FDA adcomm narrowly votes in favor of Merck’s antiviral for outpatient Covid-19

With lit­tle ex­pla­na­tion for why Mer­ck’s po­ten­tial Covid-19 an­tivi­ral was less ef­fec­tive in re­duc­ing Covid hos­pi­tal­iza­tions and deaths in a full analy­sis of a Phase III tri­al ver­sus an in­ter­im look, the FDA’s an­timi­cro­bial drugs ad­vi­so­ry com­mit­tee on Tues­day vot­ed 13-10 in fa­vor of the pill’s ben­e­fits out­weigh­ing the risks for adults with­in 5 days of de­vel­op­ing Covid symp­toms.

Mol­nupi­ravir will like­ly be au­tho­rized by FDA in the com­ing days for adults with mild or mod­er­ate Covid-19. While Pfiz­er’s an­tivi­ral may prove to be more ef­fec­tive, Mer­ck’s pill will be an­oth­er weapon in the ar­ma­men­tar­i­um of Covid-19 treat­ments for coun­tries around the world, adding to the mAb treat­ments al­ready in use in the out­pa­tient space from Re­gen­eron, Eli Lil­ly and Vir/Glax­o­SmithK­line.

Ad­comm mem­ber David Hardy of the Charles Drew Uni­ver­si­ty School of Med­i­cine and Sci­ence said he vot­ed ‘yes’ be­cause the pan­dem­ic is still an emer­gency sit­u­a­tion, and this is the first op­por­tu­ni­ty for an oral drug to be avail­able. There needs to be a warn­ing about us­ing this drug in preg­nant women, he said, not­ing of the po­ten­tial for fe­tal ab­nor­mal­i­ties.

Pan­elist Tim­o­thy Burgess of the Uni­formed Ser­vices Uni­ver­si­ty of the Health Sci­ences said he vot­ed ‘no’ on the ba­sis of the very dif­fi­cult to ex­plain dif­fer­ences in the pop­u­la­tion be­fore and af­ter the in­ter­im analy­sis (see be­low), and the het­ero­gene­ity of the ben­e­fit, par­tic­u­lar­ly for those with di­a­betes.

Dur­ing the dis­cus­sion por­tion of the ad­comm, pan­elists cen­tered their ques­tion­ing on the Mer­ck pill’s ef­fi­ca­cy and the cause of this drop off in pre­vent­ing hos­pi­tal­iza­tions and deaths, from 50% to 30% be­tween in­ter­im and fi­nal re­sults. Nei­ther Mer­ck nor the FDA could re­al­ly of­fer any spe­cif­ic caus­es. Sub­group analy­ses seem to sug­gest that mol­nupi­ravir did bet­ter against the Gam­ma and Mu vari­ants than the Delta vari­ant, but that doesn’t ex­plain how steeply the ef­fi­ca­cy fell.

For in­stance, in the post-in­ter­im analy­sis pop­u­la­tion, FDA showed how there were more Covid-re­lat­ed hos­pi­tal­iza­tions among tri­al par­tic­i­pants re­ceiv­ing mol­nupi­ravir com­pared to those re­ceiv­ing place­bo.

‘It doesn’t re­al­ly add up to us,’ Nicholas Kart­so­nis, SVP of clin­i­cal re­search, in­fec­tious dis­eases at Mer­ck, said. He not­ed that the com­pa­ny ex­pect­ed some re­gres­sion to the mean with the lat­er da­ta, but not this kind of re­duc­tion in ben­e­fit.

He point­ed to sev­er­al po­ten­tial fac­tors, in­clud­ing the rise of Delta, more fe­male tri­al par­tic­i­pants who are less like­ly than their male coun­ter­parts to be hos­pi­tal­ized or die of Covid, and more par­tic­i­pants in Eu­rope in the sec­ond part of the tri­al. ‘I don’t have a sat­is­fy­ing an­swer but that’s the to­tal­i­ty of da­ta,’ Kart­so­nis said.

When FDA sought to di­rect the con­ver­sa­tion to ques­tions about the ef­fi­ca­cy of mol­nupi­ravir in preg­nant women, sev­er­al pan­elists al­so ques­tioned the ef­fi­ca­cy in adults in gen­er­al.

‘We’re skirt­ing the is­sue of is there a ben­e­fit of the med­ica­tion in adults,’ said ad­comm pan­elist Uma Red­dy, who’s an OBG­YN at Yale.

Pan­elist Michael Green, pro­fes­sor of the Uni­ver­si­ty of Pitts­burgh School of Med­i­cine, vot­ed in fa­vor of the pill’s ben­e­fits and not­ed the lack of avail­abil­i­ty of an al­ter­na­tive oral treat­ment for un­vac­ci­nat­ed peo­ple, and the po­ten­tial loss of mAbs due to the new vari­ant Omi­cron, which Mer­ck said it thinks the an­tivi­ral will be ef­fec­tive against. ‘Should an al­ter­na­tive oral drug with a bet­ter safe­ty pro­file, the agency might con­sid­er this au­tho­riza­tion,’ Green said.

An­oth­er is­sue for the ad­comm mem­bers is the way that mol­nupi­ravir works, which is to dri­ve the mu­ta­ge­n­e­sis of the SARS-COV-2 virus to kill it off, and which could the­o­ret­i­cal­ly in­crease the like­li­hood of vari­ants oc­cur­ring as a re­sult of wide­spread treat­ment. But the FDA not­ed in its pre­sen­ta­tion that there’s no ev­i­dence that the emer­gence of spike pro­tein amino acid changes af­fect­ed vi­ro­log­ic or clin­i­cal out­comes in out­pa­tients.

Kart­so­nis said Mer­ck will be strong­ly rec­om­mend­ing that peo­ple com­plete their 5-day treat­ment cours­es to avoid any the­o­ret­i­cal con­cerns.

‘We are ex­plor­ing the fea­si­bil­i­ty of us­ing se­quence data­bas­es to mon­i­tor for the emer­gence of these nov­el vari­ants,’ Kart­so­nis added. ‘To date, if you treat peo­ple for 5 days, we’ve yet to iden­ti­fy a sin­gle case of in­fec­tious virus at day 5, so that’s a very pos­i­tive sign.’

Sev­er­al pan­elists al­so said they thought the risk for the gen­er­al pub­lic is low com­pared to the sub­stan­tial amount of nat­ur­al mu­ta­tions, but a few did raise con­cerns, par­tic­u­lar­ly if mil­lions of peo­ple ac­cess the drug.

The over­all thumbs up from the pan­el is based on re­sults from a Phase III tri­al of about 1,500 un­vac­ci­nat­ed adults, find­ing 68 hos­pi­tal­iza­tions and 9 deaths in the place­bo group, com­pared to 48 hos­pi­tal­iza­tions and one death for those on the Mer­ck pill.

The FDA said in its analy­sis of Mer­ck’s da­ta that the pill is safe and re­duces the risk of hos­pi­tal­iza­tion or death among adults with mild to mod­er­ate Covid-19 and who are at high-risk for pro­gres­sion to se­vere Covid. Sim­i­lar to the UK, the FDA is not like­ly to rec­om­mend the pill for preg­nant women due to the po­ten­tial of em­bryo-fe­tal tox­i­c­i­ty.

The US has now pur­chased more than 3 mil­lion cours­es of the Covid-19 an­tivi­ral, to be ac­quired from au­tho­riza­tion through ear­ly 2022, Mer­ck said. The con­tracts have earned Mer­ck a cool $2.2 bil­lion so far, and there are two mil­lion cours­es avail­able through fur­ther op­tions.
https://endpts.com/fda-adcomm-narrowly-votes-in-favor-of-mercks-antiviral-for-outpatient-covid-19/