Filip Dubovsky
Analyst · Jefferies. Please go ahead
Thanks, John. Let's flip to Slide 9. I want to cover three topics today. First, I want to talk about our approach to variance. Based on our antigen and adjuvant technology, our approach may be different from other vaccines. In our Phase III studies, our vaccines worked well against all variants as speculated . Furthermore, the vaccine induced high levels of very specific immune response. Although it isn't certain that an Omicron-based vaccine will be required, we're pursuing a strain change study to gather clinical data on the utility of both an Omicron variant, as well as Next, I'll pitch based on our pediatric data. We feel that our vaccine may have a special role in the pediatric population based on the parent's familiarity with recombinant protein vaccines and our favorable tolerability and immunogenicity profile. I'll also share some data from our partners at the Serum Institute of India on how the vaccine performs in children as young as 2 years of age. Finally, I'm going to go over some data we presented previously on the combination work and I'll leave the pathway forward for that. Okay. Let's get Slide 10, which is a transition slide and goes to Slide 11 to talk about variance. What's displayed here is the comparison of the clinical efficacy results from our two independent Phase III studies. As you can see, the vaccine performed well with an overall efficacy of 90% despite the majority of cases being caused by variance. For mat [ph] strains, efficacy was between 96% and 100%. And for variance strains, efficacy was 86% to 94% for alpha and the use of Mexico study, 93% against a basket of all variants of interest in ways of concern. We observed complete protection against severe disease, irrespective of which variance circulated. The Adolescent expansion of the U.S. Mexico study only Delta circulated and the efficacy was 82%. I should note that the study was powered for the immunologic effectiveness endpoint, so there were only a very few cases, the conference intervals overlap the point estimate of the bigger, more precise adult cohort. Okay, let's move to Slide 12, please, where I've detailed the variance of circulated and cause disease in the studies. In the U.K., Alpha was circulating and in the Adolescent expansion, Delta was [indiscernible] identified variant. In the biggest study conducted in the U.S. Mexico, we identified 7 different variants and in spite the majority of these cases being caused by this broad range of variance, our efficacy was preserved. Okay. Let's go to Slide 13, please, and talk about what we know about how the vaccine works in its Omicron. On the left-hand side, we've detailed immune responses against the matched prototype strain, as well as a broad range of variants after the initial 2-dose priming series. That 100% of participants generated an antibody response that recognized all variants, including Omicron BA.1 & BA.2. On the right-hand side, we have displayed the immune response to the variance after a single boost at 6 months. Here, you can see a very large bump in antibody response to all variants, including the more contemporaneous Omicron BA.1 & BA.2. In fact, the levels for BA.1 & BA.2 atriboost A1BA2 atteboost [ph] are higher than that's seen after 2 doses to the prototype strain on the left-hand side of the slide. And I want to remind you that those levels were associated with 96% to 100% protection in the Phase III studies. Okay. Let's move to Slide 14, please, where the functional immune responses are displayed. These are 99% neutralization responses against prototype, delta and Omicron performed by the Matt Frieman Lab in the University of Maryland. On the left-hand side, the response after two doses displayed and the right-hand side after a 6-month boost. After two doses, the neutralizing response is 3-point fold lower for Omicron compared to prototype. This is a relatively small difference. In fact, for influenza, anything less than a fourfold difference could be considered a matched response. After a third dose on the right-hand side, the immune response has increased significantly, including for Omicron. It is important because pretty much everyone has been exposed to COVID or has been vaccinated, so these boosted responses have become even more relevant. So based on our variant protection and immune data, we are far from certain that Omicron -based vaccine is required or will provide material improvement in performance. However, this question can be answered with clinical data. So let's move to Slide 15. We've previously announced we plan to conduct a string change [ph] study to allow us to advance an Omicron-based vaccine. Study will be conducted in previously primed individuals and determine if Omicron-based vaccine induces better immune responses compared to the original prototype vaccine. It will be the basis of a string change variation. We'll also take the opportunity to evaluate a bivalent format to determine if there is a benefit of that approach. City [ph] scheduled to start this month and top line data will be available in the third quarter. Now let's skip Slide 16 and move to Slide 17 to talk about our pediatric data. Slide describes our adolescent data, which was an expansion of the U.S. Mexico Phase III study. In a roll of total of 2,247 12 to 17-year olds, and we randomized them 2:1 vaccine to placebo. The participants were subsequently crossed over, and we are now finishing up boosting these children. Let me review the top line results. The licensure-enabling effectiveness endpoint was the demonstration of non-inferior immunoresponses in adolescents compared to young adults, which received and in fact, the adolescent neutralizing responses were one point – on and a half fold higher than adults. We were also able to measure clinical efficacy, including against delta and the tolerability was favorable compared to adults in the main part of the study. These data are the data that is the basis for approval in India for our vaccine and is the basis of the file we have submitted to the regulators in the EU, the U.K., Korea, Australia and New Zealand. The increased magnitude of immune response seen in adolescents is also relevant for the variance. So let's look at adolescents on Slide 18. Here we've displayed our antibody responses to variants after 2 doses in 12 to 17-year-old. Overall, they are 2 to 3 fold higher than adults after 2-dose series. We believe these data hold promise for broad efficacy in the pediatric population. Okay. Let's go to Slide 19 and talk about data in younger children collected by our partners at Serum. Studying [ph] conducted was an expansion of their Phase II/III adult study. It was a randomized, blinded placebo-controlled study and in the pediatric portion, they had 3 age groups, 12 to 17, 7 to 11 and 2 to 6 years. We've been given permission to share top line reactogenicity and antibody results with you today. The study was conducted with a full dose of vaccine in all age groups, 5 micrograms of antigen and 50 micrograms of matrix. Turn to Slide 20. This slide, we've compared the local solicited symptoms by age group, adults are in dark blue, 12 to 17-year-olds in light blue, and 7 to 11s in purple and 2 to 6 years in yellow, dose one is displayed on the top and dose 2 in the bottom. Expected more reactions were observed after dose 2 compared to dose 1. However, overall the vaccine was well tolerated at least as well if not better than in adults. The accompanying slides - to slide 21, which is the next slide, which shows the solicited systemic reactions. Once again, those 2 as more reactogenic than dose 1. Overall, the tolerability profile is favorable compared to adults. The one symptom that increases with decreasing age is fever and the youngest children about a third reported a peer after the second dose. However, the fevers were short-lived with a mediate of approximately 2 days, and the grade 3 fevers occurred in only 1% of the 2 to 6 year-olds. Overall, the vaccine is considered to be well tolerated. Now please turn to Slide 22. Here, we have displayed the IgG responses at baseline after 1 dose and after 2 doses. Adults are on the left and the youngest children are on the right. The results are from a validated assay performed in the Novavax clinical immunology labs. You can see there's a stepwise increase in immune responses as the age cohort decreases in age. So overall, we're seeing a favorable tolerability profile and a very significant increase in antibody responses in children. This sort of profile makes us believe our vaccine may have a special role in children's vaccinations. So what's next? Agreed upon a pediatric investigational plan in the EU and U.K. and our iPSP with the FDA has also been agreed to. Our protocol has been reviewed by the FDA, and we anticipate starting the study this summer. The planned study is a HD escalation study looking at 6 to 11-year-olds, than 2 to 5 year olds and finally, 6 months Okay, let's get the transition slide and go through to Slide 24, please. A couple of weeks ago, we presented data from our quadrivalent influenza COVID combination study, conducted the study because in our U.K. Phase III study, we noted hemologic interference between influenza vaccine and the induction of anti-spike antibody with a COVID vaccine. Subsequently, data has emerged for other vaccine platforms that would even - flu vaccine is given with a third boosting dose of COVID, the immune response to COVID may be reduced by up to a third. Remodulin dosage levels of influenza hemoglutinin and COVID spike antigen, we've innovated our way passes issue. Let's move to Slide 25 and briefly review the study design. Study was a design of experiment approach, where we had 14 different dosage groups where we varied the hemagglutinin between 5 and 60 micrograms, and we vary the spike between 2.5 and 22.5 micrograms, held the Matrix adjuvant level study at 50 micrograms. Compared to our standard COVID vaccine with 5 micrograms of spike and our standard quadrivalent influenza vaccine, which had 60 micrograms of each flu antigen. Since a comparator has 75 micrograms of Matrix-M because that was the formulation we used in our successful Phase III quadrivalent influenza study. Logic [ph] output as well as the other baseline characteristics were fed into a mathematical model, which predicted the opto combination antigens. Okay. The findings are on Slide 26. First of all, all the combinations who are tolerable and the retenancy [ph] profile was in line with the influenza vaccine comparator. From an emergency perspective, we confirm the immulogic interference between hemagglutinin, a spike that we saw in our Phase III study. However, we were able to overcome the interference by increasing the spike antigen in decrease [Technical Difficulty] dose for spike is between 20 and 30 micrograms, while hemagglutinin could be reduced to 24 to 40 micrograms per screen. System overall antigen dose may be reduced by up to 50% in the product. We'll be confirmed in a Phase II study that we have planned for later this year, we will select a couple of dosage levels using contemporaneous influenza strains and compare it to a licensed influence vaccine, will take the opportunity to evaluate 75 micrograms of Matrix. Subsequent plan includes demonstration of clinical efficacy for both a stand-alone influenza vaccine, as well as a combination vaccine. Okay. Let me hand it over to Jim to talk about the financials.