new phase 3 trial involving many more subjects to receive the combination lower dose followed by the full dose.

Johnson and Johnson (J&J) started its phase 3 trial evaluating a single dose of JNJ-78436735 in September. Phase 3 data may be reported by the end of2020. In November, J&J announced it was starting a second phase 3 trial to test two doses of the candidate. J&J’s JNJ-78436735 encodes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in an adenovirus serotype 26 (Ad26) vector, which is one of the two adenovirus vectors used in Sputnik V, the Russian vaccine reported to have 90% efficacy at an early interim analysis.

Sanofi and Novavax are both developing protein-based vaccines, a proven modality. Sanofi, in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline started a phase 1/2 clinical trial in the Fall 2020 with plans to commence a phase 3 trial in late December. Sanofi developed the protein ingredients and GlaxoSmithKline added one of their novel adjuvants. Novavax expects data from a U.K. phase 3 trial of NVX-CoV2373 in early 2021 and began a U.S. phase 3 study in late November. NVX-CoV2373 was created using Novavax’ recombinant nanoparticle technology to generate antigen derived from the coronavirus spike protein and contains Novavax’s patented saponin-based Matrix-M adjuvant.

Inovio Pharmaceuticals was gearing up to start a U.S. phase 2/3 trial of DNA vaccine INO-4800 by the end of 2020.

After Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, CureVac has the next most advanced mRNA vaccine. It was planned that a phase 2b/3 trial of CVnCoV would be conducted in Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Sanofi is also developing a mRNA vaccine as a second product in addition to its protein vaccine.

Vaxxinity planned to begin phase 3 testing of UB-612, a multitope peptide–based vaccine, in Brazil by the end of 2020.

However, emergency-use authorizations for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines could hinder trial recruitment in at least two ways. Given the gravity of the pandemic, some stakeholders believe it would be ethical to unblind ongoing trials to give subjects the opportunity to switch to a vaccine proven to be effective. Even if unblinding doesn’t occur, as the two authorized vaccines start to become widely available, volunteering for clinical trials may become less attractive.
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He said he has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Pichichero at [email protected].

References

1. Wolff JA et al. Science. 1990 Mar 23. doi: 10.1126/science.1690918.

2. Jackson LA et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 12. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022483.

3. Prentice T and Reinders LT. The world health report 2007. (Geneva Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2007).

4. Peck KM and Lauring AS. J Virol. 2018. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01031-17.

5. Pepini T et al. J Immunol. 2017 May 15. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601877.

6. Theofilopoulos AN et al. Annu Rev Immunol. 2005. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.23.021704.115843.

In mid-November, Pfizer/BioNTech were the first with surprising positive protection interim data for their coronavirus vaccine, BNT162b2. A week later, Moderna released interim efficacy results showing its coronavirus vaccine, mRNA-1273, also protected patients from developing SARS-CoV-2 infections. Both studies included mostly healthy adults. A diverse ethnic and racial vaccinated population was included. A reasonable number of persons aged over 65 years, and persons with stable compromising medical conditions were included. Adolescents aged 16 years and over were included. Younger adolescents have been vaccinated or such studies are in the planning or early implementation stage as 2020 came to a close.

These are new and revolutionary vaccines, although the ability to inject mRNA into animals dates back to 1990, technological advances today make it a reality.¹ Traditional vaccines typically involve injection with antigens such as purified proteins or polysaccharides or inactivated/attenuated viruses. mRNA vaccines work differently. They do not contain antigens. Instead, they contain a blueprint for the antigen in the form of genetic material, mRNA. In the case of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines, the mRNA provides the genetic information to synthesize the spike protein that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells. Each type of vaccine is packaged in proprietary lipid nanoparticles to protect the mRNA from rapid degradation, and the nanoparticles serve as an adjuvant to attract immune cells to the site of injection. (The properties of the respective lipid nanoparticle packaging may be the factor that impacts storage requirements discussed below.) When injected into muscle (myocyte), the lipid nanoparticles containing the mRNA inside are taken into muscle cells, where the cytoplasmic ribosomes detect and decode the mRNA resulting in the production of the spike protein antigen. It should be noted that the mRNA does not enter the nucleus, where the genetic information (DNA) of a cell is located, and can’t be reproduced or integrated into the DNA. The antigen is exported to the myocyte cell surface where the immune system’s antigen presenting cells detect the protein, ingest it, and take it to regional lymph nodes where interactions with T cells and B cells results in antibodies, T cell–mediated immunity, and generation of immune memory T cells and B cells. A particular subset of T cells – cytotoxic or killer T cells – destroy cells that have been infected by a pathogen. The SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine from Pfizer was reported to induce powerful cytotoxic T-cell responses. Results for Moderna’s vaccine had not been reported at the time this column was prepared, but I anticipate the same positive results.

The revolutionary aspect of mRNA vaccines is the speed at which they can be designed and produced. This is why they lead the pack among the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates and why the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided financial, technical, and/or clinical support. Indeed, once the amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined (a relatively easy task these days) it’s straightforward to synthesize mRNA in the lab – and it can be done incredibly fast. It is reported that the mRNA code for the vaccine by Moderna was made in 2 days and production development was completed in about 2 months.²

A 2007 World Health Organization report noted that infectious diseases are emerging at “the historically unprecedented rate of one per year.”³ Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Zika, Ebola, and avian and swine flu are recent examples. For most vaccines against emerging diseases, the challenge is about speed: developing and manufacturing a vaccine and getting it to persons who need it as quickly as possible. The current seasonal flu vaccine takes about 6 months to develop; it takes years for most of the traditional vaccines. That’s why once the infrastructure is in place, mRNA vaccines may prove to offer a big advantage as vaccines against emerging pathogens.
 

Early efficacy results have been surprising

Both vaccines were reported to produce about 95% efficacy in the final analysis. That was unexpectedly high because most vaccines for respiratory illness achieve efficacy of 60%-80%, e.g., flu vaccines. However, the efficacy rate may drop as time goes by because stimulation of short-term immunity would be in the earliest reported results.

Preventing SARS-CoV-2 cases is an important aspect of a coronavirus vaccine, but preventing severe illness is especially important considering that severe cases can result in prolonged intubation/artificial ventilation, prolonged disability and death. Pfizer/BioNTech had not released any data on the breakdown of severe cases as this column was finalized. In Moderna’s clinical trial, a secondary endpoint analyzed severe cases of COVID-19 and included 30 severe cases (as defined in the study protocol) in this analysis. All 30 cases occurred in the placebo group and none in the mRNA-1273–vaccinated group. In the Pfizer/BioNTech trial there were too few cases of severe illness to calculate efficacy.

Duration of immunity and need to revaccinate after initial primary vaccination are unknowns. Study of induction of B- and T-cell memory and levels of long-term protection have not been reported thus far.
 

Could mRNA COVID-19 vaccines be dangerous in the long term?

These will be the first-ever mRNA vaccines brought to market for humans. In order to receive Food and Drug Administration approval, the companies had to prove there were no immediate or short-term negative adverse effects from the vaccines. The companies reported that their independent data-monitoring committees hadn’t “reported any serious safety concerns.” However, fairly significant local reactions at the site of injection, fever, malaise, and fatigue occur with modest frequency following vaccinations with these products, reportedly in 10%-15% of vaccinees. Overall, the immediate reaction profile appears to be more severe than what occurs following seasonal influenza vaccination. When mass inoculations with these completely new and revolutionary vaccines begins, we will know virtually nothing about their long-term side effects. The possibility of systemic inflammatory responses that could lead to autoimmune conditions, persistence of the induced immunogen expression, development of autoreactive antibodies, and toxic effects of delivery components have been raised as theoretical concerns.^4-6 None of these theoretical risks have been observed to date and postmarketing phase 4 safety monitoring studies are in place from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the companies that produce the vaccines. This is a risk public health authorities are willing to take because the risk to benefit calculation strongly favors taking theoretical risks, compared with clear benefits in preventing severe illnesses and death.

What about availability?

Pfizer/BioNTech expects to be able to produce up to 50 million vaccine doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses in 2021. Moderna expects to produce 20 million doses by the end of 2020, and 500 million to 1 billion doses in 2021. Storage requirements are inherent to the composition of the vaccines with their differing lipid nanoparticle delivery systems. Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT162b2 has to be stored and transported at –80° C, which requires specialized freezers, which most doctors’ offices and pharmacies are unlikely to have on site, or dry ice containers. Once the vaccine is thawed, it can only remain in the refrigerator for 24 hours. Moderna’s mRNA-1273 will be much easier to distribute. The vaccine is stable in a standard freezer at –20° C for up to 6 months, in a refrigerator for up to 30 days within that 6-month shelf life, and at room temperature for up to 12 hours.

Timelines and testing other vaccines

Strong efficacy data from the two leading SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and emergency-use authorization Food and Drug Administration approval suggest the window for testing additional vaccine candidates in the United States could soon start to close. Of the more than 200 vaccines in development for SARS-CoV-2, at least 7 have a chance of gathering pivotal data before the front-runners become broadly available.

Testing diverse vaccine candidates, based on different technologies, is important for ensuring sufficient supply and could lead to products with tolerability and safety profiles that make them better suited, or more attractive, to subsets of the population. Different vaccine antigens and technologies also may yield different durations of protection, a question that will not be answered until long after the first products are on the market.

AstraZeneca enrolled about 23,000 subjects into its two phase 3 trials of AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19): a 40,000-subject U.S. trial and a 10,000-subject study in Brazil. AstraZeneca’s AZD1222, developed with the University of Oxford (England), uses a replication defective simian adenovirus vector called ChAdOx1.AZD1222 which encodes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. After injection, the viral vector delivers recombinant DNA that is decoded to mRNA, followed by mRNA decoding to become a protein. A serendipitous manufacturing error for the first 3,000 doses resulted in a half dose for those subjects before the error was discovered. Full doses were given to those subjects on second injections and those subjects showed 90% efficacy. Subjects who received 2 full doses showed 62% efficacy. A vaccine cannot be licensed based on 3,000 subjects so AstraZeneca has started a new phase 3 trial involving many more subjects to receive the combination lower dose followed by the full dose.

Johnson and Johnson (J&J) started its phase 3 trial evaluating a single dose of JNJ-78436735 in September. Phase 3 data may be reported by the end of2020. In November, J&J announced it was starting a second phase 3 trial to test two doses of the candidate. J&J’s JNJ-78436735 encodes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in an adenovirus serotype 26 (Ad26) vector, which is one of the two adenovirus vectors used in Sputnik V, the Russian vaccine reported to have 90% efficacy at an early interim analysis.

Sanofi and Novavax are both developing protein-based vaccines, a proven modality. Sanofi, in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline started a phase 1/2 clinical trial in the Fall 2020 with plans to commence a phase 3 trial in late December. Sanofi developed the protein ingredients and GlaxoSmithKline added one of their novel adjuvants. Novavax expects data from a U.K. phase 3 trial of NVX-CoV2373 in early 2021 and began a U.S. phase 3 study in late November. NVX-CoV2373 was created using Novavax’ recombinant nanoparticle technology to generate antigen derived from the coronavirus spike protein and contains Novavax’s patented saponin-based Matrix-M adjuvant.

Inovio Pharmaceuticals was gearing up to start a U.S. phase 2/3 trial of DNA vaccine INO-4800 by the end of 2020.

After Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, CureVac has the next most advanced mRNA vaccine. It was planned that a phase 2b/3 trial of CVnCoV would be conducted in Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Sanofi is also developing a mRNA vaccine as a second product in addition to its protein vaccine.

Vaxxinity planned to begin phase 3 testing of UB-612, a multitope peptide–based vaccine, in Brazil by the end of 2020.

However, emergency-use authorizations for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines could hinder trial recruitment in at least two ways. Given the gravity of the pandemic, some stakeholders believe it would be ethical to unblind ongoing trials to give subjects the opportunity to switch to a vaccine proven to be effective. Even if unblinding doesn’t occur, as the two authorized vaccines start to become widely available, volunteering for clinical trials may become less attractive.
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He said he has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Pichichero at [email protected].

References

1. Wolff JA et al. Science. 1990 Mar 23. doi: 10.1126/science.1690918.

2. Jackson LA et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 12. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022483.

3. Prentice T and Reinders LT. The world health report 2007. (Geneva Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2007).

4. Peck KM and Lauring AS. J Virol. 2018. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01031-17.

5. Pepini T et al. J Immunol. 2017 May 15. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601877.

6. Theofilopoulos AN et al. Annu Rev Immunol. 2005. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.23.021704.115843.

In mid-November, Pfizer/BioNTech were the first with surprising positive protection interim data for their coronavirus vaccine, BNT162b2. A week later, Moderna released interim efficacy results showing its coronavirus vaccine, mRNA-1273, also protected patients from developing SARS-CoV-2 infections. Both studies included mostly healthy adults. A diverse ethnic and racial vaccinated population was included. A reasonable number of persons aged over 65 years, and persons with stable compromising medical conditions were included. Adolescents aged 16 years and over were included. Younger adolescents have been vaccinated or such studies are in the planning or early implementation stage as 2020 came to a close.

These are new and revolutionary vaccines, although the ability to inject mRNA into animals dates back to 1990, technological advances today make it a reality.¹ Traditional vaccines typically involve injection with antigens such as purified proteins or polysaccharides or inactivated/attenuated viruses. mRNA vaccines work differently. They do not contain antigens. Instead, they contain a blueprint for the antigen in the form of genetic material, mRNA. In the case of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines, the mRNA provides the genetic information to synthesize the spike protein that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to attach to and infect human cells. Each type of vaccine is packaged in proprietary lipid nanoparticles to protect the mRNA from rapid degradation, and the nanoparticles serve as an adjuvant to attract immune cells to the site of injection. (The properties of the respective lipid nanoparticle packaging may be the factor that impacts storage requirements discussed below.) When injected into muscle (myocyte), the lipid nanoparticles containing the mRNA inside are taken into muscle cells, where the cytoplasmic ribosomes detect and decode the mRNA resulting in the production of the spike protein antigen. It should be noted that the mRNA does not enter the nucleus, where the genetic information (DNA) of a cell is located, and can’t be reproduced or integrated into the DNA. The antigen is exported to the myocyte cell surface where the immune system’s antigen presenting cells detect the protein, ingest it, and take it to regional lymph nodes where interactions with T cells and B cells results in antibodies, T cell–mediated immunity, and generation of immune memory T cells and B cells. A particular subset of T cells – cytotoxic or killer T cells – destroy cells that have been infected by a pathogen. The SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine from Pfizer was reported to induce powerful cytotoxic T-cell responses. Results for Moderna’s vaccine had not been reported at the time this column was prepared, but I anticipate the same positive results.

The revolutionary aspect of mRNA vaccines is the speed at which they can be designed and produced. This is why they lead the pack among the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates and why the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided financial, technical, and/or clinical support. Indeed, once the amino acid sequence of a protein can be determined (a relatively easy task these days) it’s straightforward to synthesize mRNA in the lab – and it can be done incredibly fast. It is reported that the mRNA code for the vaccine by Moderna was made in 2 days and production development was completed in about 2 months.²

A 2007 World Health Organization report noted that infectious diseases are emerging at “the historically unprecedented rate of one per year.”³ Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Zika, Ebola, and avian and swine flu are recent examples. For most vaccines against emerging diseases, the challenge is about speed: developing and manufacturing a vaccine and getting it to persons who need it as quickly as possible. The current seasonal flu vaccine takes about 6 months to develop; it takes years for most of the traditional vaccines. That’s why once the infrastructure is in place, mRNA vaccines may prove to offer a big advantage as vaccines against emerging pathogens.
 

Early efficacy results have been surprising

Both vaccines were reported to produce about 95% efficacy in the final analysis. That was unexpectedly high because most vaccines for respiratory illness achieve efficacy of 60%-80%, e.g., flu vaccines. However, the efficacy rate may drop as time goes by because stimulation of short-term immunity would be in the earliest reported results.

Preventing SARS-CoV-2 cases is an important aspect of a coronavirus vaccine, but preventing severe illness is especially important considering that severe cases can result in prolonged intubation/artificial ventilation, prolonged disability and death. Pfizer/BioNTech had not released any data on the breakdown of severe cases as this column was finalized. In Moderna’s clinical trial, a secondary endpoint analyzed severe cases of COVID-19 and included 30 severe cases (as defined in the study protocol) in this analysis. All 30 cases occurred in the placebo group and none in the mRNA-1273–vaccinated group. In the Pfizer/BioNTech trial there were too few cases of severe illness to calculate efficacy.

Duration of immunity and need to revaccinate after initial primary vaccination are unknowns. Study of induction of B- and T-cell memory and levels of long-term protection have not been reported thus far.
 

Could mRNA COVID-19 vaccines be dangerous in the long term?

These will be the first-ever mRNA vaccines brought to market for humans. In order to receive Food and Drug Administration approval, the companies had to prove there were no immediate or short-term negative adverse effects from the vaccines. The companies reported that their independent data-monitoring committees hadn’t “reported any serious safety concerns.” However, fairly significant local reactions at the site of injection, fever, malaise, and fatigue occur with modest frequency following vaccinations with these products, reportedly in 10%-15% of vaccinees. Overall, the immediate reaction profile appears to be more severe than what occurs following seasonal influenza vaccination. When mass inoculations with these completely new and revolutionary vaccines begins, we will know virtually nothing about their long-term side effects. The possibility of systemic inflammatory responses that could lead to autoimmune conditions, persistence of the induced immunogen expression, development of autoreactive antibodies, and toxic effects of delivery components have been raised as theoretical concerns.^4-6 None of these theoretical risks have been observed to date and postmarketing phase 4 safety monitoring studies are in place from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the companies that produce the vaccines. This is a risk public health authorities are willing to take because the risk to benefit calculation strongly favors taking theoretical risks, compared with clear benefits in preventing severe illnesses and death.

What about availability?

Pfizer/BioNTech expects to be able to produce up to 50 million vaccine doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses in 2021. Moderna expects to produce 20 million doses by the end of 2020, and 500 million to 1 billion doses in 2021. Storage requirements are inherent to the composition of the vaccines with their differing lipid nanoparticle delivery systems. Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT162b2 has to be stored and transported at –80° C, which requires specialized freezers, which most doctors’ offices and pharmacies are unlikely to have on site, or dry ice containers. Once the vaccine is thawed, it can only remain in the refrigerator for 24 hours. Moderna’s mRNA-1273 will be much easier to distribute. The vaccine is stable in a standard freezer at –20° C for up to 6 months, in a refrigerator for up to 30 days within that 6-month shelf life, and at room temperature for up to 12 hours.

Timelines and testing other vaccines

Strong efficacy data from the two leading SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and emergency-use authorization Food and Drug Administration approval suggest the window for testing additional vaccine candidates in the United States could soon start to close. Of the more than 200 vaccines in development for SARS-CoV-2, at least 7 have a chance of gathering pivotal data before the front-runners become broadly available.

Testing diverse vaccine candidates, based on different technologies, is important for ensuring sufficient supply and could lead to products with tolerability and safety profiles that make them better suited, or more attractive, to subsets of the population. Different vaccine antigens and technologies also may yield different durations of protection, a question that will not be answered until long after the first products are on the market.

AstraZeneca enrolled about 23,000 subjects into its two phase 3 trials of AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19): a 40,000-subject U.S. trial and a 10,000-subject study in Brazil. AstraZeneca’s AZD1222, developed with the University of Oxford (England), uses a replication defective simian adenovirus vector called ChAdOx1.AZD1222 which encodes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. After injection, the viral vector delivers recombinant DNA that is decoded to mRNA, followed by mRNA decoding to become a protein. A serendipitous manufacturing error for the first 3,000 doses resulted in a half dose for those subjects before the error was discovered. Full doses were given to those subjects on second injections and those subjects showed 90% efficacy. Subjects who received 2 full doses showed 62% efficacy. A vaccine cannot be licensed based on 3,000 subjects so AstraZeneca has started a new phase 3 trial involving many more subjects to receive the combination lower dose followed by the full dose.

Johnson and Johnson (J&J) started its phase 3 trial evaluating a single dose of JNJ-78436735 in September. Phase 3 data may be reported by the end of2020. In November, J&J announced it was starting a second phase 3 trial to test two doses of the candidate. J&J’s JNJ-78436735 encodes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in an adenovirus serotype 26 (Ad26) vector, which is one of the two adenovirus vectors used in Sputnik V, the Russian vaccine reported to have 90% efficacy at an early interim analysis.

Sanofi and Novavax are both developing protein-based vaccines, a proven modality. Sanofi, in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline started a phase 1/2 clinical trial in the Fall 2020 with plans to commence a phase 3 trial in late December. Sanofi developed the protein ingredients and GlaxoSmithKline added one of their novel adjuvants. Novavax expects data from a U.K. phase 3 trial of NVX-CoV2373 in early 2021 and began a U.S. phase 3 study in late November. NVX-CoV2373 was created using Novavax’ recombinant nanoparticle technology to generate antigen derived from the coronavirus spike protein and contains Novavax’s patented saponin-based Matrix-M adjuvant.

Inovio Pharmaceuticals was gearing up to start a U.S. phase 2/3 trial of DNA vaccine INO-4800 by the end of 2020.

After Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, CureVac has the next most advanced mRNA vaccine. It was planned that a phase 2b/3 trial of CVnCoV would be conducted in Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Sanofi is also developing a mRNA vaccine as a second product in addition to its protein vaccine.

Vaxxinity planned to begin phase 3 testing of UB-612, a multitope peptide–based vaccine, in Brazil by the end of 2020.

However, emergency-use authorizations for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines could hinder trial recruitment in at least two ways. Given the gravity of the pandemic, some stakeholders believe it would be ethical to unblind ongoing trials to give subjects the opportunity to switch to a vaccine proven to be effective. Even if unblinding doesn’t occur, as the two authorized vaccines start to become widely available, volunteering for clinical trials may become less attractive.
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He said he has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Pichichero at [email protected].

References

1. Wolff JA et al. Science. 1990 Mar 23. doi: 10.1126/science.1690918.

2. Jackson LA et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 12. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022483.

3. Prentice T and Reinders LT. The world health report 2007. (Geneva Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2007).

4. Peck KM and Lauring AS. J Virol. 2018. doi: 10.1128/JVI.01031-17.

5. Pepini T et al. J Immunol. 2017 May 15. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1601877.

6. Theofilopoulos AN et al. Annu Rev Immunol. 2005. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.23.021704.115843.

Serious neurologic complications in patients with COVID-19 are not limited to the severely ill, new research confirms.

“We found a range of neurologic diagnoses, including stroke and seizures, among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and the majority were not critically ill, suggesting that these complications are not limited just to those patients who require ICU care or a ventilator,” study investigator Pria Anand, MD, division of neuro-infectious diseases, Boston University, said in an interview.

The study was published online Dec. 9 in Neurology Clinical Practice.
 

‘Moderately severe’ disability

For the study, the investigators reviewed the medical records of 74 adults (mean age, 64 years) who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and evaluated for neurologic conditions at Boston Medical Center, a safety-net hospital caring primarily for underserved, low-income, racial and ethnic minority populations.

The most common COVID-19 symptoms on arrival to the hospital were cough (39%), dyspnea (36%), and fever (34%). Eleven patients required intubation (15%) and 28 required some form of supplemental oxygen (38%). Thirty-four patients required intensive care (46%).

The most common neurologic COVID-19 symptoms at presentation were altered mental status (53%), myalgia (24%), fatigue (24%), and headache (18%). 

After neurologic assessment, the most common final neurologic diagnosis was multifactorial or toxic-metabolic encephalopathy (35%), followed by seizure (20%), ischemic stroke (20%), primary movement disorder (9%), peripheral neuropathy (8%), and hemorrhagic stroke (4%).

Three patients (4%) suffered traumatic brain injuries after falling in their homes after developing COVID-19.

Ten (14%) patients died in the hospital. Survivors had “moderately severe” disability at discharge (median modified Rankin Scale score of 4 from a preadmission mRS score of 2) and many were discharged to nursing facilities or rehabilitation hospitals.

“Although we do not have data on their posthospital course, this suggests that patients with neurologic complications of COVID-19 are likely to require ongoing rehabilitation, even after they leave the hospital,” Dr. Anand, a member of the American Academy of Neurology, said in an interview.

“There are a diverse range of mechanisms by which COVID-19 can cause neurologic complications,” Dr. Anand said.

“These complications can result from the body’s immunological response to the virus (e.g., Guillain-Barré syndrome, an autoimmune disorder affecting the nerves), from having a systemic severe illness (e.g., brain injury as a result of insufficient oxygenation), from the increased tendency to form blood clots (e.g., stroke), from worsening of preexisting neurologic disorders, and possibly from involvement of the nervous system by the virus itself,” she explained.

The researchers said more study is needed to characterize the infectious and postinfectious neurologic complications of COVID-19 in diverse patient populations.
 

Lingering issues

In an interview, Kenneth L. Tyler, MD, chair of neurology, University of Colorado, Denver, noted that this is one of the larger series published to date of the neurologic complications associated with COVID-19, and the first to come from a U.S. safety-net hospital in a large metropolitan area.

“Overall, the types and categories of neurological complications reported including encephalopathy (35%) and acute cerebrovascular events (~20%) are similar to those reported elsewhere,” said Dr. Tyler.

However, the frequency of stroke (~20%) is higher than in some other reports, “likely reflecting the comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, limited access to care [that are] present in this population,” he said.

Dr. Tyler also noted that the “relatively high frequency” of primary movement disorders, notably myoclonus, “hasn’t been particularly well recognized or described, although one of the authors has written on this in COVID-19, so perhaps there is a bit of an ‘ascertainment bias’ – as they were looking harder for it?”

Finally, he noted, it’s important to understand that all the published studies “vary tremendously in the populations they examine, so direct comparisons can be difficult.”

Also weighing in on the report in an interview, Richard Temes, MD, director, Northwell Health’s Center for Neurocritical Care in Manhasset, N.Y., said neurologic problems have been noted since the start of COVID-19 and have been well described.

“It’s common for patients to present with very nonspecific neurological complaints like confusion, disorientation, altered mental status, lethargy, but also neurological disease such as strokes, brain hemorrhages, and seizures are quite common as well,” said Dr. Temes. 

He also noted that a number of patients with COVID-19 will have “lingering effects, especially patients who are hospitalized, that can range from memory deficit, cognitive slowing, and trouble with activities of daily living and depression.

“These effects can occur with any patient who is hospitalized for a [significant] period of time, especially in the intensive care unit, so it’s hard to tease out whether or not this is truly from COVID itself or if it’s just being a survivor from a very severe, critical illness. We don’t know yet. We need more data on that,” he cautioned.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Serious neurologic complications in patients with COVID-19 are not limited to the severely ill, new research confirms.

“We found a range of neurologic diagnoses, including stroke and seizures, among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and the majority were not critically ill, suggesting that these complications are not limited just to those patients who require ICU care or a ventilator,” study investigator Pria Anand, MD, division of neuro-infectious diseases, Boston University, said in an interview.

The study was published online Dec. 9 in Neurology Clinical Practice.
 

‘Moderately severe’ disability

For the study, the investigators reviewed the medical records of 74 adults (mean age, 64 years) who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and evaluated for neurologic conditions at Boston Medical Center, a safety-net hospital caring primarily for underserved, low-income, racial and ethnic minority populations.

The most common COVID-19 symptoms on arrival to the hospital were cough (39%), dyspnea (36%), and fever (34%). Eleven patients required intubation (15%) and 28 required some form of supplemental oxygen (38%). Thirty-four patients required intensive care (46%).

The most common neurologic COVID-19 symptoms at presentation were altered mental status (53%), myalgia (24%), fatigue (24%), and headache (18%). 

After neurologic assessment, the most common final neurologic diagnosis was multifactorial or toxic-metabolic encephalopathy (35%), followed by seizure (20%), ischemic stroke (20%), primary movement disorder (9%), peripheral neuropathy (8%), and hemorrhagic stroke (4%).

Three patients (4%) suffered traumatic brain injuries after falling in their homes after developing COVID-19.

Ten (14%) patients died in the hospital. Survivors had “moderately severe” disability at discharge (median modified Rankin Scale score of 4 from a preadmission mRS score of 2) and many were discharged to nursing facilities or rehabilitation hospitals.

“Although we do not have data on their posthospital course, this suggests that patients with neurologic complications of COVID-19 are likely to require ongoing rehabilitation, even after they leave the hospital,” Dr. Anand, a member of the American Academy of Neurology, said in an interview.

“There are a diverse range of mechanisms by which COVID-19 can cause neurologic complications,” Dr. Anand said.

“These complications can result from the body’s immunological response to the virus (e.g., Guillain-Barré syndrome, an autoimmune disorder affecting the nerves), from having a systemic severe illness (e.g., brain injury as a result of insufficient oxygenation), from the increased tendency to form blood clots (e.g., stroke), from worsening of preexisting neurologic disorders, and possibly from involvement of the nervous system by the virus itself,” she explained.

The researchers said more study is needed to characterize the infectious and postinfectious neurologic complications of COVID-19 in diverse patient populations.
 

Lingering issues

In an interview, Kenneth L. Tyler, MD, chair of neurology, University of Colorado, Denver, noted that this is one of the larger series published to date of the neurologic complications associated with COVID-19, and the first to come from a U.S. safety-net hospital in a large metropolitan area.

“Overall, the types and categories of neurological complications reported including encephalopathy (35%) and acute cerebrovascular events (~20%) are similar to those reported elsewhere,” said Dr. Tyler.

However, the frequency of stroke (~20%) is higher than in some other reports, “likely reflecting the comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, limited access to care [that are] present in this population,” he said.

Dr. Tyler also noted that the “relatively high frequency” of primary movement disorders, notably myoclonus, “hasn’t been particularly well recognized or described, although one of the authors has written on this in COVID-19, so perhaps there is a bit of an ‘ascertainment bias’ – as they were looking harder for it?”

Finally, he noted, it’s important to understand that all the published studies “vary tremendously in the populations they examine, so direct comparisons can be difficult.”

Also weighing in on the report in an interview, Richard Temes, MD, director, Northwell Health’s Center for Neurocritical Care in Manhasset, N.Y., said neurologic problems have been noted since the start of COVID-19 and have been well described.

“It’s common for patients to present with very nonspecific neurological complaints like confusion, disorientation, altered mental status, lethargy, but also neurological disease such as strokes, brain hemorrhages, and seizures are quite common as well,” said Dr. Temes. 

He also noted that a number of patients with COVID-19 will have “lingering effects, especially patients who are hospitalized, that can range from memory deficit, cognitive slowing, and trouble with activities of daily living and depression.

“These effects can occur with any patient who is hospitalized for a [significant] period of time, especially in the intensive care unit, so it’s hard to tease out whether or not this is truly from COVID itself or if it’s just being a survivor from a very severe, critical illness. We don’t know yet. We need more data on that,” he cautioned.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Serious neurologic complications in patients with COVID-19 are not limited to the severely ill, new research confirms.

“We found a range of neurologic diagnoses, including stroke and seizures, among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and the majority were not critically ill, suggesting that these complications are not limited just to those patients who require ICU care or a ventilator,” study investigator Pria Anand, MD, division of neuro-infectious diseases, Boston University, said in an interview.

The study was published online Dec. 9 in Neurology Clinical Practice.
 

‘Moderately severe’ disability

For the study, the investigators reviewed the medical records of 74 adults (mean age, 64 years) who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and evaluated for neurologic conditions at Boston Medical Center, a safety-net hospital caring primarily for underserved, low-income, racial and ethnic minority populations.

The most common COVID-19 symptoms on arrival to the hospital were cough (39%), dyspnea (36%), and fever (34%). Eleven patients required intubation (15%) and 28 required some form of supplemental oxygen (38%). Thirty-four patients required intensive care (46%).

The most common neurologic COVID-19 symptoms at presentation were altered mental status (53%), myalgia (24%), fatigue (24%), and headache (18%). 

After neurologic assessment, the most common final neurologic diagnosis was multifactorial or toxic-metabolic encephalopathy (35%), followed by seizure (20%), ischemic stroke (20%), primary movement disorder (9%), peripheral neuropathy (8%), and hemorrhagic stroke (4%).

Three patients (4%) suffered traumatic brain injuries after falling in their homes after developing COVID-19.

Ten (14%) patients died in the hospital. Survivors had “moderately severe” disability at discharge (median modified Rankin Scale score of 4 from a preadmission mRS score of 2) and many were discharged to nursing facilities or rehabilitation hospitals.

“Although we do not have data on their posthospital course, this suggests that patients with neurologic complications of COVID-19 are likely to require ongoing rehabilitation, even after they leave the hospital,” Dr. Anand, a member of the American Academy of Neurology, said in an interview.

“There are a diverse range of mechanisms by which COVID-19 can cause neurologic complications,” Dr. Anand said.

“These complications can result from the body’s immunological response to the virus (e.g., Guillain-Barré syndrome, an autoimmune disorder affecting the nerves), from having a systemic severe illness (e.g., brain injury as a result of insufficient oxygenation), from the increased tendency to form blood clots (e.g., stroke), from worsening of preexisting neurologic disorders, and possibly from involvement of the nervous system by the virus itself,” she explained.

The researchers said more study is needed to characterize the infectious and postinfectious neurologic complications of COVID-19 in diverse patient populations.
 

Lingering issues

In an interview, Kenneth L. Tyler, MD, chair of neurology, University of Colorado, Denver, noted that this is one of the larger series published to date of the neurologic complications associated with COVID-19, and the first to come from a U.S. safety-net hospital in a large metropolitan area.

“Overall, the types and categories of neurological complications reported including encephalopathy (35%) and acute cerebrovascular events (~20%) are similar to those reported elsewhere,” said Dr. Tyler.

However, the frequency of stroke (~20%) is higher than in some other reports, “likely reflecting the comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, limited access to care [that are] present in this population,” he said.

Dr. Tyler also noted that the “relatively high frequency” of primary movement disorders, notably myoclonus, “hasn’t been particularly well recognized or described, although one of the authors has written on this in COVID-19, so perhaps there is a bit of an ‘ascertainment bias’ – as they were looking harder for it?”

Finally, he noted, it’s important to understand that all the published studies “vary tremendously in the populations they examine, so direct comparisons can be difficult.”

Also weighing in on the report in an interview, Richard Temes, MD, director, Northwell Health’s Center for Neurocritical Care in Manhasset, N.Y., said neurologic problems have been noted since the start of COVID-19 and have been well described.

“It’s common for patients to present with very nonspecific neurological complaints like confusion, disorientation, altered mental status, lethargy, but also neurological disease such as strokes, brain hemorrhages, and seizures are quite common as well,” said Dr. Temes. 

He also noted that a number of patients with COVID-19 will have “lingering effects, especially patients who are hospitalized, that can range from memory deficit, cognitive slowing, and trouble with activities of daily living and depression.

“These effects can occur with any patient who is hospitalized for a [significant] period of time, especially in the intensive care unit, so it’s hard to tease out whether or not this is truly from COVID itself or if it’s just being a survivor from a very severe, critical illness. We don’t know yet. We need more data on that,” he cautioned.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures have made two changes to performance measures for adults with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.

The 2020 Update to the 2016 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With Atrial Fibrillation or Atrial Flutter was published online Dec. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. It was developed in collaboration with the Heart Rhythm Society.

Both performance measure changes were prompted by, and are in accordance with, the 2019 ACC/AHA/Heart Rhythm Society atrial fibrillation guideline focused update issued in January 2019, and reported by this news organization at that time.

The first change is the clarification that valvular atrial fibrillation is atrial fibrillation with either moderate or severe mitral stenosis or a mechanical heart valve. This change is incorporated into all the performance measures.

The second change, which only applies to the performance measure of anticoagulation prescribed, is the separation of a male and female threshold for the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score.

This threshold is now a score higher than 1 for men and higher than 2 for women, further demonstrating that the risk for stroke differs for men and women with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, the ACC/AHA noted in a press release.

“Successful implementation of these updated performance measures by clinicians and healthcare organizations will lead to quality improvement for adult patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter,” they said.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures have made two changes to performance measures for adults with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.

The 2020 Update to the 2016 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With Atrial Fibrillation or Atrial Flutter was published online Dec. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. It was developed in collaboration with the Heart Rhythm Society.

Both performance measure changes were prompted by, and are in accordance with, the 2019 ACC/AHA/Heart Rhythm Society atrial fibrillation guideline focused update issued in January 2019, and reported by this news organization at that time.

The first change is the clarification that valvular atrial fibrillation is atrial fibrillation with either moderate or severe mitral stenosis or a mechanical heart valve. This change is incorporated into all the performance measures.

The second change, which only applies to the performance measure of anticoagulation prescribed, is the separation of a male and female threshold for the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score.

This threshold is now a score higher than 1 for men and higher than 2 for women, further demonstrating that the risk for stroke differs for men and women with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, the ACC/AHA noted in a press release.

“Successful implementation of these updated performance measures by clinicians and healthcare organizations will lead to quality improvement for adult patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter,” they said.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures have made two changes to performance measures for adults with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.

The 2020 Update to the 2016 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With Atrial Fibrillation or Atrial Flutter was published online Dec. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. It was developed in collaboration with the Heart Rhythm Society.

Both performance measure changes were prompted by, and are in accordance with, the 2019 ACC/AHA/Heart Rhythm Society atrial fibrillation guideline focused update issued in January 2019, and reported by this news organization at that time.

The first change is the clarification that valvular atrial fibrillation is atrial fibrillation with either moderate or severe mitral stenosis or a mechanical heart valve. This change is incorporated into all the performance measures.

The second change, which only applies to the performance measure of anticoagulation prescribed, is the separation of a male and female threshold for the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score.

This threshold is now a score higher than 1 for men and higher than 2 for women, further demonstrating that the risk for stroke differs for men and women with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, the ACC/AHA noted in a press release.

“Successful implementation of these updated performance measures by clinicians and healthcare organizations will lead to quality improvement for adult patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter,” they said.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advisory committee recommended on December 12 the recently authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for people age 16 and over in the United States, stating they found it was safe and effective.

The agency said it will quickly issue guidance to clinicians so they can determine when and when not to give the vaccine, and to help them communicate the risks and benefits to patients.

CDC staff gave a preview of those clinical considerations at the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting on December 12 and said it would be holding calls with clinicians on December 13 and 14.

The CDC will also issue guidance December 13 on how organizations can handle the workforce problems that might arise as health care workers experience side effects from vaccination.

ACIP voted 11-0, with three recusals, to recommend use of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine in individuals 16 years or older according to the guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) emergency use authorization issued December 11.

The panel also voted unanimously to include the vaccine in 2021 immunization schedules. All panel members said the recommendation should go hand-in-hand with ACIP’s previous recommendation on December 1 that allocation of the vaccine be phased-in, with health care workers and residents and staff of long-term care facilities in phase 1a.

Allergies, pregnant women?

ACIP panelists said clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies.

The FDA health care provider information sheet said there is not enough data to recommend vaccinating those women or the immunocompromised, and also advises against giving the vaccine to individuals who have a history of serious allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research (CBER) clarified this in a briefing on December 12, noting that women who are pregnant or lactating can make the decision in consultation with their physician. And, he said, patients with any other history of allergy should be able to safely get the vaccine.

The CDC — in its soon-to-be-released guidance — will make the same recommendations. For any woman considering vaccination, she should consider the level of COVID-19 in the community, her personal risk of contracting the virus, the risks to her or her fetus of developing the disease, and the vaccine’s known side effects, Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, a medical officer at the agency, said during the panel meeting December 12.

She added that the CDC will also urge physicians to advise women to take acetaminophen if they develop a fever after vaccination — to protect the developing fetus from fever.

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, representing the American Medical Association, commended the CDC for these recommendations. But she also called on Pfizer, the FDA, and the CDC to make data from the developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) studies public as soon as possible.

“We really need to put those results on warp speed and get them out there to give our physicians and pregnant women more information,” said Fryhofer, an adjunct associate professor of medicine at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) will also soon release guidance for vaccinating pregnant and breastfeeding women, said Linda Eckert, MD, FACOG, an ACOG representative on the panel.

ACOG and the CDC met the morning of December 12 to discuss risks and benefits with experts in immunology, placental pathology, and vaccine kinetics, she said.

“The overall complete consensus was that we don’t see biological plausibility at this time for placental transfer of the mRNA and that we see that direct fetal exposure or the possibility of fetal inflammatory response is extremely unlikely,” said Eckert, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle. “Clearly we are waiting on the data.”

A Pfizer official told the ACIP panel that preliminary data “show no indication of either developmental or reproductive toxicity,” and that the company plans to send the final DART data to the FDA at the end of December.

On the potential for allergic reactions, the CDC concurred with the FDA that the vaccine should not be given to people with a history of serious reactions. The agency added that the category should include anyone who has had a reaction to any vaccine or injectable drug product because injectables may contain the same ingredients as the Pfizer vaccine, said Mbaeyi.

The CDC will also urge clinicians to observe patients with a history of anaphylaxis for 30 minutes after vaccination and all patients for at least 15 minutes afterward.

Should teens be a special population?

At least one ACIP panel member — Henry Bernstein, DO, MHCM, FAAP — said he was concerned that backing use of the vaccine in 16- and 17-year-olds was a leap of faith, given that Pfizer had extremely limited data on this cohort.

Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, also said that systemic reactions were more common in that age group.

He argued for making the 16- and 17-year-olds a “special population” that would get specific attention and guidance for vaccination from the federal agencies and professional societies.

Bernstein said he did not want to sow any more doubts in parents’ minds about vaccination, noting that hesitancy was a growing concern. “A successful pediatric vaccination program depends on creating and sustaining parental confidence in both the safety and effectiveness of this vaccine,” he said.

Many panelists, however, noted that there has been no evidence to suggest that the vaccine is not safe or less effective in that younger age group.

Yvonne Maldonado, MD, the American Academy of Pediatrics representative on the panel, said that this age group should not be denied the vaccine as they often have essential or front-line jobs that put them at higher risk for infection.

“I am very concerned about this message being sent out that this vaccine will not be safe in children,” said Maldonado, professor of pediatrics and health research and policy at Stanford University School of Medicine in California.

“We currently have no evidence that that is the case,” she said, adding there is also no indication younger children are biologically or physiologically different in their response or safety risk than 18-year-olds.

Vaccine = hope

Committee members breathed a sigh of relief at the end of the 2-day meeting, saying that although the Pfizer vaccine is not perfect, it represents a scientific milestone and a significant advance against the continuing march of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

“This vaccine and future vaccines do provide a promise for a lot of progress in the future,” said panelist Beth P. Bell, MD, MPH, clinical professor of global health at the University of Washington School of Public Health in Seattle.

Peter Szilagyi, MD, MPH, executive vice-chair and vice-chair for research at the University of California, Los Angeles pediatrics department, said, “I’m really hopeful that this is the beginning of the end of the coronavirus pandemic.”

“The need for this vaccine is profound,” said Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in West Bloomfield, Michigan.

The ACIP panel also made the argument that while the at least $10 billion spent on vaccine development by the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed alone has been a good investment, more spending is needed to actually get Americans vaccinated.

The imbalance between the two is “shocking and needs to be corrected,” said Bell. “We are not going to be able to protect the American public if we don’t have a way to deliver the vaccine to them.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advisory committee recommended on December 12 the recently authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for people age 16 and over in the United States, stating they found it was safe and effective.

The agency said it will quickly issue guidance to clinicians so they can determine when and when not to give the vaccine, and to help them communicate the risks and benefits to patients.

CDC staff gave a preview of those clinical considerations at the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting on December 12 and said it would be holding calls with clinicians on December 13 and 14.

The CDC will also issue guidance December 13 on how organizations can handle the workforce problems that might arise as health care workers experience side effects from vaccination.

ACIP voted 11-0, with three recusals, to recommend use of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine in individuals 16 years or older according to the guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) emergency use authorization issued December 11.

The panel also voted unanimously to include the vaccine in 2021 immunization schedules. All panel members said the recommendation should go hand-in-hand with ACIP’s previous recommendation on December 1 that allocation of the vaccine be phased-in, with health care workers and residents and staff of long-term care facilities in phase 1a.

Allergies, pregnant women?

ACIP panelists said clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies.

The FDA health care provider information sheet said there is not enough data to recommend vaccinating those women or the immunocompromised, and also advises against giving the vaccine to individuals who have a history of serious allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research (CBER) clarified this in a briefing on December 12, noting that women who are pregnant or lactating can make the decision in consultation with their physician. And, he said, patients with any other history of allergy should be able to safely get the vaccine.

The CDC — in its soon-to-be-released guidance — will make the same recommendations. For any woman considering vaccination, she should consider the level of COVID-19 in the community, her personal risk of contracting the virus, the risks to her or her fetus of developing the disease, and the vaccine’s known side effects, Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, a medical officer at the agency, said during the panel meeting December 12.

She added that the CDC will also urge physicians to advise women to take acetaminophen if they develop a fever after vaccination — to protect the developing fetus from fever.

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, representing the American Medical Association, commended the CDC for these recommendations. But she also called on Pfizer, the FDA, and the CDC to make data from the developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) studies public as soon as possible.

“We really need to put those results on warp speed and get them out there to give our physicians and pregnant women more information,” said Fryhofer, an adjunct associate professor of medicine at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) will also soon release guidance for vaccinating pregnant and breastfeeding women, said Linda Eckert, MD, FACOG, an ACOG representative on the panel.

ACOG and the CDC met the morning of December 12 to discuss risks and benefits with experts in immunology, placental pathology, and vaccine kinetics, she said.

“The overall complete consensus was that we don’t see biological plausibility at this time for placental transfer of the mRNA and that we see that direct fetal exposure or the possibility of fetal inflammatory response is extremely unlikely,” said Eckert, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle. “Clearly we are waiting on the data.”

A Pfizer official told the ACIP panel that preliminary data “show no indication of either developmental or reproductive toxicity,” and that the company plans to send the final DART data to the FDA at the end of December.

On the potential for allergic reactions, the CDC concurred with the FDA that the vaccine should not be given to people with a history of serious reactions. The agency added that the category should include anyone who has had a reaction to any vaccine or injectable drug product because injectables may contain the same ingredients as the Pfizer vaccine, said Mbaeyi.

The CDC will also urge clinicians to observe patients with a history of anaphylaxis for 30 minutes after vaccination and all patients for at least 15 minutes afterward.