FDA/CDC

People dealing with hearing loss will be able to buy hearing aids without a doctor’s prescription as soon as mid-October.

The White House announced today that the Food and Drug Administration will move forward with plans to make hearing aids available over the counter in pharmacies, other retail locations, and online.

This major milestone aims to make hearing aids easier to buy and more affordable, potentially saving families thousands of dollars.

An estimated 28.8 million U.S. adults could benefit from using hearing aids, according to numbers from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. But only about 16% of people aged 20-69 years who could be helped by hearing aids have ever used them.

The risk for hearing loss increases with age. Among Americans ages 70 and older, only 30% who could hear better with these devices have ever used them, the institute reports.

Once the FDA final rule takes effect, Americans with mild to moderate hearing loss will be able to buy a hearing aid without a doctor’s exam, prescription, or fitting adjustment.

President Joe Biden announced in 2021 he intended to allow hearing aids to be sold over the counter without a prescription to increase competition among manufacturers. Congress also passed bipartisan legislation in 2017 requiring the FDA to create a new category for hearing aids sold directly to consumers. Some devices intended for minors or people with severe hearing loss will remain available only with a prescription.

“This action makes good on my commitment to lower costs for American families, delivering nearly $3,000 in savings to American families for a pair of hearing aids and giving people more choices to improve their health and wellbeing,” the president said in a statement announcing the news.

The new over-the-counter hearing aids will be considered medical devices. To avoid confusion, the FDA explains the differences between hearing aids and personal sound amplification products (PSAPs). For example, PSAPs are considered electronic devices designed for people with normal hearing to use in certain situations, like birdwatching or hunting.

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

People dealing with hearing loss will be able to buy hearing aids without a doctor’s prescription as soon as mid-October.

The White House announced today that the Food and Drug Administration will move forward with plans to make hearing aids available over the counter in pharmacies, other retail locations, and online.

This major milestone aims to make hearing aids easier to buy and more affordable, potentially saving families thousands of dollars.

An estimated 28.8 million U.S. adults could benefit from using hearing aids, according to numbers from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. But only about 16% of people aged 20-69 years who could be helped by hearing aids have ever used them.

The risk for hearing loss increases with age. Among Americans ages 70 and older, only 30% who could hear better with these devices have ever used them, the institute reports.

Once the FDA final rule takes effect, Americans with mild to moderate hearing loss will be able to buy a hearing aid without a doctor’s exam, prescription, or fitting adjustment.

President Joe Biden announced in 2021 he intended to allow hearing aids to be sold over the counter without a prescription to increase competition among manufacturers. Congress also passed bipartisan legislation in 2017 requiring the FDA to create a new category for hearing aids sold directly to consumers. Some devices intended for minors or people with severe hearing loss will remain available only with a prescription.

“This action makes good on my commitment to lower costs for American families, delivering nearly $3,000 in savings to American families for a pair of hearing aids and giving people more choices to improve their health and wellbeing,” the president said in a statement announcing the news.

The new over-the-counter hearing aids will be considered medical devices. To avoid confusion, the FDA explains the differences between hearing aids and personal sound amplification products (PSAPs). For example, PSAPs are considered electronic devices designed for people with normal hearing to use in certain situations, like birdwatching or hunting.

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

People dealing with hearing loss will be able to buy hearing aids without a doctor’s prescription as soon as mid-October.

The White House announced today that the Food and Drug Administration will move forward with plans to make hearing aids available over the counter in pharmacies, other retail locations, and online.

This major milestone aims to make hearing aids easier to buy and more affordable, potentially saving families thousands of dollars.

An estimated 28.8 million U.S. adults could benefit from using hearing aids, according to numbers from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. But only about 16% of people aged 20-69 years who could be helped by hearing aids have ever used them.

The risk for hearing loss increases with age. Among Americans ages 70 and older, only 30% who could hear better with these devices have ever used them, the institute reports.

Once the FDA final rule takes effect, Americans with mild to moderate hearing loss will be able to buy a hearing aid without a doctor’s exam, prescription, or fitting adjustment.

President Joe Biden announced in 2021 he intended to allow hearing aids to be sold over the counter without a prescription to increase competition among manufacturers. Congress also passed bipartisan legislation in 2017 requiring the FDA to create a new category for hearing aids sold directly to consumers. Some devices intended for minors or people with severe hearing loss will remain available only with a prescription.

“This action makes good on my commitment to lower costs for American families, delivering nearly $3,000 in savings to American families for a pair of hearing aids and giving people more choices to improve their health and wellbeing,” the president said in a statement announcing the news.

The new over-the-counter hearing aids will be considered medical devices. To avoid confusion, the FDA explains the differences between hearing aids and personal sound amplification products (PSAPs). For example, PSAPs are considered electronic devices designed for people with normal hearing to use in certain situations, like birdwatching or hunting.

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

Fewer than 1 in 3 people infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) begin receiving treatment within a year of their diagnosis, according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Although HCV infection can be cured in more than 95% of patients with safe, oral medication, many barriers prevent people from receiving the care they need, experts say. These include insurance restrictions and the need for specialist visits.

“If we are going to make an impact against hepatitis C, we need to connect more people to treatments and reduce disparities of access to diagnosis and treatment,” said Carolyn Wester, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s Division of Viral Hepatitis, during an Aug. 9 press call. “People shouldn’t have to jump over hurdles to access lifesaving treatments.”

The CDC report was published  in Vital Signs.

An estimated 2.2 million Americans are living with HCV infection. The most recent data indicate that new infections increased more than threefold from 2011 to 2019. HCV transmission usually occurs through contact with the blood of an infected person. Today, most people become infected with the virus by sharing needles, syringes, and other equipment used to inject drugs, according to the CDC.

The researchers used a nationwide administrative claims database to identify more than 47,600 adults diagnosed with HCV infection from Jan. 30, 2019 through Oct. 31, 2020. Most patients (79%) were Medicaid recipients, 7% were Medicare patients, and 14% had private insurance. CDC researchers found that just 23% of Medicaid recipients, 28% of Medicare patients, and 35% of patients with private insurance began receiving direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) within 360 days of receiving a positive HCV test result. Of those who did receive treatment, most (from 75% to 84%) began receiving treatment within 180 days of their diagnosis.

Among people on Medicaid plans, patients who lived in states with treatment restrictions were 23% less likely to receive timely treatment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.81), compared with those living in states with no restrictions. Medicaid patients who were Black or of another race other than White were also less likely than White patients to be treated for HCV within the same year as their diagnosis. The lowest rates of treatment were among adults younger than 40 years, regardless of insurance type. This age group had the highest rates of new infections.

Actual treatment percentages may be even smaller than the number captured in this study, because the study included patients with continuous insurance coverage, Dr. Wester said, “so in many ways, [these] are the individuals who are set up to have the best access to care and treatment.”

Dr. Wester mentioned several steps that could improve access to DAAs for patients with HCV infection:

• Provide treatment outside of specialist offices, such as primary care and community clinics, substance use treatment centers, and syringe services programs.
• Increase the number of primary care providers offering hepatitis C treatment.
• Provide treatment in as few visits as possible.
• Eliminate restrictions by insurance providers on treatment.

A ‘health injustice’

While DAA treatments are effective, they are also expensive. Generic medications cost around $24,000 for a 12-week course, and some brand-name drugs are estimated to cost more than three times that amount. Many insurance companies, therefore, have treatment restrictions in place, including the following:

• There must be evidence of liver fibrosis for a patient to be treated.
• The doctor prescribing treatment must be a liver specialist or an infectious disease specialist.
• The patient must meet sobriety requirements.
• Treatment requires preauthorization approval from insurance carriers.

These criteria prevent patients from getting the care that they need, said Jonathan Mermin, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, during the press call. “Restricting access to hepatitis C treatment turns an infectious disease into a health injustice,” he added.

Oluwaseun Falade-Nwulia, MBBS, MPH, an infectious disease specialist and assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, emphasized the importance of removing barriers to HCV treatment and expanding HCV care out of specialist offices. She noted that treatment for HCV infection should begin immediately after a patient’s diagnosis. Previously, guidelines recommended waiting 6 months from the time a patient was diagnosed with HCV to begin treatment to see whether the patient’s body could clear the infection on its own. Now, guidelines recommend that after a diagnosis of acute HCV, “HCV treatment should be initiated without awaiting spontaneous resolution.” But some insurance companies still ask for evidence that a patient has been infected for at least 6 months before approving therapy, Dr. Falade-Nwulia noted.

“We have a system that has so many structural barriers for patients who we know already have so many social determinants of health working against them to access any health care,” she said. “I think it’s doubly devastating that patients that can actually get to a provider and get a prescription may still not have access to [the medication] because of structural barriers, such as restrictions based on a need to prove chronicity.”

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

Fewer than 1 in 3 people infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) begin receiving treatment within a year of their diagnosis, according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Although HCV infection can be cured in more than 95% of patients with safe, oral medication, many barriers prevent people from receiving the care they need, experts say. These include insurance restrictions and the need for specialist visits.

“If we are going to make an impact against hepatitis C, we need to connect more people to treatments and reduce disparities of access to diagnosis and treatment,” said Carolyn Wester, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s Division of Viral Hepatitis, during an Aug. 9 press call. “People shouldn’t have to jump over hurdles to access lifesaving treatments.”

The CDC report was published  in Vital Signs.

An estimated 2.2 million Americans are living with HCV infection. The most recent data indicate that new infections increased more than threefold from 2011 to 2019. HCV transmission usually occurs through contact with the blood of an infected person. Today, most people become infected with the virus by sharing needles, syringes, and other equipment used to inject drugs, according to the CDC.

The researchers used a nationwide administrative claims database to identify more than 47,600 adults diagnosed with HCV infection from Jan. 30, 2019 through Oct. 31, 2020. Most patients (79%) were Medicaid recipients, 7% were Medicare patients, and 14% had private insurance. CDC researchers found that just 23% of Medicaid recipients, 28% of Medicare patients, and 35% of patients with private insurance began receiving direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) within 360 days of receiving a positive HCV test result. Of those who did receive treatment, most (from 75% to 84%) began receiving treatment within 180 days of their diagnosis.

Among people on Medicaid plans, patients who lived in states with treatment restrictions were 23% less likely to receive timely treatment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.81), compared with those living in states with no restrictions. Medicaid patients who were Black or of another race other than White were also less likely than White patients to be treated for HCV within the same year as their diagnosis. The lowest rates of treatment were among adults younger than 40 years, regardless of insurance type. This age group had the highest rates of new infections.

Actual treatment percentages may be even smaller than the number captured in this study, because the study included patients with continuous insurance coverage, Dr. Wester said, “so in many ways, [these] are the individuals who are set up to have the best access to care and treatment.”

Dr. Wester mentioned several steps that could improve access to DAAs for patients with HCV infection:

• Provide treatment outside of specialist offices, such as primary care and community clinics, substance use treatment centers, and syringe services programs.
• Increase the number of primary care providers offering hepatitis C treatment.
• Provide treatment in as few visits as possible.
• Eliminate restrictions by insurance providers on treatment.

A ‘health injustice’

While DAA treatments are effective, they are also expensive. Generic medications cost around $24,000 for a 12-week course, and some brand-name drugs are estimated to cost more than three times that amount. Many insurance companies, therefore, have treatment restrictions in place, including the following:

• There must be evidence of liver fibrosis for a patient to be treated.
• The doctor prescribing treatment must be a liver specialist or an infectious disease specialist.
• The patient must meet sobriety requirements.
• Treatment requires preauthorization approval from insurance carriers.

These criteria prevent patients from getting the care that they need, said Jonathan Mermin, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, during the press call. “Restricting access to hepatitis C treatment turns an infectious disease into a health injustice,” he added.

Oluwaseun Falade-Nwulia, MBBS, MPH, an infectious disease specialist and assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, emphasized the importance of removing barriers to HCV treatment and expanding HCV care out of specialist offices. She noted that treatment for HCV infection should begin immediately after a patient’s diagnosis. Previously, guidelines recommended waiting 6 months from the time a patient was diagnosed with HCV to begin treatment to see whether the patient’s body could clear the infection on its own. Now, guidelines recommend that after a diagnosis of acute HCV, “HCV treatment should be initiated without awaiting spontaneous resolution.” But some insurance companies still ask for evidence that a patient has been infected for at least 6 months before approving therapy, Dr. Falade-Nwulia noted.

“We have a system that has so many structural barriers for patients who we know already have so many social determinants of health working against them to access any health care,” she said. “I think it’s doubly devastating that patients that can actually get to a provider and get a prescription may still not have access to [the medication] because of structural barriers, such as restrictions based on a need to prove chronicity.”

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

Fewer than 1 in 3 people infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) begin receiving treatment within a year of their diagnosis, according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Although HCV infection can be cured in more than 95% of patients with safe, oral medication, many barriers prevent people from receiving the care they need, experts say. These include insurance restrictions and the need for specialist visits.

“If we are going to make an impact against hepatitis C, we need to connect more people to treatments and reduce disparities of access to diagnosis and treatment,” said Carolyn Wester, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s Division of Viral Hepatitis, during an Aug. 9 press call. “People shouldn’t have to jump over hurdles to access lifesaving treatments.”

The CDC report was published  in Vital Signs.

An estimated 2.2 million Americans are living with HCV infection. The most recent data indicate that new infections increased more than threefold from 2011 to 2019. HCV transmission usually occurs through contact with the blood of an infected person. Today, most people become infected with the virus by sharing needles, syringes, and other equipment used to inject drugs, according to the CDC.

The researchers used a nationwide administrative claims database to identify more than 47,600 adults diagnosed with HCV infection from Jan. 30, 2019 through Oct. 31, 2020. Most patients (79%) were Medicaid recipients, 7% were Medicare patients, and 14% had private insurance. CDC researchers found that just 23% of Medicaid recipients, 28% of Medicare patients, and 35% of patients with private insurance began receiving direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) within 360 days of receiving a positive HCV test result. Of those who did receive treatment, most (from 75% to 84%) began receiving treatment within 180 days of their diagnosis.

Among people on Medicaid plans, patients who lived in states with treatment restrictions were 23% less likely to receive timely treatment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.81), compared with those living in states with no restrictions. Medicaid patients who were Black or of another race other than White were also less likely than White patients to be treated for HCV within the same year as their diagnosis. The lowest rates of treatment were among adults younger than 40 years, regardless of insurance type. This age group had the highest rates of new infections.

Actual treatment percentages may be even smaller than the number captured in this study, because the study included patients with continuous insurance coverage, Dr. Wester said, “so in many ways, [these] are the individuals who are set up to have the best access to care and treatment.”

Dr. Wester mentioned several steps that could improve access to DAAs for patients with HCV infection:

• Provide treatment outside of specialist offices, such as primary care and community clinics, substance use treatment centers, and syringe services programs.
• Increase the number of primary care providers offering hepatitis C treatment.
• Provide treatment in as few visits as possible.
• Eliminate restrictions by insurance providers on treatment.

A ‘health injustice’

While DAA treatments are effective, they are also expensive. Generic medications cost around $24,000 for a 12-week course, and some brand-name drugs are estimated to cost more than three times that amount. Many insurance companies, therefore, have treatment restrictions in place, including the following:

• There must be evidence of liver fibrosis for a patient to be treated.
• The doctor prescribing treatment must be a liver specialist or an infectious disease specialist.
• The patient must meet sobriety requirements.
• Treatment requires preauthorization approval from insurance carriers.

These criteria prevent patients from getting the care that they need, said Jonathan Mermin, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, during the press call. “Restricting access to hepatitis C treatment turns an infectious disease into a health injustice,” he added.

Oluwaseun Falade-Nwulia, MBBS, MPH, an infectious disease specialist and assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, emphasized the importance of removing barriers to HCV treatment and expanding HCV care out of specialist offices. She noted that treatment for HCV infection should begin immediately after a patient’s diagnosis. Previously, guidelines recommended waiting 6 months from the time a patient was diagnosed with HCV to begin treatment to see whether the patient’s body could clear the infection on its own. Now, guidelines recommend that after a diagnosis of acute HCV, “HCV treatment should be initiated without awaiting spontaneous resolution.” But some insurance companies still ask for evidence that a patient has been infected for at least 6 months before approving therapy, Dr. Falade-Nwulia noted.

“We have a system that has so many structural barriers for patients who we know already have so many social determinants of health working against them to access any health care,” she said. “I think it’s doubly devastating that patients that can actually get to a provider and get a prescription may still not have access to [the medication] because of structural barriers, such as restrictions based on a need to prove chronicity.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has sent warning letters to three companies, including Amazon, for selling mole and skin tag removal products that have not been approved by the agency, according to a press release issued on Aug. 9.

In addition to Amazon.com, the other two companies are Ariella Naturals, and Justified Laboratories.

Currently, no over-the-counter products are FDA-approved for the at-home removal of moles and skin tags, and use of unapproved products could be dangerous to consumers, according to the statement. These products may be sold as ointments, gels, sticks, or liquids, and may contain high concentrations of salicylic acid or other harmful ingredients. Introducing unapproved products in to interstate commerce violates the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Two products sold on Amazon are the “Deisana Skin Tag Remover, Mole Remover and Repair Gel Set” and “Skincell Mole Skin Tag Corrector Serum,” according to the letter sent to Amazon.

The warning letters alert the three companies that they have 15 days from receipt to address any violations. However, warning letters are not a final FDA action, according to the statement.

“The agency’s rigorous surveillance works to identify threats to public health and stop these products from reaching our communities,” Donald D. Ashley, JD, director of the Office of Compliance in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release. “This includes where online retailers like Amazon are involved in the interstate sale of unapproved drug products. We will continue to work diligently to ensure that online retailers do not sell products that violate federal law,” he added.

The statement emphasized that moles should be evaluated by a health care professional, as attempts at self-diagnosis and at-home treatment could lead to a delayed cancer diagnosis, and potentially to cancer progression.

Products marketed to consumers for at-home removal of moles, skin tags, and other skin lesions could cause injuries, infections, and scarring, according to a related consumer update first posted by the FDA in June, which was updated after the warning letters were sent out.

Consumers and health care professionals are encouraged to report any adverse events related to mole removal or skin tag removal products to the agency’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program.

The FDA also offers an online guide, BeSafeRx, with advice for consumers about potential risks of using online pharmacies and how to do so safely.

The Food and Drug Administration has sent warning letters to three companies, including Amazon, for selling mole and skin tag removal products that have not been approved by the agency, according to a press release issued on Aug. 9.

In addition to Amazon.com, the other two companies are Ariella Naturals, and Justified Laboratories.

Currently, no over-the-counter products are FDA-approved for the at-home removal of moles and skin tags, and use of unapproved products could be dangerous to consumers, according to the statement. These products may be sold as ointments, gels, sticks, or liquids, and may contain high concentrations of salicylic acid or other harmful ingredients. Introducing unapproved products in to interstate commerce violates the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Two products sold on Amazon are the “Deisana Skin Tag Remover, Mole Remover and Repair Gel Set” and “Skincell Mole Skin Tag Corrector Serum,” according to the letter sent to Amazon.

The warning letters alert the three companies that they have 15 days from receipt to address any violations. However, warning letters are not a final FDA action, according to the statement.

“The agency’s rigorous surveillance works to identify threats to public health and stop these products from reaching our communities,” Donald D. Ashley, JD, director of the Office of Compliance in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release. “This includes where online retailers like Amazon are involved in the interstate sale of unapproved drug products. We will continue to work diligently to ensure that online retailers do not sell products that violate federal law,” he added.

The statement emphasized that moles should be evaluated by a health care professional, as attempts at self-diagnosis and at-home treatment could lead to a delayed cancer diagnosis, and potentially to cancer progression.

Products marketed to consumers for at-home removal of moles, skin tags, and other skin lesions could cause injuries, infections, and scarring, according to a related consumer update first posted by the FDA in June, which was updated after the warning letters were sent out.

Consumers and health care professionals are encouraged to report any adverse events related to mole removal or skin tag removal products to the agency’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program.

The FDA also offers an online guide, BeSafeRx, with advice for consumers about potential risks of using online pharmacies and how to do so safely.

The Food and Drug Administration has sent warning letters to three companies, including Amazon, for selling mole and skin tag removal products that have not been approved by the agency, according to a press release issued on Aug. 9.

In addition to Amazon.com, the other two companies are Ariella Naturals, and Justified Laboratories.

Currently, no over-the-counter products are FDA-approved for the at-home removal of moles and skin tags, and use of unapproved products could be dangerous to consumers, according to the statement. These products may be sold as ointments, gels, sticks, or liquids, and may contain high concentrations of salicylic acid or other harmful ingredients. Introducing unapproved products in to interstate commerce violates the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Two products sold on Amazon are the “Deisana Skin Tag Remover, Mole Remover and Repair Gel Set” and “Skincell Mole Skin Tag Corrector Serum,” according to the letter sent to Amazon.

The warning letters alert the three companies that they have 15 days from receipt to address any violations. However, warning letters are not a final FDA action, according to the statement.

“The agency’s rigorous surveillance works to identify threats to public health and stop these products from reaching our communities,” Donald D. Ashley, JD, director of the Office of Compliance in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release. “This includes where online retailers like Amazon are involved in the interstate sale of unapproved drug products. We will continue to work diligently to ensure that online retailers do not sell products that violate federal law,” he added.

The statement emphasized that moles should be evaluated by a health care professional, as attempts at self-diagnosis and at-home treatment could lead to a delayed cancer diagnosis, and potentially to cancer progression.

Products marketed to consumers for at-home removal of moles, skin tags, and other skin lesions could cause injuries, infections, and scarring, according to a related consumer update first posted by the FDA in June, which was updated after the warning letters were sent out.

Consumers and health care professionals are encouraged to report any adverse events related to mole removal or skin tag removal products to the agency’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program.

The FDA also offers an online guide, BeSafeRx, with advice for consumers about potential risks of using online pharmacies and how to do so safely.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu, Daiichi Sankyo/ AstraZeneca) for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-low breast cancer.

This is the first therapy approved for HER2-low breast cancer, a newly defined subset of HER2-negative breast cancer in which there are some HER2 proteins on the cell surface, but not enough to warrant classification as HER2-positive cancer, the FDA said in a press release.

The indication is for patients who have received prior chemotherapy in the metastatic setting or for patients whose cancer has returned during adjuvant chemotherapy or within 6 months of completing it.

Approval was based on the DESTINY-Breast04 trial, which included 557 patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-low breast cancer. The trial had two cohorts: 494 hormone receptor–positive (HR+) patients, and 63 hormone receptor–negative (HR–) patients.

Of these patients, 373 were randomly assigned to received trastuzumab deruxtecan every 3 weeks, and 184 were randomly assigned to receive physician’s choice of chemotherapy (eribulin, capecitabine, gemcitabine, nab paclitaxel, or paclitaxel).

Among patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan, progression-free survival was longer (10.1 months vs. 5.4 months), as was overall survival (23.9 months vs. 17.5 months), compared with those in the chemotherapy group.

“Overall, these results establish HER2-low metastatic breast cancer as a targetable population of breast cancer with trastuzumab deruxtecan as a new standard of care in this setting,” Shanu Modi, MD, said in June at a press conference held during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where she presented the results.

The most common adverse reactions in the trial were nausea, fatigue, alopecia, vomiting, constipation, decreased appetite, musculoskeletal pain, and diarrhea. The agent carries a boxed warning regarding the risk of interstitial lung disease and embryo-fetal toxicity.

The targeted agent is not recommended for women who are pregnant.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu, Daiichi Sankyo/ AstraZeneca) for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-low breast cancer.

This is the first therapy approved for HER2-low breast cancer, a newly defined subset of HER2-negative breast cancer in which there are some HER2 proteins on the cell surface, but not enough to warrant classification as HER2-positive cancer, the FDA said in a press release.

The indication is for patients who have received prior chemotherapy in the metastatic setting or for patients whose cancer has returned during adjuvant chemotherapy or within 6 months of completing it.

Approval was based on the DESTINY-Breast04 trial, which included 557 patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-low breast cancer. The trial had two cohorts: 494 hormone receptor–positive (HR+) patients, and 63 hormone receptor–negative (HR–) patients.

Of these patients, 373 were randomly assigned to received trastuzumab deruxtecan every 3 weeks, and 184 were randomly assigned to receive physician’s choice of chemotherapy (eribulin, capecitabine, gemcitabine, nab paclitaxel, or paclitaxel).

Among patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan, progression-free survival was longer (10.1 months vs. 5.4 months), as was overall survival (23.9 months vs. 17.5 months), compared with those in the chemotherapy group.

“Overall, these results establish HER2-low metastatic breast cancer as a targetable population of breast cancer with trastuzumab deruxtecan as a new standard of care in this setting,” Shanu Modi, MD, said in June at a press conference held during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where she presented the results.

The most common adverse reactions in the trial were nausea, fatigue, alopecia, vomiting, constipation, decreased appetite, musculoskeletal pain, and diarrhea. The agent carries a boxed warning regarding the risk of interstitial lung disease and embryo-fetal toxicity.

The targeted agent is not recommended for women who are pregnant.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved trastuzumab deruxtecan (Enhertu, Daiichi Sankyo/ AstraZeneca) for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-low breast cancer.

This is the first therapy approved for HER2-low breast cancer, a newly defined subset of HER2-negative breast cancer in which there are some HER2 proteins on the cell surface, but not enough to warrant classification as HER2-positive cancer, the FDA said in a press release.

The indication is for patients who have received prior chemotherapy in the metastatic setting or for patients whose cancer has returned during adjuvant chemotherapy or within 6 months of completing it.

Approval was based on the DESTINY-Breast04 trial, which included 557 patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-low breast cancer. The trial had two cohorts: 494 hormone receptor–positive (HR+) patients, and 63 hormone receptor–negative (HR–) patients.

Of these patients, 373 were randomly assigned to received trastuzumab deruxtecan every 3 weeks, and 184 were randomly assigned to receive physician’s choice of chemotherapy (eribulin, capecitabine, gemcitabine, nab paclitaxel, or paclitaxel).

Among patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan, progression-free survival was longer (10.1 months vs. 5.4 months), as was overall survival (23.9 months vs. 17.5 months), compared with those in the chemotherapy group.

“Overall, these results establish HER2-low metastatic breast cancer as a targetable population of breast cancer with trastuzumab deruxtecan as a new standard of care in this setting,” Shanu Modi, MD, said in June at a press conference held during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, where she presented the results.

The most common adverse reactions in the trial were nausea, fatigue, alopecia, vomiting, constipation, decreased appetite, musculoskeletal pain, and diarrhea. The agent carries a boxed warning regarding the risk of interstitial lung disease and embryo-fetal toxicity.

The targeted agent is not recommended for women who are pregnant.

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

New COVID-19 vaccine boosters, targeting new Omicron strains of the virus, are expected to roll out across the United States in September – a month ahead of schedule, the Biden administration announced this week.

Moderna has signed a $1.74 billion federal contract to supply 66 million initial doses of the “bivalent” booster, which includes the original “ancestral” virus strain and elements of the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 variants. Pfizer also announced a $3.2 billion U.S. agreement for another 105 million shots. Both vaccine suppliers have signed options to provide millions more boosters in the months ahead.

About 83.5% of Americans have received at least one COVID-19 shot, with 71.5% fully vaccinated with the initial series, 48% receiving one booster shot, and 31% two boosters, according to the CDC. With about 130,000 new COVID cases per day, and about 440 deaths, officials say the updated boosters may help rein in those figures by targeting the highly transmissible and widely circulating Omicron strains.

Federal health officials are still hammering out details of guidelines and recommendations of who should get the boosters, which are expected to come from the CDC and FDA. For now, authorities have decided not to expand eligibility for second boosters of the existing vaccines – now recommended only for adults over 50 and those 12 and older with immune deficiencies. Children 5 through 11 are advised to receive a single booster, 5 months after their initial vaccine series.

For a preview of what to expect from the CDC and FDA, this news organization spoke with Keri Althoff, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
 

Q: Based on what we know now, who should be getting one of these new bivalent boosters?A: Of course, there is a process here regarding the specific recommendations, but it appears there will likely be a recommendation for all individuals to get this bivalent booster, similar to the first booster. And there will likely be a recommended time frame as to time since the last booster.

Right now, we have a recommendation for adults over the age of 50 or adults who are at higher risk for severe COVID-related illness [to get] a second booster. For them, there will probably be a timeline that says you should get the booster if you’re X amount of months or more from your second booster; or X amount of months or more from your first booster, if you’ve only had one.

Q: What about pregnant women or those being treated for chronic health conditions?A: I would imagine that once this bivalent booster becomes available, it will be recommended for all adults.

Q: And for children?A: That’s a good question. It’s something I have been digging into, [and] I think parents are really interested in this. Most kids, 5 and above, are supposed to be boosted with one shot right now, if they’re X amount of days from their primary vaccine series. Of course those 6 months to 4.99 years are not yet eligible [for boosters].

As a parent, I would love to see my children become eligible for the bivalent booster. It would be great if these boosters are conveying some additional protection that the kids could get access to before we send them off to school this fall. But there are questions as to whether or not that is going to happen.

Q: If you never received a booster, but only the preliminary vaccine series, do you need to get those earlier boosters before having the new bivalent booster shot?A: I don’t think they will likely make that a requirement – to restrict the bivalent booster only to those who are already boosted or up to date on their vaccines at the time the bivalent booster becomes available. But that will be up to the [CDC] vaccine recommendation committee to decide.

Q: Are there any new risks associated with these boosters, since they were developed so rapidly?A: No. We continue to monitor this technology, and with all the mRNA vaccines that have been delivered, you have seen all that monitoring play out with the detection, for example, of different forms of inflammation of the heart tissue and who that may impact. So, those monitoring systems work, and they work really, really well, so we can detect those things. And we know these vaccines are definitely safe.

Q: Some health experts are concerned “vaccine fatigue” will have an impact on the booster campaign. What’s your take?A: We have seen this fatigue in the proportion of individuals who are boosted with a first booster and even boosted with a second. But having those earlier boosters along with this new bivalent booster is important, because essentially, what we’re doing is really priming the immune system.

We’re trying to expedite the process of getting people’s immune system up to speed so that when the virus comes our way – as we know it will, because [of] these Omicron strains that are highly infectious and really whipping through our communities – we’re able to get the highest level of population immunity, you don’t end up in the hospital.

Q: What other challenges do you see in persuading Americans to get another round of boosters?A: One of the things that I’ve been hearing a lot, which I get very nervous about, is people saying: “Oh, I got fully vaccinated, I did or did not get the booster, and I had COVID anyway and it was really nothing, it didn’t feel like much to me, and so I’m not going to be boosted anymore.” We are not in a place quite yet where those guidelines are being rolled back in any way, shape, or form. We still have highly vulnerable people to severe disease and death in our communities, and we’re seeing hundreds of deaths every day.

There are consequences, even if it isn’t in severity of disease, meaning hospitalization and death. And let’s not let the actual quality of the vaccine being so successful that it can keep you out of the hospital. Don’t mistake that for “I don’t need another one.”

Q: Unlike the flu shot, which is reformulated each year to match circulating strains, the new COVID boosters offer protection against older strains as well as the newer ones. Why?A: It’s all about creating a broader immune response in individuals so that as more strains emerge, which they likely will, we can create a broader population immune response [to all strains]. Our individual bodies are seeing differences in these strains through vaccination that helps everyone stay healthy.

Q: There haven’t been clinical trials of these new mRNA boosters. How strong is the evidence that they will be effective against the emerging Omicron variants?A: There have been some studies – some great studies – looking at things like neutralizing antibodies, which we use as a surrogate for clinical trials. But that is not the same as studying the outcome of interest, which would be hospitalizations. So, part of the challenge is to be able to say: “Okay, this is what we know about the safety and effectiveness of the prior vaccines ... and how can we relate that to outcomes with these new boosters at an earlier stage [before] clinical data is available?”

Q: How long will the new boosters’ protections last – do we know yet?A: That timing is still a question, but of course what plays a big role in that is what COVID strains are circulating. If we prep these boosters that are Omicron specific, and then we have something totally new emerge ... we have to be more nimble because the variants are outpacing what we’re able to do.

This turns out to be a bit of a game of probability – the more infection we have, the more replication of the virus; the more replication, the more opportunity for mutations and subsequent variants.

Q: What about a combined flu-COVID vaccine; is that on the horizon?A: My children, who like most children do not like vaccines, always tell me: “Mom, why can’t they just put the influenza vaccine and the COVID vaccine into the same shot?” And I’m like: “Oh, from your lips to some scientist’s ears.”

At a time like this, where mRNA technology has totally disrupted what we can do with vaccines, in such a good way, I think we should push for the limits, because that would be incredible.

Q: If you’ve received a non-mRNA COVID vaccine, like those produced by Johnson & Johnson and Novavax, should you also get an mRNA booster?A: Right now, the CDC guidelines do state that if your primary vaccine series was not with an mRNA vaccine then being boosted with an mRNA is a fine thing to do, and it’s actually encouraged. So that’s not going to change with the bivalent booster.

Q: Is it okay to get a flu shot and a COVID booster at the same time, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended with past vaccines?A: I don’t anticipate there being recommendations against that. But I would also say watch for the recommendations that come out this fall on the bivalent boosters.

I do hope in the recommendations the CDC makes about the COVID boosters, they will say think about also getting your influenza vaccine, too. You could also get your COVID booster first, then by October get your influenza vaccine.

Q: Once you’re fully boosted, is it safe to stop wearing a mask, social distancing, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and taking other precautions to avoid COVID-19?A: The virus is going to do what it does, which is infect whomever it can, and make them sick. So, if you see a lot of community transmission – you know who is ill with COVID in your kids’ schools, you know in your workplace and when people go out – that still signals there’s some increases in the circulation of virus. So, look at that to understand what your risk is.

If you know someone or have a colleague who is currently pregnant or immune suppressed, think about how you can protect them with mask-wearing, even if it’s just when you’re in one-on-one closed-door meetings with that individual.

So, your masking question is an important one, and it’s important for people to continue to hang onto those masks and wear them the week before you go see Grandma, for instance, to further reduce your risk so you don’t bring anything to here.

The high-level community risk nationwide is high right now. COVID is here.

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

New COVID-19 vaccine boosters, targeting new Omicron strains of the virus, are expected to roll out across the United States in September – a month ahead of schedule, the Biden administration announced this week.

Moderna has signed a $1.74 billion federal contract to supply 66 million initial doses of the “bivalent” booster, which includes the original “ancestral” virus strain and elements of the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 variants. Pfizer also announced a $3.2 billion U.S. agreement for another 105 million shots. Both vaccine suppliers have signed options to provide millions more boosters in the months ahead.

About 83.5% of Americans have received at least one COVID-19 shot, with 71.5% fully vaccinated with the initial series, 48% receiving one booster shot, and 31% two boosters, according to the CDC. With about 130,000 new COVID cases per day, and about 440 deaths, officials say the updated boosters may help rein in those figures by targeting the highly transmissible and widely circulating Omicron strains.

Federal health officials are still hammering out details of guidelines and recommendations of who should get the boosters, which are expected to come from the CDC and FDA. For now, authorities have decided not to expand eligibility for second boosters of the existing vaccines – now recommended only for adults over 50 and those 12 and older with immune deficiencies. Children 5 through 11 are advised to receive a single booster, 5 months after their initial vaccine series.

For a preview of what to expect from the CDC and FDA, this news organization spoke with Keri Althoff, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
 

Q: Based on what we know now, who should be getting one of these new bivalent boosters?A: Of course, there is a process here regarding the specific recommendations, but it appears there will likely be a recommendation for all individuals to get this bivalent booster, similar to the first booster. And there will likely be a recommended time frame as to time since the last booster.

Right now, we have a recommendation for adults over the age of 50 or adults who are at higher risk for severe COVID-related illness [to get] a second booster. For them, there will probably be a timeline that says you should get the booster if you’re X amount of months or more from your second booster; or X amount of months or more from your first booster, if you’ve only had one.

Q: What about pregnant women or those being treated for chronic health conditions?A: I would imagine that once this bivalent booster becomes available, it will be recommended for all adults.

Q: And for children?A: That’s a good question. It’s something I have been digging into, [and] I think parents are really interested in this. Most kids, 5 and above, are supposed to be boosted with one shot right now, if they’re X amount of days from their primary vaccine series. Of course those 6 months to 4.99 years are not yet eligible [for boosters].

As a parent, I would love to see my children become eligible for the bivalent booster. It would be great if these boosters are conveying some additional protection that the kids could get access to before we send them off to school this fall. But there are questions as to whether or not that is going to happen.

Q: If you never received a booster, but only the preliminary vaccine series, do you need to get those earlier boosters before having the new bivalent booster shot?A: I don’t think they will likely make that a requirement – to restrict the bivalent booster only to those who are already boosted or up to date on their vaccines at the time the bivalent booster becomes available. But that will be up to the [CDC] vaccine recommendation committee to decide.

Q: Are there any new risks associated with these boosters, since they were developed so rapidly?A: No. We continue to monitor this technology, and with all the mRNA vaccines that have been delivered, you have seen all that monitoring play out with the detection, for example, of different forms of inflammation of the heart tissue and who that may impact. So, those monitoring systems work, and they work really, really well, so we can detect those things. And we know these vaccines are definitely safe.

Q: Some health experts are concerned “vaccine fatigue” will have an impact on the booster campaign. What’s your take?A: We have seen this fatigue in the proportion of individuals who are boosted with a first booster and even boosted with a second. But having those earlier boosters along with this new bivalent booster is important, because essentially, what we’re doing is really priming the immune system.

We’re trying to expedite the process of getting people’s immune system up to speed so that when the virus comes our way – as we know it will, because [of] these Omicron strains that are highly infectious and really whipping through our communities – we’re able to get the highest level of population immunity, you don’t end up in the hospital.

Q: What other challenges do you see in persuading Americans to get another round of boosters?A: One of the things that I’ve been hearing a lot, which I get very nervous about, is people saying: “Oh, I got fully vaccinated, I did or did not get the booster, and I had COVID anyway and it was really nothing, it didn’t feel like much to me, and so I’m not going to be boosted anymore.” We are not in a place quite yet where those guidelines are being rolled back in any way, shape, or form. We still have highly vulnerable people to severe disease and death in our communities, and we’re seeing hundreds of deaths every day.

There are consequences, even if it isn’t in severity of disease, meaning hospitalization and death. And let’s not let the actual quality of the vaccine being so successful that it can keep you out of the hospital. Don’t mistake that for “I don’t need another one.”

Q: Unlike the flu shot, which is reformulated each year to match circulating strains, the new COVID boosters offer protection against older strains as well as the newer ones. Why?A: It’s all about creating a broader immune response in individuals so that as more strains emerge, which they likely will, we can create a broader population immune response [to all strains]. Our individual bodies are seeing differences in these strains through vaccination that helps everyone stay healthy.

Q: There haven’t been clinical trials of these new mRNA boosters. How strong is the evidence that they will be effective against the emerging Omicron variants?A: There have been some studies – some great studies – looking at things like neutralizing antibodies, which we use as a surrogate for clinical trials. But that is not the same as studying the outcome of interest, which would be hospitalizations. So, part of the challenge is to be able to say: “Okay, this is what we know about the safety and effectiveness of the prior vaccines ... and how can we relate that to outcomes with these new boosters at an earlier stage [before] clinical data is available?”

Q: How long will the new boosters’ protections last – do we know yet?A: That timing is still a question, but of course what plays a big role in that is what COVID strains are circulating. If we prep these boosters that are Omicron specific, and then we have something totally new emerge ... we have to be more nimble because the variants are outpacing what we’re able to do.

This turns out to be a bit of a game of probability – the more infection we have, the more replication of the virus; the more replication, the more opportunity for mutations and subsequent variants.

Q: What about a combined flu-COVID vaccine; is that on the horizon?A: My children, who like most children do not like vaccines, always tell me: “Mom, why can’t they just put the influenza vaccine and the COVID vaccine into the same shot?” And I’m like: “Oh, from your lips to some scientist’s ears.”

At a time like this, where mRNA technology has totally disrupted what we can do with vaccines, in such a good way, I think we should push for the limits, because that would be incredible.

Q: If you’ve received a non-mRNA COVID vaccine, like those produced by Johnson & Johnson and Novavax, should you also get an mRNA booster?A: Right now, the CDC guidelines do state that if your primary vaccine series was not with an mRNA vaccine then being boosted with an mRNA is a fine thing to do, and it’s actually encouraged. So that’s not going to change with the bivalent booster.

Q: Is it okay to get a flu shot and a COVID booster at the same time, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended with past vaccines?A: I don’t anticipate there being recommendations against that. But I would also say watch for the recommendations that come out this fall on the bivalent boosters.

I do hope in the recommendations the CDC makes about the COVID boosters, they will say think about also getting your influenza vaccine, too. You could also get your COVID booster first, then by October get your influenza vaccine.

Q: Once you’re fully boosted, is it safe to stop wearing a mask, social distancing, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and taking other precautions to avoid COVID-19?A: The virus is going to do what it does, which is infect whomever it can, and make them sick. So, if you see a lot of community transmission – you know who is ill with COVID in your kids’ schools, you know in your workplace and when people go out – that still signals there’s some increases in the circulation of virus. So, look at that to understand what your risk is.

If you know someone or have a colleague who is currently pregnant or immune suppressed, think about how you can protect them with mask-wearing, even if it’s just when you’re in one-on-one closed-door meetings with that individual.

So, your masking question is an important one, and it’s important for people to continue to hang onto those masks and wear them the week before you go see Grandma, for instance, to further reduce your risk so you don’t bring anything to here.

The high-level community risk nationwide is high right now. COVID is here.

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

New COVID-19 vaccine boosters, targeting new Omicron strains of the virus, are expected to roll out across the United States in September – a month ahead of schedule, the Biden administration announced this week.

Moderna has signed a $1.74 billion federal contract to supply 66 million initial doses of the “bivalent” booster, which includes the original “ancestral” virus strain and elements of the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 variants. Pfizer also announced a $3.2 billion U.S. agreement for another 105 million shots. Both vaccine suppliers have signed options to provide millions more boosters in the months ahead.

About 83.5% of Americans have received at least one COVID-19 shot, with 71.5% fully vaccinated with the initial series, 48% receiving one booster shot, and 31% two boosters, according to the CDC. With about 130,000 new COVID cases per day, and about 440 deaths, officials say the updated boosters may help rein in those figures by targeting the highly transmissible and widely circulating Omicron strains.

Federal health officials are still hammering out details of guidelines and recommendations of who should get the boosters, which are expected to come from the CDC and FDA. For now, authorities have decided not to expand eligibility for second boosters of the existing vaccines – now recommended only for adults over 50 and those 12 and older with immune deficiencies. Children 5 through 11 are advised to receive a single booster, 5 months after their initial vaccine series.

For a preview of what to expect from the CDC and FDA, this news organization spoke with Keri Althoff, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
 

Q: Based on what we know now, who should be getting one of these new bivalent boosters?A: Of course, there is a process here regarding the specific recommendations, but it appears there will likely be a recommendation for all individuals to get this bivalent booster, similar to the first booster. And there will likely be a recommended time frame as to time since the last booster.

Right now, we have a recommendation for adults over the age of 50 or adults who are at higher risk for severe COVID-related illness [to get] a second booster. For them, there will probably be a timeline that says you should get the booster if you’re X amount of months or more from your second booster; or X amount of months or more from your first booster, if you’ve only had one.

Q: What about pregnant women or those being treated for chronic health conditions?A: I would imagine that once this bivalent booster becomes available, it will be recommended for all adults.

Q: And for children?A: That’s a good question. It’s something I have been digging into, [and] I think parents are really interested in this. Most kids, 5 and above, are supposed to be boosted with one shot right now, if they’re X amount of days from their primary vaccine series. Of course those 6 months to 4.99 years are not yet eligible [for boosters].

As a parent, I would love to see my children become eligible for the bivalent booster. It would be great if these boosters are conveying some additional protection that the kids could get access to before we send them off to school this fall. But there are questions as to whether or not that is going to happen.

Q: If you never received a booster, but only the preliminary vaccine series, do you need to get those earlier boosters before having the new bivalent booster shot?A: I don’t think they will likely make that a requirement – to restrict the bivalent booster only to those who are already boosted or up to date on their vaccines at the time the bivalent booster becomes available. But that will be up to the [CDC] vaccine recommendation committee to decide.

Q: Are there any new risks associated with these boosters, since they were developed so rapidly?A: No. We continue to monitor this technology, and with all the mRNA vaccines that have been delivered, you have seen all that monitoring play out with the detection, for example, of different forms of inflammation of the heart tissue and who that may impact. So, those monitoring systems work, and they work really, really well, so we can detect those things. And we know these vaccines are definitely safe.

Q: Some health experts are concerned “vaccine fatigue” will have an impact on the booster campaign. What’s your take?A: We have seen this fatigue in the proportion of individuals who are boosted with a first booster and even boosted with a second. But having those earlier boosters along with this new bivalent booster is important, because essentially, what we’re doing is really priming the immune system.

We’re trying to expedite the process of getting people’s immune system up to speed so that when the virus comes our way – as we know it will, because [of] these Omicron strains that are highly infectious and really whipping through our communities – we’re able to get the highest level of population immunity, you don’t end up in the hospital.

Q: What other challenges do you see in persuading Americans to get another round of boosters?A: One of the things that I’ve been hearing a lot, which I get very nervous about, is people saying: “Oh, I got fully vaccinated, I did or did not get the booster, and I had COVID anyway and it was really nothing, it didn’t feel like much to me, and so I’m not going to be boosted anymore.” We are not in a place quite yet where those guidelines are being rolled back in any way, shape, or form. We still have highly vulnerable people to severe disease and death in our communities, and we’re seeing hundreds of deaths every day.

There are consequences, even if it isn’t in severity of disease, meaning hospitalization and death. And let’s not let the actual quality of the vaccine being so successful that it can keep you out of the hospital. Don’t mistake that for “I don’t need another one.”

Q: Unlike the flu shot, which is reformulated each year to match circulating strains, the new COVID boosters offer protection against older strains as well as the newer ones. Why?A: It’s all about creating a broader immune response in individuals so that as more strains emerge, which they likely will, we can create a broader population immune response [to all strains]. Our individual bodies are seeing differences in these strains through vaccination that helps everyone stay healthy.

Q: There haven’t been clinical trials of these new mRNA boosters. How strong is the evidence that they will be effective against the emerging Omicron variants?A: There have been some studies – some great studies – looking at things like neutralizing antibodies, which we use as a surrogate for clinical trials. But that is not the same as studying the outcome of interest, which would be hospitalizations. So, part of the challenge is to be able to say: “Okay, this is what we know about the safety and effectiveness of the prior vaccines ... and how can we relate that to outcomes with these new boosters at an earlier stage [before] clinical data is available?”

Q: How long will the new boosters’ protections last – do we know yet?A: That timing is still a question, but of course what plays a big role in that is what COVID strains are circulating. If we prep these boosters that are Omicron specific, and then we have something totally new emerge ... we have to be more nimble because the variants are outpacing what we’re able to do.

This turns out to be a bit of a game of probability – the more infection we have, the more replication of the virus; the more replication, the more opportunity for mutations and subsequent variants.

Q: What about a combined flu-COVID vaccine; is that on the horizon?A: My children, who like most children do not like vaccines, always tell me: “Mom, why can’t they just put the influenza vaccine and the COVID vaccine into the same shot?” And I’m like: “Oh, from your lips to some scientist’s ears.”

At a time like this, where mRNA technology has totally disrupted what we can do with vaccines, in such a good way, I think we should push for the limits, because that would be incredible.

Q: If you’ve received a non-mRNA COVID vaccine, like those produced by Johnson & Johnson and Novavax, should you also get an mRNA booster?A: Right now, the CDC guidelines do state that if your primary vaccine series was not with an mRNA vaccine then being boosted with an mRNA is a fine thing to do, and it’s actually encouraged. So that’s not going to change with the bivalent booster.

Q: Is it okay to get a flu shot and a COVID booster at the same time, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended with past vaccines?A: I don’t anticipate there being recommendations against that. But I would also say watch for the recommendations that come out this fall on the bivalent boosters.

I do hope in the recommendations the CDC makes about the COVID boosters, they will say think about also getting your influenza vaccine, too. You could also get your COVID booster first, then by October get your influenza vaccine.

Q: Once you’re fully boosted, is it safe to stop wearing a mask, social distancing, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and taking other precautions to avoid COVID-19?A: The virus is going to do what it does, which is infect whomever it can, and make them sick. So, if you see a lot of community transmission – you know who is ill with COVID in your kids’ schools, you know in your workplace and when people go out – that still signals there’s some increases in the circulation of virus. So, look at that to understand what your risk is.

If you know someone or have a colleague who is currently pregnant or immune suppressed, think about how you can protect them with mask-wearing, even if it’s just when you’re in one-on-one closed-door meetings with that individual.

So, your masking question is an important one, and it’s important for people to continue to hang onto those masks and wear them the week before you go see Grandma, for instance, to further reduce your risk so you don’t bring anything to here.

The high-level community risk nationwide is high right now. COVID is here.

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

New devices that use artificial intelligence (AI) to diagnose skin cancer – such as smartphone apps – have been popping up over the past few years, but there is some concern over the accuracy of these tools.

So far, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared two devices. Both are computer-aided skin lesion classification devices meant to help clinicians assess cases of suspected melanoma.

Both were given a class III designation. That classification is intended for products that are considered to have a high risk of harm because of flawed design or implementation. Many such devices are under development, and there has been a proposal to include these devices in class II, which is less restrictive.

The FDA turned to one of its expert panels for advice. At a meeting held on Aug. 29, experts on the panel offered differing views and expressed concerns about the accuracy of these devices.

This was the second day of meetings of the general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee. On the previous day, the panel held a wide-ranging discussion about expanding use of skin lesion analyzer devices.

The FDA sought the expert panel’s advice concerning a field that appears to be heating up quickly after relatively quiet times.

Two devices have been approved by the FDA so far, but only one is still being promoted – SciBase AB’s Nevisense. The Swedish company announced in May 2020 that it had received FDA approval for Nevisense 3.0, the third generation of their Nevisense system for early melanoma detection, an AI-based point-of-care system for the noninvasive evaluation of irregular moles.

The other device, known as MelaFind, was acquired by Strata Skin Sciences, but the company said in 2017 that it discontinued research and development, sales, and support activity related to the device, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But there’s been a swell in recent years in the number of publications related to the use of AI and machine learning, which could give rise to new tools for aiding in the diagnosis of skin conditions, including cancer. Google is among the companies that are involved in these efforts.

So, the FDA asked the expert panel to discuss a series of questions related to how the agency should weigh the risks of computer-aided devices for melanoma diagnosis. The agency also asked the panel to provide feedback about how well risks associated with such devices and tools might be managed and to offer suggestions.

The discussion at the July 29 meeting spun beyond narrow questions about reclassification of the current class III devices to topics involving emerging technology, such as efforts to apply AI to dermatology.

“Innovation continues. Medical device developers are anxious to plan how they might be able to develop the level of evidence that would meet your expectations” for future products, Binita Ashar, MD, a senior official in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, told the panel.


 

Company CEO backs tougher regulation

Simon Grant, the chief executive of SciBase, which markets Nevisense, the first and only skin cancer–detecting device currently on the U.S. market, sought to make a case for sticking with the tougher class III regulations.

Speaking during the public comment session, Mr. Grant said switching to class II designations would weaken the standards used in clearing products that analyze skin lesions so as to put patients at risk.

Under the FDA’s rules, the agency designates as class III devices that present potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Only about 10% of devices fall into this category. Such devices include implantable pacemakers and breast implants, as well as SciBase’s Nevisense.

About 43% of medical devices fall into the class II category, which includes powered wheelchairs and some pregnancy test kits, the FDA website says.

Class I medical devices pose minimal potential for harm and tend to be simpler in design. These include enema kits and elastic bandages, the FDA says.

Mr. Grant told the meeting that in his career he has worked on two class III products and about 20 class II products. (He had previously worked at medical startups Synectics Medical and Neoventa, as well as established multinationals such as Medtronic.)

“I can tell you that – practically – the FDA has many fewer sticks and much less control when it comes to class II devices,” he said. He offered an example of a manufacturer of a class II device having more latitude in making small changes to products without notifying the FDA.

In his hypothetical example, such a change could have unintended consequences, and “with AI systems, small changes can result in large and nonlinear or even random effects,” Mr. Grant said. “But it’s too late if the product is on the market and the harm has already occurred,” he said.

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association also protested the reclassifying of approved computer-aided melanoma detection class III devices.

In a statement posted on the FDA website as part of the materials for the meeting, the ASDSA raised a series of concerns about the prospects of expanded U.S. use of tools for assisting in diagnosing melanoma, including ones that would be marketed to consumers.

“To the extent that algorithms and devices for patient self-diagnosis of skin lesions are already widely available, they should be required to include detailed disclaimers that include that they are for entertainment and educational purposes and not a diagnostic device, that they are not approved by dermatologists or a recognized medical regulatory authority for self-diagnosis,” the ASDSA said.

Devices and algorithms in screening tools “are not highly regulated and remain unproven. They may result in wrong diagnoses, missed diagnoses, or over- or underdiagnosis,” the ASDSA added. “Both patients at low risk and those at high risk are better served by scheduling an in-person examination with a board-certified dermatologist, who can also help them determine the appropriate future skin screening schedule that is most appropriate for them.”

 

‘Stepping stone’

However, there is strong consumer demand for better information about skin conditions, and many patients face hurdles in going to dermatologists.

Google research has shown that consumers are seeking “a stepping stone” between the information they can easily find online and what they could get from a medical professional, said Lily Peng, MD, PhD, a director of product management for the health AI team at Google. Dr. Peng was a scheduled presenter at the July 29 meeting.

Consumers often are looking for more information on common conditions such as acne and poison ivy, and they sometimes face challenges in getting access to clinicians, she said.

“There are many unmet needs for consumers experiencing skin issues, many of which are lower-acuity conditions. There’s a big opportunity to increase accessibility and relevance of health journeys for consumers,” Dr. Peng said. “We have heard from consumers that they would like to have a self-help tool for nonserious conditions so they can decide when to seek medical attention.”

Dr. Peng’s presentation was not directly related to the question of class II or class III designation for existing products. Instead, her talk served as a glimpse into the work already underway in creating apps and tools for consumers.

Google researchers have published a number of studies in recent years about the use of AI to improve dermatology diagnosis.

A 2020 article reported on Google’s test of a form of AI known as deep learning system (DLS) to provide a differential diagnosis of skin conditions. On 963 validation cases, where a rotating panel of three board-certified dermatologists defined the reference standard, the DLS was noninferior to six other dermatologists and was superior to six primary care physicians (PCPs) and six nurse practitioners (NPs), according to a summary of the article.

A 2021 report published in JAMA Network Open said that use of an AI tool was associated with a higher agreement rate with dermatologists’ reference diagnoses for both PCPs and NPs.

In a 2021 blog post, Google scientists wrote that their AI model that powers a tool for checking skin conditions had earned European clearance, known as a CE mark, as a class I medical device.

SkinVision has an app that the company says “is available worldwide (with the exception of the USA and Canada).” The firm’s website includes a link where people in the United States and Canada can sign up for notifications about when SkinVision will be available in these nations. 


 

‘Not ready for prime time’

The FDA panel did not cast formal votes at the July 29 meeting. Rather, the members engaged in broad discussions about risks and potential benefits of new tools for aiding in the detection of skin cancer.

Among the key issues discussed was a question of whether the FDA could impose requirements and restrictions, known as special controls, to provide “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness” for computer-aided devices that provide adjunctive diagnostic information to dermatologists about lesions suspicious for melanoma.

Among the potential special controls would be clinical performance testing in regards to rates of the sensitivity (true-positive rate) and specificity (true-negative rate).

The FDA could also look at requirements on software validation and verification and cybersecurity testing, as well as directions on labeling so as to mitigate risk.

Dermatologists serving on the panel called for caution in proceeding with steps that would make it easier for companies to market tools for aiding in melanoma diagnosis than it would be within the class III framework used for MelaFind and Nevisense.

Many expressed concerns about the need to design studies that would answer questions about how well new tools could accurately identify concerning lesions.

The phrase “not ready for prime time” was used at least three times during the discussion.

FDA panelist Maral Skelsey, MD, a skin cancer specialist from Chevy Chase, Maryland, said that over the years, she had used both Nevisense and MelaFind.

She said she had found MelaFind “unusable,” owing in large part to the high number of false positives it generated. The device also was limited as to where on patients’ bodies it could be used.

However, she spoke with enthusiasm about the prospects for better devices to aid in diagnosis of skin lesions. “It’s an area where we’re on the verge, and we really need these devices. There’s a need for patients to be able to examine themselves, for nondermatologists to be able to assess lesions,” Dr. Skelsey said.

But this field is “just not ready for prime time” yet, even with special controls, Dr. Skelsey said. To loosen approval standards too quickly could be a “detriment to what’s coming down the pipeline,” she said.

“It’s harmful to things that are likely to be around the corner,” she said.

FDA panelist Renata Block, PA-C, who works in a Chicago dermatology practice, pressed for maintaining a class III designation. “We are not ready for prime time yet, though the data that is coming down the pipeline on what we have is quite exciting,” Ms. Block said.

FDA panelist Karla V. Ballman, PhD, a statistician from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said there would need to be a clear standard for clinical performance before proceeding toward reclassification of devices for aid in detecting melanoma. “I just don’t think it’s ready for prime time at this point and should remain in class III,” she said.

But there was support from some panelists for the idea of a lower bar for clearance, combined with special controls to ensure patient safety.

In expressing her view, FDA panelist Katalin Roth, MD, JD, professor of medicine, George Washington University, Washington, said she was an outlier in her support for the agency’s view that these risks could be managed and that future tools could allow more patients to take a step on the pathway toward critical diagnoses.

“I deal with a lot of people with cancer as a palliative care physician,” Dr. Roth said. “I think what we’re missing here is the issue of time. Melanoma is a terrible disease, and missing the diagnosis is a terrible thing, but I think special controls would be sufficient to counter the concerns of my colleagues on the committee.”

The FDA’s Dr. Ashar ended the meeting with questions posed to one panelist, Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Rotemberg has for years been working in the field of research on developing AI and other computer-based tools for detecting and diagnosing melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.

She has been publicly skeptical of the performance of commercial apps that scan moles and other lesions and that claim to identify which are cancerous. A May blog post on the Memorial Sloan Kettering website highlighted a recent British Journal of Dermatology article in which Dr. Rotemberg and coauthors reported on their evaluations of commercial apps. They judged them to be on average only 59% accurate, the blog post said.

However, during an earlier discussion at the meeting, she had spoken more positively about the prospects for using special controls in the near term to mitigate risk, although she said she would have a “very long list” of these requirements.

In the closing exchange with Dr. Ashar, Dr. Rotemberg outlined steps that could potentially ensure the safe use of tools to aid in melanoma screening. These included a need for postmarketing surveillance, which would require evaluation over time of algorithms used in tools meant to detect skin cancer.

“We need to have a mechanism for sampling,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “Most of our data is electronic now anyway, so comparing an algorithm and performance with biopsy results should not be that challenging.”

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

New devices that use artificial intelligence (AI) to diagnose skin cancer – such as smartphone apps – have been popping up over the past few years, but there is some concern over the accuracy of these tools.

So far, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared two devices. Both are computer-aided skin lesion classification devices meant to help clinicians assess cases of suspected melanoma.

Both were given a class III designation. That classification is intended for products that are considered to have a high risk of harm because of flawed design or implementation. Many such devices are under development, and there has been a proposal to include these devices in class II, which is less restrictive.

The FDA turned to one of its expert panels for advice. At a meeting held on Aug. 29, experts on the panel offered differing views and expressed concerns about the accuracy of these devices.

This was the second day of meetings of the general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee. On the previous day, the panel held a wide-ranging discussion about expanding use of skin lesion analyzer devices.

The FDA sought the expert panel’s advice concerning a field that appears to be heating up quickly after relatively quiet times.

Two devices have been approved by the FDA so far, but only one is still being promoted – SciBase AB’s Nevisense. The Swedish company announced in May 2020 that it had received FDA approval for Nevisense 3.0, the third generation of their Nevisense system for early melanoma detection, an AI-based point-of-care system for the noninvasive evaluation of irregular moles.

The other device, known as MelaFind, was acquired by Strata Skin Sciences, but the company said in 2017 that it discontinued research and development, sales, and support activity related to the device, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But there’s been a swell in recent years in the number of publications related to the use of AI and machine learning, which could give rise to new tools for aiding in the diagnosis of skin conditions, including cancer. Google is among the companies that are involved in these efforts.

So, the FDA asked the expert panel to discuss a series of questions related to how the agency should weigh the risks of computer-aided devices for melanoma diagnosis. The agency also asked the panel to provide feedback about how well risks associated with such devices and tools might be managed and to offer suggestions.

The discussion at the July 29 meeting spun beyond narrow questions about reclassification of the current class III devices to topics involving emerging technology, such as efforts to apply AI to dermatology.

“Innovation continues. Medical device developers are anxious to plan how they might be able to develop the level of evidence that would meet your expectations” for future products, Binita Ashar, MD, a senior official in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, told the panel.


 

Company CEO backs tougher regulation

Simon Grant, the chief executive of SciBase, which markets Nevisense, the first and only skin cancer–detecting device currently on the U.S. market, sought to make a case for sticking with the tougher class III regulations.

Speaking during the public comment session, Mr. Grant said switching to class II designations would weaken the standards used in clearing products that analyze skin lesions so as to put patients at risk.

Under the FDA’s rules, the agency designates as class III devices that present potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Only about 10% of devices fall into this category. Such devices include implantable pacemakers and breast implants, as well as SciBase’s Nevisense.

About 43% of medical devices fall into the class II category, which includes powered wheelchairs and some pregnancy test kits, the FDA website says.

Class I medical devices pose minimal potential for harm and tend to be simpler in design. These include enema kits and elastic bandages, the FDA says.

Mr. Grant told the meeting that in his career he has worked on two class III products and about 20 class II products. (He had previously worked at medical startups Synectics Medical and Neoventa, as well as established multinationals such as Medtronic.)

“I can tell you that – practically – the FDA has many fewer sticks and much less control when it comes to class II devices,” he said. He offered an example of a manufacturer of a class II device having more latitude in making small changes to products without notifying the FDA.

In his hypothetical example, such a change could have unintended consequences, and “with AI systems, small changes can result in large and nonlinear or even random effects,” Mr. Grant said. “But it’s too late if the product is on the market and the harm has already occurred,” he said.

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association also protested the reclassifying of approved computer-aided melanoma detection class III devices.

In a statement posted on the FDA website as part of the materials for the meeting, the ASDSA raised a series of concerns about the prospects of expanded U.S. use of tools for assisting in diagnosing melanoma, including ones that would be marketed to consumers.

“To the extent that algorithms and devices for patient self-diagnosis of skin lesions are already widely available, they should be required to include detailed disclaimers that include that they are for entertainment and educational purposes and not a diagnostic device, that they are not approved by dermatologists or a recognized medical regulatory authority for self-diagnosis,” the ASDSA said.

Devices and algorithms in screening tools “are not highly regulated and remain unproven. They may result in wrong diagnoses, missed diagnoses, or over- or underdiagnosis,” the ASDSA added. “Both patients at low risk and those at high risk are better served by scheduling an in-person examination with a board-certified dermatologist, who can also help them determine the appropriate future skin screening schedule that is most appropriate for them.”

 

‘Stepping stone’

However, there is strong consumer demand for better information about skin conditions, and many patients face hurdles in going to dermatologists.

Google research has shown that consumers are seeking “a stepping stone” between the information they can easily find online and what they could get from a medical professional, said Lily Peng, MD, PhD, a director of product management for the health AI team at Google. Dr. Peng was a scheduled presenter at the July 29 meeting.

Consumers often are looking for more information on common conditions such as acne and poison ivy, and they sometimes face challenges in getting access to clinicians, she said.

“There are many unmet needs for consumers experiencing skin issues, many of which are lower-acuity conditions. There’s a big opportunity to increase accessibility and relevance of health journeys for consumers,” Dr. Peng said. “We have heard from consumers that they would like to have a self-help tool for nonserious conditions so they can decide when to seek medical attention.”

Dr. Peng’s presentation was not directly related to the question of class II or class III designation for existing products. Instead, her talk served as a glimpse into the work already underway in creating apps and tools for consumers.

Google researchers have published a number of studies in recent years about the use of AI to improve dermatology diagnosis.

A 2020 article reported on Google’s test of a form of AI known as deep learning system (DLS) to provide a differential diagnosis of skin conditions. On 963 validation cases, where a rotating panel of three board-certified dermatologists defined the reference standard, the DLS was noninferior to six other dermatologists and was superior to six primary care physicians (PCPs) and six nurse practitioners (NPs), according to a summary of the article.

A 2021 report published in JAMA Network Open said that use of an AI tool was associated with a higher agreement rate with dermatologists’ reference diagnoses for both PCPs and NPs.

In a 2021 blog post, Google scientists wrote that their AI model that powers a tool for checking skin conditions had earned European clearance, known as a CE mark, as a class I medical device.

SkinVision has an app that the company says “is available worldwide (with the exception of the USA and Canada).” The firm’s website includes a link where people in the United States and Canada can sign up for notifications about when SkinVision will be available in these nations. 


 

‘Not ready for prime time’

The FDA panel did not cast formal votes at the July 29 meeting. Rather, the members engaged in broad discussions about risks and potential benefits of new tools for aiding in the detection of skin cancer.

Among the key issues discussed was a question of whether the FDA could impose requirements and restrictions, known as special controls, to provide “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness” for computer-aided devices that provide adjunctive diagnostic information to dermatologists about lesions suspicious for melanoma.

Among the potential special controls would be clinical performance testing in regards to rates of the sensitivity (true-positive rate) and specificity (true-negative rate).

The FDA could also look at requirements on software validation and verification and cybersecurity testing, as well as directions on labeling so as to mitigate risk.

Dermatologists serving on the panel called for caution in proceeding with steps that would make it easier for companies to market tools for aiding in melanoma diagnosis than it would be within the class III framework used for MelaFind and Nevisense.

Many expressed concerns about the need to design studies that would answer questions about how well new tools could accurately identify concerning lesions.

The phrase “not ready for prime time” was used at least three times during the discussion.

FDA panelist Maral Skelsey, MD, a skin cancer specialist from Chevy Chase, Maryland, said that over the years, she had used both Nevisense and MelaFind.

She said she had found MelaFind “unusable,” owing in large part to the high number of false positives it generated. The device also was limited as to where on patients’ bodies it could be used.

However, she spoke with enthusiasm about the prospects for better devices to aid in diagnosis of skin lesions. “It’s an area where we’re on the verge, and we really need these devices. There’s a need for patients to be able to examine themselves, for nondermatologists to be able to assess lesions,” Dr. Skelsey said.

But this field is “just not ready for prime time” yet, even with special controls, Dr. Skelsey said. To loosen approval standards too quickly could be a “detriment to what’s coming down the pipeline,” she said.

“It’s harmful to things that are likely to be around the corner,” she said.

FDA panelist Renata Block, PA-C, who works in a Chicago dermatology practice, pressed for maintaining a class III designation. “We are not ready for prime time yet, though the data that is coming down the pipeline on what we have is quite exciting,” Ms. Block said.

FDA panelist Karla V. Ballman, PhD, a statistician from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said there would need to be a clear standard for clinical performance before proceeding toward reclassification of devices for aid in detecting melanoma. “I just don’t think it’s ready for prime time at this point and should remain in class III,” she said.

But there was support from some panelists for the idea of a lower bar for clearance, combined with special controls to ensure patient safety.

In expressing her view, FDA panelist Katalin Roth, MD, JD, professor of medicine, George Washington University, Washington, said she was an outlier in her support for the agency’s view that these risks could be managed and that future tools could allow more patients to take a step on the pathway toward critical diagnoses.

“I deal with a lot of people with cancer as a palliative care physician,” Dr. Roth said. “I think what we’re missing here is the issue of time. Melanoma is a terrible disease, and missing the diagnosis is a terrible thing, but I think special controls would be sufficient to counter the concerns of my colleagues on the committee.”

The FDA’s Dr. Ashar ended the meeting with questions posed to one panelist, Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Rotemberg has for years been working in the field of research on developing AI and other computer-based tools for detecting and diagnosing melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.

She has been publicly skeptical of the performance of commercial apps that scan moles and other lesions and that claim to identify which are cancerous. A May blog post on the Memorial Sloan Kettering website highlighted a recent British Journal of Dermatology article in which Dr. Rotemberg and coauthors reported on their evaluations of commercial apps. They judged them to be on average only 59% accurate, the blog post said.

However, during an earlier discussion at the meeting, she had spoken more positively about the prospects for using special controls in the near term to mitigate risk, although she said she would have a “very long list” of these requirements.

In the closing exchange with Dr. Ashar, Dr. Rotemberg outlined steps that could potentially ensure the safe use of tools to aid in melanoma screening. These included a need for postmarketing surveillance, which would require evaluation over time of algorithms used in tools meant to detect skin cancer.

“We need to have a mechanism for sampling,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “Most of our data is electronic now anyway, so comparing an algorithm and performance with biopsy results should not be that challenging.”

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

New devices that use artificial intelligence (AI) to diagnose skin cancer – such as smartphone apps – have been popping up over the past few years, but there is some concern over the accuracy of these tools.

So far, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared two devices. Both are computer-aided skin lesion classification devices meant to help clinicians assess cases of suspected melanoma.

Both were given a class III designation. That classification is intended for products that are considered to have a high risk of harm because of flawed design or implementation. Many such devices are under development, and there has been a proposal to include these devices in class II, which is less restrictive.

The FDA turned to one of its expert panels for advice. At a meeting held on Aug. 29, experts on the panel offered differing views and expressed concerns about the accuracy of these devices.

This was the second day of meetings of the general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee. On the previous day, the panel held a wide-ranging discussion about expanding use of skin lesion analyzer devices.

The FDA sought the expert panel’s advice concerning a field that appears to be heating up quickly after relatively quiet times.

Two devices have been approved by the FDA so far, but only one is still being promoted – SciBase AB’s Nevisense. The Swedish company announced in May 2020 that it had received FDA approval for Nevisense 3.0, the third generation of their Nevisense system for early melanoma detection, an AI-based point-of-care system for the noninvasive evaluation of irregular moles.

The other device, known as MelaFind, was acquired by Strata Skin Sciences, but the company said in 2017 that it discontinued research and development, sales, and support activity related to the device, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But there’s been a swell in recent years in the number of publications related to the use of AI and machine learning, which could give rise to new tools for aiding in the diagnosis of skin conditions, including cancer. Google is among the companies that are involved in these efforts.

So, the FDA asked the expert panel to discuss a series of questions related to how the agency should weigh the risks of computer-aided devices for melanoma diagnosis. The agency also asked the panel to provide feedback about how well risks associated with such devices and tools might be managed and to offer suggestions.

The discussion at the July 29 meeting spun beyond narrow questions about reclassification of the current class III devices to topics involving emerging technology, such as efforts to apply AI to dermatology.

“Innovation continues. Medical device developers are anxious to plan how they might be able to develop the level of evidence that would meet your expectations” for future products, Binita Ashar, MD, a senior official in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, told the panel.


 

Company CEO backs tougher regulation

Simon Grant, the chief executive of SciBase, which markets Nevisense, the first and only skin cancer–detecting device currently on the U.S. market, sought to make a case for sticking with the tougher class III regulations.

Speaking during the public comment session, Mr. Grant said switching to class II designations would weaken the standards used in clearing products that analyze skin lesions so as to put patients at risk.

Under the FDA’s rules, the agency designates as class III devices that present potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Only about 10% of devices fall into this category. Such devices include implantable pacemakers and breast implants, as well as SciBase’s Nevisense.

About 43% of medical devices fall into the class II category, which includes powered wheelchairs and some pregnancy test kits, the FDA website says.

Class I medical devices pose minimal potential for harm and tend to be simpler in design. These include enema kits and elastic bandages, the FDA says.

Mr. Grant told the meeting that in his career he has worked on two class III products and about 20 class II products. (He had previously worked at medical startups Synectics Medical and Neoventa, as well as established multinationals such as Medtronic.)

“I can tell you that – practically – the FDA has many fewer sticks and much less control when it comes to class II devices,” he said. He offered an example of a manufacturer of a class II device having more latitude in making small changes to products without notifying the FDA.

In his hypothetical example, such a change could have unintended consequences, and “with AI systems, small changes can result in large and nonlinear or even random effects,” Mr. Grant said. “But it’s too late if the product is on the market and the harm has already occurred,” he said.

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association also protested the reclassifying of approved computer-aided melanoma detection class III devices.

In a statement posted on the FDA website as part of the materials for the meeting, the ASDSA raised a series of concerns about the prospects of expanded U.S. use of tools for assisting in diagnosing melanoma, including ones that would be marketed to consumers.

“To the extent that algorithms and devices for patient self-diagnosis of skin lesions are already widely available, they should be required to include detailed disclaimers that include that they are for entertainment and educational purposes and not a diagnostic device, that they are not approved by dermatologists or a recognized medical regulatory authority for self-diagnosis,” the ASDSA said.

Devices and algorithms in screening tools “are not highly regulated and remain unproven. They may result in wrong diagnoses, missed diagnoses, or over- or underdiagnosis,” the ASDSA added. “Both patients at low risk and those at high risk are better served by scheduling an in-person examination with a board-certified dermatologist, who can also help them determine the appropriate future skin screening schedule that is most appropriate for them.”

 

‘Stepping stone’

However, there is strong consumer demand for better information about skin conditions, and many patients face hurdles in going to dermatologists.

Google research has shown that consumers are seeking “a stepping stone” between the information they can easily find online and what they could get from a medical professional, said Lily Peng, MD, PhD, a director of product management for the health AI team at Google. Dr. Peng was a scheduled presenter at the July 29 meeting.

Consumers often are looking for more information on common conditions such as acne and poison ivy, and they sometimes face challenges in getting access to clinicians, she said.

“There are many unmet needs for consumers experiencing skin issues, many of which are lower-acuity conditions. There’s a big opportunity to increase accessibility and relevance of health journeys for consumers,” Dr. Peng said. “We have heard from consumers that they would like to have a self-help tool for nonserious conditions so they can decide when to seek medical attention.”

Dr. Peng’s presentation was not directly related to the question of class II or class III designation for existing products. Instead, her talk served as a glimpse into the work already underway in creating apps and tools for consumers.

Google researchers have published a number of studies in recent years about the use of AI to improve dermatology diagnosis.

A 2020 article reported on Google’s test of a form of AI known as deep learning system (DLS) to provide a differential diagnosis of skin conditions. On 963 validation cases, where a rotating panel of three board-certified dermatologists defined the reference standard, the DLS was noninferior to six other dermatologists and was superior to six primary care physicians (PCPs) and six nurse practitioners (NPs), according to a summary of the article.

A 2021 report published in JAMA Network Open said that use of an AI tool was associated with a higher agreement rate with dermatologists’ reference diagnoses for both PCPs and NPs.

In a 2021 blog post, Google scientists wrote that their AI model that powers a tool for checking skin conditions had earned European clearance, known as a CE mark, as a class I medical device.

SkinVision has an app that the company says “is available worldwide (with the exception of the USA and Canada).” The firm’s website includes a link where people in the United States and Canada can sign up for notifications about when SkinVision will be available in these nations. 


 

‘Not ready for prime time’

The FDA panel did not cast formal votes at the July 29 meeting. Rather, the members engaged in broad discussions about risks and potential benefits of new tools for aiding in the detection of skin cancer.

Among the key issues discussed was a question of whether the FDA could impose requirements and restrictions, known as special controls, to provide “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness” for computer-aided devices that provide adjunctive diagnostic information to dermatologists about lesions suspicious for melanoma.

Among the potential special controls would be clinical performance testing in regards to rates of the sensitivity (true-positive rate) and specificity (true-negative rate).

The FDA could also look at requirements on software validation and verification and cybersecurity testing, as well as directions on labeling so as to mitigate risk.

Dermatologists serving on the panel called for caution in proceeding with steps that would make it easier for companies to market tools for aiding in melanoma diagnosis than it would be within the class III framework used for MelaFind and Nevisense.

Many expressed concerns about the need to design studies that would answer questions about how well new tools could accurately identify concerning lesions.

The phrase “not ready for prime time” was used at least three times during the discussion.

FDA panelist Maral Skelsey, MD, a skin cancer specialist from Chevy Chase, Maryland, said that over the years, she had used both Nevisense and MelaFind.

She said she had found MelaFind “unusable,” owing in large part to the high number of false positives it generated. The device also was limited as to where on patients’ bodies it could be used.

However, she spoke with enthusiasm about the prospects for better devices to aid in diagnosis of skin lesions. “It’s an area where we’re on the verge, and we really need these devices. There’s a need for patients to be able to examine themselves, for nondermatologists to be able to assess lesions,” Dr. Skelsey said.

But this field is “just not ready for prime time” yet, even with special controls, Dr. Skelsey said. To loosen approval standards too quickly could be a “detriment to what’s coming down the pipeline,” she said.

“It’s harmful to things that are likely to be around the corner,” she said.

FDA panelist Renata Block, PA-C, who works in a Chicago dermatology practice, pressed for maintaining a class III designation. “We are not ready for prime time yet, though the data that is coming down the pipeline on what we have is quite exciting,” Ms. Block said.

FDA panelist Karla V. Ballman, PhD, a statistician from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said there would need to be a clear standard for clinical performance before proceeding toward reclassification of devices for aid in detecting melanoma. “I just don’t think it’s ready for prime time at this point and should remain in class III,” she said.

But there was support from some panelists for the idea of a lower bar for clearance, combined with special controls to ensure patient safety.

In expressing her view, FDA panelist Katalin Roth, MD, JD, professor of medicine, George Washington University, Washington, said she was an outlier in her support for the agency’s view that these risks could be managed and that future tools could allow more patients to take a step on the pathway toward critical diagnoses.

“I deal with a lot of people with cancer as a palliative care physician,” Dr. Roth said. “I think what we’re missing here is the issue of time. Melanoma is a terrible disease, and missing the diagnosis is a terrible thing, but I think special controls would be sufficient to counter the concerns of my colleagues on the committee.”

The FDA’s Dr. Ashar ended the meeting with questions posed to one panelist, Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Rotemberg has for years been working in the field of research on developing AI and other computer-based tools for detecting and diagnosing melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.

She has been publicly skeptical of the performance of commercial apps that scan moles and other lesions and that claim to identify which are cancerous. A May blog post on the Memorial Sloan Kettering website highlighted a recent British Journal of Dermatology article in which Dr. Rotemberg and coauthors reported on their evaluations of commercial apps. They judged them to be on average only 59% accurate, the blog post said.

However, during an earlier discussion at the meeting, she had spoken more positively about the prospects for using special controls in the near term to mitigate risk, although she said she would have a “very long list” of these requirements.

In the closing exchange with Dr. Ashar, Dr. Rotemberg outlined steps that could potentially ensure the safe use of tools to aid in melanoma screening. These included a need for postmarketing surveillance, which would require evaluation over time of algorithms used in tools meant to detect skin cancer.

“We need to have a mechanism for sampling,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “Most of our data is electronic now anyway, so comparing an algorithm and performance with biopsy results should not be that challenging.”

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

Edgewell Personal Care Co., the maker of Banana Boat sunscreen, is recalling a scalp spray because it contains trace levels of benzene, a chemical that can cause cancer at high levels.

The company announced a voluntary recall for three batches of the Banana Boat Hair & Scalp Spray SPF 30, which came in 6-ounce bottles and was sold across the U.S. through various retailers and online, according to a recall alert by the Food and Drug Administration.

The three batches have a UPC label of 0-79656-04041-8 and fall under the lot codes 20016AF, 20084BF, and 21139AF, with the expiration dates of December 2022, February 2023, and April 2024, respectively.

“An internal review found that some samples of the product contained trace levels of benzene. While benzene is not an ingredient in any Banana Boat products, the review showed the unexpected levels of benzene came from the propellant that sprays the product out of the can,” according to the recall notice.

“Importantly, no other batches of Hair & Scalp (either before or after these batch codes) and no other Banana Boat products are in the scope of this recall and may continue to be used by consumers safely and as intended,” the company wrote.

Benzene is classified as a human carcinogen, the FDA wrote. Exposure to benzene can occur through the nose, mouth, and skin, and it can result in serious conditions such as leukemia, bone marrow cancer, and blood disorders.

“Benzene is ubiquitous in the environment. Humans around the world have daily exposures to it indoors and outdoors from multiple sources,” the company said. “Daily exposure to benzene in the recalled products would not be expected to cause adverse health consequences according to an independent health assessment using established exposure modeling guidelines.”

Edgewell said it hasn’t received any reports of bad events related to the recall. The company has told retailers to remove the affected batches from shelves.

Banana Boat will reimburse consumers who purchased a product with one of the affected lot codes, which are on the bottom of the can. In the meantime, consumers should stop using the affected product right away and discard it.

The recall comes a little over a year after Johnson & Johnson recalled five sunscreens due to low levels of benzene, according to The Associated Press. That recall included Aveeno and Neutrogena products in spray cans.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Edgewell Personal Care at 888-686-3988 Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET. People can also read more at the Banana Boat FAQ page or file for a refund directly on the Banana Boat Recall page.

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

Edgewell Personal Care Co., the maker of Banana Boat sunscreen, is recalling a scalp spray because it contains trace levels of benzene, a chemical that can cause cancer at high levels.

The company announced a voluntary recall for three batches of the Banana Boat Hair & Scalp Spray SPF 30, which came in 6-ounce bottles and was sold across the U.S. through various retailers and online, according to a recall alert by the Food and Drug Administration.

The three batches have a UPC label of 0-79656-04041-8 and fall under the lot codes 20016AF, 20084BF, and 21139AF, with the expiration dates of December 2022, February 2023, and April 2024, respectively.

“An internal review found that some samples of the product contained trace levels of benzene. While benzene is not an ingredient in any Banana Boat products, the review showed the unexpected levels of benzene came from the propellant that sprays the product out of the can,” according to the recall notice.

“Importantly, no other batches of Hair & Scalp (either before or after these batch codes) and no other Banana Boat products are in the scope of this recall and may continue to be used by consumers safely and as intended,” the company wrote.

Benzene is classified as a human carcinogen, the FDA wrote. Exposure to benzene can occur through the nose, mouth, and skin, and it can result in serious conditions such as leukemia, bone marrow cancer, and blood disorders.

“Benzene is ubiquitous in the environment. Humans around the world have daily exposures to it indoors and outdoors from multiple sources,” the company said. “Daily exposure to benzene in the recalled products would not be expected to cause adverse health consequences according to an independent health assessment using established exposure modeling guidelines.”

Edgewell said it hasn’t received any reports of bad events related to the recall. The company has told retailers to remove the affected batches from shelves.

Banana Boat will reimburse consumers who purchased a product with one of the affected lot codes, which are on the bottom of the can. In the meantime, consumers should stop using the affected product right away and discard it.

The recall comes a little over a year after Johnson & Johnson recalled five sunscreens due to low levels of benzene, according to The Associated Press. That recall included Aveeno and Neutrogena products in spray cans.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Edgewell Personal Care at 888-686-3988 Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET. People can also read more at the Banana Boat FAQ page or file for a refund directly on the Banana Boat Recall page.

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

Edgewell Personal Care Co., the maker of Banana Boat sunscreen, is recalling a scalp spray because it contains trace levels of benzene, a chemical that can cause cancer at high levels.

The company announced a voluntary recall for three batches of the Banana Boat Hair & Scalp Spray SPF 30, which came in 6-ounce bottles and was sold across the U.S. through various retailers and online, according to a recall alert by the Food and Drug Administration.

The three batches have a UPC label of 0-79656-04041-8 and fall under the lot codes 20016AF, 20084BF, and 21139AF, with the expiration dates of December 2022, February 2023, and April 2024, respectively.

“An internal review found that some samples of the product contained trace levels of benzene. While benzene is not an ingredient in any Banana Boat products, the review showed the unexpected levels of benzene came from the propellant that sprays the product out of the can,” according to the recall notice.

“Importantly, no other batches of Hair & Scalp (either before or after these batch codes) and no other Banana Boat products are in the scope of this recall and may continue to be used by consumers safely and as intended,” the company wrote.

Benzene is classified as a human carcinogen, the FDA wrote. Exposure to benzene can occur through the nose, mouth, and skin, and it can result in serious conditions such as leukemia, bone marrow cancer, and blood disorders.

“Benzene is ubiquitous in the environment. Humans around the world have daily exposures to it indoors and outdoors from multiple sources,” the company said. “Daily exposure to benzene in the recalled products would not be expected to cause adverse health consequences according to an independent health assessment using established exposure modeling guidelines.”

Edgewell said it hasn’t received any reports of bad events related to the recall. The company has told retailers to remove the affected batches from shelves.

Banana Boat will reimburse consumers who purchased a product with one of the affected lot codes, which are on the bottom of the can. In the meantime, consumers should stop using the affected product right away and discard it.

The recall comes a little over a year after Johnson & Johnson recalled five sunscreens due to low levels of benzene, according to The Associated Press. That recall included Aveeno and Neutrogena products in spray cans.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Edgewell Personal Care at 888-686-3988 Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET. People can also read more at the Banana Boat FAQ page or file for a refund directly on the Banana Boat Recall page.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved roflumilast 0.3% cream for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis, “including intertriginous areas,” in patients aged 12 years and older.

Roflumilast is a selective inhibitor of phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4), the first approved for treating psoriasis, according to manufacturer Arcutis Biotherapeutics. The company announced the approval on July 29. Oral roflumilast (Daliresp ) was approved in 2011 for treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).“It’s a breakthrough topical therapy,” says Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, dean of clinical therapeutics and professor of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and principal investigator in trials of topical roflumilast. In an interview, Dr. Lebwohl noted that the treatment significantly reduced psoriasis symptoms in both short- and long-term trials.

In addition, two features of this treatment set it apart from other topical psoriasis treatments, he said. Roflumilast is not a steroid, so does not have the risk for topical steroid-related side effects associated with chronic use, and, in clinical trials, topical roflumilast was effective in treating psoriasis in intertriginous areas, including the buttocks, underarms, and beneath the breasts, which are difficult to treat.

FDA approval is based on data from two phase 3 randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trials, according to Arcutis. The primary endpoint was Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) success, defined as clear or almost clear with at least a two-grade improvement from baseline, and at least a two-grade IGA score improvement from baseline at 8 weeks.

At 8 weeks, 42.4% and 37.5% of the patients treated with topical roflumilast achieved an IGA success rate compared with 6.1% and 6.9% in the control groups, respectively (P < .0001 for both studies).

Treated patients also experienced significant improvements compared with those in the vehicle groups in secondary endpoints in the trials: Those included Intertriginous IGA (I-IGA) Success, Psoriasis Area Severity Index–75 (PASI-75), reductions in itch based on the Worst Itch–Numerical Rating Scale (WI-NRS), and self-reported psoriasis symptoms diary (PSD).

In the studies, 72% and 68% of patients treated with roflumilast met the I-IGA endpoint at 8 weeks versus 14% and 17%, respectively, of those on vehicle (P < .0001 for both studies).  

In addition, by week 2, some participants treated with roflumilast had experienced reduced itchiness in both studies. At 8 weeks, among those with a WI-NRS score of 4 or more at baseline, 67% and 69% of the treated patients had at least a four-point reduction in the WI-NRS versus 26% and 33%, respectively, among those on vehicle (P < .0001 for both studies), according to the company.

In general, the cream was well tolerated. There were reports of diarrhea (3%), headache (2%), insomnia (1%), nausea (1%), application-site pain (1%), upper respiratory tract infections (1%), and urinary tract infections (1%). However, Dr. Lebwohl noted that these events were also observed in the control group.

“The study was unequivocal about the improvement in the intertriginous sites,” Dr. Lebwohl said. He contrasts that to the data from other nonsteroidal topicals, which he said can be associated with a rash or irritation in sensitive areas.

Dr. Lebwohl noted that PDE4 is an enzyme that increases inflammation and decreases anti-inflammatory mediators and that inhibiting PDE4 may interrupt some of the inflammation response responsible for psoriasis symptoms, as it has for other conditions such as atopic dermatitis. Data from the 8-week phase 3 trials and yearlong phase 2b, open-label studies support that hypothesis.

“I’m always excited for new psoriasis treatments to broaden our treatment armamentarium,” said Lauren E. Ploch, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Augusta, Ga., and Aiken, S.C., who was asked to comment on the approval.

Even a symptom that seems benign, like itching, Dr. Ploch added, can lead to reduced sleep and increased irritability. Referring to the data on the treatment in the sensitive, intertriginous areas, she noted that the skin in these areas is often thinner, so treatment with steroids can cause further thinning and damage to the skin. If roflumilast doesn’t cause burning, itching, or thinning, it will be a great option to treat these areas, she said in an interview. She was not involved in the trials.

Roflumilast cream will be marketed under the trade name Zoryve, and is expected to be available by mid-August, according to Arcutis.

Roflumilast cream is also under review in Canada for treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults and adolescents.

The studies were funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Lebwohl reported receiving grant support and consulting fees from Arcutis. Dr. Ploch reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved roflumilast 0.3% cream for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis, “including intertriginous areas,” in patients aged 12 years and older.

Roflumilast is a selective inhibitor of phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4), the first approved for treating psoriasis, according to manufacturer Arcutis Biotherapeutics. The company announced the approval on July 29. Oral roflumilast (Daliresp ) was approved in 2011 for treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).“It’s a breakthrough topical therapy,” says Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, dean of clinical therapeutics and professor of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and principal investigator in trials of topical roflumilast. In an interview, Dr. Lebwohl noted that the treatment significantly reduced psoriasis symptoms in both short- and long-term trials.

In addition, two features of this treatment set it apart from other topical psoriasis treatments, he said. Roflumilast is not a steroid, so does not have the risk for topical steroid-related side effects associated with chronic use, and, in clinical trials, topical roflumilast was effective in treating psoriasis in intertriginous areas, including the buttocks, underarms, and beneath the breasts, which are difficult to treat.

FDA approval is based on data from two phase 3 randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trials, according to Arcutis. The primary endpoint was Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) success, defined as clear or almost clear with at least a two-grade improvement from baseline, and at least a two-grade IGA score improvement from baseline at 8 weeks.

At 8 weeks, 42.4% and 37.5% of the patients treated with topical roflumilast achieved an IGA success rate compared with 6.1% and 6.9% in the control groups, respectively (P < .0001 for both studies).

Treated patients also experienced significant improvements compared with those in the vehicle groups in secondary endpoints in the trials: Those included Intertriginous IGA (I-IGA) Success, Psoriasis Area Severity Index–75 (PASI-75), reductions in itch based on the Worst Itch–Numerical Rating Scale (WI-NRS), and self-reported psoriasis symptoms diary (PSD).

In the studies, 72% and 68% of patients treated with roflumilast met the I-IGA endpoint at 8 weeks versus 14% and 17%, respectively, of those on vehicle (P < .0001 for both studies).  

In addition, by week 2, some participants treated with roflumilast had experienced reduced itchiness in both studies. At 8 weeks, among those with a WI-NRS score of 4 or more at baseline, 67% and 69% of the treated patients had at least a four-point reduction in the WI-NRS versus 26% and 33%, respectively, among those on vehicle (P < .0001 for both studies), according to the company.

In general, the cream was well tolerated. There were reports of diarrhea (3%), headache (2%), insomnia (1%), nausea (1%), application-site pain (1%), upper respiratory tract infections (1%), and urinary tract infections (1%). However, Dr. Lebwohl noted that these events were also observed in the control group.

“The study was unequivocal about the improvement in the intertriginous sites,” Dr. Lebwohl said. He contrasts that to the data from other nonsteroidal topicals, which he said can be associated with a rash or irritation in sensitive areas.

Dr. Lebwohl noted that PDE4 is an enzyme that increases inflammation and decreases anti-inflammatory mediators and that inhibiting PDE4 may interrupt some of the inflammation response responsible for psoriasis symptoms, as it has for other conditions such as atopic dermatitis. Data from the 8-week phase 3 trials and yearlong phase 2b, open-label studies support that hypothesis.

“I’m always excited for new psoriasis treatments to broaden our treatment armamentarium,” said Lauren E. Ploch, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Augusta, Ga., and Aiken, S.C., who was asked to comment on the approval.

Even a symptom that seems benign, like itching, Dr. Ploch added, can lead to reduced sleep and increased irritability. Referring to the data on the treatment in the sensitive, intertriginous areas, she noted that the skin in these areas is often thinner, so treatment with steroids can cause further thinning and damage to the skin. If roflumilast doesn’t cause burning, itching, or thinning, it will be a great option to treat these areas, she said in an interview. She was not involved in the trials.

Roflumilast cream will be marketed under the trade name Zoryve, and is expected to be available by mid-August, according to Arcutis.

Roflumilast cream is also under review in Canada for treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults and adolescents.

The studies were funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Lebwohl reported receiving grant support and consulting fees from Arcutis. Dr. Ploch reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved roflumilast 0.3% cream for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis, “including intertriginous areas,” in patients aged 12 years and older.

Roflumilast is a selective inhibitor of phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4), the first approved for treating psoriasis, according to manufacturer Arcutis Biotherapeutics. The company announced the approval on July 29. Oral roflumilast (Daliresp ) was approved in 2011 for treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).“It’s a breakthrough topical therapy,” says Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, dean of clinical therapeutics and professor of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and principal investigator in trials of topical roflumilast. In an interview, Dr. Lebwohl noted that the treatment significantly reduced psoriasis symptoms in both short- and long-term trials.

In addition, two features of this treatment set it apart from other topical psoriasis treatments, he said. Roflumilast is not a steroid, so does not have the risk for topical steroid-related side effects associated with chronic use, and, in clinical trials, topical roflumilast was effective in treating psoriasis in intertriginous areas, including the buttocks, underarms, and beneath the breasts, which are difficult to treat.

FDA approval is based on data from two phase 3 randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trials, according to Arcutis. The primary endpoint was Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) success, defined as clear or almost clear with at least a two-grade improvement from baseline, and at least a two-grade IGA score improvement from baseline at 8 weeks.

At 8 weeks, 42.4% and 37.5% of the patients treated with topical roflumilast achieved an IGA success rate compared with 6.1% and 6.9% in the control groups, respectively (P < .0001 for both studies).

Treated patients also experienced significant improvements compared with those in the vehicle groups in secondary endpoints in the trials: Those included Intertriginous IGA (I-IGA) Success, Psoriasis Area Severity Index–75 (PASI-75), reductions in itch based on the Worst Itch–Numerical Rating Scale (WI-NRS), and self-reported psoriasis symptoms diary (PSD).

In the studies, 72% and 68% of patients treated with roflumilast met the I-IGA endpoint at 8 weeks versus 14% and 17%, respectively, of those on vehicle (P < .0001 for both studies).  

In addition, by week 2, some participants treated with roflumilast had experienced reduced itchiness in both studies. At 8 weeks, among those with a WI-NRS score of 4 or more at baseline, 67% and 69% of the treated patients had at least a four-point reduction in the WI-NRS versus 26% and 33%, respectively, among those on vehicle (P < .0001 for both studies), according to the company.

In general, the cream was well tolerated. There were reports of diarrhea (3%), headache (2%), insomnia (1%), nausea (1%), application-site pain (1%), upper respiratory tract infections (1%), and urinary tract infections (1%). However, Dr. Lebwohl noted that these events were also observed in the control group.

“The study was unequivocal about the improvement in the intertriginous sites,” Dr. Lebwohl said. He contrasts that to the data from other nonsteroidal topicals, which he said can be associated with a rash or irritation in sensitive areas.

Dr. Lebwohl noted that PDE4 is an enzyme that increases inflammation and decreases anti-inflammatory mediators and that inhibiting PDE4 may interrupt some of the inflammation response responsible for psoriasis symptoms, as it has for other conditions such as atopic dermatitis. Data from the 8-week phase 3 trials and yearlong phase 2b, open-label studies support that hypothesis.

“I’m always excited for new psoriasis treatments to broaden our treatment armamentarium,” said Lauren E. Ploch, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Augusta, Ga., and Aiken, S.C., who was asked to comment on the approval.

Even a symptom that seems benign, like itching, Dr. Ploch added, can lead to reduced sleep and increased irritability. Referring to the data on the treatment in the sensitive, intertriginous areas, she noted that the skin in these areas is often thinner, so treatment with steroids can cause further thinning and damage to the skin. If roflumilast doesn’t cause burning, itching, or thinning, it will be a great option to treat these areas, she said in an interview. She was not involved in the trials.

Roflumilast cream will be marketed under the trade name Zoryve, and is expected to be available by mid-August, according to Arcutis.

Roflumilast cream is also under review in Canada for treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults and adolescents.

The studies were funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Lebwohl reported receiving grant support and consulting fees from Arcutis. Dr. Ploch reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

A federal advisory panel stressed the need for further research about potential expanded use of devices in detection of skin cancer, with U.S. regulators readying for challenges in determining how well these tools need to work and how to address longstanding issues of racial equity in this field of medicine.

The Food and Drug Administration has scheduled two meetings to gather expert feedback about managing an expected expansion in the use of skin lesion apps and devices. Outside of the United States, there are apps promoted as being able to help spot skin lesions that should trigger a medical visit.

AGA Institute

The general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee began work on this topic on July 28, with a wide-ranging discussion about potential expanded use of computer-aided, skin lesion analyzer (SLA) devices. On Friday, the panel is considering an FDA proposal to shift the designation for an approved device for aiding dermatologists in skin cancer diagnoses from the most stringent regulatory category, class III, to the less restrictive class II.

The FDA called the meeting amid growing interest in using technology to aid in finding cancers, with some of these products already marketed to consumers outside of the United States. There are presently no legally marketed, FDA-cleared or FDA-approved SLA devices indicated for use by clinicians other than dermatologists or the lay public, the agency said in a briefing memo for the meeting. There are two devices with FDA approval, though, for aiding dermatologists. The FDA approved SciBase’s Nevisense in 2017 and Mela Sciences’ MelaFind, which has fallen out of use, in 2012. Both are class III devices.

But some companies intend to offer products for consumers in the United States. The company SkinVision, for example, has developed an app of the same name, which is intended to detect suspicious-looking skin spots via smartphone photos. SkinVision’s website says the product has been offered to consumers in Australia for remote skin checks since 2015. People in the Netherlands and United Kingdom also can use SkinVision, according to the company’s website. SkinVision says the company is working on providing the app for U.S. customers, “but we are not quite there yet.”

During the meeting, FDA panelists repeatedly emphasized the potential risks of these devices in terms of sensitivity (how often a test correctly generates a positive result) and of specificity (how often a test correctly generates a negative result).

New tools intended to aid in detection of skin cancer might produce too many false positives and thus trigger floods of worried patients seeking care and often facing unnecessary biopsies, the FDA panelists said. But more worrisome would be FDA clearance of tools that delivered too many false negative results, leaving people unaware of their cancers.

The standards would have to be set very high for new products, especially those intended for consumers, said FDA panelist Murad Alam, MD, a dermatologist and vice chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. Current technologies for analyzing skin lesions are not yet up to that task. Dr. Alam likened the situation to the hopes for self-driving cars.

“It sounds great in principle. If you read the predictions from 20 years ago, it should already have happened,” Dr. Alam said. “But we’re still struggling with that because there are serious points of failure.”

FDA panelist Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, also argued for well-designed studies to understand how consumers and clinicians would react to new tools.

“We have to define what prospective information, in the intended use setting, we need to feel comfortable saying that these tools could be in a layperson’s hand or a primary care person’s hand,” Dr. Rotemberg said.

The studies would not need to be large, especially in the case of nonmelanoma skin cancer, which is common, she added.

“There’s too much nuance here for us to be able to say: ‘This is what would happen,’ without testing it,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “I do not think these prospective studies would be very burdensome, but they would help us understand what the burden would be and what the costs would be and what the potential harms would be.”

Because of rules against disclosing corporate information, the FDA cannot tell the public about the kinds of inquiries it already may have fielded from companies interested in selling skin cancer detection tools.

But in response to a question during the FDA meeting, Binita Ashar, MD, a top official in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said there is interest in having these kinds of products sold in the United States as well.

“I can tell you that this a very timely discussion and questions that we’re posing to you are the questions that we’re encountering or that we have been grappling with,” Dr. Ashar said.

FDA panelists noted that many patients cannot get access easily to dermatology visits.

Companies seeking to develop SLA devices likely will market their tools as attempts to fill a gap that now exists in medical care.

But there will be challenges ahead in explaining to patients how to interpret readings from these tools, the FDA panelists said. Consumers should know these tools are meant to assist in diagnosis, and not to make it.

“I’m not sure the layperson will hear that,” said FDA panelist Paula E. Bourelly, MD, a dermatologist from Olney, Md.

As a result, use of SLA tools could create tension between physicians and patients, with consumers demanding biopsies after seeing readings they don’t understand.

“I do have great concerns about the layperson feeling overly confident and reducing the provider to a technician,” she said.

The FDA panelists were not asked to cast formal votes on any issues discussed during the meeting They instead engaged in broad discussions around questions posed by the FDA in three key areas:

• What standards should be used to confirm lesion diagnosis in clinical testing of the accuracy of SLA devices?
• What would be acceptable true false-positive and false-negative results (sensitivity and specificity) for different diagnoses and users?
• How can the FDA address health equity considerations based on variable incidence of skin lesions?

Developing standards

The FDA asked the panel to consider several scenarios for SLA devices and to discuss how standards might vary depending on the user of the device, whether it would be dermatologists, other clinicians, or consumers.

The agency sought comments in particular about using histological diagnosis (core specimen processing with a consensus diagnosis from an expert dermatopathologist panel). In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA argued that this approach provides the greatest certainty in the diagnosis.

“Device developers, however, cite concerns, both practical and ethical, in requiring biopsy of all lesions, particularly those that appear benign,” the FDA said. “They have proposed alternate means of defining ground truth, including consensus opinion of experts (of visual or dermoscopic examination of the lesion[s]), opinion of one expert (visual or dermoscopic examination), or other methods.”

In summarizing the discussion on this question, the FDA panel chairman, Hobart W. Harris, MD, MPH, a surgeon from the University of California, San Francisco, noted that there was broad support for histological data in clinical trials of SLA devices, with some allowance for cases where more hybrid approaches would be used.

There were also suggestions offered about designing trials and the need for biopsies of lesions that are clearly benign, as this would help gather data to help in developing algorithms.

Dr. Alam said care should be taken in explaining to study participants that they might have to undergo biopsies that they didn’t need, as part of the larger effort to gather data. This should be detailed in the consent form, he said.

“But I also think this is a relatively minor risk,” Dr. Alam said, comparing these biopsies to the blood samples that patients in many clinical studies routinely give.

“Are all of those blood draws necessary to track the change in whatever parameters that are being tracked? Probably not,” Dr. Alam said. “I think it would be possible to explain to a reasonable patient what this entails.”

Dr. Alam noted that companies might face extra hurdles in enrolling study participants and keeping them in the trials if the FDA seeks this kind of biopsy data. “But I don’t think inconvenience to the study sponsor is a good argument” for not seeking this kind of data, he added.

Leaving a loophole where certain kinds of clearly benign lesions don’t require a biopsy would eventually erode the quality of the research done on these devices. “That bar will be moved to accommodate the convenience of the sponsor, to make the study feasible,” Dr. Alam said. “And pretty soon, you’ll be missing a lot of patients that really should have biopsies.”
 

Acceptable rates of false positives, false negatives

The FDA panel chair noted that his colleagues had strongly urged review standards that would require that the devices improve on the rates of successful catches of suspicious lesions and lower false positives. But they did not endorse specific targets regarding the sensitivity and specificity rates.

“No one seems to be comfortable with providing or preordaining” these targets, Dr. Harris said.

Panelist Deneen Hesser, MSHSA, RN, urged a deep recognition of the power of a FDA clearance in the view of consumers.

“We need to be cognizant of what the term ‘FDA approved’ means to the lay individual,” said Ms. Hesser, who served as the patient representative on the panel. “A patient who sees that those tools are FDA approved will assume that each of those is the gold standard” in terms of expectations for delivering accurate results.

Like many of the panelists, Dr. Rotemberg urged the FDA to gather data about how patients would react to different messages encoded in consumer-oriented products.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

“If the device says: ‘You should see a dermatologist for this’ and no other information, that’s very different from [saying]: ‘That lesion is suspicious for melanoma,’ ” Dr. Rotemberg said.

Despite the likely difficulties in conducting trials, the FDA needs to have the data to answer key questions about patient and physician reactions to readings from new tools, Dr. Rotemberg said.

“We don’t know how many additional biopsies we would cause with a specificity of 80%” for a new SLA tool, Dr. Rotemberg said, giving an example. “We don’t know how confident a dermatologist might be to say: ‘Actually, I’m not suspicious about that lesion and we can just fudge it or not biopsy it.’ We don’t know any of that until we study it in real life.”

The panelists also urged the FDA to seek to ensure that new tools used in analyzing skin lesions improve the quality of diagnosis.
 

Addressing equity

The FDA also asked the panel to weigh in on whether the agency should clear SLA tools in cases where the existing study data is drawn heavily from people considered to be at higher risk for skin cancer.

No credit needed per U.S. gov work.

“To ensure generalizability across the entire U.S. population, should FDA require SLAs indicated for use beyond cancerous lesions be tested in a representative U.S. population?” the FDA asked.

The three most common skin cancers – melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma – are more prevalent in people with Fitzpatrick I and II skin types, who tend to get sunburns, not tans. But people of color are more likely to develop melanoma in areas that are not sun exposed, such as the sole of the foot or under fingernails or toenails.

“Due in part to lower expected risk and screening, these melanomas are often detected late,” the FDA said in the briefing document.

There was broad consensus among panelists that the FDA should encourage companies to enroll people with all skin types and tones.

But they also looked for ways that the FDA could clear devices based on initial studies conducted largely with people considered to be at higher risk, with the agency then requiring follow-up trials to see how these products would work for the general U.S. population.

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

A federal advisory panel stressed the need for further research about potential expanded use of devices in detection of skin cancer, with U.S. regulators readying for challenges in determining how well these tools need to work and how to address longstanding issues of racial equity in this field of medicine.

The Food and Drug Administration has scheduled two meetings to gather expert feedback about managing an expected expansion in the use of skin lesion apps and devices. Outside of the United States, there are apps promoted as being able to help spot skin lesions that should trigger a medical visit.

AGA Institute

The general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee began work on this topic on July 28, with a wide-ranging discussion about potential expanded use of computer-aided, skin lesion analyzer (SLA) devices. On Friday, the panel is considering an FDA proposal to shift the designation for an approved device for aiding dermatologists in skin cancer diagnoses from the most stringent regulatory category, class III, to the less restrictive class II.

The FDA called the meeting amid growing interest in using technology to aid in finding cancers, with some of these products already marketed to consumers outside of the United States. There are presently no legally marketed, FDA-cleared or FDA-approved SLA devices indicated for use by clinicians other than dermatologists or the lay public, the agency said in a briefing memo for the meeting. There are two devices with FDA approval, though, for aiding dermatologists. The FDA approved SciBase’s Nevisense in 2017 and Mela Sciences’ MelaFind, which has fallen out of use, in 2012. Both are class III devices.

But some companies intend to offer products for consumers in the United States. The company SkinVision, for example, has developed an app of the same name, which is intended to detect suspicious-looking skin spots via smartphone photos. SkinVision’s website says the product has been offered to consumers in Australia for remote skin checks since 2015. People in the Netherlands and United Kingdom also can use SkinVision, according to the company’s website. SkinVision says the company is working on providing the app for U.S. customers, “but we are not quite there yet.”

During the meeting, FDA panelists repeatedly emphasized the potential risks of these devices in terms of sensitivity (how often a test correctly generates a positive result) and of specificity (how often a test correctly generates a negative result).

New tools intended to aid in detection of skin cancer might produce too many false positives and thus trigger floods of worried patients seeking care and often facing unnecessary biopsies, the FDA panelists said. But more worrisome would be FDA clearance of tools that delivered too many false negative results, leaving people unaware of their cancers.

The standards would have to be set very high for new products, especially those intended for consumers, said FDA panelist Murad Alam, MD, a dermatologist and vice chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. Current technologies for analyzing skin lesions are not yet up to that task. Dr. Alam likened the situation to the hopes for self-driving cars.

“It sounds great in principle. If you read the predictions from 20 years ago, it should already have happened,” Dr. Alam said. “But we’re still struggling with that because there are serious points of failure.”

FDA panelist Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, also argued for well-designed studies to understand how consumers and clinicians would react to new tools.

“We have to define what prospective information, in the intended use setting, we need to feel comfortable saying that these tools could be in a layperson’s hand or a primary care person’s hand,” Dr. Rotemberg said.

The studies would not need to be large, especially in the case of nonmelanoma skin cancer, which is common, she added.

“There’s too much nuance here for us to be able to say: ‘This is what would happen,’ without testing it,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “I do not think these prospective studies would be very burdensome, but they would help us understand what the burden would be and what the costs would be and what the potential harms would be.”

Because of rules against disclosing corporate information, the FDA cannot tell the public about the kinds of inquiries it already may have fielded from companies interested in selling skin cancer detection tools.

But in response to a question during the FDA meeting, Binita Ashar, MD, a top official in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said there is interest in having these kinds of products sold in the United States as well.

“I can tell you that this a very timely discussion and questions that we’re posing to you are the questions that we’re encountering or that we have been grappling with,” Dr. Ashar said.

FDA panelists noted that many patients cannot get access easily to dermatology visits.

Companies seeking to develop SLA devices likely will market their tools as attempts to fill a gap that now exists in medical care.

But there will be challenges ahead in explaining to patients how to interpret readings from these tools, the FDA panelists said. Consumers should know these tools are meant to assist in diagnosis, and not to make it.

“I’m not sure the layperson will hear that,” said FDA panelist Paula E. Bourelly, MD, a dermatologist from Olney, Md.

As a result, use of SLA tools could create tension between physicians and patients, with consumers demanding biopsies after seeing readings they don’t understand.

“I do have great concerns about the layperson feeling overly confident and reducing the provider to a technician,” she said.

The FDA panelists were not asked to cast formal votes on any issues discussed during the meeting They instead engaged in broad discussions around questions posed by the FDA in three key areas:

• What standards should be used to confirm lesion diagnosis in clinical testing of the accuracy of SLA devices?
• What would be acceptable true false-positive and false-negative results (sensitivity and specificity) for different diagnoses and users?
• How can the FDA address health equity considerations based on variable incidence of skin lesions?

Developing standards

The FDA asked the panel to consider several scenarios for SLA devices and to discuss how standards might vary depending on the user of the device, whether it would be dermatologists, other clinicians, or consumers.

The agency sought comments in particular about using histological diagnosis (core specimen processing with a consensus diagnosis from an expert dermatopathologist panel). In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA argued that this approach provides the greatest certainty in the diagnosis.

“Device developers, however, cite concerns, both practical and ethical, in requiring biopsy of all lesions, particularly those that appear benign,” the FDA said. “They have proposed alternate means of defining ground truth, including consensus opinion of experts (of visual or dermoscopic examination of the lesion[s]), opinion of one expert (visual or dermoscopic examination), or other methods.”

In summarizing the discussion on this question, the FDA panel chairman, Hobart W. Harris, MD, MPH, a surgeon from the University of California, San Francisco, noted that there was broad support for histological data in clinical trials of SLA devices, with some allowance for cases where more hybrid approaches would be used.

There were also suggestions offered about designing trials and the need for biopsies of lesions that are clearly benign, as this would help gather data to help in developing algorithms.

Dr. Alam said care should be taken in explaining to study participants that they might have to undergo biopsies that they didn’t need, as part of the larger effort to gather data. This should be detailed in the consent form, he said.

“But I also think this is a relatively minor risk,” Dr. Alam said, comparing these biopsies to the blood samples that patients in many clinical studies routinely give.

“Are all of those blood draws necessary to track the change in whatever parameters that are being tracked? Probably not,” Dr. Alam said. “I think it would be possible to explain to a reasonable patient what this entails.”

Dr. Alam noted that companies might face extra hurdles in enrolling study participants and keeping them in the trials if the FDA seeks this kind of biopsy data. “But I don’t think inconvenience to the study sponsor is a good argument” for not seeking this kind of data, he added.

Leaving a loophole where certain kinds of clearly benign lesions don’t require a biopsy would eventually erode the quality of the research done on these devices. “That bar will be moved to accommodate the convenience of the sponsor, to make the study feasible,” Dr. Alam said. “And pretty soon, you’ll be missing a lot of patients that really should have biopsies.”
 

Acceptable rates of false positives, false negatives

The FDA panel chair noted that his colleagues had strongly urged review standards that would require that the devices improve on the rates of successful catches of suspicious lesions and lower false positives. But they did not endorse specific targets regarding the sensitivity and specificity rates.

“No one seems to be comfortable with providing or preordaining” these targets, Dr. Harris said.

Panelist Deneen Hesser, MSHSA, RN, urged a deep recognition of the power of a FDA clearance in the view of consumers.

“We need to be cognizant of what the term ‘FDA approved’ means to the lay individual,” said Ms. Hesser, who served as the patient representative on the panel. “A patient who sees that those tools are FDA approved will assume that each of those is the gold standard” in terms of expectations for delivering accurate results.

Like many of the panelists, Dr. Rotemberg urged the FDA to gather data about how patients would react to different messages encoded in consumer-oriented products.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

“If the device says: ‘You should see a dermatologist for this’ and no other information, that’s very different from [saying]: ‘That lesion is suspicious for melanoma,’ ” Dr. Rotemberg said.

Despite the likely difficulties in conducting trials, the FDA needs to have the data to answer key questions about patient and physician reactions to readings from new tools, Dr. Rotemberg said.

“We don’t know how many additional biopsies we would cause with a specificity of 80%” for a new SLA tool, Dr. Rotemberg said, giving an example. “We don’t know how confident a dermatologist might be to say: ‘Actually, I’m not suspicious about that lesion and we can just fudge it or not biopsy it.’ We don’t know any of that until we study it in real life.”

The panelists also urged the FDA to seek to ensure that new tools used in analyzing skin lesions improve the quality of diagnosis.
 

Addressing equity

The FDA also asked the panel to weigh in on whether the agency should clear SLA tools in cases where the existing study data is drawn heavily from people considered to be at higher risk for skin cancer.

No credit needed per U.S. gov work.

“To ensure generalizability across the entire U.S. population, should FDA require SLAs indicated for use beyond cancerous lesions be tested in a representative U.S. population?” the FDA asked.

The three most common skin cancers – melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma – are more prevalent in people with Fitzpatrick I and II skin types, who tend to get sunburns, not tans. But people of color are more likely to develop melanoma in areas that are not sun exposed, such as the sole of the foot or under fingernails or toenails.

“Due in part to lower expected risk and screening, these melanomas are often detected late,” the FDA said in the briefing document.

There was broad consensus among panelists that the FDA should encourage companies to enroll people with all skin types and tones.

But they also looked for ways that the FDA could clear devices based on initial studies conducted largely with people considered to be at higher risk, with the agency then requiring follow-up trials to see how these products would work for the general U.S. population.

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

A federal advisory panel stressed the need for further research about potential expanded use of devices in detection of skin cancer, with U.S. regulators readying for challenges in determining how well these tools need to work and how to address longstanding issues of racial equity in this field of medicine.

The Food and Drug Administration has scheduled two meetings to gather expert feedback about managing an expected expansion in the use of skin lesion apps and devices. Outside of the United States, there are apps promoted as being able to help spot skin lesions that should trigger a medical visit.

AGA Institute

The general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee began work on this topic on July 28, with a wide-ranging discussion about potential expanded use of computer-aided, skin lesion analyzer (SLA) devices. On Friday, the panel is considering an FDA proposal to shift the designation for an approved device for aiding dermatologists in skin cancer diagnoses from the most stringent regulatory category, class III, to the less restrictive class II.

The FDA called the meeting amid growing interest in using technology to aid in finding cancers, with some of these products already marketed to consumers outside of the United States. There are presently no legally marketed, FDA-cleared or FDA-approved SLA devices indicated for use by clinicians other than dermatologists or the lay public, the agency said in a briefing memo for the meeting. There are two devices with FDA approval, though, for aiding dermatologists. The FDA approved SciBase’s Nevisense in 2017 and Mela Sciences’ MelaFind, which has fallen out of use, in 2012. Both are class III devices.

But some companies intend to offer products for consumers in the United States. The company SkinVision, for example, has developed an app of the same name, which is intended to detect suspicious-looking skin spots via smartphone photos. SkinVision’s website says the product has been offered to consumers in Australia for remote skin checks since 2015. People in the Netherlands and United Kingdom also can use SkinVision, according to the company’s website. SkinVision says the company is working on providing the app for U.S. customers, “but we are not quite there yet.”

During the meeting, FDA panelists repeatedly emphasized the potential risks of these devices in terms of sensitivity (how often a test correctly generates a positive result) and of specificity (how often a test correctly generates a negative result).

New tools intended to aid in detection of skin cancer might produce too many false positives and thus trigger floods of worried patients seeking care and often facing unnecessary biopsies, the FDA panelists said. But more worrisome would be FDA clearance of tools that delivered too many false negative results, leaving people unaware of their cancers.

The standards would have to be set very high for new products, especially those intended for consumers, said FDA panelist Murad Alam, MD, a dermatologist and vice chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. Current technologies for analyzing skin lesions are not yet up to that task. Dr. Alam likened the situation to the hopes for self-driving cars.

“It sounds great in principle. If you read the predictions from 20 years ago, it should already have happened,” Dr. Alam said. “But we’re still struggling with that because there are serious points of failure.”

FDA panelist Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, also argued for well-designed studies to understand how consumers and clinicians would react to new tools.

“We have to define what prospective information, in the intended use setting, we need to feel comfortable saying that these tools could be in a layperson’s hand or a primary care person’s hand,” Dr. Rotemberg said.

The studies would not need to be large, especially in the case of nonmelanoma skin cancer, which is common, she added.

“There’s too much nuance here for us to be able to say: ‘This is what would happen,’ without testing it,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “I do not think these prospective studies would be very burdensome, but they would help us understand what the burden would be and what the costs would be and what the potential harms would be.”

Because of rules against disclosing corporate information, the FDA cannot tell the public about the kinds of inquiries it already may have fielded from companies interested in selling skin cancer detection tools.

But in response to a question during the FDA meeting, Binita Ashar, MD, a top official in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said there is interest in having these kinds of products sold in the United States as well.

“I can tell you that this a very timely discussion and questions that we’re posing to you are the questions that we’re encountering or that we have been grappling with,” Dr. Ashar said.

FDA panelists noted that many patients cannot get access easily to dermatology visits.

Companies seeking to develop SLA devices likely will market their tools as attempts to fill a gap that now exists in medical care.

But there will be challenges ahead in explaining to patients how to interpret readings from these tools, the FDA panelists said. Consumers should know these tools are meant to assist in diagnosis, and not to make it.

“I’m not sure the layperson will hear that,” said FDA panelist Paula E. Bourelly, MD, a dermatologist from Olney, Md.

As a result, use of SLA tools could create tension between physicians and patients, with consumers demanding biopsies after seeing readings they don’t understand.

“I do have great concerns about the layperson feeling overly confident and reducing the provider to a technician,” she said.

The FDA panelists were not asked to cast formal votes on any issues discussed during the meeting They instead engaged in broad discussions around questions posed by the FDA in three key areas:

• What standards should be used to confirm lesion diagnosis in clinical testing of the accuracy of SLA devices?
• What would be acceptable true false-positive and false-negative results (sensitivity and specificity) for different diagnoses and users?
• How can the FDA address health equity considerations based on variable incidence of skin lesions?

Developing standards

The FDA asked the panel to consider several scenarios for SLA devices and to discuss how standards might vary depending on the user of the device, whether it would be dermatologists, other clinicians, or consumers.

The agency sought comments in particular about using histological diagnosis (core specimen processing with a consensus diagnosis from an expert dermatopathologist panel). In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA argued that this approach provides the greatest certainty in the diagnosis.

“Device developers, however, cite concerns, both practical and ethical, in requiring biopsy of all lesions, particularly those that appear benign,” the FDA said. “They have proposed alternate means of defining ground truth, including consensus opinion of experts (of visual or dermoscopic examination of the lesion[s]), opinion of one expert (visual or dermoscopic examination), or other methods.”

In summarizing the discussion on this question, the FDA panel chairman, Hobart W. Harris, MD, MPH, a surgeon from the University of California, San Francisco, noted that there was broad support for histological data in clinical trials of SLA devices, with some allowance for cases where more hybrid approaches would be used.

There were also suggestions offered about designing trials and the need for biopsies of lesions that are clearly benign, as this would help gather data to help in developing algorithms.

Dr. Alam said care should be taken in explaining to study participants that they might have to undergo biopsies that they didn’t need, as part of the larger effort to gather data. This should be detailed in the consent form, he said.

“But I also think this is a relatively minor risk,” Dr. Alam said, comparing these biopsies to the blood samples that patients in many clinical studies routinely give.

“Are all of those blood draws necessary to track the change in whatever parameters that are being tracked? Probably not,” Dr. Alam said. “I think it would be possible to explain to a reasonable patient what this entails.”

Dr. Alam noted that companies might face extra hurdles in enrolling study participants and keeping them in the trials if the FDA seeks this kind of biopsy data. “But I don’t think inconvenience to the study sponsor is a good argument” for not seeking this kind of data, he added.

Leaving a loophole where certain kinds of clearly benign lesions don’t require a biopsy would eventually erode the quality of the research done on these devices. “That bar will be moved to accommodate the convenience of the sponsor, to make the study feasible,” Dr. Alam said. “And pretty soon, you’ll be missing a lot of patients that really should have biopsies.”
 

Acceptable rates of false positives, false negatives

The FDA panel chair noted that his colleagues had strongly urged review standards that would require that the devices improve on the rates of successful catches of suspicious lesions and lower false positives. But they did not endorse specific targets regarding the sensitivity and specificity rates.

“No one seems to be comfortable with providing or preordaining” these targets, Dr. Harris said.

Panelist Deneen Hesser, MSHSA, RN, urged a deep recognition of the power of a FDA clearance in the view of consumers.

“We need to be cognizant of what the term ‘FDA approved’ means to the lay individual,” said Ms. Hesser, who served as the patient representative on the panel. “A patient who sees that those tools are FDA approved will assume that each of those is the gold standard” in terms of expectations for delivering accurate results.

Like many of the panelists, Dr. Rotemberg urged the FDA to gather data about how patients would react to different messages encoded in consumer-oriented products.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

“If the device says: ‘You should see a dermatologist for this’ and no other information, that’s very different from [saying]: ‘That lesion is suspicious for melanoma,’ ” Dr. Rotemberg said.

Despite the likely difficulties in conducting trials, the FDA needs to have the data to answer key questions about patient and physician reactions to readings from new tools, Dr. Rotemberg said.

“We don’t know how many additional biopsies we would cause with a specificity of 80%” for a new SLA tool, Dr. Rotemberg said, giving an example. “We don’t know how confident a dermatologist might be to say: ‘Actually, I’m not suspicious about that lesion and we can just fudge it or not biopsy it.’ We don’t know any of that until we study it in real life.”

The panelists also urged the FDA to seek to ensure that new tools used in analyzing skin lesions improve the quality of diagnosis.
 

Addressing equity

The FDA also asked the panel to weigh in on whether the agency should clear SLA tools in cases where the existing study data is drawn heavily from people considered to be at higher risk for skin cancer.

No credit needed per U.S. gov work.

“To ensure generalizability across the entire U.S. population, should FDA require SLAs indicated for use beyond cancerous lesions be tested in a representative U.S. population?” the FDA asked.

The three most common skin cancers – melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma – are more prevalent in people with Fitzpatrick I and II skin types, who tend to get sunburns, not tans. But people of color are more likely to develop melanoma in areas that are not sun exposed, such as the sole of the foot or under fingernails or toenails.

“Due in part to lower expected risk and screening, these melanomas are often detected late,” the FDA said in the briefing document.

There was broad consensus among panelists that the FDA should encourage companies to enroll people with all skin types and tones.

But they also looked for ways that the FDA could clear devices based on initial studies conducted largely with people considered to be at higher risk, with the agency then requiring follow-up trials to see how these products would work for the general U.S. population.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved belimumab (Benlysta) for treating active lupus nephritis (LN) in children aged 5-17 years. The drug can now be used to treat adult and pediatric patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and LN. The decision expands therapeutic options for the estimated 1.5 million Americans currently living with lupus.

“This approval marks a significant step forward in providing treatment options to these children at risk of incurring kidney damage early on in life,” Stevan W. Gibson, president and CEO of the Lupus Foundation of America, said in a press release issued by the manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline. LN is a condition that sometimes develops in people with lupus. In LN, the autoimmune cells produced by the disease attack the kidney. Roughly 40% of people with SLE experience LN.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Damage to the kidneys causes the body to have difficulty processing waste and toxins. This can create a host of problems, including end-stage kidney disease, which may be treated only with dialysis or kidney transplant. These situations significantly increase mortality among people with lupus, especially children.

Prior to the approval, the only treatment pathway for children with active LN included immunosuppressants and corticosteroids. While they may be effective, use of these classes of drugs may come with many side effects, including susceptibility to other diseases and infections. Belimumab, by contrast, is a B-lymphocyte stimulator protein inhibitor. It inhibits the survival of B cells, which are thought to play a role in the disease’s pathophysiology.

Belimumab was first approved to treat patients with SLE in 2011. It was approved for children with SLE 8 years later. The drug’s indications were expanded to include adults with LN in 2020.

Organizations within the lupus research community have communicated their support of the FDA’s decision. “Our community has much to celebrate with the approval of the first and much-needed treatment for children with lupus nephritis,” Lupus Research Alliance President and CEO Kenneth M. Farber said in a release from the organization.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved belimumab (Benlysta) for treating active lupus nephritis (LN) in children aged 5-17 years. The drug can now be used to treat adult and pediatric patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and LN. The decision expands therapeutic options for the estimated 1.5 million Americans currently living with lupus.

“This approval marks a significant step forward in providing treatment options to these children at risk of incurring kidney damage early on in life,” Stevan W. Gibson, president and CEO of the Lupus Foundation of America, said in a press release issued by the manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline. LN is a condition that sometimes develops in people with lupus. In LN, the autoimmune cells produced by the disease attack the kidney. Roughly 40% of people with SLE experience LN.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Damage to the kidneys causes the body to have difficulty processing waste and toxins. This can create a host of problems, including end-stage kidney disease, which may be treated only with dialysis or kidney transplant. These situations significantly increase mortality among people with lupus, especially children.

Prior to the approval, the only treatment pathway for children with active LN included immunosuppressants and corticosteroids. While they may be effective, use of these classes of drugs may come with many side effects, including susceptibility to other diseases and infections. Belimumab, by contrast, is a B-lymphocyte stimulator protein inhibitor. It inhibits the survival of B cells, which are thought to play a role in the disease’s pathophysiology.

Belimumab was first approved to treat patients with SLE in 2011. It was approved for children with SLE 8 years later. The drug’s indications were expanded to include adults with LN in 2020.

Organizations within the lupus research community have communicated their support of the FDA’s decision. “Our community has much to celebrate with the approval of the first and much-needed treatment for children with lupus nephritis,” Lupus Research Alliance President and CEO Kenneth M. Farber said in a release from the organization.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved belimumab (Benlysta) for treating active lupus nephritis (LN) in children aged 5-17 years. The drug can now be used to treat adult and pediatric patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and LN. The decision expands therapeutic options for the estimated 1.5 million Americans currently living with lupus.

“This approval marks a significant step forward in providing treatment options to these children at risk of incurring kidney damage early on in life,” Stevan W. Gibson, president and CEO of the Lupus Foundation of America, said in a press release issued by the manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline. LN is a condition that sometimes develops in people with lupus. In LN, the autoimmune cells produced by the disease attack the kidney. Roughly 40% of people with SLE experience LN.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Damage to the kidneys causes the body to have difficulty processing waste and toxins. This can create a host of problems, including end-stage kidney disease, which may be treated only with dialysis or kidney transplant. These situations significantly increase mortality among people with lupus, especially children.

Prior to the approval, the only treatment pathway for children with active LN included immunosuppressants and corticosteroids. While they may be effective, use of these classes of drugs may come with many side effects, including susceptibility to other diseases and infections. Belimumab, by contrast, is a B-lymphocyte stimulator protein inhibitor. It inhibits the survival of B cells, which are thought to play a role in the disease’s pathophysiology.

Belimumab was first approved to treat patients with SLE in 2011. It was approved for children with SLE 8 years later. The drug’s indications were expanded to include adults with LN in 2020.

Organizations within the lupus research community have communicated their support of the FDA’s decision. “Our community has much to celebrate with the approval of the first and much-needed treatment for children with lupus nephritis,” Lupus Research Alliance President and CEO Kenneth M. Farber said in a release from the organization.

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