Dermatology News

U.S. regulators approved avacopan (Tavneos) for a rare immune disorder after receiving additional information to address concerns raised about the drug that were previously discussed at a public meeting in May.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

ChemoCentryx, the drug’s manufacturer, today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the drug as an adjunctive treatment for severe active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody–associated vasculitis (also known as ANCA-associated vasculitis or ANCA vasculitis).

This systemic disease results from overactivation of the complement system, leading to inflammation and eventual destruction of small blood vessels. This can lead to organ damage and failure, with the kidney as the major target, said the company in a statement.

The avacopan approval was based in large part on the results of the ADVOCATE trial, which were highlighted in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine , titled “Avacopan – Time to replace glucocorticoids?” But the FDA-approved indication for avacopan is as an adjunctive treatment of adult patients with severe active ANCA-associated vasculitis (granulomatosis with polyangiitis [GPA] and microscopic polyangiitis [MPA]) in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids. “Tavneos does not eliminate glucocorticoid use,” the label states.

The ADVOCATE trial was a global, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy phase 3 trial of 330 patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis conducted in 20 countries, ChemoCentryx said. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either rituximab or cyclophosphamide (followed by azathioprine/mycophenolate) and either avacopan or study-supplied oral prednisone.

Subjects in both treatment groups could also receive nonprotocol glucocorticoids as needed. The study met its primary endpoints of disease remission at 26 weeks and sustained remission at 52 weeks, as assessed by the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS), ChemoCentryx said. Common adverse reactions among study participants included nausea, headache, hypertension, diarrhea, vomiting, rash, fatigue, upper abdominal pain, dizziness, blood creatinine increase, and paresthesia.

In the ChemoCentryx statement, Peter A. Merkel, MD, MPH, a consultant to the company and the chief of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the avacopan clearance a “first-in-a-decade approval of a medicine for ANCA-associated vasculitis.”

“Patients will now have access to a new class of medication that provides beneficial effects for the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis,” Dr. Merkel said.

In reviewing the avacopan application, the FDA noted that the medicine is intended to treat “a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality.”

“It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies,” the FDA staff said in a review of the ChemoCentryx application for approval of avacopan, which was posted online ahead of a meeting this past May.

Previous FDA concerns

In that review, FDA staff made public various concerns about the evidence used in seeking approval of the medicine. The FDA staff said there were “substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.”

Members of the FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Committee voted 10-8 on May 6 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval. The panel also voted 9-9 on whether the efficacy data support approval of avacopan, and 10-8 that the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.

ChemoCentryx in July said it filed an amendment to its new drug application (NDA) for avacopan. This appears to have answered regulators’ questions about the drug.

On a call with analysts Friday, ChemoCentryx officials outlined a marketing strategy for avacopan, with efforts focused on reaching influential rheumatologists and nephrologists. The company will set a U.S. wholesale acquisition cost for the drug of about $150,000-$200,000 a patient, in keeping with the range of prices often seen for orphan drugs. ChemoCentryx said it intends to offer financial support programs for the medicine.

ChemoCentryx said avacopan is also approved for the treatment of microscopic polyangiitis and granulomatosis with polyangiitis (the two main forms of ANCA-associated vasculitis) in Japan. The regulatory decision in Europe is expected by the end of this year.

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

U.S. regulators approved avacopan (Tavneos) for a rare immune disorder after receiving additional information to address concerns raised about the drug that were previously discussed at a public meeting in May.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

ChemoCentryx, the drug’s manufacturer, today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the drug as an adjunctive treatment for severe active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody–associated vasculitis (also known as ANCA-associated vasculitis or ANCA vasculitis).

This systemic disease results from overactivation of the complement system, leading to inflammation and eventual destruction of small blood vessels. This can lead to organ damage and failure, with the kidney as the major target, said the company in a statement.

The avacopan approval was based in large part on the results of the ADVOCATE trial, which were highlighted in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine , titled “Avacopan – Time to replace glucocorticoids?” But the FDA-approved indication for avacopan is as an adjunctive treatment of adult patients with severe active ANCA-associated vasculitis (granulomatosis with polyangiitis [GPA] and microscopic polyangiitis [MPA]) in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids. “Tavneos does not eliminate glucocorticoid use,” the label states.

The ADVOCATE trial was a global, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy phase 3 trial of 330 patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis conducted in 20 countries, ChemoCentryx said. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either rituximab or cyclophosphamide (followed by azathioprine/mycophenolate) and either avacopan or study-supplied oral prednisone.

Subjects in both treatment groups could also receive nonprotocol glucocorticoids as needed. The study met its primary endpoints of disease remission at 26 weeks and sustained remission at 52 weeks, as assessed by the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS), ChemoCentryx said. Common adverse reactions among study participants included nausea, headache, hypertension, diarrhea, vomiting, rash, fatigue, upper abdominal pain, dizziness, blood creatinine increase, and paresthesia.

In the ChemoCentryx statement, Peter A. Merkel, MD, MPH, a consultant to the company and the chief of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the avacopan clearance a “first-in-a-decade approval of a medicine for ANCA-associated vasculitis.”

“Patients will now have access to a new class of medication that provides beneficial effects for the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis,” Dr. Merkel said.

In reviewing the avacopan application, the FDA noted that the medicine is intended to treat “a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality.”

“It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies,” the FDA staff said in a review of the ChemoCentryx application for approval of avacopan, which was posted online ahead of a meeting this past May.

Previous FDA concerns

In that review, FDA staff made public various concerns about the evidence used in seeking approval of the medicine. The FDA staff said there were “substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.”

Members of the FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Committee voted 10-8 on May 6 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval. The panel also voted 9-9 on whether the efficacy data support approval of avacopan, and 10-8 that the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.

ChemoCentryx in July said it filed an amendment to its new drug application (NDA) for avacopan. This appears to have answered regulators’ questions about the drug.

On a call with analysts Friday, ChemoCentryx officials outlined a marketing strategy for avacopan, with efforts focused on reaching influential rheumatologists and nephrologists. The company will set a U.S. wholesale acquisition cost for the drug of about $150,000-$200,000 a patient, in keeping with the range of prices often seen for orphan drugs. ChemoCentryx said it intends to offer financial support programs for the medicine.

ChemoCentryx said avacopan is also approved for the treatment of microscopic polyangiitis and granulomatosis with polyangiitis (the two main forms of ANCA-associated vasculitis) in Japan. The regulatory decision in Europe is expected by the end of this year.

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

U.S. regulators approved avacopan (Tavneos) for a rare immune disorder after receiving additional information to address concerns raised about the drug that were previously discussed at a public meeting in May.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

ChemoCentryx, the drug’s manufacturer, today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the drug as an adjunctive treatment for severe active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody–associated vasculitis (also known as ANCA-associated vasculitis or ANCA vasculitis).

This systemic disease results from overactivation of the complement system, leading to inflammation and eventual destruction of small blood vessels. This can lead to organ damage and failure, with the kidney as the major target, said the company in a statement.

The avacopan approval was based in large part on the results of the ADVOCATE trial, which were highlighted in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine , titled “Avacopan – Time to replace glucocorticoids?” But the FDA-approved indication for avacopan is as an adjunctive treatment of adult patients with severe active ANCA-associated vasculitis (granulomatosis with polyangiitis [GPA] and microscopic polyangiitis [MPA]) in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids. “Tavneos does not eliminate glucocorticoid use,” the label states.

The ADVOCATE trial was a global, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy phase 3 trial of 330 patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis conducted in 20 countries, ChemoCentryx said. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either rituximab or cyclophosphamide (followed by azathioprine/mycophenolate) and either avacopan or study-supplied oral prednisone.

Subjects in both treatment groups could also receive nonprotocol glucocorticoids as needed. The study met its primary endpoints of disease remission at 26 weeks and sustained remission at 52 weeks, as assessed by the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS), ChemoCentryx said. Common adverse reactions among study participants included nausea, headache, hypertension, diarrhea, vomiting, rash, fatigue, upper abdominal pain, dizziness, blood creatinine increase, and paresthesia.

In the ChemoCentryx statement, Peter A. Merkel, MD, MPH, a consultant to the company and the chief of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the avacopan clearance a “first-in-a-decade approval of a medicine for ANCA-associated vasculitis.”

“Patients will now have access to a new class of medication that provides beneficial effects for the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis,” Dr. Merkel said.

In reviewing the avacopan application, the FDA noted that the medicine is intended to treat “a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality.”

“It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies,” the FDA staff said in a review of the ChemoCentryx application for approval of avacopan, which was posted online ahead of a meeting this past May.

Previous FDA concerns

In that review, FDA staff made public various concerns about the evidence used in seeking approval of the medicine. The FDA staff said there were “substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.”

Members of the FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Committee voted 10-8 on May 6 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval. The panel also voted 9-9 on whether the efficacy data support approval of avacopan, and 10-8 that the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.

ChemoCentryx in July said it filed an amendment to its new drug application (NDA) for avacopan. This appears to have answered regulators’ questions about the drug.

On a call with analysts Friday, ChemoCentryx officials outlined a marketing strategy for avacopan, with efforts focused on reaching influential rheumatologists and nephrologists. The company will set a U.S. wholesale acquisition cost for the drug of about $150,000-$200,000 a patient, in keeping with the range of prices often seen for orphan drugs. ChemoCentryx said it intends to offer financial support programs for the medicine.

ChemoCentryx said avacopan is also approved for the treatment of microscopic polyangiitis and granulomatosis with polyangiitis (the two main forms of ANCA-associated vasculitis) in Japan. The regulatory decision in Europe is expected by the end of this year.

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

The Food and Drug Administration issued a warning today about the use of needle-free devices for injecting dermal fillers – which are promoted to the public on social media and have resulted in serious and permanent injuries.

Specifically, the warning advises consumers and health care professionals “not to use needle-free devices such as hyaluron pens for injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) or other lip and facial fillers, collectively and commonly referred to as dermal fillers or fillers.”

According to the statement, the agency “is aware of serious injuries and in some cases, permanent harm to the skin, lips, or eyes with the use of needle-free devices for injection of fillers.”

Needle-free devices and lip and facial fillers for use with these devices are being sold directly to consumers online, and are promoted on social media “to increase lip volume, improve the appearance of wrinkles, change the shape of the nose, and other similar procedures,” according to the FDA warning.

The FDA points out that FDA-approved dermal fillers are for prescription use only, and should be administered only by licensed health care professionals using a syringe with a needle or cannula, and advises consumers not to buy or use lip or facial fillers sold directly to the public.

These products may be contaminated with infectious agents or chemicals. Moreover, “needle-free injection devices for aesthetic purposes do not provide enough control over where the injected product is placed,” the statement adds. In addition to infections, other risks include bleeding and bruising, formation of lumps, allergic reactions, blockage of a blood vessel (which can result in necrosis, blindness, or stroke), and transmission of diseases from sharing devices.

The FDA’s recommendations for health care providers include not using any aesthetic fillers with a needle-free device, and not using approved dermal fillers in such devices.

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) commended the FDA on the safety communication in a statement issued on October 11. In February, the ASDSA issued an alert about children using hyaluron pens to self-inject hyaluronic filler into the epidermal and upper dermal skin layers. 

“I am pleased that the FDA has taken notice of this disturbing new trend, especially that of children using these devices on social media,” ASDSA president Mathew Avram, MD, JD, director of the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in the statement. “The complexity of facial anatomy requires in-depth knowledge and expertise, and patients should always have medical procedures done by a physician who also has knowledge of adverse events,” he added, urging consumers to see a board-certified dermatologist before undergoing any cosmetic procedure.

In response to a query, an FDA spokesperson did not have an estimate of the number of reports of these adverse events.

People who have problems or are concerned about having had a filler injected with a needle-free device should contact a licensed health care provider. Consumers and health care professionals should report adverse events related to injection of fillers with a needle-free device to the FDA’s MedWatch program. In addition to MedWatch, adverse events can also be reported to the Cutaneous Procedures Adverse Events Reporting (CAPER) Registry, established earlier this year by the ASDSA with the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.

*This story was updated on October 12. 

The Food and Drug Administration issued a warning today about the use of needle-free devices for injecting dermal fillers – which are promoted to the public on social media and have resulted in serious and permanent injuries.

Specifically, the warning advises consumers and health care professionals “not to use needle-free devices such as hyaluron pens for injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) or other lip and facial fillers, collectively and commonly referred to as dermal fillers or fillers.”

According to the statement, the agency “is aware of serious injuries and in some cases, permanent harm to the skin, lips, or eyes with the use of needle-free devices for injection of fillers.”

Needle-free devices and lip and facial fillers for use with these devices are being sold directly to consumers online, and are promoted on social media “to increase lip volume, improve the appearance of wrinkles, change the shape of the nose, and other similar procedures,” according to the FDA warning.

The FDA points out that FDA-approved dermal fillers are for prescription use only, and should be administered only by licensed health care professionals using a syringe with a needle or cannula, and advises consumers not to buy or use lip or facial fillers sold directly to the public.

These products may be contaminated with infectious agents or chemicals. Moreover, “needle-free injection devices for aesthetic purposes do not provide enough control over where the injected product is placed,” the statement adds. In addition to infections, other risks include bleeding and bruising, formation of lumps, allergic reactions, blockage of a blood vessel (which can result in necrosis, blindness, or stroke), and transmission of diseases from sharing devices.

The FDA’s recommendations for health care providers include not using any aesthetic fillers with a needle-free device, and not using approved dermal fillers in such devices.

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) commended the FDA on the safety communication in a statement issued on October 11. In February, the ASDSA issued an alert about children using hyaluron pens to self-inject hyaluronic filler into the epidermal and upper dermal skin layers. 

“I am pleased that the FDA has taken notice of this disturbing new trend, especially that of children using these devices on social media,” ASDSA president Mathew Avram, MD, JD, director of the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in the statement. “The complexity of facial anatomy requires in-depth knowledge and expertise, and patients should always have medical procedures done by a physician who also has knowledge of adverse events,” he added, urging consumers to see a board-certified dermatologist before undergoing any cosmetic procedure.

In response to a query, an FDA spokesperson did not have an estimate of the number of reports of these adverse events.

People who have problems or are concerned about having had a filler injected with a needle-free device should contact a licensed health care provider. Consumers and health care professionals should report adverse events related to injection of fillers with a needle-free device to the FDA’s MedWatch program. In addition to MedWatch, adverse events can also be reported to the Cutaneous Procedures Adverse Events Reporting (CAPER) Registry, established earlier this year by the ASDSA with the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.

*This story was updated on October 12. 

The Food and Drug Administration issued a warning today about the use of needle-free devices for injecting dermal fillers – which are promoted to the public on social media and have resulted in serious and permanent injuries.

Specifically, the warning advises consumers and health care professionals “not to use needle-free devices such as hyaluron pens for injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) or other lip and facial fillers, collectively and commonly referred to as dermal fillers or fillers.”

According to the statement, the agency “is aware of serious injuries and in some cases, permanent harm to the skin, lips, or eyes with the use of needle-free devices for injection of fillers.”

Needle-free devices and lip and facial fillers for use with these devices are being sold directly to consumers online, and are promoted on social media “to increase lip volume, improve the appearance of wrinkles, change the shape of the nose, and other similar procedures,” according to the FDA warning.

The FDA points out that FDA-approved dermal fillers are for prescription use only, and should be administered only by licensed health care professionals using a syringe with a needle or cannula, and advises consumers not to buy or use lip or facial fillers sold directly to the public.

These products may be contaminated with infectious agents or chemicals. Moreover, “needle-free injection devices for aesthetic purposes do not provide enough control over where the injected product is placed,” the statement adds. In addition to infections, other risks include bleeding and bruising, formation of lumps, allergic reactions, blockage of a blood vessel (which can result in necrosis, blindness, or stroke), and transmission of diseases from sharing devices.

The FDA’s recommendations for health care providers include not using any aesthetic fillers with a needle-free device, and not using approved dermal fillers in such devices.

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) commended the FDA on the safety communication in a statement issued on October 11. In February, the ASDSA issued an alert about children using hyaluron pens to self-inject hyaluronic filler into the epidermal and upper dermal skin layers. 

“I am pleased that the FDA has taken notice of this disturbing new trend, especially that of children using these devices on social media,” ASDSA president Mathew Avram, MD, JD, director of the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in the statement. “The complexity of facial anatomy requires in-depth knowledge and expertise, and patients should always have medical procedures done by a physician who also has knowledge of adverse events,” he added, urging consumers to see a board-certified dermatologist before undergoing any cosmetic procedure.

In response to a query, an FDA spokesperson did not have an estimate of the number of reports of these adverse events.

People who have problems or are concerned about having had a filler injected with a needle-free device should contact a licensed health care provider. Consumers and health care professionals should report adverse events related to injection of fillers with a needle-free device to the FDA’s MedWatch program. In addition to MedWatch, adverse events can also be reported to the Cutaneous Procedures Adverse Events Reporting (CAPER) Registry, established earlier this year by the ASDSA with the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.

*This story was updated on October 12. 

The presence of benzene has prompted voluntary company recalls of antifungal foot sprays and sunscreen products, all aerosol spray products.

mark wragg/iStockphoto.com

Bayer has voluntarily recalled batches of its Lotrimin and Tinactin products because of benzene detected in some samples, according to an Oct. 1 company announcement, available on the Food and Drug Administration website. “It is important to note that Bayer’s decision to voluntarily recall these products is a precautionary measure and that the levels detected are not expected to cause adverse health consequences in consumers,” the announcement said.

Benzene is classified as a human carcinogen present in the environment from both natural sources and human activity, and it has been shown to cause cancer with long-term exposure.

The products included in the recall – all in aerosol spray cans – are unexpired Lotrimin and Tinactin sprays with lot numbers starting with TN, CV, or NAA that were distributed to consumer venues between September 2018 and September 2021. The over-the-counter products are Lotrimin Anti-Fungal Athlete’s Foot Powder Spray, Lotrimin Anti-Fungal Jock Itch (AFJI) Athlete’s Foot Powder Spray, Lotrimin Anti-Fungal (AF) Athlete’s Foot Deodorant Powder Spray, Lotrimin AF Athlete’s Foot Liquid Spray, Lotrimin AF Athlete’s Foot Daily Prevention Deodorant Powder Spray, Tinactin Jock Itch (JI) Powder Spray, Tinactin Athlete’s Foot Deodorant Powder Spray, Tinactin Athlete’s Foot Powder Spray, and Tinactin Athlete’s Foot Liquid Spray.

Bayer has received no reports of adverse events related to the recall. The company also reported no concerns with its antifungal creams or other products.

In addition, Coppertone has issued a voluntary recall of specific lots of five spray sunscreen products because of the presence of benzene, according to a Sept. 30th company announcement, also posted on the FDA website. The recall includes Pure&Simple spray for babies, children, and adults; Coppertone Sport Mineral Spray; and Travel-sized Coppertone Sport spray. The specific lots were manufactured between January and June 2021, and are listed on the company announcement.

“Daily exposure to benzene at the levels detected in these affected Coppertone aerosol sunscreen spray products would not be expected to cause adverse health consequences based on generally accepted exposure modeling by numerous regulatory agencies,” according to the announcement. Coppertone has received no reports of adverse events related to the recall.

In the announcement, Coppertone advised consumers to discontinue use of the impacted products, dispose of the aerosol cans properly, and contact their physician or health care provider if they experience any problems related to the sunscreen sprays.

In May 2021, online pharmacy Valisure, which routinely tests their medications, petitioned the FDA to recall specific sunscreens after detecting high benzene levels in several brands and batches of sunscreen products. The FDA evaluated the petition, but the agency itself did not issue any recalls of sunscreens.

Clinicians are advised to report any adverse events to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online or by regular mail or fax using this form.

The presence of benzene has prompted voluntary company recalls of antifungal foot sprays and sunscreen products, all aerosol spray products.

mark wragg/iStockphoto.com

Bayer has voluntarily recalled batches of its Lotrimin and Tinactin products because of benzene detected in some samples, according to an Oct. 1 company announcement, available on the Food and Drug Administration website. “It is important to note that Bayer’s decision to voluntarily recall these products is a precautionary measure and that the levels detected are not expected to cause adverse health consequences in consumers,” the announcement said.

Benzene is classified as a human carcinogen present in the environment from both natural sources and human activity, and it has been shown to cause cancer with long-term exposure.

The products included in the recall – all in aerosol spray cans – are unexpired Lotrimin and Tinactin sprays with lot numbers starting with TN, CV, or NAA that were distributed to consumer venues between September 2018 and September 2021. The over-the-counter products are Lotrimin Anti-Fungal Athlete’s Foot Powder Spray, Lotrimin Anti-Fungal Jock Itch (AFJI) Athlete’s Foot Powder Spray, Lotrimin Anti-Fungal (AF) Athlete’s Foot Deodorant Powder Spray, Lotrimin AF Athlete’s Foot Liquid Spray, Lotrimin AF Athlete’s Foot Daily Prevention Deodorant Powder Spray, Tinactin Jock Itch (JI) Powder Spray, Tinactin Athlete’s Foot Deodorant Powder Spray, Tinactin Athlete’s Foot Powder Spray, and Tinactin Athlete’s Foot Liquid Spray.

Bayer has received no reports of adverse events related to the recall. The company also reported no concerns with its antifungal creams or other products.

In addition, Coppertone has issued a voluntary recall of specific lots of five spray sunscreen products because of the presence of benzene, according to a Sept. 30th company announcement, also posted on the FDA website. The recall includes Pure&Simple spray for babies, children, and adults; Coppertone Sport Mineral Spray; and Travel-sized Coppertone Sport spray. The specific lots were manufactured between January and June 2021, and are listed on the company announcement.

“Daily exposure to benzene at the levels detected in these affected Coppertone aerosol sunscreen spray products would not be expected to cause adverse health consequences based on generally accepted exposure modeling by numerous regulatory agencies,” according to the announcement. Coppertone has received no reports of adverse events related to the recall.

In the announcement, Coppertone advised consumers to discontinue use of the impacted products, dispose of the aerosol cans properly, and contact their physician or health care provider if they experience any problems related to the sunscreen sprays.

In May 2021, online pharmacy Valisure, which routinely tests their medications, petitioned the FDA to recall specific sunscreens after detecting high benzene levels in several brands and batches of sunscreen products. The FDA evaluated the petition, but the agency itself did not issue any recalls of sunscreens.

Clinicians are advised to report any adverse events to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online or by regular mail or fax using this form.

The presence of benzene has prompted voluntary company recalls of antifungal foot sprays and sunscreen products, all aerosol spray products.

mark wragg/iStockphoto.com

Bayer has voluntarily recalled batches of its Lotrimin and Tinactin products because of benzene detected in some samples, according to an Oct. 1 company announcement, available on the Food and Drug Administration website. “It is important to note that Bayer’s decision to voluntarily recall these products is a precautionary measure and that the levels detected are not expected to cause adverse health consequences in consumers,” the announcement said.

Benzene is classified as a human carcinogen present in the environment from both natural sources and human activity, and it has been shown to cause cancer with long-term exposure.

The products included in the recall – all in aerosol spray cans – are unexpired Lotrimin and Tinactin sprays with lot numbers starting with TN, CV, or NAA that were distributed to consumer venues between September 2018 and September 2021. The over-the-counter products are Lotrimin Anti-Fungal Athlete’s Foot Powder Spray, Lotrimin Anti-Fungal Jock Itch (AFJI) Athlete’s Foot Powder Spray, Lotrimin Anti-Fungal (AF) Athlete’s Foot Deodorant Powder Spray, Lotrimin AF Athlete’s Foot Liquid Spray, Lotrimin AF Athlete’s Foot Daily Prevention Deodorant Powder Spray, Tinactin Jock Itch (JI) Powder Spray, Tinactin Athlete’s Foot Deodorant Powder Spray, Tinactin Athlete’s Foot Powder Spray, and Tinactin Athlete’s Foot Liquid Spray.

Bayer has received no reports of adverse events related to the recall. The company also reported no concerns with its antifungal creams or other products.

In addition, Coppertone has issued a voluntary recall of specific lots of five spray sunscreen products because of the presence of benzene, according to a Sept. 30th company announcement, also posted on the FDA website. The recall includes Pure&Simple spray for babies, children, and adults; Coppertone Sport Mineral Spray; and Travel-sized Coppertone Sport spray. The specific lots were manufactured between January and June 2021, and are listed on the company announcement.

“Daily exposure to benzene at the levels detected in these affected Coppertone aerosol sunscreen spray products would not be expected to cause adverse health consequences based on generally accepted exposure modeling by numerous regulatory agencies,” according to the announcement. Coppertone has received no reports of adverse events related to the recall.

In the announcement, Coppertone advised consumers to discontinue use of the impacted products, dispose of the aerosol cans properly, and contact their physician or health care provider if they experience any problems related to the sunscreen sprays.

In May 2021, online pharmacy Valisure, which routinely tests their medications, petitioned the FDA to recall specific sunscreens after detecting high benzene levels in several brands and batches of sunscreen products. The FDA evaluated the petition, but the agency itself did not issue any recalls of sunscreens.

Clinicians are advised to report any adverse events to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online or by regular mail or fax using this form.

Anthem Blue Cross, the country’s second-biggest health insurance company, is behind on billions of dollars in payments owed to hospitals and doctors because of onerous new reimbursement rules, computer problems and mishandled claims, say hospital officials in multiple states.

Anthem, like other big insurers, is using the COVID-19 crisis as cover to institute “egregious” policies that harm patients and pinch hospital finances, said Molly Smith, group vice president at the American Hospital Association. “There’s this sense of ‘Everyone’s distracted. We can get this through.’ ”

Hospitals are also dealing with a spike in retroactive claims denials by UnitedHealthcare, the biggest health insurer, for ED care, the AHA said.

Disputes between insurers and hospitals are nothing new. But this fight sticks more patients in the middle, worried they’ll have to pay unresolved claims. Hospitals say it is hurting their finances as many cope with COVID surges – even after the industry has received tens of billions of dollars in emergency assistance from the federal government.

“We recognize there have been some challenges” to prompt payments caused by claims-processing changes and “a new set of dynamics” amid the pandemic, Anthem spokesperson Colin Manning said in an email. “We apologize for any delays or inconvenience this may have caused.”

Virginia law requires insurers to pay claims within 40 days. In a Sept. 24 letter to state insurance regulators, VCU Health, a system that operates a large teaching hospital in Richmond associated with Virginia Commonwealth University, said Anthem owes it $385 million. More than 40% of the claims are more than 90 days old, VCU said.

For all Virginia hospitals, Anthem’s late, unpaid claims amount to “hundreds of millions of dollars,” the Virginia Hospital and Healthcare Association said in a June 23 letter to state regulators.

Nationwide, the payment delays “are creating an untenable situation,” the American Hospital Association said in a Sept. 9 letter to Anthem CEO Gail Boudreaux. “Patients are facing greater hurdles to accessing care; clinicians are burning out on unnecessary administrative tasks; and the system is straining to finance the personnel and supplies” needed to fight Covid.

Complaints about Anthem extend “from sea to shining sea, from New Hampshire to California,” AHA CEO Rick Pollack told KHN.

Substantial payment delays can be seen on Anthem’s books. On June 30, 2019, before the pandemic, 43% of the insurer’s medical bills for that quarter were unpaid, according to regulatory filings. Two years later that figure had risen to 53% – a difference of $2.5 billion.

Anthem profits were $4.6 billion in 2020 and $3.5 billion in the first half of 2021.

Alexis Thurber, who lives near Seattle, was insured by Anthem when she got an $18,192 hospital bill in May for radiation therapy that doctors said was essential to treat her breast cancer.

The treatments were “experimental” and “not medically necessary,” Anthem said, according to Ms. Thurber. She spent much of the summer trying to get the insurer to pay up – placing two dozen phone calls, spending hours on hold, sending multiple emails and enduring unmeasurable stress and worry. It finally covered the claim months later.

“It’s so egregious. It’s a game they’re playing,” said Ms. Thurber, 51, whose cancer was diagnosed in November. “Trying to get true help was impossible.”

Privacy rules prevent Anthem from commenting on Ms. Thurber’s case, said Anthem spokesperson Colin Manning.

When insurers fail to promptly pay medical bills, patients are left in the lurch. They might first get a notice saying payment is pending or denied. A hospital might bill them for treatment they thought would be covered. Hospitals and doctors often sue patients whose insurance didn’t pay up.

Hospitals point to a variety of Anthem practices contributing to payment delays or denials, including new layers of document requirements, prior-authorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves – not support staffers – speak to insurance gatekeepers. “This requires providers to literally leave the patient[’s] bedside to get on the phone with Anthem,” AHA said in its letter.

Anthem often hinders coverage for outpatient surgery, specialty pharmacy and other services in health systems listed as in network, amounting to a “bait and switch” on Anthem members, AHA officials said.

“Demanding that patients be treated outside of the hospital setting, against the advice of the patient’s in-network treating physician, appears to be motivated by a desire to drive up Empire’s profits,” the Greater New York Hospital Association wrote in an April letter to Empire Blue Cross, which is owned by Anthem.

Anthem officials pushed back in a recent letter to the AHA, saying the insurer’s changing rules are intended partly to control excessive prices charged by hospitals for specialty drugs and nonemergency surgery, screening and diagnostic procedures.

Severe problems with Anthem’s new claims management system surfaced months ago and “persist without meaningful improvement,” AHA said in its letter.

Claims have gotten lost in Anthem’s computers, and in some cases VCU Health has had to print medical records and mail them to get paid, VCU said in its letter. The cash slowdown imposes “an unmanageable disruption that threatens to undermine our financial footing,” VCU said.

United denied $31,557 in claims for Emily Long’s care after she was struck in June by a motorcycle in New York City. She needed surgery to repair a fractured cheekbone. United said there was a lack of documentation for “medical necessity” – an “incredibly aggravating” response on top of the distress of the accident, Ms. Long said.

The Brooklyn hospital that treated Ms. Long was “paid appropriately under her plan and within the required time frame,” said United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo. “The facility has the right to appeal the decision.”

United’s unpaid claims came to 54% as of June 30, about the same level as 2 years previously.

When Erin Conlisk initially had trouble gaining approval for a piece of medical equipment for her elderly father this summer, United employees told her the insurer’s entire prior-authorization database had gone down for weeks, said Ms. Conlisk, who lives in California.

“There was a brief issue with our prior-authorization process in mid-July, which was resolved quickly,” Gordon Shydlo said.

When asked by Wall Street analysts about the payment backups, Anthem executives said it partly reflects their decision to increase financial reserves amid the health crisis.

“Really a ton of uncertainty associated with this environment,” John Gallina, the company’s chief financial officer, said on a conference call in July. “We’ve tried to be extremely prudent and conservative in our approach.”

During the pandemic, hospitals have benefited from two extraordinary cash infusions. They and other medical providers have received more than $100 billion through the CARES Act of 2020 and the American Rescue Plan of 2021. Last year United, Anthem and other insurers accelerated billions in hospital reimbursements.

The federal payments enriched many of the biggest, wealthiest systems while poorer hospitals serving low-income patients and rural areas struggled.

Those are the systems most hurt now by insurer payment delays, hospital officials said. Federal relief funds “have been a lifeline, but they don’t make people whole in terms of the losses from increased expenses and lost revenue as a result of the COVID experience,” Mr. Pollack said.

Several health systems declined to comment about claims payment delays or didn’t respond to a reporter’s queries. Among individual hospitals “there is a deep fear of talking on the record about your largest business partner,” AHA’s Ms. Smith said.

Alexis Thurber worried she might have to pay her $18,192 radiation bill herself, and she’s not confident her Anthem policy will do a better job next time of covering the cost of her care.

“It makes me not want to go to the doctor anymore,” she said. “I’m scared to get another mammogram because you can’t rely on it.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Anthem Blue Cross, the country’s second-biggest health insurance company, is behind on billions of dollars in payments owed to hospitals and doctors because of onerous new reimbursement rules, computer problems and mishandled claims, say hospital officials in multiple states.

Anthem, like other big insurers, is using the COVID-19 crisis as cover to institute “egregious” policies that harm patients and pinch hospital finances, said Molly Smith, group vice president at the American Hospital Association. “There’s this sense of ‘Everyone’s distracted. We can get this through.’ ”

Hospitals are also dealing with a spike in retroactive claims denials by UnitedHealthcare, the biggest health insurer, for ED care, the AHA said.

Disputes between insurers and hospitals are nothing new. But this fight sticks more patients in the middle, worried they’ll have to pay unresolved claims. Hospitals say it is hurting their finances as many cope with COVID surges – even after the industry has received tens of billions of dollars in emergency assistance from the federal government.

“We recognize there have been some challenges” to prompt payments caused by claims-processing changes and “a new set of dynamics” amid the pandemic, Anthem spokesperson Colin Manning said in an email. “We apologize for any delays or inconvenience this may have caused.”

Virginia law requires insurers to pay claims within 40 days. In a Sept. 24 letter to state insurance regulators, VCU Health, a system that operates a large teaching hospital in Richmond associated with Virginia Commonwealth University, said Anthem owes it $385 million. More than 40% of the claims are more than 90 days old, VCU said.

For all Virginia hospitals, Anthem’s late, unpaid claims amount to “hundreds of millions of dollars,” the Virginia Hospital and Healthcare Association said in a June 23 letter to state regulators.

Nationwide, the payment delays “are creating an untenable situation,” the American Hospital Association said in a Sept. 9 letter to Anthem CEO Gail Boudreaux. “Patients are facing greater hurdles to accessing care; clinicians are burning out on unnecessary administrative tasks; and the system is straining to finance the personnel and supplies” needed to fight Covid.

Complaints about Anthem extend “from sea to shining sea, from New Hampshire to California,” AHA CEO Rick Pollack told KHN.

Substantial payment delays can be seen on Anthem’s books. On June 30, 2019, before the pandemic, 43% of the insurer’s medical bills for that quarter were unpaid, according to regulatory filings. Two years later that figure had risen to 53% – a difference of $2.5 billion.

Anthem profits were $4.6 billion in 2020 and $3.5 billion in the first half of 2021.

Alexis Thurber, who lives near Seattle, was insured by Anthem when she got an $18,192 hospital bill in May for radiation therapy that doctors said was essential to treat her breast cancer.

The treatments were “experimental” and “not medically necessary,” Anthem said, according to Ms. Thurber. She spent much of the summer trying to get the insurer to pay up – placing two dozen phone calls, spending hours on hold, sending multiple emails and enduring unmeasurable stress and worry. It finally covered the claim months later.

“It’s so egregious. It’s a game they’re playing,” said Ms. Thurber, 51, whose cancer was diagnosed in November. “Trying to get true help was impossible.”

Privacy rules prevent Anthem from commenting on Ms. Thurber’s case, said Anthem spokesperson Colin Manning.

When insurers fail to promptly pay medical bills, patients are left in the lurch. They might first get a notice saying payment is pending or denied. A hospital might bill them for treatment they thought would be covered. Hospitals and doctors often sue patients whose insurance didn’t pay up.

Hospitals point to a variety of Anthem practices contributing to payment delays or denials, including new layers of document requirements, prior-authorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves – not support staffers – speak to insurance gatekeepers. “This requires providers to literally leave the patient[’s] bedside to get on the phone with Anthem,” AHA said in its letter.

Anthem often hinders coverage for outpatient surgery, specialty pharmacy and other services in health systems listed as in network, amounting to a “bait and switch” on Anthem members, AHA officials said.

“Demanding that patients be treated outside of the hospital setting, against the advice of the patient’s in-network treating physician, appears to be motivated by a desire to drive up Empire’s profits,” the Greater New York Hospital Association wrote in an April letter to Empire Blue Cross, which is owned by Anthem.

Anthem officials pushed back in a recent letter to the AHA, saying the insurer’s changing rules are intended partly to control excessive prices charged by hospitals for specialty drugs and nonemergency surgery, screening and diagnostic procedures.

Severe problems with Anthem’s new claims management system surfaced months ago and “persist without meaningful improvement,” AHA said in its letter.

Claims have gotten lost in Anthem’s computers, and in some cases VCU Health has had to print medical records and mail them to get paid, VCU said in its letter. The cash slowdown imposes “an unmanageable disruption that threatens to undermine our financial footing,” VCU said.

United denied $31,557 in claims for Emily Long’s care after she was struck in June by a motorcycle in New York City. She needed surgery to repair a fractured cheekbone. United said there was a lack of documentation for “medical necessity” – an “incredibly aggravating” response on top of the distress of the accident, Ms. Long said.

The Brooklyn hospital that treated Ms. Long was “paid appropriately under her plan and within the required time frame,” said United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo. “The facility has the right to appeal the decision.”

United’s unpaid claims came to 54% as of June 30, about the same level as 2 years previously.

When Erin Conlisk initially had trouble gaining approval for a piece of medical equipment for her elderly father this summer, United employees told her the insurer’s entire prior-authorization database had gone down for weeks, said Ms. Conlisk, who lives in California.

“There was a brief issue with our prior-authorization process in mid-July, which was resolved quickly,” Gordon Shydlo said.

When asked by Wall Street analysts about the payment backups, Anthem executives said it partly reflects their decision to increase financial reserves amid the health crisis.

“Really a ton of uncertainty associated with this environment,” John Gallina, the company’s chief financial officer, said on a conference call in July. “We’ve tried to be extremely prudent and conservative in our approach.”

During the pandemic, hospitals have benefited from two extraordinary cash infusions. They and other medical providers have received more than $100 billion through the CARES Act of 2020 and the American Rescue Plan of 2021. Last year United, Anthem and other insurers accelerated billions in hospital reimbursements.

The federal payments enriched many of the biggest, wealthiest systems while poorer hospitals serving low-income patients and rural areas struggled.

Those are the systems most hurt now by insurer payment delays, hospital officials said. Federal relief funds “have been a lifeline, but they don’t make people whole in terms of the losses from increased expenses and lost revenue as a result of the COVID experience,” Mr. Pollack said.

Several health systems declined to comment about claims payment delays or didn’t respond to a reporter’s queries. Among individual hospitals “there is a deep fear of talking on the record about your largest business partner,” AHA’s Ms. Smith said.

Alexis Thurber worried she might have to pay her $18,192 radiation bill herself, and she’s not confident her Anthem policy will do a better job next time of covering the cost of her care.

“It makes me not want to go to the doctor anymore,” she said. “I’m scared to get another mammogram because you can’t rely on it.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Anthem Blue Cross, the country’s second-biggest health insurance company, is behind on billions of dollars in payments owed to hospitals and doctors because of onerous new reimbursement rules, computer problems and mishandled claims, say hospital officials in multiple states.

Anthem, like other big insurers, is using the COVID-19 crisis as cover to institute “egregious” policies that harm patients and pinch hospital finances, said Molly Smith, group vice president at the American Hospital Association. “There’s this sense of ‘Everyone’s distracted. We can get this through.’ ”

Hospitals are also dealing with a spike in retroactive claims denials by UnitedHealthcare, the biggest health insurer, for ED care, the AHA said.

Disputes between insurers and hospitals are nothing new. But this fight sticks more patients in the middle, worried they’ll have to pay unresolved claims. Hospitals say it is hurting their finances as many cope with COVID surges – even after the industry has received tens of billions of dollars in emergency assistance from the federal government.

“We recognize there have been some challenges” to prompt payments caused by claims-processing changes and “a new set of dynamics” amid the pandemic, Anthem spokesperson Colin Manning said in an email. “We apologize for any delays or inconvenience this may have caused.”

Virginia law requires insurers to pay claims within 40 days. In a Sept. 24 letter to state insurance regulators, VCU Health, a system that operates a large teaching hospital in Richmond associated with Virginia Commonwealth University, said Anthem owes it $385 million. More than 40% of the claims are more than 90 days old, VCU said.

For all Virginia hospitals, Anthem’s late, unpaid claims amount to “hundreds of millions of dollars,” the Virginia Hospital and Healthcare Association said in a June 23 letter to state regulators.

Nationwide, the payment delays “are creating an untenable situation,” the American Hospital Association said in a Sept. 9 letter to Anthem CEO Gail Boudreaux. “Patients are facing greater hurdles to accessing care; clinicians are burning out on unnecessary administrative tasks; and the system is straining to finance the personnel and supplies” needed to fight Covid.

Complaints about Anthem extend “from sea to shining sea, from New Hampshire to California,” AHA CEO Rick Pollack told KHN.

Substantial payment delays can be seen on Anthem’s books. On June 30, 2019, before the pandemic, 43% of the insurer’s medical bills for that quarter were unpaid, according to regulatory filings. Two years later that figure had risen to 53% – a difference of $2.5 billion.

Anthem profits were $4.6 billion in 2020 and $3.5 billion in the first half of 2021.

Alexis Thurber, who lives near Seattle, was insured by Anthem when she got an $18,192 hospital bill in May for radiation therapy that doctors said was essential to treat her breast cancer.

The treatments were “experimental” and “not medically necessary,” Anthem said, according to Ms. Thurber. She spent much of the summer trying to get the insurer to pay up – placing two dozen phone calls, spending hours on hold, sending multiple emails and enduring unmeasurable stress and worry. It finally covered the claim months later.

“It’s so egregious. It’s a game they’re playing,” said Ms. Thurber, 51, whose cancer was diagnosed in November. “Trying to get true help was impossible.”

Privacy rules prevent Anthem from commenting on Ms. Thurber’s case, said Anthem spokesperson Colin Manning.

When insurers fail to promptly pay medical bills, patients are left in the lurch. They might first get a notice saying payment is pending or denied. A hospital might bill them for treatment they thought would be covered. Hospitals and doctors often sue patients whose insurance didn’t pay up.

Hospitals point to a variety of Anthem practices contributing to payment delays or denials, including new layers of document requirements, prior-authorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves – not support staffers – speak to insurance gatekeepers. “This requires providers to literally leave the patient[’s] bedside to get on the phone with Anthem,” AHA said in its letter.

Anthem often hinders coverage for outpatient surgery, specialty pharmacy and other services in health systems listed as in network, amounting to a “bait and switch” on Anthem members, AHA officials said.

“Demanding that patients be treated outside of the hospital setting, against the advice of the patient’s in-network treating physician, appears to be motivated by a desire to drive up Empire’s profits,” the Greater New York Hospital Association wrote in an April letter to Empire Blue Cross, which is owned by Anthem.

Anthem officials pushed back in a recent letter to the AHA, saying the insurer’s changing rules are intended partly to control excessive prices charged by hospitals for specialty drugs and nonemergency surgery, screening and diagnostic procedures.

Severe problems with Anthem’s new claims management system surfaced months ago and “persist without meaningful improvement,” AHA said in its letter.

Claims have gotten lost in Anthem’s computers, and in some cases VCU Health has had to print medical records and mail them to get paid, VCU said in its letter. The cash slowdown imposes “an unmanageable disruption that threatens to undermine our financial footing,” VCU said.

United denied $31,557 in claims for Emily Long’s care after she was struck in June by a motorcycle in New York City. She needed surgery to repair a fractured cheekbone. United said there was a lack of documentation for “medical necessity” – an “incredibly aggravating” response on top of the distress of the accident, Ms. Long said.

The Brooklyn hospital that treated Ms. Long was “paid appropriately under her plan and within the required time frame,” said United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo. “The facility has the right to appeal the decision.”

United’s unpaid claims came to 54% as of June 30, about the same level as 2 years previously.

When Erin Conlisk initially had trouble gaining approval for a piece of medical equipment for her elderly father this summer, United employees told her the insurer’s entire prior-authorization database had gone down for weeks, said Ms. Conlisk, who lives in California.

“There was a brief issue with our prior-authorization process in mid-July, which was resolved quickly,” Gordon Shydlo said.

When asked by Wall Street analysts about the payment backups, Anthem executives said it partly reflects their decision to increase financial reserves amid the health crisis.

“Really a ton of uncertainty associated with this environment,” John Gallina, the company’s chief financial officer, said on a conference call in July. “We’ve tried to be extremely prudent and conservative in our approach.”

During the pandemic, hospitals have benefited from two extraordinary cash infusions. They and other medical providers have received more than $100 billion through the CARES Act of 2020 and the American Rescue Plan of 2021. Last year United, Anthem and other insurers accelerated billions in hospital reimbursements.

The federal payments enriched many of the biggest, wealthiest systems while poorer hospitals serving low-income patients and rural areas struggled.

Those are the systems most hurt now by insurer payment delays, hospital officials said. Federal relief funds “have been a lifeline, but they don’t make people whole in terms of the losses from increased expenses and lost revenue as a result of the COVID experience,” Mr. Pollack said.

Several health systems declined to comment about claims payment delays or didn’t respond to a reporter’s queries. Among individual hospitals “there is a deep fear of talking on the record about your largest business partner,” AHA’s Ms. Smith said.

Alexis Thurber worried she might have to pay her $18,192 radiation bill herself, and she’s not confident her Anthem policy will do a better job next time of covering the cost of her care.

“It makes me not want to go to the doctor anymore,” she said. “I’m scared to get another mammogram because you can’t rely on it.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

In patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD), abrocitinib, an oral JAK inhibitor, relieved itch more quickly than the monoclonal antibody dupilumab (Dupixent), in a multicenter randomized trial presented as a late breaker at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The earlier onset of action with the JAK inhibitor was achieved even though most patients in both arms were on topical corticosteroids, a design element that “is clinically relevant” for a practical comparison of these two agents, according to Kristian Reich, MD, PhD, Center for Translational Research in Inflammatory Skin Diseases, University Medical Center, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.    

The goal of this phase 3b trial, called JADE DARE, was to compare relative safety and efficacy of these strategies over the early course of treatment, he said.
 

Over 700 patients randomized

JADE DARE enrolled 727 patients over age 18 years who previously had an inadequate response to conventional topical therapies. All had moderate to severe AD defined by criteria such as body surface area greater than or equal to 10% and Eczema Area Severity Index (EASI) greater than or equal to 16. They were randomly assigned to 200 mg oral abrocitinib once daily or 300 mg subcutaneous dupilumab (after a loading dose of 600 mg) every 2 weeks. A double-dummy design preserved blinding.

The coprimary endpoints were at least a 4-point improvement in pruritus as measured with the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS) score at week 2 and at least a 90% improvement in the EASI (EASI 90) at week 4.

The primary endpoint for pruritus at 2 weeks was reached by nearly twice as many patients randomly assigned to abrocitinib (46.2% vs. 25.5%; P < .001). The proportion of those meeting the EASI 90 endpoint at week 4 was also superior on abrocitinib (28.5% vs. 14.6%; P < .001)
 

Advantage for pruritus control dissipates

For the pruritus endpoint, the advantage of abrocitinib slowly diminished over time after the peak difference observed at 2 weeks. Although the advantage at week 4 (58.1% vs. 40.8%) and week 8 (65.8% vs. 52.7%) remained sizable, there were very small differences thereafter. However, Dr. Reich pointed out that the percentages continued to favor abrocitinib at least numerically through the 26 weeks of follow-up completed so far.

The pattern of response on EASI 90 was not the same. After demonstrating superiority at the 4-week timepoint, the advantage of abrocitinib persisted. When compared at week 16, which was a secondary endpoint of the JADE DARE trial, the advantage of abrocitinib remained significant (54.3% vs. 41.9%; P < .001). The advantage of abrocitinib narrowed but remained numerically superior at 26 weeks (54.6% vs. 47.6%).

Based on the data collected to date, “abrocitinib is clearly superior early on,” Dr. Reich said. Moreover, he reiterated that topical corticosteroids were allowed as background therapy in both arms.

“It is difficult to show an advantage for one active therapy over the other in patients on background corticosteroids,” Dr. Reich maintained.
 

Both drugs are well tolerated

The drugs were similarly well tolerated. Serious adverse events were uncommon in either arm. The rate of study dropouts due to an adverse event potentially related to treatment assignment was 3% in each group.

Nausea (19% vs. 2%), acne (13.5% vs. 2%), and headache (13% vs. 7.5%) were all more common in patients randomly assigned to abrocitinib. Conjunctivitis was more common in the group randomly assigned to dupilumab (10% vs. 2%).

The two deaths that occurred during this study were in the abrocitinib arm, but one was the result of COVID-19 infection and the other was a cardiovascular event in a patient with risk factors. Neither was considered to be treatment-related.

Abrocitinib’s relative selectivity for the JAK1 inhibitor is a potential differentiator from other currently available JAK inhibitors, although direct comparisons of these therapies for clinical activity in AD as well as most other diseases remains limited.

The relatively rapid relief of pruritus with the JAK inhibitor relative to the monoclonal antibody in the JADE DARE trial is likely to be perceived as clinically significant by patients with AD, according to Sonja Ständer, MD, professor of dermatology and neurodermatology at the University Hospital Münster, Germany.

“One of the highest needs of patients with atopic dermatitis is a rapid and profound relief of itch,” Dr. Ständer, who wrote a review article on AD earlier this year, said in an interview.

Although several current therapies are effective against pruritus, Dr. Ständer believes that the higher proportion of patients achieving itch control at 2 weeks on abrocitinib “will attract the attention of affected patients.”

However, she added that patients need to take both benefits and risks into account, indicating that clinical utility cannot be judged on a single outcome. In selecting one drug over the others, she advised “a balanced use of therapies.”

Abrocitinib was first approved in the United Kingdom in early September, followed by Japan last Thursday, for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in patients ages 12 and older. It is under review elsewhere, including in the United States and the European Union for AD.  

In September, the FDA approved the first JAK inhibitor for treating AD – a topical JAK inhibitor, ruxolitinib.

Dr. Reich reports financial relationships with 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, which provided funding for the JADE DARE trial. Dr. Ständer reports financial relationships with Beiersdorf AG, Galderma, Kliniska, Lilly, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

In patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD), abrocitinib, an oral JAK inhibitor, relieved itch more quickly than the monoclonal antibody dupilumab (Dupixent), in a multicenter randomized trial presented as a late breaker at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The earlier onset of action with the JAK inhibitor was achieved even though most patients in both arms were on topical corticosteroids, a design element that “is clinically relevant” for a practical comparison of these two agents, according to Kristian Reich, MD, PhD, Center for Translational Research in Inflammatory Skin Diseases, University Medical Center, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.    

The goal of this phase 3b trial, called JADE DARE, was to compare relative safety and efficacy of these strategies over the early course of treatment, he said.
 

Over 700 patients randomized

JADE DARE enrolled 727 patients over age 18 years who previously had an inadequate response to conventional topical therapies. All had moderate to severe AD defined by criteria such as body surface area greater than or equal to 10% and Eczema Area Severity Index (EASI) greater than or equal to 16. They were randomly assigned to 200 mg oral abrocitinib once daily or 300 mg subcutaneous dupilumab (after a loading dose of 600 mg) every 2 weeks. A double-dummy design preserved blinding.

The coprimary endpoints were at least a 4-point improvement in pruritus as measured with the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS) score at week 2 and at least a 90% improvement in the EASI (EASI 90) at week 4.

The primary endpoint for pruritus at 2 weeks was reached by nearly twice as many patients randomly assigned to abrocitinib (46.2% vs. 25.5%; P < .001). The proportion of those meeting the EASI 90 endpoint at week 4 was also superior on abrocitinib (28.5% vs. 14.6%; P < .001)
 

Advantage for pruritus control dissipates

For the pruritus endpoint, the advantage of abrocitinib slowly diminished over time after the peak difference observed at 2 weeks. Although the advantage at week 4 (58.1% vs. 40.8%) and week 8 (65.8% vs. 52.7%) remained sizable, there were very small differences thereafter. However, Dr. Reich pointed out that the percentages continued to favor abrocitinib at least numerically through the 26 weeks of follow-up completed so far.

The pattern of response on EASI 90 was not the same. After demonstrating superiority at the 4-week timepoint, the advantage of abrocitinib persisted. When compared at week 16, which was a secondary endpoint of the JADE DARE trial, the advantage of abrocitinib remained significant (54.3% vs. 41.9%; P < .001). The advantage of abrocitinib narrowed but remained numerically superior at 26 weeks (54.6% vs. 47.6%).

Based on the data collected to date, “abrocitinib is clearly superior early on,” Dr. Reich said. Moreover, he reiterated that topical corticosteroids were allowed as background therapy in both arms.

“It is difficult to show an advantage for one active therapy over the other in patients on background corticosteroids,” Dr. Reich maintained.
 

Both drugs are well tolerated

The drugs were similarly well tolerated. Serious adverse events were uncommon in either arm. The rate of study dropouts due to an adverse event potentially related to treatment assignment was 3% in each group.

Nausea (19% vs. 2%), acne (13.5% vs. 2%), and headache (13% vs. 7.5%) were all more common in patients randomly assigned to abrocitinib. Conjunctivitis was more common in the group randomly assigned to dupilumab (10% vs. 2%).

The two deaths that occurred during this study were in the abrocitinib arm, but one was the result of COVID-19 infection and the other was a cardiovascular event in a patient with risk factors. Neither was considered to be treatment-related.

Abrocitinib’s relative selectivity for the JAK1 inhibitor is a potential differentiator from other currently available JAK inhibitors, although direct comparisons of these therapies for clinical activity in AD as well as most other diseases remains limited.

The relatively rapid relief of pruritus with the JAK inhibitor relative to the monoclonal antibody in the JADE DARE trial is likely to be perceived as clinically significant by patients with AD, according to Sonja Ständer, MD, professor of dermatology and neurodermatology at the University Hospital Münster, Germany.

“One of the highest needs of patients with atopic dermatitis is a rapid and profound relief of itch,” Dr. Ständer, who wrote a review article on AD earlier this year, said in an interview.

Although several current therapies are effective against pruritus, Dr. Ständer believes that the higher proportion of patients achieving itch control at 2 weeks on abrocitinib “will attract the attention of affected patients.”

However, she added that patients need to take both benefits and risks into account, indicating that clinical utility cannot be judged on a single outcome. In selecting one drug over the others, she advised “a balanced use of therapies.”

Abrocitinib was first approved in the United Kingdom in early September, followed by Japan last Thursday, for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in patients ages 12 and older. It is under review elsewhere, including in the United States and the European Union for AD.  

In September, the FDA approved the first JAK inhibitor for treating AD – a topical JAK inhibitor, ruxolitinib.

Dr. Reich reports financial relationships with 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, which provided funding for the JADE DARE trial. Dr. Ständer reports financial relationships with Beiersdorf AG, Galderma, Kliniska, Lilly, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

In patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD), abrocitinib, an oral JAK inhibitor, relieved itch more quickly than the monoclonal antibody dupilumab (Dupixent), in a multicenter randomized trial presented as a late breaker at the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The earlier onset of action with the JAK inhibitor was achieved even though most patients in both arms were on topical corticosteroids, a design element that “is clinically relevant” for a practical comparison of these two agents, according to Kristian Reich, MD, PhD, Center for Translational Research in Inflammatory Skin Diseases, University Medical Center, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany.    

The goal of this phase 3b trial, called JADE DARE, was to compare relative safety and efficacy of these strategies over the early course of treatment, he said.
 

Over 700 patients randomized

JADE DARE enrolled 727 patients over age 18 years who previously had an inadequate response to conventional topical therapies. All had moderate to severe AD defined by criteria such as body surface area greater than or equal to 10% and Eczema Area Severity Index (EASI) greater than or equal to 16. They were randomly assigned to 200 mg oral abrocitinib once daily or 300 mg subcutaneous dupilumab (after a loading dose of 600 mg) every 2 weeks. A double-dummy design preserved blinding.

The coprimary endpoints were at least a 4-point improvement in pruritus as measured with the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS) score at week 2 and at least a 90% improvement in the EASI (EASI 90) at week 4.

The primary endpoint for pruritus at 2 weeks was reached by nearly twice as many patients randomly assigned to abrocitinib (46.2% vs. 25.5%; P < .001). The proportion of those meeting the EASI 90 endpoint at week 4 was also superior on abrocitinib (28.5% vs. 14.6%; P < .001)
 

Advantage for pruritus control dissipates

For the pruritus endpoint, the advantage of abrocitinib slowly diminished over time after the peak difference observed at 2 weeks. Although the advantage at week 4 (58.1% vs. 40.8%) and week 8 (65.8% vs. 52.7%) remained sizable, there were very small differences thereafter. However, Dr. Reich pointed out that the percentages continued to favor abrocitinib at least numerically through the 26 weeks of follow-up completed so far.

The pattern of response on EASI 90 was not the same. After demonstrating superiority at the 4-week timepoint, the advantage of abrocitinib persisted. When compared at week 16, which was a secondary endpoint of the JADE DARE trial, the advantage of abrocitinib remained significant (54.3% vs. 41.9%; P < .001). The advantage of abrocitinib narrowed but remained numerically superior at 26 weeks (54.6% vs. 47.6%).

Based on the data collected to date, “abrocitinib is clearly superior early on,” Dr. Reich said. Moreover, he reiterated that topical corticosteroids were allowed as background therapy in both arms.

“It is difficult to show an advantage for one active therapy over the other in patients on background corticosteroids,” Dr. Reich maintained.
 

Both drugs are well tolerated

The drugs were similarly well tolerated. Serious adverse events were uncommon in either arm. The rate of study dropouts due to an adverse event potentially related to treatment assignment was 3% in each group.

Nausea (19% vs. 2%), acne (13.5% vs. 2%), and headache (13% vs. 7.5%) were all more common in patients randomly assigned to abrocitinib. Conjunctivitis was more common in the group randomly assigned to dupilumab (10% vs. 2%).

The two deaths that occurred during this study were in the abrocitinib arm, but one was the result of COVID-19 infection and the other was a cardiovascular event in a patient with risk factors. Neither was considered to be treatment-related.

Abrocitinib’s relative selectivity for the JAK1 inhibitor is a potential differentiator from other currently available JAK inhibitors, although direct comparisons of these therapies for clinical activity in AD as well as most other diseases remains limited.

The relatively rapid relief of pruritus with the JAK inhibitor relative to the monoclonal antibody in the JADE DARE trial is likely to be perceived as clinically significant by patients with AD, according to Sonja Ständer, MD, professor of dermatology and neurodermatology at the University Hospital Münster, Germany.

“One of the highest needs of patients with atopic dermatitis is a rapid and profound relief of itch,” Dr. Ständer, who wrote a review article on AD earlier this year, said in an interview.

Although several current therapies are effective against pruritus, Dr. Ständer believes that the higher proportion of patients achieving itch control at 2 weeks on abrocitinib “will attract the attention of affected patients.”

However, she added that patients need to take both benefits and risks into account, indicating that clinical utility cannot be judged on a single outcome. In selecting one drug over the others, she advised “a balanced use of therapies.”

Abrocitinib was first approved in the United Kingdom in early September, followed by Japan last Thursday, for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in patients ages 12 and older. It is under review elsewhere, including in the United States and the European Union for AD.  

In September, the FDA approved the first JAK inhibitor for treating AD – a topical JAK inhibitor, ruxolitinib.

Dr. Reich reports financial relationships with 20 pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, which provided funding for the JADE DARE trial. Dr. Ständer reports financial relationships with Beiersdorf AG, Galderma, Kliniska, Lilly, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

Soon after Merck announced on Oct. 1 that it would ask federal regulators for emergency use authorization (EUA) for its auspicious new COVID-19 pill, the accolades began.

Former Food and Drug Administration chief Scott Gottlieb, MD, told CNBC the drug was “a profound game changer.” Top infectious disease expert Anthony S. Fauci, MD, called the early data “impressive.” The World Health Organization termed it “certainly good news,” while saying it awaits more data.

Merck, partnering with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics on the investigational oral antiviral medicine molnupiravir, plans to submit applications to regulatory agencies worldwide, hoping to deliver the first oral antiviral medication for COVID-19. 

Interim clinical trial results show that the drug may slash the risk for hospitalization or death by 50% in those with mild to moderate COVID-19.

When the results were found to be so favorable, the study was halted at the recommendation of an independent data-monitoring committee and in consultation with the FDA.

That initial enthusiasm is now tempered with some perspective on the pros and cons. “This anticipated drug has gotten a little more hype than it deserves,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. He and others suggest a reality check.

“It’s not exactly a home run, like penicillin for strep throat,” agreed Carl Fichtenbaum, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Cincinnati, who is investigating a similar pill for a rival company, Atea, partnering with Roche. 

“But it is encouraging,” he said. “It will probably be an incremental improvement on what we have.” The fact that it can be taken at home is a plus: “Anything we can do to keep people from getting sicker is a good thing.”

“The data show in this higher risk group [those who were studied had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19, such as age or a medical condition], it reduces the risk of advancing to severe disease by 50%,” Dr. Schaffner said. While that’s a clear benefit for half, it of course leaves the other half without benefit, he said.

Others critiqued the predicted cost of the drug. The U.S. government has already agreed to pay about $700 per patient, according to a new report from Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and King’s College Hospital, London. That analysis concluded that the actual cost of production for the 5-day course is $17.74.

“We fully expect that having an oral treatment that reduces the risk of hospitalizations will be significantly cost effective for society,” Melissa Moody, a Merck spokesperson, told this news organization. “We are optimistic that molnupiravir can become an important medicine as part of the global effort to fight the pandemic.”

Merck expects to produce 10 million courses of treatment by the end of the year, with additional doses expected to be produced in 2022, according to a company press release. Earlier in 2021, Merck finalized its agreement with the U.S. government to supply about 1.7 million courses of the drug at the $700 price, once an EUA or FDA approval is given.

Merck also has supply and purchase agreements with other governments worldwide, pending regulatory approval.
 

Study details

Details about the study findings came from a Merck press release. In the planned interim analysis, Merck and Ridgeback evaluated data from 775 patients initially enrolled in the phase 3 MOVe-OUT trial.

All adults had lab-confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19, and reported onset of symptoms within 5 days of being randomly assigned to the drug or placebo. All had at least one risk factor linked with poor disease outcome (such as older age or obesity).

The drug is a ribonucleoside and works by creating mutations in the virus’s genome, halting the ability of the virus to replicate.

Through day 29 of the study, the drug reduced the risk or hospitalization or death by about 50%. While 7.3% of those who received the drug either died or were hospitalized by day 29, 14.1% of those on placebo did, a statistically significant difference (P = .0012).

Side effects were similar in both groups, with 35% of the drug-treated and 40% of the placebo group reporting some side effect, Merck reported. Adverse drug-related events were 12% in the drug group and 11% in the placebo group. While 1.3% of the drug-treated group quit the study because of an adverse event, 3.4% of the placebo group quit.
 

Pros, cons, and unknowns

The ability to take the drug orally, and at home, is a definite plus, Dr. Schaffner said,  compared with the monoclonal antibody treatment currently approved that must be given intravenously or subcutaneously and in certain locations.

More people could be reached and helped with the option of an at-home, oral medicine, he and others agreed.

The regimen for molnupiravir is four pills, two times daily, for 5 days, even if symptoms are mild. As with other prescription drugs, “there will always be folks who don’t comply completely” with the prescribed regimen, Dr. Schaffner said. With this pill, that might be especially true if the symptoms are very mild.

The 50% reduction is not as effective as the benefit often quoted for monoclonal antibody treatment. In clinical trials of Regeneron’s monoclonal antibody treatment, the regimen reduced COVID-19–related hospitalization or death in high-risk patients by 70%.

Even so, the new pill could change the pandemic’s course, others say. “I think molnupiravir has the potential to change how we take care of people who have COVID and risk factors for developing severe disease,” Rajesh Tim Gandhi, MD, an infectious disease physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told this news organization. 

“What we’ll need to do, however, is make sure that people get tested quickly after they develop symptoms and, if they’re confirmed to have COVID, start on the pills within 5 days of developing symptoms,” he said, while warning that more data are needed about the drug and the trial results.

Another concern is that the promise of a pill will stall vaccination rates, with some people figuring why get vaccinated when they can obtain the pill if they do get sick.

Relying on treatment alone won’t work, Dr. Schaffner said. “Let’s [also] focus on prevention, which is the vaccine. We have to keep working both sides of the street.”

Dr. Gandhi added: “It’s important to remember that even though molnupiravir reduced the likelihood of hospitalization and death, a number of people who received the drug still got sick enough to end up in the hospital.”

Also unknown, he said, is how severe their disease was and whether they will develop long COVID.

The Merck study included only unvaccinated people. Might it work for those vaccinated people who get a breakthrough infection? “From a purely scientific perspective, there is no reason to believe molnupiravir would not work in people who are vaccinated, but the overall efficacy on top of the vaccine is likely dependent on how well they were able to mount a protective immune response to the vaccine,” Ms. Moody said. Still, Merck believes the pill could be of benefit for these infections too, she added.

As for the expected cost, Ms. Moody said that the company takes into account a number of factors in setting pricing, “but fundamentally we look at the impact of the disease, the benefits that the drug delivers to patients and to society, and at supporting ongoing drug development.”
 

On Merck’s heels: Pfizer, Roche, Atea

Pfizer is studying an antiviral pill, PF-07321332, a protease inhibitor that blocks the protease enzymes and halts replication of the virus.

In addition to studying the drug in infected patients at high risk of severe illness and in those at typical risk, Pfizer launched a phase 2-3 study in late September that will enroll people who live in the same household as a person with a confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 infection to see if the drug can prevent disease in those who have been exposed.

Atea and Roche’s COVID pill, AT527, is in phase 3 trials as well. AT527 is an inhibitor of polymerase, an enzyme many viruses have, to stop replications. Atea is evaluating the drug to reduce disease “burden” and for both pre- and postexposure prevention.
 

Big picture: Role of COVID-19 pills

It may be necessary to target the coronavirus with more than one antiviral agent, said Dr. Fichtenbaum, a principal investigator for the AT527 trials. 

“Sometimes viruses require two or three active agents to control their replication,” he said, citing information gleaned from other viral research, such as HIV. For control of HIV infection, a cocktail or combination of antivirals is often recommended.

That may well be the case for COVID-19, Dr. Fichtenbaum said. The goal would be to attack the virus at more than one pathway.

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

Soon after Merck announced on Oct. 1 that it would ask federal regulators for emergency use authorization (EUA) for its auspicious new COVID-19 pill, the accolades began.

Former Food and Drug Administration chief Scott Gottlieb, MD, told CNBC the drug was “a profound game changer.” Top infectious disease expert Anthony S. Fauci, MD, called the early data “impressive.” The World Health Organization termed it “certainly good news,” while saying it awaits more data.

Merck, partnering with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics on the investigational oral antiviral medicine molnupiravir, plans to submit applications to regulatory agencies worldwide, hoping to deliver the first oral antiviral medication for COVID-19. 

Interim clinical trial results show that the drug may slash the risk for hospitalization or death by 50% in those with mild to moderate COVID-19.

When the results were found to be so favorable, the study was halted at the recommendation of an independent data-monitoring committee and in consultation with the FDA.

That initial enthusiasm is now tempered with some perspective on the pros and cons. “This anticipated drug has gotten a little more hype than it deserves,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. He and others suggest a reality check.

“It’s not exactly a home run, like penicillin for strep throat,” agreed Carl Fichtenbaum, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Cincinnati, who is investigating a similar pill for a rival company, Atea, partnering with Roche. 

“But it is encouraging,” he said. “It will probably be an incremental improvement on what we have.” The fact that it can be taken at home is a plus: “Anything we can do to keep people from getting sicker is a good thing.”

“The data show in this higher risk group [those who were studied had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19, such as age or a medical condition], it reduces the risk of advancing to severe disease by 50%,” Dr. Schaffner said. While that’s a clear benefit for half, it of course leaves the other half without benefit, he said.

Others critiqued the predicted cost of the drug. The U.S. government has already agreed to pay about $700 per patient, according to a new report from Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and King’s College Hospital, London. That analysis concluded that the actual cost of production for the 5-day course is $17.74.

“We fully expect that having an oral treatment that reduces the risk of hospitalizations will be significantly cost effective for society,” Melissa Moody, a Merck spokesperson, told this news organization. “We are optimistic that molnupiravir can become an important medicine as part of the global effort to fight the pandemic.”

Merck expects to produce 10 million courses of treatment by the end of the year, with additional doses expected to be produced in 2022, according to a company press release. Earlier in 2021, Merck finalized its agreement with the U.S. government to supply about 1.7 million courses of the drug at the $700 price, once an EUA or FDA approval is given.

Merck also has supply and purchase agreements with other governments worldwide, pending regulatory approval.
 

Study details

Details about the study findings came from a Merck press release. In the planned interim analysis, Merck and Ridgeback evaluated data from 775 patients initially enrolled in the phase 3 MOVe-OUT trial.

All adults had lab-confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19, and reported onset of symptoms within 5 days of being randomly assigned to the drug or placebo. All had at least one risk factor linked with poor disease outcome (such as older age or obesity).

The drug is a ribonucleoside and works by creating mutations in the virus’s genome, halting the ability of the virus to replicate.

Through day 29 of the study, the drug reduced the risk or hospitalization or death by about 50%. While 7.3% of those who received the drug either died or were hospitalized by day 29, 14.1% of those on placebo did, a statistically significant difference (P = .0012).

Side effects were similar in both groups, with 35% of the drug-treated and 40% of the placebo group reporting some side effect, Merck reported. Adverse drug-related events were 12% in the drug group and 11% in the placebo group. While 1.3% of the drug-treated group quit the study because of an adverse event, 3.4% of the placebo group quit.
 

Pros, cons, and unknowns

The ability to take the drug orally, and at home, is a definite plus, Dr. Schaffner said,  compared with the monoclonal antibody treatment currently approved that must be given intravenously or subcutaneously and in certain locations.

More people could be reached and helped with the option of an at-home, oral medicine, he and others agreed.

The regimen for molnupiravir is four pills, two times daily, for 5 days, even if symptoms are mild. As with other prescription drugs, “there will always be folks who don’t comply completely” with the prescribed regimen, Dr. Schaffner said. With this pill, that might be especially true if the symptoms are very mild.

The 50% reduction is not as effective as the benefit often quoted for monoclonal antibody treatment. In clinical trials of Regeneron’s monoclonal antibody treatment, the regimen reduced COVID-19–related hospitalization or death in high-risk patients by 70%.

Even so, the new pill could change the pandemic’s course, others say. “I think molnupiravir has the potential to change how we take care of people who have COVID and risk factors for developing severe disease,” Rajesh Tim Gandhi, MD, an infectious disease physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told this news organization. 

“What we’ll need to do, however, is make sure that people get tested quickly after they develop symptoms and, if they’re confirmed to have COVID, start on the pills within 5 days of developing symptoms,” he said, while warning that more data are needed about the drug and the trial results.

Another concern is that the promise of a pill will stall vaccination rates, with some people figuring why get vaccinated when they can obtain the pill if they do get sick.

Relying on treatment alone won’t work, Dr. Schaffner said. “Let’s [also] focus on prevention, which is the vaccine. We have to keep working both sides of the street.”

Dr. Gandhi added: “It’s important to remember that even though molnupiravir reduced the likelihood of hospitalization and death, a number of people who received the drug still got sick enough to end up in the hospital.”

Also unknown, he said, is how severe their disease was and whether they will develop long COVID.

The Merck study included only unvaccinated people. Might it work for those vaccinated people who get a breakthrough infection? “From a purely scientific perspective, there is no reason to believe molnupiravir would not work in people who are vaccinated, but the overall efficacy on top of the vaccine is likely dependent on how well they were able to mount a protective immune response to the vaccine,” Ms. Moody said. Still, Merck believes the pill could be of benefit for these infections too, she added.

As for the expected cost, Ms. Moody said that the company takes into account a number of factors in setting pricing, “but fundamentally we look at the impact of the disease, the benefits that the drug delivers to patients and to society, and at supporting ongoing drug development.”
 

On Merck’s heels: Pfizer, Roche, Atea

Pfizer is studying an antiviral pill, PF-07321332, a protease inhibitor that blocks the protease enzymes and halts replication of the virus.

In addition to studying the drug in infected patients at high risk of severe illness and in those at typical risk, Pfizer launched a phase 2-3 study in late September that will enroll people who live in the same household as a person with a confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 infection to see if the drug can prevent disease in those who have been exposed.

Atea and Roche’s COVID pill, AT527, is in phase 3 trials as well. AT527 is an inhibitor of polymerase, an enzyme many viruses have, to stop replications. Atea is evaluating the drug to reduce disease “burden” and for both pre- and postexposure prevention.
 

Big picture: Role of COVID-19 pills

It may be necessary to target the coronavirus with more than one antiviral agent, said Dr. Fichtenbaum, a principal investigator for the AT527 trials. 

“Sometimes viruses require two or three active agents to control their replication,” he said, citing information gleaned from other viral research, such as HIV. For control of HIV infection, a cocktail or combination of antivirals is often recommended.

That may well be the case for COVID-19, Dr. Fichtenbaum said. The goal would be to attack the virus at more than one pathway.

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

Soon after Merck announced on Oct. 1 that it would ask federal regulators for emergency use authorization (EUA) for its auspicious new COVID-19 pill, the accolades began.

Former Food and Drug Administration chief Scott Gottlieb, MD, told CNBC the drug was “a profound game changer.” Top infectious disease expert Anthony S. Fauci, MD, called the early data “impressive.” The World Health Organization termed it “certainly good news,” while saying it awaits more data.

Merck, partnering with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics on the investigational oral antiviral medicine molnupiravir, plans to submit applications to regulatory agencies worldwide, hoping to deliver the first oral antiviral medication for COVID-19. 

Interim clinical trial results show that the drug may slash the risk for hospitalization or death by 50% in those with mild to moderate COVID-19.

When the results were found to be so favorable, the study was halted at the recommendation of an independent data-monitoring committee and in consultation with the FDA.

That initial enthusiasm is now tempered with some perspective on the pros and cons. “This anticipated drug has gotten a little more hype than it deserves,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. He and others suggest a reality check.

“It’s not exactly a home run, like penicillin for strep throat,” agreed Carl Fichtenbaum, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Cincinnati, who is investigating a similar pill for a rival company, Atea, partnering with Roche. 

“But it is encouraging,” he said. “It will probably be an incremental improvement on what we have.” The fact that it can be taken at home is a plus: “Anything we can do to keep people from getting sicker is a good thing.”

“The data show in this higher risk group [those who were studied had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19, such as age or a medical condition], it reduces the risk of advancing to severe disease by 50%,” Dr. Schaffner said. While that’s a clear benefit for half, it of course leaves the other half without benefit, he said.

Others critiqued the predicted cost of the drug. The U.S. government has already agreed to pay about $700 per patient, according to a new report from Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and King’s College Hospital, London. That analysis concluded that the actual cost of production for the 5-day course is $17.74.

“We fully expect that having an oral treatment that reduces the risk of hospitalizations will be significantly cost effective for society,” Melissa Moody, a Merck spokesperson, told this news organization. “We are optimistic that molnupiravir can become an important medicine as part of the global effort to fight the pandemic.”

Merck expects to produce 10 million courses of treatment by the end of the year, with additional doses expected to be produced in 2022, according to a company press release. Earlier in 2021, Merck finalized its agreement with the U.S. government to supply about 1.7 million courses of the drug at the $700 price, once an EUA or FDA approval is given.

Merck also has supply and purchase agreements with other governments worldwide, pending regulatory approval.
 

Study details

Details about the study findings came from a Merck press release. In the planned interim analysis, Merck and Ridgeback evaluated data from 775 patients initially enrolled in the phase 3 MOVe-OUT trial.

All adults had lab-confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19, and reported onset of symptoms within 5 days of being randomly assigned to the drug or placebo. All had at least one risk factor linked with poor disease outcome (such as older age or obesity).

The drug is a ribonucleoside and works by creating mutations in the virus’s genome, halting the ability of the virus to replicate.

Through day 29 of the study, the drug reduced the risk or hospitalization or death by about 50%. While 7.3% of those who received the drug either died or were hospitalized by day 29, 14.1% of those on placebo did, a statistically significant difference (P = .0012).

Side effects were similar in both groups, with 35% of the drug-treated and 40% of the placebo group reporting some side effect, Merck reported. Adverse drug-related events were 12% in the drug group and 11% in the placebo group. While 1.3% of the drug-treated group quit the study because of an adverse event, 3.4% of the placebo group quit.
 

Pros, cons, and unknowns

The ability to take the drug orally, and at home, is a definite plus, Dr. Schaffner said,  compared with the monoclonal antibody treatment currently approved that must be given intravenously or subcutaneously and in certain locations.

More people could be reached and helped with the option of an at-home, oral medicine, he and others agreed.

The regimen for molnupiravir is four pills, two times daily, for 5 days, even if symptoms are mild. As with other prescription drugs, “there will always be folks who don’t comply completely” with the prescribed regimen, Dr. Schaffner said. With this pill, that might be especially true if the symptoms are very mild.

The 50% reduction is not as effective as the benefit often quoted for monoclonal antibody treatment. In clinical trials of Regeneron’s monoclonal antibody treatment, the regimen reduced COVID-19–related hospitalization or death in high-risk patients by 70%.

Even so, the new pill could change the pandemic’s course, others say. “I think molnupiravir has the potential to change how we take care of people who have COVID and risk factors for developing severe disease,” Rajesh Tim Gandhi, MD, an infectious disease physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told this news organization. 

“What we’ll need to do, however, is make sure that people get tested quickly after they develop symptoms and, if they’re confirmed to have COVID, start on the pills within 5 days of developing symptoms,” he said, while warning that more data are needed about the drug and the trial results.

Another concern is that the promise of a pill will stall vaccination rates, with some people figuring why get vaccinated when they can obtain the pill if they do get sick.

Relying on treatment alone won’t work, Dr. Schaffner said. “Let’s [also] focus on prevention, which is the vaccine. We have to keep working both sides of the street.”

Dr. Gandhi added: “It’s important to remember that even though molnupiravir reduced the likelihood of hospitalization and death, a number of people who received the drug still got sick enough to end up in the hospital.”

Also unknown, he said, is how severe their disease was and whether they will develop long COVID.

The Merck study included only unvaccinated people. Might it work for those vaccinated people who get a breakthrough infection? “From a purely scientific perspective, there is no reason to believe molnupiravir would not work in people who are vaccinated, but the overall efficacy on top of the vaccine is likely dependent on how well they were able to mount a protective immune response to the vaccine,” Ms. Moody said. Still, Merck believes the pill could be of benefit for these infections too, she added.

As for the expected cost, Ms. Moody said that the company takes into account a number of factors in setting pricing, “but fundamentally we look at the impact of the disease, the benefits that the drug delivers to patients and to society, and at supporting ongoing drug development.”
 

On Merck’s heels: Pfizer, Roche, Atea

Pfizer is studying an antiviral pill, PF-07321332, a protease inhibitor that blocks the protease enzymes and halts replication of the virus.

In addition to studying the drug in infected patients at high risk of severe illness and in those at typical risk, Pfizer launched a phase 2-3 study in late September that will enroll people who live in the same household as a person with a confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 infection to see if the drug can prevent disease in those who have been exposed.

Atea and Roche’s COVID pill, AT527, is in phase 3 trials as well. AT527 is an inhibitor of polymerase, an enzyme many viruses have, to stop replications. Atea is evaluating the drug to reduce disease “burden” and for both pre- and postexposure prevention.
 

Big picture: Role of COVID-19 pills

It may be necessary to target the coronavirus with more than one antiviral agent, said Dr. Fichtenbaum, a principal investigator for the AT527 trials. 

“Sometimes viruses require two or three active agents to control their replication,” he said, citing information gleaned from other viral research, such as HIV. For control of HIV infection, a cocktail or combination of antivirals is often recommended.

That may well be the case for COVID-19, Dr. Fichtenbaum said. The goal would be to attack the virus at more than one pathway.

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

With the strong likelihood that dermatologists in the United States will have to resolve dermatologic issues created by cultural cosmetic practices originating elsewhere, strategies for an open nonjudgmental approach are instrumental, according to a dermatologist with expertise in these types of cases who spoke at the Skin of Color Update 2021.

“Instead of avoiding the discussion of cultural practices, we should discuss them and be open about them. It fosters a comfortable environment, trust, and better compliance,” reported Neelam Ajit Vashi, MD, founding director of the Boston University Center for Ethnic Skin.

Out of fear of causing offense, a desire to be discreet, or of personal discomfort with foreign cultural practices, some clinicians might elect to limit themselves to the information that the patient volunteers, which is a mistake, according to Dr. Vashi.

“The avoidance of topics around culture actually limits the ability to have a successful relationship,” she maintained.

Successful encounters are not just based on a willingness to listen, Dr. Vashi said. Clinicians should be seeking a base of knowledge. With growing globalization and widespread immigration, “it is increasingly important for dermatologists in the U.S. to understand the role of cultural practices [in creating skin problems] and recognize the sequelae,” Dr. Vashi said.

Taking some common examples of dermatologic complaints created by cosmetic practices originating elsewhere, Dr. Vashi described key clinical points in addressing complications related to henna, hair removal through threading, and placement of decorative adornments on the forehead, called bindi. In addition, she pointed out common issues with facial and body marking created with kumkum powder, hair oils, and skin lightening agents.
 

Black henna

For cosmetic enhancement, henna is relatively benign. It is also no longer confined to the south Asian communities where it originated. However, Dr. Vashi pointed out that patients of south Asian origin or descent might be more likely to use black henna, a variety with more risks.

Black henna contains additives, such as diaminobenzenes and p-phenylenediamine (PPD), to darken the tone of the product as well as provide other desired characteristics, such as an accelerated drying time. While some patients do develop reactions to conventional henna, the risks of black henna are greater.

“The acute contact dermatitis reactions can include dyspigmentation, leukoderma, and keloids,” Dr. Vashi said. Other complications include erythema multiforme, temporary hypertrichosis, and systemic allergic reactions, such as angioedema.

While those who have had a reaction to henna should avoid further contact, Dr. Vashi warned that sequelae can include cross reactions with latex and rubber as well as some pharmaceutical agents, such as sulfonamides. When taking a patient history, she noted, be aware that risks of henna extend to the hairdressers and cosmeticians who sometimes apply these products on others.

Hair threading, bindi, and kumkum

Hair threading, another practice popularized in south Asia and now growing in popularity globally, involves capturing hairs between cotton threads for removal of both the hair and its follicle. It is a relatively rapid and efficient method of permanent depilation. In addition to pain and erythema, Dr. Vashi reported that the complications associated with hair threading include pigmentary changes, infections such as bullous impetigo, and lesions of koebnerization – such as vitiligo and lichen planus.

Bindi, a Hindi tradition that involves placing adornments between the eyebrows, and kumkum, a powder typically made from turmeric to be employed for decorative markings, have also spread to use outside of their cultural context, according to Dr. Vashi. She said that the complications of these two cosmetic practices are shared, and stem largely from contact dermatitis.

Veena Nair/Moment/Getty Images

Hair oils, skin-lightening agents

Culturally-linked hair oils among patients from south Asia or Africa – or descendants from these areas – can damage hair in a variety of ways as well as cause contact dermatitis. The oils can also exacerbate existing skin diseases.

“Oils with high oleic acid, such as coconut or olive oils or shea butter, can worsen seborrheic dermatitis,” Dr. Vashi cautioned.

Of this list of dermatologic issues induced by culturally linked cosmetic practices, skin lightening agents might pose the most risk for permanent and irreversible complications. Dr. Vashi said that up to 70% of patients using lighteners develop complications, and there is a relationship between the severity of side effects as duration of use increases.

“The problem is that ingredients of many of these products, which are imported illegally and sold on the black market, are often not disclosed,” Dr. Vashi said. Some contain a high content of metals such as lead, copper, and iron, whether they are added intentionally or end up in the product because of poor quality control. For those developing adverse events associated with the products, the obvious treatment is discontinuation.

When patients are unwilling to discontinue any of the products that have led to dermatologic issues, Dr. Vashi encouraged physicians “to take a middle ground.” Simple avoidance can be challenging for practices that are culturally meaningful. In respecting cultural differences, she encouraged tolerance and compromise.

“Often these patients will be doing an alternative medication or intervention, but this does not mean that they are not accepting what we have to offer,” she said. She indicated that mutual respect will lead to better solutions.

The awareness of common cultural practices that can have a harmful impact on the skin is an area of practice that deserves more attention, Andrew F. Alexis, MD, vice-chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

With the strong likelihood that dermatologists in the United States will have to resolve dermatologic issues created by cultural cosmetic practices originating elsewhere, strategies for an open nonjudgmental approach are instrumental, according to a dermatologist with expertise in these types of cases who spoke at the Skin of Color Update 2021.

“Instead of avoiding the discussion of cultural practices, we should discuss them and be open about them. It fosters a comfortable environment, trust, and better compliance,” reported Neelam Ajit Vashi, MD, founding director of the Boston University Center for Ethnic Skin.

Out of fear of causing offense, a desire to be discreet, or of personal discomfort with foreign cultural practices, some clinicians might elect to limit themselves to the information that the patient volunteers, which is a mistake, according to Dr. Vashi.

“The avoidance of topics around culture actually limits the ability to have a successful relationship,” she maintained.

Successful encounters are not just based on a willingness to listen, Dr. Vashi said. Clinicians should be seeking a base of knowledge. With growing globalization and widespread immigration, “it is increasingly important for dermatologists in the U.S. to understand the role of cultural practices [in creating skin problems] and recognize the sequelae,” Dr. Vashi said.

Taking some common examples of dermatologic complaints created by cosmetic practices originating elsewhere, Dr. Vashi described key clinical points in addressing complications related to henna, hair removal through threading, and placement of decorative adornments on the forehead, called bindi. In addition, she pointed out common issues with facial and body marking created with kumkum powder, hair oils, and skin lightening agents.
 

Black henna

For cosmetic enhancement, henna is relatively benign. It is also no longer confined to the south Asian communities where it originated. However, Dr. Vashi pointed out that patients of south Asian origin or descent might be more likely to use black henna, a variety with more risks.

Black henna contains additives, such as diaminobenzenes and p-phenylenediamine (PPD), to darken the tone of the product as well as provide other desired characteristics, such as an accelerated drying time. While some patients do develop reactions to conventional henna, the risks of black henna are greater.

“The acute contact dermatitis reactions can include dyspigmentation, leukoderma, and keloids,” Dr. Vashi said. Other complications include erythema multiforme, temporary hypertrichosis, and systemic allergic reactions, such as angioedema.

While those who have had a reaction to henna should avoid further contact, Dr. Vashi warned that sequelae can include cross reactions with latex and rubber as well as some pharmaceutical agents, such as sulfonamides. When taking a patient history, she noted, be aware that risks of henna extend to the hairdressers and cosmeticians who sometimes apply these products on others.

Hair threading, bindi, and kumkum

Hair threading, another practice popularized in south Asia and now growing in popularity globally, involves capturing hairs between cotton threads for removal of both the hair and its follicle. It is a relatively rapid and efficient method of permanent depilation. In addition to pain and erythema, Dr. Vashi reported that the complications associated with hair threading include pigmentary changes, infections such as bullous impetigo, and lesions of koebnerization – such as vitiligo and lichen planus.

Bindi, a Hindi tradition that involves placing adornments between the eyebrows, and kumkum, a powder typically made from turmeric to be employed for decorative markings, have also spread to use outside of their cultural context, according to Dr. Vashi. She said that the complications of these two cosmetic practices are shared, and stem largely from contact dermatitis.

Veena Nair/Moment/Getty Images

Hair oils, skin-lightening agents

Culturally-linked hair oils among patients from south Asia or Africa – or descendants from these areas – can damage hair in a variety of ways as well as cause contact dermatitis. The oils can also exacerbate existing skin diseases.

“Oils with high oleic acid, such as coconut or olive oils or shea butter, can worsen seborrheic dermatitis,” Dr. Vashi cautioned.

Of this list of dermatologic issues induced by culturally linked cosmetic practices, skin lightening agents might pose the most risk for permanent and irreversible complications. Dr. Vashi said that up to 70% of patients using lighteners develop complications, and there is a relationship between the severity of side effects as duration of use increases.

“The problem is that ingredients of many of these products, which are imported illegally and sold on the black market, are often not disclosed,” Dr. Vashi said. Some contain a high content of metals such as lead, copper, and iron, whether they are added intentionally or end up in the product because of poor quality control. For those developing adverse events associated with the products, the obvious treatment is discontinuation.

When patients are unwilling to discontinue any of the products that have led to dermatologic issues, Dr. Vashi encouraged physicians “to take a middle ground.” Simple avoidance can be challenging for practices that are culturally meaningful. In respecting cultural differences, she encouraged tolerance and compromise.

“Often these patients will be doing an alternative medication or intervention, but this does not mean that they are not accepting what we have to offer,” she said. She indicated that mutual respect will lead to better solutions.

The awareness of common cultural practices that can have a harmful impact on the skin is an area of practice that deserves more attention, Andrew F. Alexis, MD, vice-chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

With the strong likelihood that dermatologists in the United States will have to resolve dermatologic issues created by cultural cosmetic practices originating elsewhere, strategies for an open nonjudgmental approach are instrumental, according to a dermatologist with expertise in these types of cases who spoke at the Skin of Color Update 2021.

“Instead of avoiding the discussion of cultural practices, we should discuss them and be open about them. It fosters a comfortable environment, trust, and better compliance,” reported Neelam Ajit Vashi, MD, founding director of the Boston University Center for Ethnic Skin.

Out of fear of causing offense, a desire to be discreet, or of personal discomfort with foreign cultural practices, some clinicians might elect to limit themselves to the information that the patient volunteers, which is a mistake, according to Dr. Vashi.

“The avoidance of topics around culture actually limits the ability to have a successful relationship,” she maintained.

Successful encounters are not just based on a willingness to listen, Dr. Vashi said. Clinicians should be seeking a base of knowledge. With growing globalization and widespread immigration, “it is increasingly important for dermatologists in the U.S. to understand the role of cultural practices [in creating skin problems] and recognize the sequelae,” Dr. Vashi said.

Taking some common examples of dermatologic complaints created by cosmetic practices originating elsewhere, Dr. Vashi described key clinical points in addressing complications related to henna, hair removal through threading, and placement of decorative adornments on the forehead, called bindi. In addition, she pointed out common issues with facial and body marking created with kumkum powder, hair oils, and skin lightening agents.
 

Black henna

For cosmetic enhancement, henna is relatively benign. It is also no longer confined to the south Asian communities where it originated. However, Dr. Vashi pointed out that patients of south Asian origin or descent might be more likely to use black henna, a variety with more risks.

Black henna contains additives, such as diaminobenzenes and p-phenylenediamine (PPD), to darken the tone of the product as well as provide other desired characteristics, such as an accelerated drying time. While some patients do develop reactions to conventional henna, the risks of black henna are greater.

“The acute contact dermatitis reactions can include dyspigmentation, leukoderma, and keloids,” Dr. Vashi said. Other complications include erythema multiforme, temporary hypertrichosis, and systemic allergic reactions, such as angioedema.

While those who have had a reaction to henna should avoid further contact, Dr. Vashi warned that sequelae can include cross reactions with latex and rubber as well as some pharmaceutical agents, such as sulfonamides. When taking a patient history, she noted, be aware that risks of henna extend to the hairdressers and cosmeticians who sometimes apply these products on others.

Hair threading, bindi, and kumkum

Hair threading, another practice popularized in south Asia and now growing in popularity globally, involves capturing hairs between cotton threads for removal of both the hair and its follicle. It is a relatively rapid and efficient method of permanent depilation. In addition to pain and erythema, Dr. Vashi reported that the complications associated with hair threading include pigmentary changes, infections such as bullous impetigo, and lesions of koebnerization – such as vitiligo and lichen planus.

Bindi, a Hindi tradition that involves placing adornments between the eyebrows, and kumkum, a powder typically made from turmeric to be employed for decorative markings, have also spread to use outside of their cultural context, according to Dr. Vashi. She said that the complications of these two cosmetic practices are shared, and stem largely from contact dermatitis.

Veena Nair/Moment/Getty Images

Hair oils, skin-lightening agents

Culturally-linked hair oils among patients from south Asia or Africa – or descendants from these areas – can damage hair in a variety of ways as well as cause contact dermatitis. The oils can also exacerbate existing skin diseases.

“Oils with high oleic acid, such as coconut or olive oils or shea butter, can worsen seborrheic dermatitis,” Dr. Vashi cautioned.

Of this list of dermatologic issues induced by culturally linked cosmetic practices, skin lightening agents might pose the most risk for permanent and irreversible complications. Dr. Vashi said that up to 70% of patients using lighteners develop complications, and there is a relationship between the severity of side effects as duration of use increases.

“The problem is that ingredients of many of these products, which are imported illegally and sold on the black market, are often not disclosed,” Dr. Vashi said. Some contain a high content of metals such as lead, copper, and iron, whether they are added intentionally or end up in the product because of poor quality control. For those developing adverse events associated with the products, the obvious treatment is discontinuation.

When patients are unwilling to discontinue any of the products that have led to dermatologic issues, Dr. Vashi encouraged physicians “to take a middle ground.” Simple avoidance can be challenging for practices that are culturally meaningful. In respecting cultural differences, she encouraged tolerance and compromise.

“Often these patients will be doing an alternative medication or intervention, but this does not mean that they are not accepting what we have to offer,” she said. She indicated that mutual respect will lead to better solutions.

The awareness of common cultural practices that can have a harmful impact on the skin is an area of practice that deserves more attention, Andrew F. Alexis, MD, vice-chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

Music plus mushrooms equals therapy

Magic mushrooms have been used recreationally and medicinally for thousands of years, but researchers have found adding music could be a game changer in antidepressant treatment.

chrissmith12/Pixabay

The ingredient that makes these mushrooms so magical is psilocybin. It works well for the clinical treatment of mental health conditions and some forms of depression because the “trip” can be contained to one work day, making it easy to administer under supervision. With the accompaniment of music, scientists have found that psilocybin evokes emotion.

This recent study, presented at the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology Congress in Lisbon, tested participants’ emotional response to music before and after the psilocybin. Ketanserin, an antihypertensive drug, was used to test against the effects of psilocybin. The scientist played Mozart and Elgar and found that participants on psilocybin had an emotional response increase of 60%. That response was even greater, compared with ketanserin, which actually lessened the emotional response to music.

“This shows that combination of psilocybin and music has a strong emotional effect, and we believe that this will be important for the therapeutic application of psychedelics if they are approved for clinical use,” said lead researcher Dea Siggaard Stenbæk of the University of Copenhagen.

Professor David J. Nutt of Imperial College in London, who was not involved in the study, said that it supports the use of music for treatment efficacy with psychedelics and suggested that the next step is to “optimise this approach probably through individualising and personalising music tracks in therapy.”

Cue the 1960s LSD music montage.
 

Chicken ‘white striping is not a disease’

Have you ever sliced open a new pack of chicken breasts to start dinner and noticed white fatty lines running through the chicken? Maybe you thought it was just some extra fat to trim off, but the Humane League calls it “white striping disease.”

rawpixel

Chicken is the No. 1 meat consumed by Americans, so it’s not surprising that chickens are factory farmed and raised to be ready for slaughter quickly, according to CBSNews.com, which reported that the Humane League claims white striping is found in 70% of the chicken in popular grocery stores. The league expressed concern for the chickens’ welfare as they are bred to grow bigger quickly, which is causing the white striping and increasing the fat content of the meat by as much as 224%.

The National Chicken Council told CBS that the league’s findings were unscientific. A spokesperson said, “White striping is not a disease. It is a quality factor in chicken breast meat caused by deposits of fat in the muscle during the bird’s growth and development.” He went on to say that severe white striping happens in 3%-6% of birds, which are mostly used in further processed products, not in chicken breast packages.

Somehow, that’s not making us feel any better.
 

The itsy bitsy spider lets us all down

Most people do not like spiders. That’s too bad, because spiders are generally nothing but helpful little creatures that prey upon annoying flies and other pests. Then there’s the silk they produce. The ancient Romans used it to treat conditions such as warts and skin lesions. Spiders wrap their eggs in silk to protect them from harmful bacteria.

Simon Fruergaard

Of course, we can hardly trust the medical opinions of people from 2,000 years ago, but modern-day studies have not definitively proved whether or not spider silk has any antimicrobial properties.

To settle the matter once and for all, researchers from Denmark built a silk-harvesting machine using the most famous of Danish inventions: Legos. The contraption, sort of a paddle wheel, pulled the silk from several different species of spider pinned down by the researchers. The silk was then tested against three different bacteria species, including good old Escherichia coli.

Unfortunately for our spider friends, their silk has no antimicrobial activity. The researchers suspected that any such activity seen in previous studies was actually caused by improper control for the solvents used to extract the silk; those solvents can have antimicrobial properties on their own. As for protecting their eggs, rather than killing bacteria, the silk likely provides a physical barrier alone.

It is bad news for spiders on the benefit-to-humanity front, but look at the bright side: If their silk had antimicrobial activity, we’d have to start farming them to acquire more silk. And that’s no good. Spiders deserve to roam free, hunt as they please, and drop down on your head from the ceiling.
 

Anxiety and allergies: Cause, effect, confusion

We’re big fans of science, but as longtime, totally impartial (Science rules!) observers of science’s medical realm, we can see that the day-to-day process of practicing the scientific method occasionally gets a bit messy. And no, we’re not talking about COVID-19.

pxfuel

We’re talking allergies. We’re talking mental health. We’re talking allergic disease and mental health.

We’re talking about a pair of press releases we came across during our never-ending search for material to educate, entertain, and astound our fabulously wonderful and loyal readers. (We say that, of course, in the most impartial way possible.)

The first release was titled, “Allergies including asthma and hay fever not linked to mental health traits” and covered research from the University of Bristol (England). The investigators were trying to determine if “allergic diseases actually causes mental health traits including anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia, or vice versa,” according to the release.

What they found, however, was “little evidence of a causal relationship between the onset of allergic disease and mental health.” Again, this is the press release talking.

The second release seemed to suggest the exact opposite: “Study uncovers link between allergies and mental health conditions.” That got our attention. A little more reading revealed that “people with asthma, atopic dermatitis, and hay fever also had a higher likelihood of having depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, or neuroticism.”

One of the investigators was quoted as saying, “Establishing whether allergic disease causes mental health problems, or vice versa, is important to ensure that resources and treatment strategies are targeted appropriately.”

Did you notice the “vice versa”? Did you notice that it appeared in quotes from both releases? We did, so we took a closer look at the source. The second release covered a group of investigators from the University of Bristol – the same group, and the same study, in fact, as the first one.

So there you have it. One study, two press releases, and one confused journalist. Thank you, science.

Music plus mushrooms equals therapy

Magic mushrooms have been used recreationally and medicinally for thousands of years, but researchers have found adding music could be a game changer in antidepressant treatment.

chrissmith12/Pixabay

The ingredient that makes these mushrooms so magical is psilocybin. It works well for the clinical treatment of mental health conditions and some forms of depression because the “trip” can be contained to one work day, making it easy to administer under supervision. With the accompaniment of music, scientists have found that psilocybin evokes emotion.

This recent study, presented at the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology Congress in Lisbon, tested participants’ emotional response to music before and after the psilocybin. Ketanserin, an antihypertensive drug, was used to test against the effects of psilocybin. The scientist played Mozart and Elgar and found that participants on psilocybin had an emotional response increase of 60%. That response was even greater, compared with ketanserin, which actually lessened the emotional response to music.

“This shows that combination of psilocybin and music has a strong emotional effect, and we believe that this will be important for the therapeutic application of psychedelics if they are approved for clinical use,” said lead researcher Dea Siggaard Stenbæk of the University of Copenhagen.

Professor David J. Nutt of Imperial College in London, who was not involved in the study, said that it supports the use of music for treatment efficacy with psychedelics and suggested that the next step is to “optimise this approach probably through individualising and personalising music tracks in therapy.”

Cue the 1960s LSD music montage.
 

Chicken ‘white striping is not a disease’

Have you ever sliced open a new pack of chicken breasts to start dinner and noticed white fatty lines running through the chicken? Maybe you thought it was just some extra fat to trim off, but the Humane League calls it “white striping disease.”

rawpixel

Chicken is the No. 1 meat consumed by Americans, so it’s not surprising that chickens are factory farmed and raised to be ready for slaughter quickly, according to CBSNews.com, which reported that the Humane League claims white striping is found in 70% of the chicken in popular grocery stores. The league expressed concern for the chickens’ welfare as they are bred to grow bigger quickly, which is causing the white striping and increasing the fat content of the meat by as much as 224%.

The National Chicken Council told CBS that the league’s findings were unscientific. A spokesperson said, “White striping is not a disease. It is a quality factor in chicken breast meat caused by deposits of fat in the muscle during the bird’s growth and development.” He went on to say that severe white striping happens in 3%-6% of birds, which are mostly used in further processed products, not in chicken breast packages.

Somehow, that’s not making us feel any better.
 

The itsy bitsy spider lets us all down

Most people do not like spiders. That’s too bad, because spiders are generally nothing but helpful little creatures that prey upon annoying flies and other pests. Then there’s the silk they produce. The ancient Romans used it to treat conditions such as warts and skin lesions. Spiders wrap their eggs in silk to protect them from harmful bacteria.

Simon Fruergaard

Of course, we can hardly trust the medical opinions of people from 2,000 years ago, but modern-day studies have not definitively proved whether or not spider silk has any antimicrobial properties.

To settle the matter once and for all, researchers from Denmark built a silk-harvesting machine using the most famous of Danish inventions: Legos. The contraption, sort of a paddle wheel, pulled the silk from several different species of spider pinned down by the researchers. The silk was then tested against three different bacteria species, including good old Escherichia coli.

Unfortunately for our spider friends, their silk has no antimicrobial activity. The researchers suspected that any such activity seen in previous studies was actually caused by improper control for the solvents used to extract the silk; those solvents can have antimicrobial properties on their own. As for protecting their eggs, rather than killing bacteria, the silk likely provides a physical barrier alone.

It is bad news for spiders on the benefit-to-humanity front, but look at the bright side: If their silk had antimicrobial activity, we’d have to start farming them to acquire more silk. And that’s no good. Spiders deserve to roam free, hunt as they please, and drop down on your head from the ceiling.
 

Anxiety and allergies: Cause, effect, confusion

We’re big fans of science, but as longtime, totally impartial (Science rules!) observers of science’s medical realm, we can see that the day-to-day process of practicing the scientific method occasionally gets a bit messy. And no, we’re not talking about COVID-19.

pxfuel

We’re talking allergies. We’re talking mental health. We’re talking allergic disease and mental health.

We’re talking about a pair of press releases we came across during our never-ending search for material to educate, entertain, and astound our fabulously wonderful and loyal readers. (We say that, of course, in the most impartial way possible.)

The first release was titled, “Allergies including asthma and hay fever not linked to mental health traits” and covered research from the University of Bristol (England). The investigators were trying to determine if “allergic diseases actually causes mental health traits including anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia, or vice versa,” according to the release.

What they found, however, was “little evidence of a causal relationship between the onset of allergic disease and mental health.” Again, this is the press release talking.

The second release seemed to suggest the exact opposite: “Study uncovers link between allergies and mental health conditions.” That got our attention. A little more reading revealed that “people with asthma, atopic dermatitis, and hay fever also had a higher likelihood of having depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, or neuroticism.”

One of the investigators was quoted as saying, “Establishing whether allergic disease causes mental health problems, or vice versa, is important to ensure that resources and treatment strategies are targeted appropriately.”

Did you notice the “vice versa”? Did you notice that it appeared in quotes from both releases? We did, so we took a closer look at the source. The second release covered a group of investigators from the University of Bristol – the same group, and the same study, in fact, as the first one.

So there you have it. One study, two press releases, and one confused journalist. Thank you, science.

Music plus mushrooms equals therapy

Magic mushrooms have been used recreationally and medicinally for thousands of years, but researchers have found adding music could be a game changer in antidepressant treatment.

chrissmith12/Pixabay

The ingredient that makes these mushrooms so magical is psilocybin. It works well for the clinical treatment of mental health conditions and some forms of depression because the “trip” can be contained to one work day, making it easy to administer under supervision. With the accompaniment of music, scientists have found that psilocybin evokes emotion.

This recent study, presented at the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology Congress in Lisbon, tested participants’ emotional response to music before and after the psilocybin. Ketanserin, an antihypertensive drug, was used to test against the effects of psilocybin. The scientist played Mozart and Elgar and found that participants on psilocybin had an emotional response increase of 60%. That response was even greater, compared with ketanserin, which actually lessened the emotional response to music.

“This shows that combination of psilocybin and music has a strong emotional effect, and we believe that this will be important for the therapeutic application of psychedelics if they are approved for clinical use,” said lead researcher Dea Siggaard Stenbæk of the University of Copenhagen.

Professor David J. Nutt of Imperial College in London, who was not involved in the study, said that it supports the use of music for treatment efficacy with psychedelics and suggested that the next step is to “optimise this approach probably through individualising and personalising music tracks in therapy.”

Cue the 1960s LSD music montage.
 

Chicken ‘white striping is not a disease’

Have you ever sliced open a new pack of chicken breasts to start dinner and noticed white fatty lines running through the chicken? Maybe you thought it was just some extra fat to trim off, but the Humane League calls it “white striping disease.”

rawpixel

Chicken is the No. 1 meat consumed by Americans, so it’s not surprising that chickens are factory farmed and raised to be ready for slaughter quickly, according to CBSNews.com, which reported that the Humane League claims white striping is found in 70% of the chicken in popular grocery stores. The league expressed concern for the chickens’ welfare as they are bred to grow bigger quickly, which is causing the white striping and increasing the fat content of the meat by as much as 224%.

The National Chicken Council told CBS that the league’s findings were unscientific. A spokesperson said, “White striping is not a disease. It is a quality factor in chicken breast meat caused by deposits of fat in the muscle during the bird’s growth and development.” He went on to say that severe white striping happens in 3%-6% of birds, which are mostly used in further processed products, not in chicken breast packages.

Somehow, that’s not making us feel any better.
 

The itsy bitsy spider lets us all down

Most people do not like spiders. That’s too bad, because spiders are generally nothing but helpful little creatures that prey upon annoying flies and other pests. Then there’s the silk they produce. The ancient Romans used it to treat conditions such as warts and skin lesions. Spiders wrap their eggs in silk to protect them from harmful bacteria.

Simon Fruergaard

Of course, we can hardly trust the medical opinions of people from 2,000 years ago, but modern-day studies have not definitively proved whether or not spider silk has any antimicrobial properties.

To settle the matter once and for all, researchers from Denmark built a silk-harvesting machine using the most famous of Danish inventions: Legos. The contraption, sort of a paddle wheel, pulled the silk from several different species of spider pinned down by the researchers. The silk was then tested against three different bacteria species, including good old Escherichia coli.

Unfortunately for our spider friends, their silk has no antimicrobial activity. The researchers suspected that any such activity seen in previous studies was actually caused by improper control for the solvents used to extract the silk; those solvents can have antimicrobial properties on their own. As for protecting their eggs, rather than killing bacteria, the silk likely provides a physical barrier alone.

It is bad news for spiders on the benefit-to-humanity front, but look at the bright side: If their silk had antimicrobial activity, we’d have to start farming them to acquire more silk. And that’s no good. Spiders deserve to roam free, hunt as they please, and drop down on your head from the ceiling.
 

Anxiety and allergies: Cause, effect, confusion

We’re big fans of science, but as longtime, totally impartial (Science rules!) observers of science’s medical realm, we can see that the day-to-day process of practicing the scientific method occasionally gets a bit messy. And no, we’re not talking about COVID-19.

pxfuel

We’re talking allergies. We’re talking mental health. We’re talking allergic disease and mental health.

We’re talking about a pair of press releases we came across during our never-ending search for material to educate, entertain, and astound our fabulously wonderful and loyal readers. (We say that, of course, in the most impartial way possible.)

The first release was titled, “Allergies including asthma and hay fever not linked to mental health traits” and covered research from the University of Bristol (England). The investigators were trying to determine if “allergic diseases actually causes mental health traits including anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia, or vice versa,” according to the release.

What they found, however, was “little evidence of a causal relationship between the onset of allergic disease and mental health.” Again, this is the press release talking.

The second release seemed to suggest the exact opposite: “Study uncovers link between allergies and mental health conditions.” That got our attention. A little more reading revealed that “people with asthma, atopic dermatitis, and hay fever also had a higher likelihood of having depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, or neuroticism.”

One of the investigators was quoted as saying, “Establishing whether allergic disease causes mental health problems, or vice versa, is important to ensure that resources and treatment strategies are targeted appropriately.”

Did you notice the “vice versa”? Did you notice that it appeared in quotes from both releases? We did, so we took a closer look at the source. The second release covered a group of investigators from the University of Bristol – the same group, and the same study, in fact, as the first one.

So there you have it. One study, two press releases, and one confused journalist. Thank you, science.

Northwell Health, the largest hospital system in New York state, fired 1,400 employees Oct. 3 for not complying with the state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The employees represented less than 2% of Northwell’s 76,000 employees, who are now all fully vaccinated against COVID-19, Joe Kemp, the assistant vice president of public relations for the company, told The Hill.

“Northwell Health is proud to announce that our workforce -- the largest in New York State -- is 100% vaccinated,” the company said in a statement to several news outlets.

“This allows us to continue to provide exceptional care at all of our facilities, without interruption and remain open and fully operational,” Northwell Health said.

Having a fully vaccinated workforce is part of the health system’s duty to protect others, the company said. Northwell Health includes 23 hospitals and more than 830 outpatient facilities, according to ABC News.

“Northwell regrets losing any employee under such circumstances,” the company said. “We owe it to our staff, our patients, and the communities we serve to be 100% vaccinated against COVID-19.”

Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced in August that the state would require health care workers to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine shot by Sept. 27. Employees didn’t have the option for weekly testing or religious exemptions, which is being challenged in several lawsuits, according to The New York Times.

The order went into effect last week, prompting tens of thousands of employees to get vaccinated. As of last week, 87% of hospital staff were fully vaccinated, and 92% of hospital and retirement home workers had received at least one dose, according to state health data.

Northwell announced its own vaccine mandate in August as well, which sparked protests among some workers. The order applied to both clinical and non-clinical staff.

A few thousand Northwell employees got vaccinated as the deadline approached, Mr. Kemp told The New York Times. Some who lost their jobs at first were able to return to work, and those who have been terminated can interview for reinstatement for 30 days. The hospital system is also “openly recruiting” for the vacant positions.

“The goal was to get people vaccinated, not to get people terminated,” Mr. Kemp said.

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients in New York hit a low of 350 in mid-July, according to state hospitalization data. Now, about 2,200 people are hospitalized throughout the state, most of whom are unvaccinated.

As of Oct. 3, nearly 72% of New York residents had received at least one vaccine dose, according to the latest state data. About 64% are fully vaccinated.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Northwell Health, the largest hospital system in New York state, fired 1,400 employees Oct. 3 for not complying with the state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The employees represented less than 2% of Northwell’s 76,000 employees, who are now all fully vaccinated against COVID-19, Joe Kemp, the assistant vice president of public relations for the company, told The Hill.

“Northwell Health is proud to announce that our workforce -- the largest in New York State -- is 100% vaccinated,” the company said in a statement to several news outlets.

“This allows us to continue to provide exceptional care at all of our facilities, without interruption and remain open and fully operational,” Northwell Health said.

Having a fully vaccinated workforce is part of the health system’s duty to protect others, the company said. Northwell Health includes 23 hospitals and more than 830 outpatient facilities, according to ABC News.

“Northwell regrets losing any employee under such circumstances,” the company said. “We owe it to our staff, our patients, and the communities we serve to be 100% vaccinated against COVID-19.”

Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced in August that the state would require health care workers to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine shot by Sept. 27. Employees didn’t have the option for weekly testing or religious exemptions, which is being challenged in several lawsuits, according to The New York Times.

The order went into effect last week, prompting tens of thousands of employees to get vaccinated. As of last week, 87% of hospital staff were fully vaccinated, and 92% of hospital and retirement home workers had received at least one dose, according to state health data.

Northwell announced its own vaccine mandate in August as well, which sparked protests among some workers. The order applied to both clinical and non-clinical staff.

A few thousand Northwell employees got vaccinated as the deadline approached, Mr. Kemp told The New York Times. Some who lost their jobs at first were able to return to work, and those who have been terminated can interview for reinstatement for 30 days. The hospital system is also “openly recruiting” for the vacant positions.

“The goal was to get people vaccinated, not to get people terminated,” Mr. Kemp said.

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients in New York hit a low of 350 in mid-July, according to state hospitalization data. Now, about 2,200 people are hospitalized throughout the state, most of whom are unvaccinated.

As of Oct. 3, nearly 72% of New York residents had received at least one vaccine dose, according to the latest state data. About 64% are fully vaccinated.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Northwell Health, the largest hospital system in New York state, fired 1,400 employees Oct. 3 for not complying with the state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The employees represented less than 2% of Northwell’s 76,000 employees, who are now all fully vaccinated against COVID-19, Joe Kemp, the assistant vice president of public relations for the company, told The Hill.

“Northwell Health is proud to announce that our workforce -- the largest in New York State -- is 100% vaccinated,” the company said in a statement to several news outlets.

“This allows us to continue to provide exceptional care at all of our facilities, without interruption and remain open and fully operational,” Northwell Health said.

Having a fully vaccinated workforce is part of the health system’s duty to protect others, the company said. Northwell Health includes 23 hospitals and more than 830 outpatient facilities, according to ABC News.

“Northwell regrets losing any employee under such circumstances,” the company said. “We owe it to our staff, our patients, and the communities we serve to be 100% vaccinated against COVID-19.”

Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced in August that the state would require health care workers to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine shot by Sept. 27. Employees didn’t have the option for weekly testing or religious exemptions, which is being challenged in several lawsuits, according to The New York Times.

The order went into effect last week, prompting tens of thousands of employees to get vaccinated. As of last week, 87% of hospital staff were fully vaccinated, and 92% of hospital and retirement home workers had received at least one dose, according to state health data.

Northwell announced its own vaccine mandate in August as well, which sparked protests among some workers. The order applied to both clinical and non-clinical staff.

A few thousand Northwell employees got vaccinated as the deadline approached, Mr. Kemp told The New York Times. Some who lost their jobs at first were able to return to work, and those who have been terminated can interview for reinstatement for 30 days. The hospital system is also “openly recruiting” for the vacant positions.

“The goal was to get people vaccinated, not to get people terminated,” Mr. Kemp said.

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients in New York hit a low of 350 in mid-July, according to state hospitalization data. Now, about 2,200 people are hospitalized throughout the state, most of whom are unvaccinated.

As of Oct. 3, nearly 72% of New York residents had received at least one vaccine dose, according to the latest state data. About 64% are fully vaccinated.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Johnson & Johnson asked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Tuesday to authorize an extra dose of its COVID-19 vaccine as a booster shot.

The company said it filed a request for people ages 18 and older who have received the one-shot vaccine. Johnson & Johnson submitted data for several different booster intervals -- ranging from 2 months to 6 months -- but didn’t formally recommend one to the FDA, The Associated Press reported.

“We’re describing the data to them,” Mathai Mammen, MD, head of global research and development for Janssen, the company’s vaccine division, told CNN.

“The process is not that we asked for a very specific interval -- we’re providing them data and we’re going to be presenting to the committee,” he said. “They’ll take all that into consideration when they ultimately decide on an appropriate interval.”

The FDA’s independent vaccine advisory committee meets next week to review data on booster shots from both Johnson & Johnson and Moderna. It’s the first step in the review process, which then requires approval from leaders at the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. If both agencies authorize the extra shots, Americans could receive boosters from Johnson & Johnson and Moderna later this month, the AP reported.

Johnson & Johnson previously released data that showed the vaccine remains highly effective against COVID-19 at least 5 months after vaccination, with 81% efficacy against hospitalizations in the United States.

Two weeks ago, the company reported that a booster dose at 2 months or 6 months further lifted immunity, with a booster at 2 months providing 94% protection against moderate and severe COVID-19. The company said the 6-month booster raised antibodies by 12 times but didn’t release additional data at that time.

In September, the FDA authorized booster shots of the Pfizer vaccine for ages 65 and older, those who live in long-term care facilities, and those with higher risks for contracting COVID-19. The Biden administration is supporting a booster campaign to address potential waning vaccine immunity and remaining surges of the more contagious Delta variant, the AP reported.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Johnson & Johnson asked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Tuesday to authorize an extra dose of its COVID-19 vaccine as a booster shot.

The company said it filed a request for people ages 18 and older who have received the one-shot vaccine. Johnson & Johnson submitted data for several different booster intervals -- ranging from 2 months to 6 months -- but didn’t formally recommend one to the FDA, The Associated Press reported.

“We’re describing the data to them,” Mathai Mammen, MD, head of global research and development for Janssen, the company’s vaccine division, told CNN.

“The process is not that we asked for a very specific interval -- we’re providing them data and we’re going to be presenting to the committee,” he said. “They’ll take all that into consideration when they ultimately decide on an appropriate interval.”

The FDA’s independent vaccine advisory committee meets next week to review data on booster shots from both Johnson & Johnson and Moderna. It’s the first step in the review process, which then requires approval from leaders at the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. If both agencies authorize the extra shots, Americans could receive boosters from Johnson & Johnson and Moderna later this month, the AP reported.

Johnson & Johnson previously released data that showed the vaccine remains highly effective against COVID-19 at least 5 months after vaccination, with 81% efficacy against hospitalizations in the United States.

Two weeks ago, the company reported that a booster dose at 2 months or 6 months further lifted immunity, with a booster at 2 months providing 94% protection against moderate and severe COVID-19. The company said the 6-month booster raised antibodies by 12 times but didn’t release additional data at that time.

In September, the FDA authorized booster shots of the Pfizer vaccine for ages 65 and older, those who live in long-term care facilities, and those with higher risks for contracting COVID-19. The Biden administration is supporting a booster campaign to address potential waning vaccine immunity and remaining surges of the more contagious Delta variant, the AP reported.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Johnson & Johnson asked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Tuesday to authorize an extra dose of its COVID-19 vaccine as a booster shot.

The company said it filed a request for people ages 18 and older who have received the one-shot vaccine. Johnson & Johnson submitted data for several different booster intervals -- ranging from 2 months to 6 months -- but didn’t formally recommend one to the FDA, The Associated Press reported.

“We’re describing the data to them,” Mathai Mammen, MD, head of global research and development for Janssen, the company’s vaccine division, told CNN.

“The process is not that we asked for a very specific interval -- we’re providing them data and we’re going to be presenting to the committee,” he said. “They’ll take all that into consideration when they ultimately decide on an appropriate interval.”

The FDA’s independent vaccine advisory committee meets next week to review data on booster shots from both Johnson & Johnson and Moderna. It’s the first step in the review process, which then requires approval from leaders at the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. If both agencies authorize the extra shots, Americans could receive boosters from Johnson & Johnson and Moderna later this month, the AP reported.

Johnson & Johnson previously released data that showed the vaccine remains highly effective against COVID-19 at least 5 months after vaccination, with 81% efficacy against hospitalizations in the United States.

Two weeks ago, the company reported that a booster dose at 2 months or 6 months further lifted immunity, with a booster at 2 months providing 94% protection against moderate and severe COVID-19. The company said the 6-month booster raised antibodies by 12 times but didn’t release additional data at that time.

In September, the FDA authorized booster shots of the Pfizer vaccine for ages 65 and older, those who live in long-term care facilities, and those with higher risks for contracting COVID-19. The Biden administration is supporting a booster campaign to address potential waning vaccine immunity and remaining surges of the more contagious Delta variant, the AP reported.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.