Filip Dubovsky
Analyst · Cantor Fitzgerald
Thank you, John. Please turn to Slide 9. John outlined the 3 major areas where we see an opportunity for a vaccine to have an additional impact. We're gathering clinical data to support both label expansion as well as policy recommendations. Let's go to Slide 10 and talk about primary vaccination. As John described, we continue to seek emergencies authorization in additional territories for primary vaccination. In parallel, we are reading data from our Phase III studies to perceivable approvals. We expect to file our BLA in the second half of this year. We're also gathering additional data for our vaccine can be used to -- for additional populations and in a more flexible manner, to allow for better use. Today, I will give a couple of examples. One from our BLA data set from our U.K. Phase III study and another study we recently launched in South Africa. Please turn to Slide 11. [indiscernible] design of the U.S. Phase III study -- the U.K. Phase III study. In all 15,000 participants have received vaccine and have received placebo. The primary endpoint was PCR-confirmed mild, moderate or severe disease beginning 7 days after the second dose. Please turn to Slide 12. This slide describes the emergence of variance during the conduct of the study. The cases for the primary efficacy valuation were collected over 3 months during a time window from the 10th of November to the 24th of January, as marked in the green box. You can see that the majority of patients were caused by the alpha variant, which emerged during the conduct of the study. Now let's go to Slide 13. Here we see the primary efficacy data that was used to obtain approval for emergency use authorization. The data was collected over that 3-month period, which represents a median of 55 days surveillance. There were 10 cases in the vaccine group, 96 cases in the placebo group with the resultant efficacy of approximately 90%. All the severe cases occurred in the placebo group were due to low case count, this was not specifically significant. So let's move on to Slide 14. The data I will present today represent the BLA MAA data, the efficacy endpoints were collected over a 6-month time period and marked and in the green box on the slide. The alpha variant continues to be the predominant variant during the efficacy collection window. Now let's go to Slide 15 and look at some data. Here, we have displayed high-level safety data. The safety profile is very consistent with previous studies. The event rates are low and balance between vaccine and placebo group, serious, severe and adverse event, the special interest occurred at very low frequencies. Let's move to Slide 16. Here we have the placebo [indiscernible] efficacy data collected over the 6-month surveillance period, which represents a median of approximately 100 days of surveillance. There were 24 cases in the vaccine group and 134 cases in placebo group, which yielded a vaccine efficacy of 82.7% with lower boom greater than 73%. This is consistent with the reno about the decay of antibody for this vaccine and for all other Covid vaccines. Importantly, this expanded data set, we had an adequate number of cases to statistically demonstrate vaccine efficacy against severe disease. We saw a vaccine efficacy of 100% with a lower bound confidence interval above 0. Now let's turn to Slide 17. So this is a graphic representation of the protection. The vaccine group is in blue, while the placebo group is in gray. The vaccine group and placebo group diverged on day 0, which was the day of the second dose of vaccine was administered, indicating that efficacy can be observed early in the primary vaccination schedule. Now let's go to Slide 18. The data on this slide represents our first evaluation of protection against infection. Infection is designed and defined as either still converting to the N protein or being PCR positive, thus capturing both symptomatic and asymptomatic cases. This analysis included a collected through the extended data set. Overall, there were 36 cases in the vaccine group and 195 cases in the placebo group, which yielded a vaccine efficacy of 82.5% with a tight lower bound of 75%. Okay, let's jump to Slide 19 for a quick summary. I presented data from the extended data cut that will be used to support the BLA MAA or from our U.K. Phase III study. The top line safety continues to be reassuring, clinical efficacy was maintained with the expected diminution as immune responses waned, vaccine efficacy against severe disease was preserved with no severe cases throughout the expense related period. The vaccine demonstrated protection from infection which recapitulates what we saw in our nonhuman primate studies. And this has potential implications for transmission as well as for promotion of long-term COVID sequalae. If you're not infected, you can trust in the virus or [indiscernible] along COVID. Okay. Okay, let's turn to Slide 20 and talk about the study we began last week. In this study, we're evaluating alternate dosing schedules. -- in people living with HIV, we're evaluating both a 3-dose schedule and an extended dosing schedule to define the best approach for vaccinating immunocompromised participants. Additionally, we're comparing our Class 60 and 21-day schedule to 0 and 70-day schedule to generate data that will support additional flexibility in our vaccine is used in the real world. This study began last Friday and is an example of the approach we are taking to expand the reach of our primary vaccination populations. . Okay, please turn to Slide 21, and we'll talk briefly about boosting. For heterologous boosting, we are encouraged by the policy accommodations in some countries, allowing heterologous vaccination and boosting. We continue to collaborate with academic and government groups to gather additional data, and this will be used to -- and we will initiate our own studies in the second quarter. For homologous boosting, our initial data and regulatory filings will leverage the USC Australia Phase II study as well as data from the South Africa Phase II study. I will detail some of that data in the next slide. We anticipate this will be ready for regulatory submission in the second quarter. Additional data will be coming from our Phase III study, where we boosted all the participants. And as John mentioned, we have received support from the U.S. government to expand the adolescent study to include boosting. Now lets go to Slide 22 and review some of the data that will support the initial boosting indication. This is indicative data from our U.S. and Australia Phase II study. The first 2 bars displayed the wild-type neutralization response after 2 doses in the U.K. and U.S., Mexico Phase III study. Above the bars are the high levels of efficacy seen again strains closest to the original strain as well as variance. As a reminder, the majority of cases in both studies were determined to be variance. On the third bar is immune response we saw after a single boosting dose of 6 months. You can see that we induced neutralizing responses were 4.5 fold higher than associated with protection in the Phase III studies giving us reason to believe we could have comparable or higher efficacy after a boosting dose. Now please turn to Slide 23. The quality of the immune responses is equally important as the magnitude of immune response. This slide displays neutralizing response against prototype, Delta and Omicron variants. This is a stringent assay conducted at the Matt Frieman Lab in the University of Maryland, which measures 99% utilization. On the left-hand side are the results after 2 doses, neutralizing immune responses that were preserved against all variants. There's a fourfold decrease between the original strain and the Omicron variant. On the right-hand side, you can see that after a single boost, there was a large increase neutralizing titers against all variants. The absolute levels after boosting compared favorably with those seen at their 2 doses. I want to remind you that in our Phase III study, we saw 96% to 100% protection against a prototype after 2 doses, shown here in black on the left-hand side and 82% against Delta displayed on blue on the left hand side. Okay. Please turn to Slide 24, and let's talk about children. We have concluded the study in children of 12 to 18 years of age and plan to submit this to our global regulators in the first quarter. In fact, we have already submitted the clinical study report to the regulatory agencies that have mechanisms to accept submission of clinical data in advance of the complete filing. As we have previously detailed, we plan to initiate an age de-escalation study in the second quarter. But let me review a bit of data from our adolescent study to show you why we're so excited about the pediatric indication. Please turn to Slide 25. This slide reviews our adolescent data. Importantly, we achieved our primary effectiveness endpoint, which showed immune responses in 12 to 18 year olds were non-inferior to low set and young adults in the main part of the Phase III study. In fact, those responses were 1.5 fold higher than seen in adults. From a regulatory perspective, by achieving this endpoint the efficacy in the adult portion of the study is deemed to apply to the adolescent. Additionally, although the number of patients was modest, we saw 82% efficacy against the Delta variant. Now let's move to Slide 26. Despite here is the local reactogenicity comparing 12- to 18-year olds to 18- to 25-year olds, overall, the adolescent compared favorably to young adults. There was a small increase in mild swelling and redness seen after those 2 likely because of the growth of teenage one. All the events were short-lived with a median duration of 1 to 2 days. Now let's turn to Slide 27 and look at the solicit symptoms. The solicited reactogenicity was also favorable and compared well between adolescents to those in the young adults. There's a small increase in Grade 3 fatigue in teams, however, overall, the rates of all grades of fatigues were lower than in the young adults. All events are short-lived, median duration of 1 day except for muscle pain, which was 2 days. The reason we're so excited about this data is because the reactogenicity appears favorable compared to the young adults despite the immune response being significantly higher than seen in the younger adults. This may bode well for vaccine evaluation in young children and may help increase vaccine acceptability in this age group. Finally, let's go to Slide 28 and look at our near-term pipeline. Displayed here is our near-term pipeline, and I want to point out some of the clinical highlights. As we've talked about from Nuvaxovid, we will continue to work on our label and policy expansions, including boosting and pediatric indications. For the Omicron vaccine, we have previously stated we have 1 in development. It still isn't clear that an Omicron vaccine is needed. I've share data that our vaccine has worked well against all variants in the U.S. and U.K. Phase III studies, and our immune responses against Omicron variant sound, especially after boosting dose. However, we are in the midst of a GMP campaign at the manufacture the vaccine, and the material will be available towards the end of the first quarter. Our plan is to conduct a strain change study immediately thereafter. In these sorts of studies, we being licensure by comparing the immune response induced by the Omicron vaccine with immune responses induced by the recent strain, which is similar to what's done for influenza when the strains change on an annual basis. As far as our combination influenza of COVID study goes, it's complete and being analyzed. As you remember, the study explored a wide range of antigen doses for the combination vaccine as well as for the quadrivalent influenza vaccine by itself. We expect the results to be available in April. And based on those results, we will conduct the Phase II studies to confirm specific formulations that we will take into the pivotal study. Okay. Let me turn it over to Jim to discuss our financial results.