User login
FDA panel rejects pimavanserin for Alzheimer’s psychosis
In a 9-3 vote, the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee (PDAC) found that the drug’s manufacturer failed to offer convincing evidence of its efficacy in patients with ADP.
The June 17 rejection was the second rejection in as many years for a new indication for pimavanserin, which was approved in 2016 for Parkinson’s disease psychosis (PDP).
In April 2021, the FDA denied Acadia’s supplemental new drug application to expand the drug’s indication to include the treatment of all dementia-related psychosis, regardless of the underlying cause of dementia, citing issues with two studies the company presented as evidence of efficacy.
For the current application, Acadia submitted some new analysis of those studies but limited its application to ADP, which affects up to 30% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and currently has no approved treatment.
Committee members who opposed the application were moved by testimony from caregivers and clinicians who treat patients with ADP but ultimately decided the evidence offered by Acadia once again failed to meet the threshold needed to demonstrate efficacy for an expanded indication.
“Sometimes I struggle with a decision on an advisory committee, but not today,” Dean Follmann, PhD, assistant director for biostatistics, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Md., said of his “no” vote.
Lack of efficacy
Pimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist and antagonist preferentially targeting 5-HT2A receptors, which are thought to play an important role in psychosis, schizophrenia, depression, and other neuropsychiatric disorders.
When it rejected Acadia’s original, broader application for pimavanserin for all dementia-related psychosis, the FDA found that the HARMONY phase 3 trial, previously covered by this news organization, was underpowered to assess efficacy in specific dementia patient subgroups and lacked statistical significance of efficacy in patients with AD. In addition, it noted that overall findings appeared to be driven by results in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, a condition already covered by the approved indication.
The FDA found that the second study, referred to in the June 17 hearing as Study 019, which was also previously reported by this news organization, was not “an adequate and well-controlled study.”
Specifically, the agency raised concerns about “protocol deviations,” such as the inclusion of patients who lacked clear documentation that psychotic symptoms developed after an AD diagnosis had been established and patients who received exclusionary medications at the time of randomization.
Discussions between Acadia and the FDA continued over the past year, with the company submitting new analyses and responses. An FDA briefing document published in advance of the committee meeting seemed to suggest the agency was satisfied with Acadia’s response.
Lack of diversity
The advisory committee disagreed, pointing to the same concerns raised last year. Members raised concerns about patient diversity in the HARMONY trial, which included an almost entirely White and mostly male study population.
In addition, although the findings at 26 weeks did demonstrate a marked improvement in psychosis symptoms overall, committee members noted that, again, those findings were largely driven by efficacy in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, for which the drug is already approved.
When discussing the phase 2 Study 019, the committee noted that while the study met the primary outcome of improvement in psychosis at 6 weeks, those positive responses were not found at any other timepoint in the 12-week study.
“While it might have had a positive numerical effect in the study, the evidence is really not there to support it,” Dr. Follmann said.
Dr. Follmann and other committee members called for additional trials that focus on patients with Alzheimer’s disease, have a longer follow-up, and include more gender and racial diversity in the study population. They also called for more information about any off-label use of pimavanserin for ADP since it was approved for PDP in 2016.
An unmet need
Most individuals who testified during the public comment period pleaded with the committee to vote in favor of the new indication, sharing stories of family members and patients with ADP.
“I have been caring for and studying patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias for more than 30 years, and I can tell you very simply that if left untreated, psychosis has significant and sometimes devastating consequences for our patients,” said Pierre Tariot, MD, director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and a research professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, and an investigator on the HARMONY trial.
Those on the committee who voted against the application were quick to agree that lack of an approved treatment for ADP presents a hardship.
“I’m a neurologist who has cared for patients for more than 20 years,” said Madhav R. Thambisetty, MD, PhD, senior investigator for the National Institute on Aging and an adjunct professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “I recognize the unmet need in the field, I just think that the unmet need should not be a justification to cut corners.”
The committee did not focus on drug safety or unmet need in its deliberations, although information on both were presented during the meeting.
Commenting on his “no” vote, PDAC member Walter S. Dunn, MD, PhD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of Interventional Psychiatry Service at West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, said he hopes that the FDA will consider those issues more broadly as they complete their review.
“The questions before the committee have been narrow and precise, so I trust the agency will take a broader approach in their final decision about approval,” Dr. Dunn said.
Commenting on the decision, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the news disappointing, “but while the unmet need for a treatment for ADP is clear, it is vital that approved treatments meet stringent safety and efficacy criteria so we can offer patients medications with clear benefits.”
The FDA will make its final decision by August 4.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a 9-3 vote, the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee (PDAC) found that the drug’s manufacturer failed to offer convincing evidence of its efficacy in patients with ADP.
The June 17 rejection was the second rejection in as many years for a new indication for pimavanserin, which was approved in 2016 for Parkinson’s disease psychosis (PDP).
In April 2021, the FDA denied Acadia’s supplemental new drug application to expand the drug’s indication to include the treatment of all dementia-related psychosis, regardless of the underlying cause of dementia, citing issues with two studies the company presented as evidence of efficacy.
For the current application, Acadia submitted some new analysis of those studies but limited its application to ADP, which affects up to 30% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and currently has no approved treatment.
Committee members who opposed the application were moved by testimony from caregivers and clinicians who treat patients with ADP but ultimately decided the evidence offered by Acadia once again failed to meet the threshold needed to demonstrate efficacy for an expanded indication.
“Sometimes I struggle with a decision on an advisory committee, but not today,” Dean Follmann, PhD, assistant director for biostatistics, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Md., said of his “no” vote.
Lack of efficacy
Pimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist and antagonist preferentially targeting 5-HT2A receptors, which are thought to play an important role in psychosis, schizophrenia, depression, and other neuropsychiatric disorders.
When it rejected Acadia’s original, broader application for pimavanserin for all dementia-related psychosis, the FDA found that the HARMONY phase 3 trial, previously covered by this news organization, was underpowered to assess efficacy in specific dementia patient subgroups and lacked statistical significance of efficacy in patients with AD. In addition, it noted that overall findings appeared to be driven by results in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, a condition already covered by the approved indication.
The FDA found that the second study, referred to in the June 17 hearing as Study 019, which was also previously reported by this news organization, was not “an adequate and well-controlled study.”
Specifically, the agency raised concerns about “protocol deviations,” such as the inclusion of patients who lacked clear documentation that psychotic symptoms developed after an AD diagnosis had been established and patients who received exclusionary medications at the time of randomization.
Discussions between Acadia and the FDA continued over the past year, with the company submitting new analyses and responses. An FDA briefing document published in advance of the committee meeting seemed to suggest the agency was satisfied with Acadia’s response.
Lack of diversity
The advisory committee disagreed, pointing to the same concerns raised last year. Members raised concerns about patient diversity in the HARMONY trial, which included an almost entirely White and mostly male study population.
In addition, although the findings at 26 weeks did demonstrate a marked improvement in psychosis symptoms overall, committee members noted that, again, those findings were largely driven by efficacy in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, for which the drug is already approved.
When discussing the phase 2 Study 019, the committee noted that while the study met the primary outcome of improvement in psychosis at 6 weeks, those positive responses were not found at any other timepoint in the 12-week study.
“While it might have had a positive numerical effect in the study, the evidence is really not there to support it,” Dr. Follmann said.
Dr. Follmann and other committee members called for additional trials that focus on patients with Alzheimer’s disease, have a longer follow-up, and include more gender and racial diversity in the study population. They also called for more information about any off-label use of pimavanserin for ADP since it was approved for PDP in 2016.
An unmet need
Most individuals who testified during the public comment period pleaded with the committee to vote in favor of the new indication, sharing stories of family members and patients with ADP.
“I have been caring for and studying patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias for more than 30 years, and I can tell you very simply that if left untreated, psychosis has significant and sometimes devastating consequences for our patients,” said Pierre Tariot, MD, director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and a research professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, and an investigator on the HARMONY trial.
Those on the committee who voted against the application were quick to agree that lack of an approved treatment for ADP presents a hardship.
“I’m a neurologist who has cared for patients for more than 20 years,” said Madhav R. Thambisetty, MD, PhD, senior investigator for the National Institute on Aging and an adjunct professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “I recognize the unmet need in the field, I just think that the unmet need should not be a justification to cut corners.”
The committee did not focus on drug safety or unmet need in its deliberations, although information on both were presented during the meeting.
Commenting on his “no” vote, PDAC member Walter S. Dunn, MD, PhD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of Interventional Psychiatry Service at West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, said he hopes that the FDA will consider those issues more broadly as they complete their review.
“The questions before the committee have been narrow and precise, so I trust the agency will take a broader approach in their final decision about approval,” Dr. Dunn said.
Commenting on the decision, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the news disappointing, “but while the unmet need for a treatment for ADP is clear, it is vital that approved treatments meet stringent safety and efficacy criteria so we can offer patients medications with clear benefits.”
The FDA will make its final decision by August 4.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a 9-3 vote, the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee (PDAC) found that the drug’s manufacturer failed to offer convincing evidence of its efficacy in patients with ADP.
The June 17 rejection was the second rejection in as many years for a new indication for pimavanserin, which was approved in 2016 for Parkinson’s disease psychosis (PDP).
In April 2021, the FDA denied Acadia’s supplemental new drug application to expand the drug’s indication to include the treatment of all dementia-related psychosis, regardless of the underlying cause of dementia, citing issues with two studies the company presented as evidence of efficacy.
For the current application, Acadia submitted some new analysis of those studies but limited its application to ADP, which affects up to 30% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and currently has no approved treatment.
Committee members who opposed the application were moved by testimony from caregivers and clinicians who treat patients with ADP but ultimately decided the evidence offered by Acadia once again failed to meet the threshold needed to demonstrate efficacy for an expanded indication.
“Sometimes I struggle with a decision on an advisory committee, but not today,” Dean Follmann, PhD, assistant director for biostatistics, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Md., said of his “no” vote.
Lack of efficacy
Pimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist and antagonist preferentially targeting 5-HT2A receptors, which are thought to play an important role in psychosis, schizophrenia, depression, and other neuropsychiatric disorders.
When it rejected Acadia’s original, broader application for pimavanserin for all dementia-related psychosis, the FDA found that the HARMONY phase 3 trial, previously covered by this news organization, was underpowered to assess efficacy in specific dementia patient subgroups and lacked statistical significance of efficacy in patients with AD. In addition, it noted that overall findings appeared to be driven by results in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, a condition already covered by the approved indication.
The FDA found that the second study, referred to in the June 17 hearing as Study 019, which was also previously reported by this news organization, was not “an adequate and well-controlled study.”
Specifically, the agency raised concerns about “protocol deviations,” such as the inclusion of patients who lacked clear documentation that psychotic symptoms developed after an AD diagnosis had been established and patients who received exclusionary medications at the time of randomization.
Discussions between Acadia and the FDA continued over the past year, with the company submitting new analyses and responses. An FDA briefing document published in advance of the committee meeting seemed to suggest the agency was satisfied with Acadia’s response.
Lack of diversity
The advisory committee disagreed, pointing to the same concerns raised last year. Members raised concerns about patient diversity in the HARMONY trial, which included an almost entirely White and mostly male study population.
In addition, although the findings at 26 weeks did demonstrate a marked improvement in psychosis symptoms overall, committee members noted that, again, those findings were largely driven by efficacy in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, for which the drug is already approved.
When discussing the phase 2 Study 019, the committee noted that while the study met the primary outcome of improvement in psychosis at 6 weeks, those positive responses were not found at any other timepoint in the 12-week study.
“While it might have had a positive numerical effect in the study, the evidence is really not there to support it,” Dr. Follmann said.
Dr. Follmann and other committee members called for additional trials that focus on patients with Alzheimer’s disease, have a longer follow-up, and include more gender and racial diversity in the study population. They also called for more information about any off-label use of pimavanserin for ADP since it was approved for PDP in 2016.
An unmet need
Most individuals who testified during the public comment period pleaded with the committee to vote in favor of the new indication, sharing stories of family members and patients with ADP.
“I have been caring for and studying patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias for more than 30 years, and I can tell you very simply that if left untreated, psychosis has significant and sometimes devastating consequences for our patients,” said Pierre Tariot, MD, director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and a research professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, and an investigator on the HARMONY trial.
Those on the committee who voted against the application were quick to agree that lack of an approved treatment for ADP presents a hardship.
“I’m a neurologist who has cared for patients for more than 20 years,” said Madhav R. Thambisetty, MD, PhD, senior investigator for the National Institute on Aging and an adjunct professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “I recognize the unmet need in the field, I just think that the unmet need should not be a justification to cut corners.”
The committee did not focus on drug safety or unmet need in its deliberations, although information on both were presented during the meeting.
Commenting on his “no” vote, PDAC member Walter S. Dunn, MD, PhD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of Interventional Psychiatry Service at West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, said he hopes that the FDA will consider those issues more broadly as they complete their review.
“The questions before the committee have been narrow and precise, so I trust the agency will take a broader approach in their final decision about approval,” Dr. Dunn said.
Commenting on the decision, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the news disappointing, “but while the unmet need for a treatment for ADP is clear, it is vital that approved treatments meet stringent safety and efficacy criteria so we can offer patients medications with clear benefits.”
The FDA will make its final decision by August 4.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves setmelanotide for obesity in Bardet-Biedl syndrome
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a supplemental indication for setmelanotide (Imcivree, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals) injection for chronic weight management in adults and pediatric patients age 6 and older with obesity due to Bardet-Biedl Syndrome (BBS).
Setmelanotide, a melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R) agonist, is the first FDA-approved therapy for BBS, a rare genetic disorder that impairs a hunger signal along the melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R) pathway.
BBS affects an estimated 1,500-2,500 people in the United States.
Individuals with BBS typically have obesity that starts at age 1 along with insatiable hunger (hyperphagia). Available weight management options are generally unsuccessful.
Other symptoms may include retinal degeneration, reduced kidney function, or extra digits of the hands or feet.
Setmelanotide received priority review, orphan drug designation, and breakthrough designation for this new indication.
As previously reported, in November 2020, the FDA approved setmelanotide for weight management in adults and children as young as 6 years with obesity due to proopiomelanocortin (POMC), proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 1 (PCSK1), or leptin receptor (LEPR) deficiency confirmed by genetic testing – who also have impaired hunger signaling from the brain.
These individuals have a normal weight at birth but develop persistent, severe obesity within months due to hyperphagia.
The FDA approval of Imcivree for BBS “represents a significant milestone for Rhythm [Pharmaceuticals], validating our strategy of developing Imcivree for people with hyperphagia and severe obesity caused by rare MC4R-pathway diseases and allowing us to provide our precision therapy to an established community of patients living with BBS and their families who are eagerly awaiting a new treatment option,” said David Meeker, MD, chair, president and CEO of Rhythm, in a press release.
Safety, effectiveness in 66-week trial in 44 patients
The safety and effectiveness of setmelanotidewas evaluated in a 66-week phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled 44 patients age 6 and older who had a diagnosis of BBS and obesity – defined as a body mass index greater than or equal to 30 kg/m2 or greater than or equal to 97th percentile for pediatric patients.
After an initial 14-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment period, patients entered a 52-week, open-label period.
The trial met its primary endpoint and all key secondary endpoints, with statistically significant reductions in weight and hunger at 52 weeks on therapy.
- After 52 weeks of treatment, patients taking setmelanotide lost, on average, 7.9% of their initial BMI.
- 61% of patients lost 5% or more of their initial BMI, and 39% lost 10% or more of their initial BMI.
- In the 14-week, placebo-controlled treatment, on average, BMI dropped by 4.6% in the 22 patients treated with the study drug and dropped 0.1% in the 22 patients treated with placebo.
- At 52 weeks, the 14 patients aged 12 and older who were able to self-report their hunger had a significant –2.1 mean change in hunger score.
Setmelanotide is associated with the following warnings and precautions:
- Spontaneous penile erections in males and sexual adverse reactions in females. Instruct males with erection lasting longer than 4 hours to seek emergency medical attention.
- Depression and suicidal ideation. Monitor patients for new onset or worsening depression or suicidal thoughts or behaviors. Consider discontinuing the drug if patients have suicidal thoughts or behaviors or clinically significant or persistent depression symptoms.
- Skin pigmentation and darkening of preexisting nevi (moles). Examine skin before and during treatment.
- Setmelanotide is not approved for use in neonates or infants. Serious and fatal adverse reactions including “gasping syndrome” can occur in neonates and low-birth-weight infants treated with benzyl alcohol-preserved drugs.
The most common adverse reactions (with an incidence greater than or equal to 20%) included skin hyperpigmentation, injection site reactions, nausea, headache, diarrhea, abdominal pain, vomiting, depression, and spontaneous penile erection.
The FDA did not approve the company’s supplemental new drug application for setmelanotide in Alström syndrome.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a supplemental indication for setmelanotide (Imcivree, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals) injection for chronic weight management in adults and pediatric patients age 6 and older with obesity due to Bardet-Biedl Syndrome (BBS).
Setmelanotide, a melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R) agonist, is the first FDA-approved therapy for BBS, a rare genetic disorder that impairs a hunger signal along the melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R) pathway.
BBS affects an estimated 1,500-2,500 people in the United States.
Individuals with BBS typically have obesity that starts at age 1 along with insatiable hunger (hyperphagia). Available weight management options are generally unsuccessful.
Other symptoms may include retinal degeneration, reduced kidney function, or extra digits of the hands or feet.
Setmelanotide received priority review, orphan drug designation, and breakthrough designation for this new indication.
As previously reported, in November 2020, the FDA approved setmelanotide for weight management in adults and children as young as 6 years with obesity due to proopiomelanocortin (POMC), proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 1 (PCSK1), or leptin receptor (LEPR) deficiency confirmed by genetic testing – who also have impaired hunger signaling from the brain.
These individuals have a normal weight at birth but develop persistent, severe obesity within months due to hyperphagia.
The FDA approval of Imcivree for BBS “represents a significant milestone for Rhythm [Pharmaceuticals], validating our strategy of developing Imcivree for people with hyperphagia and severe obesity caused by rare MC4R-pathway diseases and allowing us to provide our precision therapy to an established community of patients living with BBS and their families who are eagerly awaiting a new treatment option,” said David Meeker, MD, chair, president and CEO of Rhythm, in a press release.
Safety, effectiveness in 66-week trial in 44 patients
The safety and effectiveness of setmelanotidewas evaluated in a 66-week phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled 44 patients age 6 and older who had a diagnosis of BBS and obesity – defined as a body mass index greater than or equal to 30 kg/m2 or greater than or equal to 97th percentile for pediatric patients.
After an initial 14-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment period, patients entered a 52-week, open-label period.
The trial met its primary endpoint and all key secondary endpoints, with statistically significant reductions in weight and hunger at 52 weeks on therapy.
- After 52 weeks of treatment, patients taking setmelanotide lost, on average, 7.9% of their initial BMI.
- 61% of patients lost 5% or more of their initial BMI, and 39% lost 10% or more of their initial BMI.
- In the 14-week, placebo-controlled treatment, on average, BMI dropped by 4.6% in the 22 patients treated with the study drug and dropped 0.1% in the 22 patients treated with placebo.
- At 52 weeks, the 14 patients aged 12 and older who were able to self-report their hunger had a significant –2.1 mean change in hunger score.
Setmelanotide is associated with the following warnings and precautions:
- Spontaneous penile erections in males and sexual adverse reactions in females. Instruct males with erection lasting longer than 4 hours to seek emergency medical attention.
- Depression and suicidal ideation. Monitor patients for new onset or worsening depression or suicidal thoughts or behaviors. Consider discontinuing the drug if patients have suicidal thoughts or behaviors or clinically significant or persistent depression symptoms.
- Skin pigmentation and darkening of preexisting nevi (moles). Examine skin before and during treatment.
- Setmelanotide is not approved for use in neonates or infants. Serious and fatal adverse reactions including “gasping syndrome” can occur in neonates and low-birth-weight infants treated with benzyl alcohol-preserved drugs.
The most common adverse reactions (with an incidence greater than or equal to 20%) included skin hyperpigmentation, injection site reactions, nausea, headache, diarrhea, abdominal pain, vomiting, depression, and spontaneous penile erection.
The FDA did not approve the company’s supplemental new drug application for setmelanotide in Alström syndrome.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a supplemental indication for setmelanotide (Imcivree, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals) injection for chronic weight management in adults and pediatric patients age 6 and older with obesity due to Bardet-Biedl Syndrome (BBS).
Setmelanotide, a melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R) agonist, is the first FDA-approved therapy for BBS, a rare genetic disorder that impairs a hunger signal along the melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R) pathway.
BBS affects an estimated 1,500-2,500 people in the United States.
Individuals with BBS typically have obesity that starts at age 1 along with insatiable hunger (hyperphagia). Available weight management options are generally unsuccessful.
Other symptoms may include retinal degeneration, reduced kidney function, or extra digits of the hands or feet.
Setmelanotide received priority review, orphan drug designation, and breakthrough designation for this new indication.
As previously reported, in November 2020, the FDA approved setmelanotide for weight management in adults and children as young as 6 years with obesity due to proopiomelanocortin (POMC), proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 1 (PCSK1), or leptin receptor (LEPR) deficiency confirmed by genetic testing – who also have impaired hunger signaling from the brain.
These individuals have a normal weight at birth but develop persistent, severe obesity within months due to hyperphagia.
The FDA approval of Imcivree for BBS “represents a significant milestone for Rhythm [Pharmaceuticals], validating our strategy of developing Imcivree for people with hyperphagia and severe obesity caused by rare MC4R-pathway diseases and allowing us to provide our precision therapy to an established community of patients living with BBS and their families who are eagerly awaiting a new treatment option,” said David Meeker, MD, chair, president and CEO of Rhythm, in a press release.
Safety, effectiveness in 66-week trial in 44 patients
The safety and effectiveness of setmelanotidewas evaluated in a 66-week phase 3 clinical trial that enrolled 44 patients age 6 and older who had a diagnosis of BBS and obesity – defined as a body mass index greater than or equal to 30 kg/m2 or greater than or equal to 97th percentile for pediatric patients.
After an initial 14-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment period, patients entered a 52-week, open-label period.
The trial met its primary endpoint and all key secondary endpoints, with statistically significant reductions in weight and hunger at 52 weeks on therapy.
- After 52 weeks of treatment, patients taking setmelanotide lost, on average, 7.9% of their initial BMI.
- 61% of patients lost 5% or more of their initial BMI, and 39% lost 10% or more of their initial BMI.
- In the 14-week, placebo-controlled treatment, on average, BMI dropped by 4.6% in the 22 patients treated with the study drug and dropped 0.1% in the 22 patients treated with placebo.
- At 52 weeks, the 14 patients aged 12 and older who were able to self-report their hunger had a significant –2.1 mean change in hunger score.
Setmelanotide is associated with the following warnings and precautions:
- Spontaneous penile erections in males and sexual adverse reactions in females. Instruct males with erection lasting longer than 4 hours to seek emergency medical attention.
- Depression and suicidal ideation. Monitor patients for new onset or worsening depression or suicidal thoughts or behaviors. Consider discontinuing the drug if patients have suicidal thoughts or behaviors or clinically significant or persistent depression symptoms.
- Skin pigmentation and darkening of preexisting nevi (moles). Examine skin before and during treatment.
- Setmelanotide is not approved for use in neonates or infants. Serious and fatal adverse reactions including “gasping syndrome” can occur in neonates and low-birth-weight infants treated with benzyl alcohol-preserved drugs.
The most common adverse reactions (with an incidence greater than or equal to 20%) included skin hyperpigmentation, injection site reactions, nausea, headache, diarrhea, abdominal pain, vomiting, depression, and spontaneous penile erection.
The FDA did not approve the company’s supplemental new drug application for setmelanotide in Alström syndrome.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pediatric hepatitis has not increased during pandemic: CDC
The number of pediatric hepatitis cases has remained steady since 2017, new research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests, despite the recent investigation into children with hepatitis of unknown cause. The study also found that there was no indication of elevated rates of adenovirus type 40/41 infection in children.
But Rohit Kohli, MBBS, MS, chief of the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition at the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, California, says that although the study is “well-designed and robust,” that does not mean that these hepatitis cases of unknown origin are no longer a concern. He was not involved with the CDC research. “As a clinician, I’m still worried,” he said. “Why I feel like this is not conclusive is that there are other data from entities like the United Kingdom Health Security Agency that are incongruent with [these findings],” he said.
The research was published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
In November 2021, the Alabama Department of Public Health began an investigation with the CDC after a cluster of children were admitted to a children’s hospital in the state with severe hepatitis, who all tested positive for adenovirus. When the United Kingdom’s Health Security Agency announced an investigation into similar cases in early April 2022, the CDC decided to expand their search nationally.
Now, as of June 15, the agency is investigating 290 cases in 41 states and U.S. territories. Worldwide, 650 cases in 33 countries have been reported, according to the most recent update by the World Health Organization on May 27, 2022. At least 38 patients have needed liver transplants, and nine deaths have been reported to WHO.
In its most recent press call on the topic, the CDC announced that it’s aware of six deaths in the United States through May 20, 2022. The COVID-19 vaccine has been ruled out as a potential cause because the majority of affected children are unvaccinated or are too young to receive the vaccine. Adenovirus infection remains a leading suspect in these sick children because the virus has been detected in 60.8% of tested cases, WHO reports.
Investigators have detected an increase in reported pediatric hepatitis cases, compared with prior years in the United Kingdom, but it was not clear whether that same pattern would be found in the United States. Neither pediatric hepatitis nor adenovirus type 40/41 are reportable conditions in the United States. In the May 20 CDC press call, Umesh Parashar, MD, chief of the CDC’s Viral Gastroenteritis Branch, said that an estimated 1,500-2,000 children aged younger than 10 are hospitalized in the United States for hepatitis every year. “That’s a fairly large number,” he said, and it might make it difficult to detect a small increase in cases.
To better estimate trends in pediatric hepatitis and adenovirus infection in the United States, investigators collected available data on emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and liver transplants associated with hepatitis in children as well as adenovirus stool testing results. Researchers used four large databases: the National Syndromic Surveillance Program; the Premier Healthcare Database Special Release; the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network; and Labcorp, which is a large commercial lab network.
To account for changes in health care utilization in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the team compared hepatitis-associated ED visits, hospitalizations, and liver transplants from October 2021 to March 2022 versus the same months (January to March and October to December) in 2017, 2018, and 2019. For adenovirus stool testing, results from October 2021 to March 2022 were compared with the same calendar months (October to March) from 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020, to help control for seasonality.
Investigators found no statistically significant increases in the outcomes during October 2021 to March 2022 versus pre-pandemic years:
- Weekly ED visits with hepatitis-associated discharge codes
- Hepatitis-associated monthly hospitalizations in children aged 0-4 years (22 vs. 19.5; P = .26)
- Hepatitis-associated monthly hospitalization in children aged 5-11 years (12 vs. 10.5; P = .42)
- Monthly liver transplants (5 vs. 4; P = .19)
- Percentage of stool specimens positive for adenovirus types 40/41, though the number of specimens tested was highest in March 2022
The authors acknowledged that pediatric hepatitis is rare, so it may be difficult tease out small changes in the number of cases. Also, data on hospitalizations and liver transplants have a 2- to 3-month reporting delay, so the case counts for March 2022 “might be underreported,” they wrote. Mr. Kohli noted that because hepatitis and adenovirus are not reportable conditions, the analysis relied on retrospective data from insurance companies and electronic medical records. Retrospective data are inherently limited, compared with prospective analyses, he said, and it’s possible that certain cases could be included in more than one database and thus be double-counted, whereas other cases could be missed entirely.
These findings also conflict with data from the United Kingdom, which in May reported that the average number of hepatitis cases had increased, compared with previous years, he said. More data are needed, he said, and he is involved with a study with the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases that is also collecting data to try to understand whether there has been an uptick in pediatric hepatitis cases. The study will collect patient data directly from hospitals as well as include additional pathology data, such as biopsy results.
“We should not be inhibited to look further academically – and public health–wise – while we take into cognizance this very good, robust attempt from the CDC,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The number of pediatric hepatitis cases has remained steady since 2017, new research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests, despite the recent investigation into children with hepatitis of unknown cause. The study also found that there was no indication of elevated rates of adenovirus type 40/41 infection in children.
But Rohit Kohli, MBBS, MS, chief of the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition at the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, California, says that although the study is “well-designed and robust,” that does not mean that these hepatitis cases of unknown origin are no longer a concern. He was not involved with the CDC research. “As a clinician, I’m still worried,” he said. “Why I feel like this is not conclusive is that there are other data from entities like the United Kingdom Health Security Agency that are incongruent with [these findings],” he said.
The research was published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
In November 2021, the Alabama Department of Public Health began an investigation with the CDC after a cluster of children were admitted to a children’s hospital in the state with severe hepatitis, who all tested positive for adenovirus. When the United Kingdom’s Health Security Agency announced an investigation into similar cases in early April 2022, the CDC decided to expand their search nationally.
Now, as of June 15, the agency is investigating 290 cases in 41 states and U.S. territories. Worldwide, 650 cases in 33 countries have been reported, according to the most recent update by the World Health Organization on May 27, 2022. At least 38 patients have needed liver transplants, and nine deaths have been reported to WHO.
In its most recent press call on the topic, the CDC announced that it’s aware of six deaths in the United States through May 20, 2022. The COVID-19 vaccine has been ruled out as a potential cause because the majority of affected children are unvaccinated or are too young to receive the vaccine. Adenovirus infection remains a leading suspect in these sick children because the virus has been detected in 60.8% of tested cases, WHO reports.
Investigators have detected an increase in reported pediatric hepatitis cases, compared with prior years in the United Kingdom, but it was not clear whether that same pattern would be found in the United States. Neither pediatric hepatitis nor adenovirus type 40/41 are reportable conditions in the United States. In the May 20 CDC press call, Umesh Parashar, MD, chief of the CDC’s Viral Gastroenteritis Branch, said that an estimated 1,500-2,000 children aged younger than 10 are hospitalized in the United States for hepatitis every year. “That’s a fairly large number,” he said, and it might make it difficult to detect a small increase in cases.
To better estimate trends in pediatric hepatitis and adenovirus infection in the United States, investigators collected available data on emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and liver transplants associated with hepatitis in children as well as adenovirus stool testing results. Researchers used four large databases: the National Syndromic Surveillance Program; the Premier Healthcare Database Special Release; the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network; and Labcorp, which is a large commercial lab network.
To account for changes in health care utilization in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the team compared hepatitis-associated ED visits, hospitalizations, and liver transplants from October 2021 to March 2022 versus the same months (January to March and October to December) in 2017, 2018, and 2019. For adenovirus stool testing, results from October 2021 to March 2022 were compared with the same calendar months (October to March) from 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020, to help control for seasonality.
Investigators found no statistically significant increases in the outcomes during October 2021 to March 2022 versus pre-pandemic years:
- Weekly ED visits with hepatitis-associated discharge codes
- Hepatitis-associated monthly hospitalizations in children aged 0-4 years (22 vs. 19.5; P = .26)
- Hepatitis-associated monthly hospitalization in children aged 5-11 years (12 vs. 10.5; P = .42)
- Monthly liver transplants (5 vs. 4; P = .19)
- Percentage of stool specimens positive for adenovirus types 40/41, though the number of specimens tested was highest in March 2022
The authors acknowledged that pediatric hepatitis is rare, so it may be difficult tease out small changes in the number of cases. Also, data on hospitalizations and liver transplants have a 2- to 3-month reporting delay, so the case counts for March 2022 “might be underreported,” they wrote. Mr. Kohli noted that because hepatitis and adenovirus are not reportable conditions, the analysis relied on retrospective data from insurance companies and electronic medical records. Retrospective data are inherently limited, compared with prospective analyses, he said, and it’s possible that certain cases could be included in more than one database and thus be double-counted, whereas other cases could be missed entirely.
These findings also conflict with data from the United Kingdom, which in May reported that the average number of hepatitis cases had increased, compared with previous years, he said. More data are needed, he said, and he is involved with a study with the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases that is also collecting data to try to understand whether there has been an uptick in pediatric hepatitis cases. The study will collect patient data directly from hospitals as well as include additional pathology data, such as biopsy results.
“We should not be inhibited to look further academically – and public health–wise – while we take into cognizance this very good, robust attempt from the CDC,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The number of pediatric hepatitis cases has remained steady since 2017, new research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests, despite the recent investigation into children with hepatitis of unknown cause. The study also found that there was no indication of elevated rates of adenovirus type 40/41 infection in children.
But Rohit Kohli, MBBS, MS, chief of the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition at the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, California, says that although the study is “well-designed and robust,” that does not mean that these hepatitis cases of unknown origin are no longer a concern. He was not involved with the CDC research. “As a clinician, I’m still worried,” he said. “Why I feel like this is not conclusive is that there are other data from entities like the United Kingdom Health Security Agency that are incongruent with [these findings],” he said.
The research was published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
In November 2021, the Alabama Department of Public Health began an investigation with the CDC after a cluster of children were admitted to a children’s hospital in the state with severe hepatitis, who all tested positive for adenovirus. When the United Kingdom’s Health Security Agency announced an investigation into similar cases in early April 2022, the CDC decided to expand their search nationally.
Now, as of June 15, the agency is investigating 290 cases in 41 states and U.S. territories. Worldwide, 650 cases in 33 countries have been reported, according to the most recent update by the World Health Organization on May 27, 2022. At least 38 patients have needed liver transplants, and nine deaths have been reported to WHO.
In its most recent press call on the topic, the CDC announced that it’s aware of six deaths in the United States through May 20, 2022. The COVID-19 vaccine has been ruled out as a potential cause because the majority of affected children are unvaccinated or are too young to receive the vaccine. Adenovirus infection remains a leading suspect in these sick children because the virus has been detected in 60.8% of tested cases, WHO reports.
Investigators have detected an increase in reported pediatric hepatitis cases, compared with prior years in the United Kingdom, but it was not clear whether that same pattern would be found in the United States. Neither pediatric hepatitis nor adenovirus type 40/41 are reportable conditions in the United States. In the May 20 CDC press call, Umesh Parashar, MD, chief of the CDC’s Viral Gastroenteritis Branch, said that an estimated 1,500-2,000 children aged younger than 10 are hospitalized in the United States for hepatitis every year. “That’s a fairly large number,” he said, and it might make it difficult to detect a small increase in cases.
To better estimate trends in pediatric hepatitis and adenovirus infection in the United States, investigators collected available data on emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and liver transplants associated with hepatitis in children as well as adenovirus stool testing results. Researchers used four large databases: the National Syndromic Surveillance Program; the Premier Healthcare Database Special Release; the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network; and Labcorp, which is a large commercial lab network.
To account for changes in health care utilization in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the team compared hepatitis-associated ED visits, hospitalizations, and liver transplants from October 2021 to March 2022 versus the same months (January to March and October to December) in 2017, 2018, and 2019. For adenovirus stool testing, results from October 2021 to March 2022 were compared with the same calendar months (October to March) from 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020, to help control for seasonality.
Investigators found no statistically significant increases in the outcomes during October 2021 to March 2022 versus pre-pandemic years:
- Weekly ED visits with hepatitis-associated discharge codes
- Hepatitis-associated monthly hospitalizations in children aged 0-4 years (22 vs. 19.5; P = .26)
- Hepatitis-associated monthly hospitalization in children aged 5-11 years (12 vs. 10.5; P = .42)
- Monthly liver transplants (5 vs. 4; P = .19)
- Percentage of stool specimens positive for adenovirus types 40/41, though the number of specimens tested was highest in March 2022
The authors acknowledged that pediatric hepatitis is rare, so it may be difficult tease out small changes in the number of cases. Also, data on hospitalizations and liver transplants have a 2- to 3-month reporting delay, so the case counts for March 2022 “might be underreported,” they wrote. Mr. Kohli noted that because hepatitis and adenovirus are not reportable conditions, the analysis relied on retrospective data from insurance companies and electronic medical records. Retrospective data are inherently limited, compared with prospective analyses, he said, and it’s possible that certain cases could be included in more than one database and thus be double-counted, whereas other cases could be missed entirely.
These findings also conflict with data from the United Kingdom, which in May reported that the average number of hepatitis cases had increased, compared with previous years, he said. More data are needed, he said, and he is involved with a study with the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases that is also collecting data to try to understand whether there has been an uptick in pediatric hepatitis cases. The study will collect patient data directly from hospitals as well as include additional pathology data, such as biopsy results.
“We should not be inhibited to look further academically – and public health–wise – while we take into cognizance this very good, robust attempt from the CDC,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM MMWR
FDA panel votes unanimously for COVID shots for youngest kids
Federal advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted unanimously June 15 to recommend the use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines in infants and young children.
The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) of the FDA voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a two-dose series of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 5 years of age.
The panel then voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a three-dose series of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 4 years of age.
The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees, but it often does. Moderna and Pfizer are seeking to expand emergency use authorization (EUA) for their vaccines. EUAs are special clearances used to allow use of products in connection with public health crises such as the pandemic.
The Pfizer vaccine has standard, nonemergency FDA approval for use in people 16 years of age and older. The FDA also has granted EUA clearance for use of the shot in people ages 5 to 15.
The VRBPAC on June 15 recommended granting EUA clearance for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for people ages 6 to 17. The Moderna vaccine already has full approval for use in people 18 years of age and older.
Many parents have been waiting for a clearance of COVID vaccines for their infants and young children, seeking protection for them at a time of continued spread of the virus.
The White House on June 9 outlined plans for making 10 million doses of COVID vaccines available for children under the age of 5 in the coming weeks.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has scheduled a June 18 meeting of its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, where members of that panel will vote on recommendations about use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in infants and young children. The last step in the approval process to get shots into arms will be endorsement by the CDC director if the committee votes in favor of the vaccines.
For and against
During the public session during the June 15 FDA meeting, speakers offered varied opinions.
Some urged the panel to vote against the EUA expansion, citing concerns about risks of COVID vaccines in general.
But at the close of the meeting, top FDA vaccine official Peter Marks, MD, PhD, urged the public to be cautious about drawing conclusions from reading incident reports of side effects.
He said he has seen a “Twitter storm” during the day about claims of side effects. but stressed that the FDA has reported to the public on the rare side effects linked to the COVID vaccines, such as myocarditis, with advisories based on a review of reports of side effects. But many of these reports, gathered from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) system, will turn out on further inspection not to be related to vaccination.
Many other speakers urged members of the panel to support expanded use of the vaccines for infants and young children. These speakers emphasized how lack of a vaccine to date has isolated young children who remain unprotected, even with about 83% of those age 5 and older in the United States having received at least one COVID shot.
Dr. Marks noted that there have been 442 deaths from COVID among children under 4 years of age during the pandemic, a number that he compared with the 78 deaths reported in the H1N1 flu. He urged the panel “to be careful that we don’t become numb to the number of pediatric deaths because of the overwhelming number of older deaths here.”
Panelist H. Cody Meissner, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist from Tufts University, said the vaccine should be made available -- particularly for children considered to be at high risk for complications from COVID --but health officials need to present a clear picture of the relatively low risks to children of harm from the vaccines-- and from COVID.
“That has to be communicated clearly to parents so that they can participate in the decision about vaccinating a child in this age group,” Dr. Meissner said.
The results presented June 15 from studies of the shots in younger children were less impressive than those from the initial COVID vaccine trials done in adults. This was not a surprise to panelists given the rise of the omicron variant and the evolution of the pandemic, but it still led to comments about the need for further continued study of the vaccines in young children even if they are authorized.
Consider that in 2020, Pfizer won the first EUA for a COVID vaccine of any kind with data that pegged the shot’s efficacy rate at 95%. Statisticians estimated a likely possible range, or 95% confidence interval, for the vaccine efficacy rate at 90.3% to 97.6%.
Those estimates were based on finding eight cases of COVID reported among 18,198 study participants who got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot, compared with 162 cases among the 18,325 people in the placebo group, according to the FDA review of Pifzer’s initial application.
Study data
But on June 15, FDA advisers had to consider an EUA application for which the data did not make as strong a case for the vaccine’s benefit among younger patients.
Pfizer presented what the FDA called a “preliminary descriptive analysis” of vaccine efficacy among participants in Study C4591007 who received three study vaccinations, following accrual of 10 total confirmed COVID-19 cases occurring at least 7 days after the third dose.
Looking at results for study participants ages 6 to 23 months of age, there was one case in the group that got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot and two in the placebo group, pegged as a 75.6% vaccine efficacy rate -- but one with caveats to the small numbers of cases. The 95% confidence interval for this vaccine efficacy rate was reported as-369.1% to 99.6% according to the FDA staff review.
For participants 2-4 years of age with and without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-
2 infection, there were two cases in the group that got the shot and five in the placebo group showing a vaccine efficacy rate of 82.4%, with a 95% confidence interval estimated ranging between -7.6% and 98.3%. For the combined analysis of both age groups, the efficacy rate was estimated at 80.4%, with a 95% confidence interval of 14.1% and 96.7%.
Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a top official in the FDA’s vaccines division, noted that the current EUA application for expanded pediatric use involved “some very preliminary” results that involved “a small number of cases and limited follow up time.”
But he stressed that the evidence gathered to date for the Pifzer application for use of its COVID shot in infants and young children met the threshold for conditional clearance during a crisis.
“We do feel very confident that the evidentiary standard for benefit for an EUA has been met here,” but added that more data would be needed to address questions about the efficacy of the vaccine beyond a third dose and whether an additional dose may be needed.
Pfizer also used a comparison known as “immunobridging” in support of the application. This looked at SARS- CoV-2 50% neutralizing antibody titers for the children in the age group covered by the EUA application and compared them to a randomly selected subset of 16-25-year-old participants in another study,
Key data for the pending Moderna EUA for use of its shot in infants and young children came from study P204. In it, Moderna found 51 cases of COVID among 1,511 children ages 6 months to 23 months who got the vaccines, versus 34 cases among 513 children who received a placebo, according to an FDA staff review.
That resulted in a vaccine efficacy rate pegged at 50.6%, with a 95% confidence interval of 21.4% to 68.6%.
Looking at the children ages 2 to 5 years in the P204 study, there were 119 cases out of 2,594 participants who got the shot, versus 61 cases of 858 in the placebo arm, or 7.1%. That translated to a 36.8% vaccine efficacy rate, with a confidence interval 12.5% to 54.0%.
Panelist Jay Portnoy, MD, of Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City said all of the pediatricians he knows are waiting for the FDA to authorize the new uses of these vaccines in infants and young children.
“The death rate from COVID in young children may not be extremely high, but it’s absolutely terrifying to parents to have their child be sick, have to go to the hospital or even go to the emergency room or their primary care doctor because they’re sick and having trouble breathing,” said Dr. Portnoy, who served as the panel’s consumer representative.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
This article was updated on 6/16/22.
Federal advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted unanimously June 15 to recommend the use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines in infants and young children.
The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) of the FDA voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a two-dose series of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 5 years of age.
The panel then voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a three-dose series of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 4 years of age.
The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees, but it often does. Moderna and Pfizer are seeking to expand emergency use authorization (EUA) for their vaccines. EUAs are special clearances used to allow use of products in connection with public health crises such as the pandemic.
The Pfizer vaccine has standard, nonemergency FDA approval for use in people 16 years of age and older. The FDA also has granted EUA clearance for use of the shot in people ages 5 to 15.
The VRBPAC on June 15 recommended granting EUA clearance for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for people ages 6 to 17. The Moderna vaccine already has full approval for use in people 18 years of age and older.
Many parents have been waiting for a clearance of COVID vaccines for their infants and young children, seeking protection for them at a time of continued spread of the virus.
The White House on June 9 outlined plans for making 10 million doses of COVID vaccines available for children under the age of 5 in the coming weeks.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has scheduled a June 18 meeting of its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, where members of that panel will vote on recommendations about use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in infants and young children. The last step in the approval process to get shots into arms will be endorsement by the CDC director if the committee votes in favor of the vaccines.
For and against
During the public session during the June 15 FDA meeting, speakers offered varied opinions.
Some urged the panel to vote against the EUA expansion, citing concerns about risks of COVID vaccines in general.
But at the close of the meeting, top FDA vaccine official Peter Marks, MD, PhD, urged the public to be cautious about drawing conclusions from reading incident reports of side effects.
He said he has seen a “Twitter storm” during the day about claims of side effects. but stressed that the FDA has reported to the public on the rare side effects linked to the COVID vaccines, such as myocarditis, with advisories based on a review of reports of side effects. But many of these reports, gathered from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) system, will turn out on further inspection not to be related to vaccination.
Many other speakers urged members of the panel to support expanded use of the vaccines for infants and young children. These speakers emphasized how lack of a vaccine to date has isolated young children who remain unprotected, even with about 83% of those age 5 and older in the United States having received at least one COVID shot.
Dr. Marks noted that there have been 442 deaths from COVID among children under 4 years of age during the pandemic, a number that he compared with the 78 deaths reported in the H1N1 flu. He urged the panel “to be careful that we don’t become numb to the number of pediatric deaths because of the overwhelming number of older deaths here.”
Panelist H. Cody Meissner, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist from Tufts University, said the vaccine should be made available -- particularly for children considered to be at high risk for complications from COVID --but health officials need to present a clear picture of the relatively low risks to children of harm from the vaccines-- and from COVID.
“That has to be communicated clearly to parents so that they can participate in the decision about vaccinating a child in this age group,” Dr. Meissner said.
The results presented June 15 from studies of the shots in younger children were less impressive than those from the initial COVID vaccine trials done in adults. This was not a surprise to panelists given the rise of the omicron variant and the evolution of the pandemic, but it still led to comments about the need for further continued study of the vaccines in young children even if they are authorized.
Consider that in 2020, Pfizer won the first EUA for a COVID vaccine of any kind with data that pegged the shot’s efficacy rate at 95%. Statisticians estimated a likely possible range, or 95% confidence interval, for the vaccine efficacy rate at 90.3% to 97.6%.
Those estimates were based on finding eight cases of COVID reported among 18,198 study participants who got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot, compared with 162 cases among the 18,325 people in the placebo group, according to the FDA review of Pifzer’s initial application.
Study data
But on June 15, FDA advisers had to consider an EUA application for which the data did not make as strong a case for the vaccine’s benefit among younger patients.
Pfizer presented what the FDA called a “preliminary descriptive analysis” of vaccine efficacy among participants in Study C4591007 who received three study vaccinations, following accrual of 10 total confirmed COVID-19 cases occurring at least 7 days after the third dose.
Looking at results for study participants ages 6 to 23 months of age, there was one case in the group that got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot and two in the placebo group, pegged as a 75.6% vaccine efficacy rate -- but one with caveats to the small numbers of cases. The 95% confidence interval for this vaccine efficacy rate was reported as-369.1% to 99.6% according to the FDA staff review.
For participants 2-4 years of age with and without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-
2 infection, there were two cases in the group that got the shot and five in the placebo group showing a vaccine efficacy rate of 82.4%, with a 95% confidence interval estimated ranging between -7.6% and 98.3%. For the combined analysis of both age groups, the efficacy rate was estimated at 80.4%, with a 95% confidence interval of 14.1% and 96.7%.
Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a top official in the FDA’s vaccines division, noted that the current EUA application for expanded pediatric use involved “some very preliminary” results that involved “a small number of cases and limited follow up time.”
But he stressed that the evidence gathered to date for the Pifzer application for use of its COVID shot in infants and young children met the threshold for conditional clearance during a crisis.
“We do feel very confident that the evidentiary standard for benefit for an EUA has been met here,” but added that more data would be needed to address questions about the efficacy of the vaccine beyond a third dose and whether an additional dose may be needed.
Pfizer also used a comparison known as “immunobridging” in support of the application. This looked at SARS- CoV-2 50% neutralizing antibody titers for the children in the age group covered by the EUA application and compared them to a randomly selected subset of 16-25-year-old participants in another study,
Key data for the pending Moderna EUA for use of its shot in infants and young children came from study P204. In it, Moderna found 51 cases of COVID among 1,511 children ages 6 months to 23 months who got the vaccines, versus 34 cases among 513 children who received a placebo, according to an FDA staff review.
That resulted in a vaccine efficacy rate pegged at 50.6%, with a 95% confidence interval of 21.4% to 68.6%.
Looking at the children ages 2 to 5 years in the P204 study, there were 119 cases out of 2,594 participants who got the shot, versus 61 cases of 858 in the placebo arm, or 7.1%. That translated to a 36.8% vaccine efficacy rate, with a confidence interval 12.5% to 54.0%.
Panelist Jay Portnoy, MD, of Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City said all of the pediatricians he knows are waiting for the FDA to authorize the new uses of these vaccines in infants and young children.
“The death rate from COVID in young children may not be extremely high, but it’s absolutely terrifying to parents to have their child be sick, have to go to the hospital or even go to the emergency room or their primary care doctor because they’re sick and having trouble breathing,” said Dr. Portnoy, who served as the panel’s consumer representative.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
This article was updated on 6/16/22.
Federal advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted unanimously June 15 to recommend the use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines in infants and young children.
The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) of the FDA voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a two-dose series of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 5 years of age.
The panel then voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a three-dose series of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 4 years of age.
The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees, but it often does. Moderna and Pfizer are seeking to expand emergency use authorization (EUA) for their vaccines. EUAs are special clearances used to allow use of products in connection with public health crises such as the pandemic.
The Pfizer vaccine has standard, nonemergency FDA approval for use in people 16 years of age and older. The FDA also has granted EUA clearance for use of the shot in people ages 5 to 15.
The VRBPAC on June 15 recommended granting EUA clearance for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for people ages 6 to 17. The Moderna vaccine already has full approval for use in people 18 years of age and older.
Many parents have been waiting for a clearance of COVID vaccines for their infants and young children, seeking protection for them at a time of continued spread of the virus.
The White House on June 9 outlined plans for making 10 million doses of COVID vaccines available for children under the age of 5 in the coming weeks.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has scheduled a June 18 meeting of its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, where members of that panel will vote on recommendations about use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in infants and young children. The last step in the approval process to get shots into arms will be endorsement by the CDC director if the committee votes in favor of the vaccines.
For and against
During the public session during the June 15 FDA meeting, speakers offered varied opinions.
Some urged the panel to vote against the EUA expansion, citing concerns about risks of COVID vaccines in general.
But at the close of the meeting, top FDA vaccine official Peter Marks, MD, PhD, urged the public to be cautious about drawing conclusions from reading incident reports of side effects.
He said he has seen a “Twitter storm” during the day about claims of side effects. but stressed that the FDA has reported to the public on the rare side effects linked to the COVID vaccines, such as myocarditis, with advisories based on a review of reports of side effects. But many of these reports, gathered from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) system, will turn out on further inspection not to be related to vaccination.
Many other speakers urged members of the panel to support expanded use of the vaccines for infants and young children. These speakers emphasized how lack of a vaccine to date has isolated young children who remain unprotected, even with about 83% of those age 5 and older in the United States having received at least one COVID shot.
Dr. Marks noted that there have been 442 deaths from COVID among children under 4 years of age during the pandemic, a number that he compared with the 78 deaths reported in the H1N1 flu. He urged the panel “to be careful that we don’t become numb to the number of pediatric deaths because of the overwhelming number of older deaths here.”
Panelist H. Cody Meissner, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist from Tufts University, said the vaccine should be made available -- particularly for children considered to be at high risk for complications from COVID --but health officials need to present a clear picture of the relatively low risks to children of harm from the vaccines-- and from COVID.
“That has to be communicated clearly to parents so that they can participate in the decision about vaccinating a child in this age group,” Dr. Meissner said.
The results presented June 15 from studies of the shots in younger children were less impressive than those from the initial COVID vaccine trials done in adults. This was not a surprise to panelists given the rise of the omicron variant and the evolution of the pandemic, but it still led to comments about the need for further continued study of the vaccines in young children even if they are authorized.
Consider that in 2020, Pfizer won the first EUA for a COVID vaccine of any kind with data that pegged the shot’s efficacy rate at 95%. Statisticians estimated a likely possible range, or 95% confidence interval, for the vaccine efficacy rate at 90.3% to 97.6%.
Those estimates were based on finding eight cases of COVID reported among 18,198 study participants who got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot, compared with 162 cases among the 18,325 people in the placebo group, according to the FDA review of Pifzer’s initial application.
Study data
But on June 15, FDA advisers had to consider an EUA application for which the data did not make as strong a case for the vaccine’s benefit among younger patients.
Pfizer presented what the FDA called a “preliminary descriptive analysis” of vaccine efficacy among participants in Study C4591007 who received three study vaccinations, following accrual of 10 total confirmed COVID-19 cases occurring at least 7 days after the third dose.
Looking at results for study participants ages 6 to 23 months of age, there was one case in the group that got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot and two in the placebo group, pegged as a 75.6% vaccine efficacy rate -- but one with caveats to the small numbers of cases. The 95% confidence interval for this vaccine efficacy rate was reported as-369.1% to 99.6% according to the FDA staff review.
For participants 2-4 years of age with and without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-
2 infection, there were two cases in the group that got the shot and five in the placebo group showing a vaccine efficacy rate of 82.4%, with a 95% confidence interval estimated ranging between -7.6% and 98.3%. For the combined analysis of both age groups, the efficacy rate was estimated at 80.4%, with a 95% confidence interval of 14.1% and 96.7%.
Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a top official in the FDA’s vaccines division, noted that the current EUA application for expanded pediatric use involved “some very preliminary” results that involved “a small number of cases and limited follow up time.”
But he stressed that the evidence gathered to date for the Pifzer application for use of its COVID shot in infants and young children met the threshold for conditional clearance during a crisis.
“We do feel very confident that the evidentiary standard for benefit for an EUA has been met here,” but added that more data would be needed to address questions about the efficacy of the vaccine beyond a third dose and whether an additional dose may be needed.
Pfizer also used a comparison known as “immunobridging” in support of the application. This looked at SARS- CoV-2 50% neutralizing antibody titers for the children in the age group covered by the EUA application and compared them to a randomly selected subset of 16-25-year-old participants in another study,
Key data for the pending Moderna EUA for use of its shot in infants and young children came from study P204. In it, Moderna found 51 cases of COVID among 1,511 children ages 6 months to 23 months who got the vaccines, versus 34 cases among 513 children who received a placebo, according to an FDA staff review.
That resulted in a vaccine efficacy rate pegged at 50.6%, with a 95% confidence interval of 21.4% to 68.6%.
Looking at the children ages 2 to 5 years in the P204 study, there were 119 cases out of 2,594 participants who got the shot, versus 61 cases of 858 in the placebo arm, or 7.1%. That translated to a 36.8% vaccine efficacy rate, with a confidence interval 12.5% to 54.0%.
Panelist Jay Portnoy, MD, of Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City said all of the pediatricians he knows are waiting for the FDA to authorize the new uses of these vaccines in infants and young children.
“The death rate from COVID in young children may not be extremely high, but it’s absolutely terrifying to parents to have their child be sick, have to go to the hospital or even go to the emergency room or their primary care doctor because they’re sick and having trouble breathing,” said Dr. Portnoy, who served as the panel’s consumer representative.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
This article was updated on 6/16/22.
FDA OKs first systemic treatment for alopecia areata
.
The disorder with the hallmark signs of patchy baldness affects more than 300,000 people in the United States each year. In patients with the autoimmune disorder, the body attacks its own hair follicles and hair falls out, often in clumps. In February, the FDA granted priority review for baricitinib in adults with severe AA.
Baricitinib (Olumiant) is a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, which blocks the activity of one or more enzymes, interfering with the pathway that leads to inflammation.
The FDA reports the most common side effects include upper respiratory tract infections, headache, acne, hyperlipidemia, increase of creatinine phosphokinase, urinary tract infection, elevated liver enzymes, inflammation of hair follicles, fatigue, lower respiratory tract infections, nausea, Candida infections, anemia, neutropenia, abdominal pain, herpes zoster (shingles), and weight gain. The labeling for baricitinib includes a boxed warning for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis.
Evidence from two trials led to announcement
The decision came after review of the results from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (BRAVE AA-1 and BRAVE AA-2) with patients who had at least 50% scalp hair loss as measured by the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT score) for more than 6 months.
Patients in these trials got either a placebo, 2 mg of baricitinib, or 4 mg of baricitinib every day. The primary endpoint for both trials was the proportion of patients who achieved at least 80% scalp hair coverage at week 36.
In BRAVE AA-1, 22% of the 184 patients who received 2 mg of baricitinib and 35% of the 281 patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib achieved at least 80% scalp hair coverage, compared with 5% of the 189 patients in the placebo group.
In BRAVE AA-2, 17% of the 156 patients who received 2 mg of baricitinib and 32% of the 234 patients who received 4 mg achieved at least 80% scalp hair coverage, compared with 3% of the 156 patients in the placebo group.
The results were reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology meeting in March.
Baricitinib was originally approved in 2018 as a treatment for adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–blockers. It is also approved for treating COVID-19 in certain hospitalized adults.
Two other companies, Pfizer and Concert Pharmaceuticals, have JAK inhibitors in late-stage development for AA. The drugs are already on the market for treating rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases. FDA approval is important for insurance coverage of the drugs, which have a list price of nearly $2,500 a month, according to The New York Times.
Until now, the only treatments for moderate to severe AA approved by the FDA have been intralesional steroid injections, contact sensitization, and systemic immunosuppressants, but they have demonstrated limited efficacy, are inconvenient for patients to take, and have been unsuitable for use long term.
“Today’s approval will help fulfill a significant unmet need for patients with severe alopecia areata,” Kendall Marcus, MD, director of the Division of Dermatology and Dentistry in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release.
As Medscape reported last month, The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended approval of baricitinib for adults with severe AA.
AA received widespread international attention earlier this year at the Academy Awards ceremony, when actor Will Smith walked from the audience up onto the stage and slapped comedian Chris Rock in the face after he directed a joke at Mr. Smith’s wife, Jada Pinkett Smith, about her shaved head. Mrs. Pinkett Smith has AA and has been public about her struggles with the disease.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
.
The disorder with the hallmark signs of patchy baldness affects more than 300,000 people in the United States each year. In patients with the autoimmune disorder, the body attacks its own hair follicles and hair falls out, often in clumps. In February, the FDA granted priority review for baricitinib in adults with severe AA.
Baricitinib (Olumiant) is a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, which blocks the activity of one or more enzymes, interfering with the pathway that leads to inflammation.
The FDA reports the most common side effects include upper respiratory tract infections, headache, acne, hyperlipidemia, increase of creatinine phosphokinase, urinary tract infection, elevated liver enzymes, inflammation of hair follicles, fatigue, lower respiratory tract infections, nausea, Candida infections, anemia, neutropenia, abdominal pain, herpes zoster (shingles), and weight gain. The labeling for baricitinib includes a boxed warning for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis.
Evidence from two trials led to announcement
The decision came after review of the results from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (BRAVE AA-1 and BRAVE AA-2) with patients who had at least 50% scalp hair loss as measured by the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT score) for more than 6 months.
Patients in these trials got either a placebo, 2 mg of baricitinib, or 4 mg of baricitinib every day. The primary endpoint for both trials was the proportion of patients who achieved at least 80% scalp hair coverage at week 36.
In BRAVE AA-1, 22% of the 184 patients who received 2 mg of baricitinib and 35% of the 281 patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib achieved at least 80% scalp hair coverage, compared with 5% of the 189 patients in the placebo group.
In BRAVE AA-2, 17% of the 156 patients who received 2 mg of baricitinib and 32% of the 234 patients who received 4 mg achieved at least 80% scalp hair coverage, compared with 3% of the 156 patients in the placebo group.
The results were reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology meeting in March.
Baricitinib was originally approved in 2018 as a treatment for adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–blockers. It is also approved for treating COVID-19 in certain hospitalized adults.
Two other companies, Pfizer and Concert Pharmaceuticals, have JAK inhibitors in late-stage development for AA. The drugs are already on the market for treating rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases. FDA approval is important for insurance coverage of the drugs, which have a list price of nearly $2,500 a month, according to The New York Times.
Until now, the only treatments for moderate to severe AA approved by the FDA have been intralesional steroid injections, contact sensitization, and systemic immunosuppressants, but they have demonstrated limited efficacy, are inconvenient for patients to take, and have been unsuitable for use long term.
“Today’s approval will help fulfill a significant unmet need for patients with severe alopecia areata,” Kendall Marcus, MD, director of the Division of Dermatology and Dentistry in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release.
As Medscape reported last month, The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended approval of baricitinib for adults with severe AA.
AA received widespread international attention earlier this year at the Academy Awards ceremony, when actor Will Smith walked from the audience up onto the stage and slapped comedian Chris Rock in the face after he directed a joke at Mr. Smith’s wife, Jada Pinkett Smith, about her shaved head. Mrs. Pinkett Smith has AA and has been public about her struggles with the disease.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
.
The disorder with the hallmark signs of patchy baldness affects more than 300,000 people in the United States each year. In patients with the autoimmune disorder, the body attacks its own hair follicles and hair falls out, often in clumps. In February, the FDA granted priority review for baricitinib in adults with severe AA.
Baricitinib (Olumiant) is a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, which blocks the activity of one or more enzymes, interfering with the pathway that leads to inflammation.
The FDA reports the most common side effects include upper respiratory tract infections, headache, acne, hyperlipidemia, increase of creatinine phosphokinase, urinary tract infection, elevated liver enzymes, inflammation of hair follicles, fatigue, lower respiratory tract infections, nausea, Candida infections, anemia, neutropenia, abdominal pain, herpes zoster (shingles), and weight gain. The labeling for baricitinib includes a boxed warning for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis.
Evidence from two trials led to announcement
The decision came after review of the results from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (BRAVE AA-1 and BRAVE AA-2) with patients who had at least 50% scalp hair loss as measured by the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT score) for more than 6 months.
Patients in these trials got either a placebo, 2 mg of baricitinib, or 4 mg of baricitinib every day. The primary endpoint for both trials was the proportion of patients who achieved at least 80% scalp hair coverage at week 36.
In BRAVE AA-1, 22% of the 184 patients who received 2 mg of baricitinib and 35% of the 281 patients who received 4 mg of baricitinib achieved at least 80% scalp hair coverage, compared with 5% of the 189 patients in the placebo group.
In BRAVE AA-2, 17% of the 156 patients who received 2 mg of baricitinib and 32% of the 234 patients who received 4 mg achieved at least 80% scalp hair coverage, compared with 3% of the 156 patients in the placebo group.
The results were reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology meeting in March.
Baricitinib was originally approved in 2018 as a treatment for adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–blockers. It is also approved for treating COVID-19 in certain hospitalized adults.
Two other companies, Pfizer and Concert Pharmaceuticals, have JAK inhibitors in late-stage development for AA. The drugs are already on the market for treating rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases. FDA approval is important for insurance coverage of the drugs, which have a list price of nearly $2,500 a month, according to The New York Times.
Until now, the only treatments for moderate to severe AA approved by the FDA have been intralesional steroid injections, contact sensitization, and systemic immunosuppressants, but they have demonstrated limited efficacy, are inconvenient for patients to take, and have been unsuitable for use long term.
“Today’s approval will help fulfill a significant unmet need for patients with severe alopecia areata,” Kendall Marcus, MD, director of the Division of Dermatology and Dentistry in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release.
As Medscape reported last month, The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended approval of baricitinib for adults with severe AA.
AA received widespread international attention earlier this year at the Academy Awards ceremony, when actor Will Smith walked from the audience up onto the stage and slapped comedian Chris Rock in the face after he directed a joke at Mr. Smith’s wife, Jada Pinkett Smith, about her shaved head. Mrs. Pinkett Smith has AA and has been public about her struggles with the disease.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA cautions against using OTC products to remove skin spots, moles
Those moles, skin tags, and liver spots should stay on your skin until you see a doctor, according to a new alert from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The alert warns against the use of over-the-counter products for removing moles, seborrheic keratoses (wart-like growths that are often brown), or skin tags, emphasizing that none are approved by the FDA for at-home use.
Dermatologists and the FDA say these products may lead to scarring and disfigurement.
Risks include “skin injuries, infection requiring antibiotics, scarring, and delayed skin cancer diagnosis and treatment,” according to the alert, which adds that the agency has received reports of people “who developed permanent skin injuries and infections after using products marketed as mole or skin tag removers. “
These products come in the form of gels, liquids, sticks, or ointments and commonly contain ingredients like salicylic acid, which are cytotoxic, or cell-killing. These chemicals are what make the products potentially dangerous, as each contains unregulated, and likely very high, amounts of these corrosive agents. Even products marketed as natural or organic have these same issues, said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who notes that bloodroot is another ingredient found in these products.
Dr. Friedman explained that using these products without the supervision of a health care provider can create a chemical burn in the skin, leading to scarring. He’s treated patients for open wounds and infected ulcers caused by these products. “Over my career, I’ve seen many cases of patients coming in with self-inflicted harm due to using these quote, unquote, safe and natural products to remove benign, or even worse, potentially malignant neoplasms,” he told this news organization.
Another concern is that these spots on the skin are often the only sign of a serious issue – cancer. Early signs of melanoma, a type of skin cancer, include large, misshapen, or rapidly changing moles. Dr. Friedman said that if a patient uses one of these products on what is actually a cancerous mole, they will likely only remove the surface, and in turn, destroy the only sign of cancer – effectively killing the canary in the coal mine.
There’s a good chance that the root of the mole has been left intact under the skin surface, and as a result, the cancer has the potential to spread unnoticed. “If people aren’t going to a dermatologist to be properly diagnosed and properly managed, they’re going to cause more harm by thinking that they’ve taken care of a problem,” he said.
If you are concerned about any type of spot on your skin, a visit to the dermatologist will prove much simpler and safer for treating it than doing so at home. In the office, Dr. Friedman said, providers can use a range of highly studied techniques to remove skin lesions with minimal pain and scarring. From freezing, burning, snipping, or a quick moment under a scalpel, you’ll be healed in no time.
Anyone who has experienced an adverse event with one of these products and health care professionals should report cases to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting Program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Those moles, skin tags, and liver spots should stay on your skin until you see a doctor, according to a new alert from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The alert warns against the use of over-the-counter products for removing moles, seborrheic keratoses (wart-like growths that are often brown), or skin tags, emphasizing that none are approved by the FDA for at-home use.
Dermatologists and the FDA say these products may lead to scarring and disfigurement.
Risks include “skin injuries, infection requiring antibiotics, scarring, and delayed skin cancer diagnosis and treatment,” according to the alert, which adds that the agency has received reports of people “who developed permanent skin injuries and infections after using products marketed as mole or skin tag removers. “
These products come in the form of gels, liquids, sticks, or ointments and commonly contain ingredients like salicylic acid, which are cytotoxic, or cell-killing. These chemicals are what make the products potentially dangerous, as each contains unregulated, and likely very high, amounts of these corrosive agents. Even products marketed as natural or organic have these same issues, said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who notes that bloodroot is another ingredient found in these products.
Dr. Friedman explained that using these products without the supervision of a health care provider can create a chemical burn in the skin, leading to scarring. He’s treated patients for open wounds and infected ulcers caused by these products. “Over my career, I’ve seen many cases of patients coming in with self-inflicted harm due to using these quote, unquote, safe and natural products to remove benign, or even worse, potentially malignant neoplasms,” he told this news organization.
Another concern is that these spots on the skin are often the only sign of a serious issue – cancer. Early signs of melanoma, a type of skin cancer, include large, misshapen, or rapidly changing moles. Dr. Friedman said that if a patient uses one of these products on what is actually a cancerous mole, they will likely only remove the surface, and in turn, destroy the only sign of cancer – effectively killing the canary in the coal mine.
There’s a good chance that the root of the mole has been left intact under the skin surface, and as a result, the cancer has the potential to spread unnoticed. “If people aren’t going to a dermatologist to be properly diagnosed and properly managed, they’re going to cause more harm by thinking that they’ve taken care of a problem,” he said.
If you are concerned about any type of spot on your skin, a visit to the dermatologist will prove much simpler and safer for treating it than doing so at home. In the office, Dr. Friedman said, providers can use a range of highly studied techniques to remove skin lesions with minimal pain and scarring. From freezing, burning, snipping, or a quick moment under a scalpel, you’ll be healed in no time.
Anyone who has experienced an adverse event with one of these products and health care professionals should report cases to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting Program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Those moles, skin tags, and liver spots should stay on your skin until you see a doctor, according to a new alert from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The alert warns against the use of over-the-counter products for removing moles, seborrheic keratoses (wart-like growths that are often brown), or skin tags, emphasizing that none are approved by the FDA for at-home use.
Dermatologists and the FDA say these products may lead to scarring and disfigurement.
Risks include “skin injuries, infection requiring antibiotics, scarring, and delayed skin cancer diagnosis and treatment,” according to the alert, which adds that the agency has received reports of people “who developed permanent skin injuries and infections after using products marketed as mole or skin tag removers. “
These products come in the form of gels, liquids, sticks, or ointments and commonly contain ingredients like salicylic acid, which are cytotoxic, or cell-killing. These chemicals are what make the products potentially dangerous, as each contains unregulated, and likely very high, amounts of these corrosive agents. Even products marketed as natural or organic have these same issues, said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who notes that bloodroot is another ingredient found in these products.
Dr. Friedman explained that using these products without the supervision of a health care provider can create a chemical burn in the skin, leading to scarring. He’s treated patients for open wounds and infected ulcers caused by these products. “Over my career, I’ve seen many cases of patients coming in with self-inflicted harm due to using these quote, unquote, safe and natural products to remove benign, or even worse, potentially malignant neoplasms,” he told this news organization.
Another concern is that these spots on the skin are often the only sign of a serious issue – cancer. Early signs of melanoma, a type of skin cancer, include large, misshapen, or rapidly changing moles. Dr. Friedman said that if a patient uses one of these products on what is actually a cancerous mole, they will likely only remove the surface, and in turn, destroy the only sign of cancer – effectively killing the canary in the coal mine.
There’s a good chance that the root of the mole has been left intact under the skin surface, and as a result, the cancer has the potential to spread unnoticed. “If people aren’t going to a dermatologist to be properly diagnosed and properly managed, they’re going to cause more harm by thinking that they’ve taken care of a problem,” he said.
If you are concerned about any type of spot on your skin, a visit to the dermatologist will prove much simpler and safer for treating it than doing so at home. In the office, Dr. Friedman said, providers can use a range of highly studied techniques to remove skin lesions with minimal pain and scarring. From freezing, burning, snipping, or a quick moment under a scalpel, you’ll be healed in no time.
Anyone who has experienced an adverse event with one of these products and health care professionals should report cases to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting Program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves dupilumab for children with eczema aged 6 months to 5 years
The whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable.
The approval, announced on June 7, 2022, makes dupilumab (Dupixent), an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist, the first biologic available in the United States to treat uncontrolled moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in this age group. In this age group, it is administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks. Dupilumab remains the only biologic treatment approved for patients aged 6 years and older for this indication.
Approval was based on data from a 16-week pivotal phase 3 trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of dupilumab added to standard of care topical corticosteroids (TCS) in children aged 6 months to 5 years with uncontrolled moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. The trial’s principal investigator, Amy S. Paller, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues, found that, at 16 weeks, 28% of patients who were treated with dupilumab, added to low-potency TCS, met the primary endpoint of clear or almost clear skin, compared with 4% of those who received low-potency TCS alone (P < .0001).
In addition, patients who received the combined treatment experienced a 70% average improvement in disease severity from baseline, compared with a 20% improvement among those in the TCS-only group (P < .0001). They also experienced a 49% improvement in itch, compared with a 2% improvement among their counterparts in the TCS-only group (P < .0001).
Outside of the United States, the study’s coprimary endpoint was achievement of 75% or greater improvement in overall disease severity. More than half of the patients who received combined treatment (53%) met this endpoint, compared with 11% in the TCS-only group (P < .0001), according to the company.
Safety results were generally consistent with the safety profile of dupilumab in atopic dermatitis for patients aged 6 years and older. The most common adverse events that were more commonly observed with dupilumab included conjunctivitis (5% vs 0% in the placebo group) and herpes viral infections (6% vs. 5% in the placebo group). Among those on dupilumab, ages 6 months to 5 years, hand,foot, and mouth disease was reported in 5% and skin papilloma were reported in 2%, but these cases did not lead to discontinuation of treatment, according to the company release.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable.
The approval, announced on June 7, 2022, makes dupilumab (Dupixent), an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist, the first biologic available in the United States to treat uncontrolled moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in this age group. In this age group, it is administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks. Dupilumab remains the only biologic treatment approved for patients aged 6 years and older for this indication.
Approval was based on data from a 16-week pivotal phase 3 trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of dupilumab added to standard of care topical corticosteroids (TCS) in children aged 6 months to 5 years with uncontrolled moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. The trial’s principal investigator, Amy S. Paller, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues, found that, at 16 weeks, 28% of patients who were treated with dupilumab, added to low-potency TCS, met the primary endpoint of clear or almost clear skin, compared with 4% of those who received low-potency TCS alone (P < .0001).
In addition, patients who received the combined treatment experienced a 70% average improvement in disease severity from baseline, compared with a 20% improvement among those in the TCS-only group (P < .0001). They also experienced a 49% improvement in itch, compared with a 2% improvement among their counterparts in the TCS-only group (P < .0001).
Outside of the United States, the study’s coprimary endpoint was achievement of 75% or greater improvement in overall disease severity. More than half of the patients who received combined treatment (53%) met this endpoint, compared with 11% in the TCS-only group (P < .0001), according to the company.
Safety results were generally consistent with the safety profile of dupilumab in atopic dermatitis for patients aged 6 years and older. The most common adverse events that were more commonly observed with dupilumab included conjunctivitis (5% vs 0% in the placebo group) and herpes viral infections (6% vs. 5% in the placebo group). Among those on dupilumab, ages 6 months to 5 years, hand,foot, and mouth disease was reported in 5% and skin papilloma were reported in 2%, but these cases did not lead to discontinuation of treatment, according to the company release.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable.
The approval, announced on June 7, 2022, makes dupilumab (Dupixent), an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist, the first biologic available in the United States to treat uncontrolled moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in this age group. In this age group, it is administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks. Dupilumab remains the only biologic treatment approved for patients aged 6 years and older for this indication.
Approval was based on data from a 16-week pivotal phase 3 trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of dupilumab added to standard of care topical corticosteroids (TCS) in children aged 6 months to 5 years with uncontrolled moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. The trial’s principal investigator, Amy S. Paller, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues, found that, at 16 weeks, 28% of patients who were treated with dupilumab, added to low-potency TCS, met the primary endpoint of clear or almost clear skin, compared with 4% of those who received low-potency TCS alone (P < .0001).
In addition, patients who received the combined treatment experienced a 70% average improvement in disease severity from baseline, compared with a 20% improvement among those in the TCS-only group (P < .0001). They also experienced a 49% improvement in itch, compared with a 2% improvement among their counterparts in the TCS-only group (P < .0001).
Outside of the United States, the study’s coprimary endpoint was achievement of 75% or greater improvement in overall disease severity. More than half of the patients who received combined treatment (53%) met this endpoint, compared with 11% in the TCS-only group (P < .0001), according to the company.
Safety results were generally consistent with the safety profile of dupilumab in atopic dermatitis for patients aged 6 years and older. The most common adverse events that were more commonly observed with dupilumab included conjunctivitis (5% vs 0% in the placebo group) and herpes viral infections (6% vs. 5% in the placebo group). Among those on dupilumab, ages 6 months to 5 years, hand,foot, and mouth disease was reported in 5% and skin papilloma were reported in 2%, but these cases did not lead to discontinuation of treatment, according to the company release.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA panel strongly backs protein-based Novavax COVID-19 vaccine
than the cutting-edge technology used in mRNA-based shots.
The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted almost unanimously June 7 in favor of Novavax’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine for those 18 or older – despite some concerns over rare events of myocarditis and pericarditis.
The tally was 21 “yes” votes, without any “no” votes, but one abstention from a panelist who then offered a largely positive take on this vaccine.
Panelist Bruce Gellin, MD, explained at the end of the meeting that he would have cast a conditional vote in favor of the Novavax vaccine, called NVX-CoV2373, had that been an option. Dr. Gellin, chief of global public health strategy for the Rockefeller Foundation and a vaccine expert, said he didn’t want his abstention to be considered as signaling opposition to the Novavax shot.
Instead, he said, he expects FDA officials will gather more data and evidence about the Novavax vaccine, especially in relation to certain manufacturing issues, before making its decision on the company’s application.
Earlier in the day, a top FDA vaccine reviewer, Doran Fink, MD, PhD, noted that there were important manufacturing differences between the Novavax vaccine supply used in different projects, complicating efforts to assess the company’s application for emergency use authorization (EUA).
But Dr. Fink noted that the FDA staff already had made a convincing case in its briefing document, with enough evidence for an initial conditional clearance to be found in available data.
The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees but it often does.
Using the ‘bully pulpit’
At the beginning of the meeting, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said he was seizing the “bully pulpit” in addressing the need to persuade more people in the United States to take shots against COVID-19.
About 67% of people in the United States aged 18 and older are fully vaccinated, but only about 50% of those in this group have had a first booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The two-dose mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have been the subject of intense misinformation campaigns on social media, despite efforts by the FDA and other public health officials to convey the message about their strong benefit-risk profile. The FDA in May limited the authorized use of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose COVID-19 shot, which is based on a different technology, because of concerns about rare and potentially life-threatening blood clots.
Novavax has been described as a more traditional vaccine – a protein subunit shot similar to one people have long received for protection against influenza, pertussis (whooping cough), diphtheria, and tetanus.
“Having a protein-based alternative may be more comfortable for some in terms of their acceptance of vaccines,” Dr. Marks said. “We do have a problem with vaccine uptake that is very serious in the United States. And anything we can do to get people more comfortable to be able to accept these potentially life-saving medical products is something that we feel we are compelled to do.”
Dr. Marks offered these remarks in answer to an FDA panelist’s question about the need to consider an EUA for yet another vaccine.
EUAs are special clearances the FDA can grant in connection with public health emergencies such as the pandemic. The FDA used EUAs for the initial December 2020 clearances of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. It has since granted normal approvals for both of these mRNA-based vaccines, based on larger bodies of evidence gathered and submitted by their developers.
During the meeting, the FDA panelists in general appeared comfortable with the idea of granting another EUA for a vaccine. There was agreement that the shot appeared to work in key tests, although these were done before the rise of the Omicron variant.
In a key test, known as study 301, the Novavax vaccine was judged to be 90.4% effective. In the study, 17 of the 17,272 people who got the Novavax vaccine developed COVID-19, compared with 79 of the 8,385 in the placebo group.
Panelists expressed disappointment with the lack of information about how the shot would work now.
“We’re looking at the efficacy against strains that don’t exist any longer,” said panelist Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, a Harvard professor and editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.
Still, Dr. Rubin added that he agreed with the argument the FDA’s Dr. Marks had made earlier for an EUA for the Novavax vaccine.
“If there really is a population of patients who are willing to take this and not willing to take the existing vaccines, I think it’s pretty compelling,” Dr. Rubin said.
Other FDA panelists were skeptical of this argument. Jay Portnoy, MD, who was listed on the FDA roster as the panel’s consumer representative, said he has close friends who are vaccine skeptics.
“Their hesitancy is more ideological than technological,” said Dr. Portnoy of Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Mo. “So I really doubt that this vaccine is going to crack that nut, but perhaps some individuals would get this when they wouldn’t get the other ones.”
Myocarditis, pericarditis
The Novavax vaccine is already authorized in other countries, including Canada. Novavax in February announced that it had begun shipping its first doses of the vaccine to European Union member states. The vaccine can be moved through existing vaccine supply and cold chain channels instead of requiring complex new delivery procedures.
That could prove an advantage in time, said FDA panelist Michael Nelson, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
“Who knows even with supply chain challenges down the road, it will be nice to have options going forward,” Dr. Nelson said.
As with other COVID-19 vaccines, clinicians and researchers are still working to understand the potential risk for inflammation of heart muscle and nearby tissue with vaccination. Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis who sought medical care for these conditions responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly, the CDC says on its website. They usually return to their normal daily activities after their symptoms improve.
At the June 7 meeting, Dr. Nelson said there may be cases of myocarditis that go undetected.
“Our signals are those who get admitted to the emergency room and the hospital,” he said. “I’m quite convinced that there are others who are experiencing cardiac events of lesser severity that are worthy of being studied, both from mechanistic and outcomes standpoints. So we have a lot of work to do.”
In looking at results for an initial pool of 40,000 people who received the Novavax vaccine, there were five reported cases of myocarditis or pericarditis developing within 20 days of people getting the shot, the FDA staff said in its presentation on safety.
In a briefing document released ahead of the advisory committee meeting, the FDA staff flagged this number of cases in a relatively small database as a concern, noting it “could be higher than reported during postauthorization use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (for which no cases were identified in preauthorization evaluation).”
Novavax officials took a somewhat unusual step of responding in public. The Gaithersburg, Md.–based company on June 3 issued a statement saying researchers had come to “expect to see natural background events of myocarditis in any sufficiently large database, and that young males are at higher risk.”
The data from the company’s placebo-controlled studies show that, overall, in its clinical development program, the rate of myocarditis was balanced between the vaccine and placebo arms (0.007% and 0.005%), Novavax said.
At the June 7 meeting, FDA panelists including Dr. Nelson, and Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, urged continued study to try to determine whether and how the vaccines could trigger myocarditis. Investments made now in pursuing these questions related to COVID-19 shots may pay off later, Dr. Offit said.
“We can use that knowledge to make safer vaccines for a disease that is going to be with us for decades, if not longer,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
than the cutting-edge technology used in mRNA-based shots.
The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted almost unanimously June 7 in favor of Novavax’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine for those 18 or older – despite some concerns over rare events of myocarditis and pericarditis.
The tally was 21 “yes” votes, without any “no” votes, but one abstention from a panelist who then offered a largely positive take on this vaccine.
Panelist Bruce Gellin, MD, explained at the end of the meeting that he would have cast a conditional vote in favor of the Novavax vaccine, called NVX-CoV2373, had that been an option. Dr. Gellin, chief of global public health strategy for the Rockefeller Foundation and a vaccine expert, said he didn’t want his abstention to be considered as signaling opposition to the Novavax shot.
Instead, he said, he expects FDA officials will gather more data and evidence about the Novavax vaccine, especially in relation to certain manufacturing issues, before making its decision on the company’s application.
Earlier in the day, a top FDA vaccine reviewer, Doran Fink, MD, PhD, noted that there were important manufacturing differences between the Novavax vaccine supply used in different projects, complicating efforts to assess the company’s application for emergency use authorization (EUA).
But Dr. Fink noted that the FDA staff already had made a convincing case in its briefing document, with enough evidence for an initial conditional clearance to be found in available data.
The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees but it often does.
Using the ‘bully pulpit’
At the beginning of the meeting, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said he was seizing the “bully pulpit” in addressing the need to persuade more people in the United States to take shots against COVID-19.
About 67% of people in the United States aged 18 and older are fully vaccinated, but only about 50% of those in this group have had a first booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The two-dose mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have been the subject of intense misinformation campaigns on social media, despite efforts by the FDA and other public health officials to convey the message about their strong benefit-risk profile. The FDA in May limited the authorized use of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose COVID-19 shot, which is based on a different technology, because of concerns about rare and potentially life-threatening blood clots.
Novavax has been described as a more traditional vaccine – a protein subunit shot similar to one people have long received for protection against influenza, pertussis (whooping cough), diphtheria, and tetanus.
“Having a protein-based alternative may be more comfortable for some in terms of their acceptance of vaccines,” Dr. Marks said. “We do have a problem with vaccine uptake that is very serious in the United States. And anything we can do to get people more comfortable to be able to accept these potentially life-saving medical products is something that we feel we are compelled to do.”
Dr. Marks offered these remarks in answer to an FDA panelist’s question about the need to consider an EUA for yet another vaccine.
EUAs are special clearances the FDA can grant in connection with public health emergencies such as the pandemic. The FDA used EUAs for the initial December 2020 clearances of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. It has since granted normal approvals for both of these mRNA-based vaccines, based on larger bodies of evidence gathered and submitted by their developers.
During the meeting, the FDA panelists in general appeared comfortable with the idea of granting another EUA for a vaccine. There was agreement that the shot appeared to work in key tests, although these were done before the rise of the Omicron variant.
In a key test, known as study 301, the Novavax vaccine was judged to be 90.4% effective. In the study, 17 of the 17,272 people who got the Novavax vaccine developed COVID-19, compared with 79 of the 8,385 in the placebo group.
Panelists expressed disappointment with the lack of information about how the shot would work now.
“We’re looking at the efficacy against strains that don’t exist any longer,” said panelist Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, a Harvard professor and editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.
Still, Dr. Rubin added that he agreed with the argument the FDA’s Dr. Marks had made earlier for an EUA for the Novavax vaccine.
“If there really is a population of patients who are willing to take this and not willing to take the existing vaccines, I think it’s pretty compelling,” Dr. Rubin said.
Other FDA panelists were skeptical of this argument. Jay Portnoy, MD, who was listed on the FDA roster as the panel’s consumer representative, said he has close friends who are vaccine skeptics.
“Their hesitancy is more ideological than technological,” said Dr. Portnoy of Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Mo. “So I really doubt that this vaccine is going to crack that nut, but perhaps some individuals would get this when they wouldn’t get the other ones.”
Myocarditis, pericarditis
The Novavax vaccine is already authorized in other countries, including Canada. Novavax in February announced that it had begun shipping its first doses of the vaccine to European Union member states. The vaccine can be moved through existing vaccine supply and cold chain channels instead of requiring complex new delivery procedures.
That could prove an advantage in time, said FDA panelist Michael Nelson, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
“Who knows even with supply chain challenges down the road, it will be nice to have options going forward,” Dr. Nelson said.
As with other COVID-19 vaccines, clinicians and researchers are still working to understand the potential risk for inflammation of heart muscle and nearby tissue with vaccination. Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis who sought medical care for these conditions responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly, the CDC says on its website. They usually return to their normal daily activities after their symptoms improve.
At the June 7 meeting, Dr. Nelson said there may be cases of myocarditis that go undetected.
“Our signals are those who get admitted to the emergency room and the hospital,” he said. “I’m quite convinced that there are others who are experiencing cardiac events of lesser severity that are worthy of being studied, both from mechanistic and outcomes standpoints. So we have a lot of work to do.”
In looking at results for an initial pool of 40,000 people who received the Novavax vaccine, there were five reported cases of myocarditis or pericarditis developing within 20 days of people getting the shot, the FDA staff said in its presentation on safety.
In a briefing document released ahead of the advisory committee meeting, the FDA staff flagged this number of cases in a relatively small database as a concern, noting it “could be higher than reported during postauthorization use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (for which no cases were identified in preauthorization evaluation).”
Novavax officials took a somewhat unusual step of responding in public. The Gaithersburg, Md.–based company on June 3 issued a statement saying researchers had come to “expect to see natural background events of myocarditis in any sufficiently large database, and that young males are at higher risk.”
The data from the company’s placebo-controlled studies show that, overall, in its clinical development program, the rate of myocarditis was balanced between the vaccine and placebo arms (0.007% and 0.005%), Novavax said.
At the June 7 meeting, FDA panelists including Dr. Nelson, and Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, urged continued study to try to determine whether and how the vaccines could trigger myocarditis. Investments made now in pursuing these questions related to COVID-19 shots may pay off later, Dr. Offit said.
“We can use that knowledge to make safer vaccines for a disease that is going to be with us for decades, if not longer,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
than the cutting-edge technology used in mRNA-based shots.
The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted almost unanimously June 7 in favor of Novavax’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine for those 18 or older – despite some concerns over rare events of myocarditis and pericarditis.
The tally was 21 “yes” votes, without any “no” votes, but one abstention from a panelist who then offered a largely positive take on this vaccine.
Panelist Bruce Gellin, MD, explained at the end of the meeting that he would have cast a conditional vote in favor of the Novavax vaccine, called NVX-CoV2373, had that been an option. Dr. Gellin, chief of global public health strategy for the Rockefeller Foundation and a vaccine expert, said he didn’t want his abstention to be considered as signaling opposition to the Novavax shot.
Instead, he said, he expects FDA officials will gather more data and evidence about the Novavax vaccine, especially in relation to certain manufacturing issues, before making its decision on the company’s application.
Earlier in the day, a top FDA vaccine reviewer, Doran Fink, MD, PhD, noted that there were important manufacturing differences between the Novavax vaccine supply used in different projects, complicating efforts to assess the company’s application for emergency use authorization (EUA).
But Dr. Fink noted that the FDA staff already had made a convincing case in its briefing document, with enough evidence for an initial conditional clearance to be found in available data.
The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees but it often does.
Using the ‘bully pulpit’
At the beginning of the meeting, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said he was seizing the “bully pulpit” in addressing the need to persuade more people in the United States to take shots against COVID-19.
About 67% of people in the United States aged 18 and older are fully vaccinated, but only about 50% of those in this group have had a first booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The two-dose mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have been the subject of intense misinformation campaigns on social media, despite efforts by the FDA and other public health officials to convey the message about their strong benefit-risk profile. The FDA in May limited the authorized use of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose COVID-19 shot, which is based on a different technology, because of concerns about rare and potentially life-threatening blood clots.
Novavax has been described as a more traditional vaccine – a protein subunit shot similar to one people have long received for protection against influenza, pertussis (whooping cough), diphtheria, and tetanus.
“Having a protein-based alternative may be more comfortable for some in terms of their acceptance of vaccines,” Dr. Marks said. “We do have a problem with vaccine uptake that is very serious in the United States. And anything we can do to get people more comfortable to be able to accept these potentially life-saving medical products is something that we feel we are compelled to do.”
Dr. Marks offered these remarks in answer to an FDA panelist’s question about the need to consider an EUA for yet another vaccine.
EUAs are special clearances the FDA can grant in connection with public health emergencies such as the pandemic. The FDA used EUAs for the initial December 2020 clearances of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. It has since granted normal approvals for both of these mRNA-based vaccines, based on larger bodies of evidence gathered and submitted by their developers.
During the meeting, the FDA panelists in general appeared comfortable with the idea of granting another EUA for a vaccine. There was agreement that the shot appeared to work in key tests, although these were done before the rise of the Omicron variant.
In a key test, known as study 301, the Novavax vaccine was judged to be 90.4% effective. In the study, 17 of the 17,272 people who got the Novavax vaccine developed COVID-19, compared with 79 of the 8,385 in the placebo group.
Panelists expressed disappointment with the lack of information about how the shot would work now.
“We’re looking at the efficacy against strains that don’t exist any longer,” said panelist Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, a Harvard professor and editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.
Still, Dr. Rubin added that he agreed with the argument the FDA’s Dr. Marks had made earlier for an EUA for the Novavax vaccine.
“If there really is a population of patients who are willing to take this and not willing to take the existing vaccines, I think it’s pretty compelling,” Dr. Rubin said.
Other FDA panelists were skeptical of this argument. Jay Portnoy, MD, who was listed on the FDA roster as the panel’s consumer representative, said he has close friends who are vaccine skeptics.
“Their hesitancy is more ideological than technological,” said Dr. Portnoy of Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Mo. “So I really doubt that this vaccine is going to crack that nut, but perhaps some individuals would get this when they wouldn’t get the other ones.”
Myocarditis, pericarditis
The Novavax vaccine is already authorized in other countries, including Canada. Novavax in February announced that it had begun shipping its first doses of the vaccine to European Union member states. The vaccine can be moved through existing vaccine supply and cold chain channels instead of requiring complex new delivery procedures.
That could prove an advantage in time, said FDA panelist Michael Nelson, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
“Who knows even with supply chain challenges down the road, it will be nice to have options going forward,” Dr. Nelson said.
As with other COVID-19 vaccines, clinicians and researchers are still working to understand the potential risk for inflammation of heart muscle and nearby tissue with vaccination. Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis who sought medical care for these conditions responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly, the CDC says on its website. They usually return to their normal daily activities after their symptoms improve.
At the June 7 meeting, Dr. Nelson said there may be cases of myocarditis that go undetected.
“Our signals are those who get admitted to the emergency room and the hospital,” he said. “I’m quite convinced that there are others who are experiencing cardiac events of lesser severity that are worthy of being studied, both from mechanistic and outcomes standpoints. So we have a lot of work to do.”
In looking at results for an initial pool of 40,000 people who received the Novavax vaccine, there were five reported cases of myocarditis or pericarditis developing within 20 days of people getting the shot, the FDA staff said in its presentation on safety.
In a briefing document released ahead of the advisory committee meeting, the FDA staff flagged this number of cases in a relatively small database as a concern, noting it “could be higher than reported during postauthorization use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (for which no cases were identified in preauthorization evaluation).”
Novavax officials took a somewhat unusual step of responding in public. The Gaithersburg, Md.–based company on June 3 issued a statement saying researchers had come to “expect to see natural background events of myocarditis in any sufficiently large database, and that young males are at higher risk.”
The data from the company’s placebo-controlled studies show that, overall, in its clinical development program, the rate of myocarditis was balanced between the vaccine and placebo arms (0.007% and 0.005%), Novavax said.
At the June 7 meeting, FDA panelists including Dr. Nelson, and Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, urged continued study to try to determine whether and how the vaccines could trigger myocarditis. Investments made now in pursuing these questions related to COVID-19 shots may pay off later, Dr. Offit said.
“We can use that knowledge to make safer vaccines for a disease that is going to be with us for decades, if not longer,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA adds RA indication for Riabni rituximab biosimilar
The Food and Drug Administration has approved adding adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis to the list of indications for the rituximab biosimilar Riabni (rituximab-arrx) on the basis of results of a randomized, double-blind, comparative clinical study with the CD20-directed cytolytic antibody reference product, Rituxan, the biosimilar’s manufacturer, Amgen, announced June 6.
The RA indication is specifically for adults with moderate to severely active disease who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Riabni was approved in December 2020 for the treatment of adult patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and microscopic polyangiitis.
The clinical study testing Riabni against Rituxan involved 311 patients with moderate to severe RA who received Riabni, Rituxan manufactured in the United States, and Rituxan manufactured in the European Union. The patients who received the U.S.-manufactured Rituxan were transitioned to receive Riabni for their second dose of rituximab, whereas patients in other groups stayed with the same treatment. The trial’s primary efficacy endpoint of the change in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein from baseline to week 24 was within the predefined equivalence margin for clinical efficacy between Riabni and Rituxan. The two products also had similar safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity profiles, according to Amgen.
Currently, Riabni and Ruxience (rituximab-pvvr) are the only two approved rituximab biosimilars in the United States. Ruxience is approved for the same indications. Rituxan alone has protected orphan drug status for the indication of adult patients with moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved adding adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis to the list of indications for the rituximab biosimilar Riabni (rituximab-arrx) on the basis of results of a randomized, double-blind, comparative clinical study with the CD20-directed cytolytic antibody reference product, Rituxan, the biosimilar’s manufacturer, Amgen, announced June 6.
The RA indication is specifically for adults with moderate to severely active disease who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Riabni was approved in December 2020 for the treatment of adult patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and microscopic polyangiitis.
The clinical study testing Riabni against Rituxan involved 311 patients with moderate to severe RA who received Riabni, Rituxan manufactured in the United States, and Rituxan manufactured in the European Union. The patients who received the U.S.-manufactured Rituxan were transitioned to receive Riabni for their second dose of rituximab, whereas patients in other groups stayed with the same treatment. The trial’s primary efficacy endpoint of the change in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein from baseline to week 24 was within the predefined equivalence margin for clinical efficacy between Riabni and Rituxan. The two products also had similar safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity profiles, according to Amgen.
Currently, Riabni and Ruxience (rituximab-pvvr) are the only two approved rituximab biosimilars in the United States. Ruxience is approved for the same indications. Rituxan alone has protected orphan drug status for the indication of adult patients with moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved adding adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis to the list of indications for the rituximab biosimilar Riabni (rituximab-arrx) on the basis of results of a randomized, double-blind, comparative clinical study with the CD20-directed cytolytic antibody reference product, Rituxan, the biosimilar’s manufacturer, Amgen, announced June 6.
The RA indication is specifically for adults with moderate to severely active disease who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Riabni was approved in December 2020 for the treatment of adult patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and microscopic polyangiitis.
The clinical study testing Riabni against Rituxan involved 311 patients with moderate to severe RA who received Riabni, Rituxan manufactured in the United States, and Rituxan manufactured in the European Union. The patients who received the U.S.-manufactured Rituxan were transitioned to receive Riabni for their second dose of rituximab, whereas patients in other groups stayed with the same treatment. The trial’s primary efficacy endpoint of the change in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein from baseline to week 24 was within the predefined equivalence margin for clinical efficacy between Riabni and Rituxan. The two products also had similar safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity profiles, according to Amgen.
Currently, Riabni and Ruxience (rituximab-pvvr) are the only two approved rituximab biosimilars in the United States. Ruxience is approved for the same indications. Rituxan alone has protected orphan drug status for the indication of adult patients with moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA denies petition to disqualify researchers over controversial ketamine studies
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has declined to take further action against a group of investigators at Hennepin County Medical Center/Hennepin Healthcare (HCMC) who conducted controversial studies involving ketamine and other sedatives on agitated persons without their consent.
A citizen petition filed by Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, had asked the FDA to initiate clinical-investigator disqualification proceedings against Jon Cole, MD, and Lauren Klein, MD, along with other researchers who participated in the studies, for “repeatedly and deliberately initiating and conducting clinical investigations of investigational drug products” without having submitted or having in effect the investigational new drug applications (INDs) required by the FDA.
In certain situations, wherein the FDA alleges that a clinical investigator has violated applicable regulations, the agency may initiate clinical investigator disqualification proceedings. The names of the disqualified researchers are then added to a federal database.
The petition, which was filed in November 2021, also requested that the FDA initiate disqualification proceedings against the institutional review board (IRB) at HCMC for repeatedly failing to comply with federal regulations that adversely affected the rights and welfare of the individuals who were enrolled in the study without their consent.
Of note, Public Citizen stated that the FDA should have required the hospital to contact the more than 1,700 patients who “were unwittingly enrolled in unethical experiments” and inform them that their rights had been violated and their health potentially endangered by the research team.
Michael A. Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, told this news organization that it is uncommon for the FDA to disqualify researchers. “It should be more common than it is,” he said. “I think that FDA is just reluctant to take more action.”
The actions of the Hennepin investigators were “repetitive and appeared to be in deliberate violation of regulations,” he added. “The case for the FDA disqualifying the HCMC researchers is overwhelming. The FDA’s slap-on-the-wrist approach to such appalling regulatory and ethical violations risks emboldening other researchers to disregard the rights and welfare of human subjects.”
Carl Elliott, MD, PhD, a bioethicist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, agrees that the researcher from HCMC should be disqualified. “They didn’t just conduct risky, exploitative studies – they conducted them after the FDA had warned them not to proceed,” he said. “The message sent by this slap on the wrist is that investigators can do whatever they want to nonconsenting subjects, and the FDA will look the other way.”
Initial complaint
Public Citizen initially filed a complaint with the FDA in 2018, after learning that researchers affiliated with HCMC were conducting high-risk clinical trials involving ketamine to control agitation outside of the hospital setting. The complaint was cosigned by 64 doctors, bioethicists, and academic researchers and was also submitted to the Office for Human Research Protections.
The FDA typically allows investigational drugs to be used in emergency situation without obtaining informed consent if the therapies are known to carry a minimal risk. The IRB at HCMC had determined that this was the case with ketamine and approved the trials.
But according to Public Citizen’s complaint, prior research had suggested that ketamine could cause more complications and severe adverse events, compared with other sedatives.
The trials were conducted between 2014 and 2018, and in its letter, Public Citizen alleged that the investigators and the IRB had allowed these trials to proceed without obtaining informed consent from patients. The goal was to evaluate how well ketamine worked, compared with other drugs in calming agitated individuals: “The patients were given either ketamine or haloperidol for agitation by paramedics who responded to medical emergencies, and the goal was to see which drug worked faster,” said Dr. Carome. “Patients were only notified afterwards that they had received a sedative. Informed consent had been waived by IRB.”
In the first clinical trial conducted by HCMC, published in 2016, the researchers had hypothesized that 5 mg/kg of intramuscular ketamine would be superior to 10 mg of intramuscular haloperidol for severe prehospital agitation. Time to adequate sedation was the primary outcome measure. The study included 146 people; 64 received ketamine and 82 received haloperidol. They found that ketamine worked far more quickly than haloperidol (5 minutes vs. 17 minutes) but that the risk for complications was much higher. Complications occurred in 49% of patients receiving ketamine, compared with 5%.
“There was a 10-fold risk of adverse events,” said Dr. Carome. “And 39% of patients given ketamine had respiratory problems requiring intubation, compared to 4% who received haloperidol.”
A second study was launched in 2017, wherein ketamine was compared with midazolam in agitated patients. During the first 6-month period of the study, individuals would receive a ketamine-based protocol for prehospital agitation, and during the second 6 months, that would switch to midazolam. However, the study was halted in June 2018 after the local newspaper, the Star Tribune, reported that the city police had encouraged medical personnel to sedate agitated patients. This included individuals who had already been physically restrained.
The report stated that “in many cases, the individual being detained or arrested was not only handcuffed but strapped down on a stretcher in an ambulance before receiving ketamine,” and that it raised a “concerning question” over why these people were given the drug before they were transported to the hospital, “given the immediate effects on breathing and heart function that the drug induces.”
Along with halting the trial, HCMC asked for a review of cases involving its paramedics; an independent investigation led by former U.S. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates was initiated to assess whether the Minneapolis police had crossed a line and urged paramedics to use ketamine.
“The decision to use ketamine was based on the study’s timeline and not on clinical judgment,” said Dr. Carome.
The FDA acknowledged receipt of the complaint and inspected the IRB records and the clinical trial data. Preliminary reports received by Public Citizen confirmed their allegations. “There were not appropriate protections for vulnerable subjects,” he said. “In 2019, the FDA did further investigations, and those reports had similar findings.”
FDA letters
The FDA had sent warning letters to Dr. Cole and Dr. Klein, citing them for ignoring federal safety laws in experimental research on the public. In their investigations, the FDA cited “objectionable conditions” for the studies led by Dr. Cole and Dr. Klein, according to the letters. Both researchers seemingly ignored FDA regulations and used practices that subjected patients to “significantly increased risk,” and the hospital defended its research with “factually incorrect” statements.
In a letter to Dr. Cole, the FDA noted that he never filed INDs for the trials with the FDA, as required by law, and that he also failed to write appropriate protocols to ensure that children and pregnant women were not enrolled in the research. Individuals under the influence of intoxicants also were not excluded, though the use of ketamine is cautioned in this population.
“Administration of the investigational drugs to these subjects placed them at significantly increased risk of the adverse events associated with the investigational products and decreased the acceptability of those risks,” the FDA said in its letter. “Your failure to exclude, and the lack of any precautions for, subjects under the influence of various intoxicants significantly increased the risks and/or decreased the acceptability of the risks associated with the investigational drugs.”
However, Dr. Cole conducted both studies in the prehospital setting and failed to initiate any specific measures to protect study participants, according to the FDA.
Petition denied
Dr. Carome noted that the researchers had committed repetitive egregious regulatory violations over a 4-year period, which were documented by the FDA in their warning letters to Dr. Cole and Dr. Klein. “We felt that they were so egregious that we need to send a signal to the community that this sort of behavior will not be tolerated,” he said. “The FDA denied our petition, and we think that sends the wrong signal to the research community.”
In their response, the FDA noted that as with judicial enforcement, “the Agency makes decisions regarding whether to pursue administrative enforcement action, including disqualification proceedings, on a case-by-case basis, considering all relevant facts and circumstances.” They added that at this time, they would not be taking further action against Dr. Cole and Dr. Klein.
“However, we intend to continue to consider all the options available to the Agency as we determine whether to pursue additional compliance actions related to this matter,” the FDA concluded.
The FDA declined to comment further on their decision.
Dr. Cole also declined to comment, but Hennepin Healthcare told this news organization that the “decision by the FDA to deny the petition validates the changes we made to strengthen and improve the clinical research program across the institution since the closing of the studies in 2018. We look forward to continuing to work with the FDA to ensure full compliance with the standards in place to protect research subjects.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has declined to take further action against a group of investigators at Hennepin County Medical Center/Hennepin Healthcare (HCMC) who conducted controversial studies involving ketamine and other sedatives on agitated persons without their consent.
A citizen petition filed by Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, had asked the FDA to initiate clinical-investigator disqualification proceedings against Jon Cole, MD, and Lauren Klein, MD, along with other researchers who participated in the studies, for “repeatedly and deliberately initiating and conducting clinical investigations of investigational drug products” without having submitted or having in effect the investigational new drug applications (INDs) required by the FDA.
In certain situations, wherein the FDA alleges that a clinical investigator has violated applicable regulations, the agency may initiate clinical investigator disqualification proceedings. The names of the disqualified researchers are then added to a federal database.
The petition, which was filed in November 2021, also requested that the FDA initiate disqualification proceedings against the institutional review board (IRB) at HCMC for repeatedly failing to comply with federal regulations that adversely affected the rights and welfare of the individuals who were enrolled in the study without their consent.
Of note, Public Citizen stated that the FDA should have required the hospital to contact the more than 1,700 patients who “were unwittingly enrolled in unethical experiments” and inform them that their rights had been violated and their health potentially endangered by the research team.
Michael A. Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, told this news organization that it is uncommon for the FDA to disqualify researchers. “It should be more common than it is,” he said. “I think that FDA is just reluctant to take more action.”
The actions of the Hennepin investigators were “repetitive and appeared to be in deliberate violation of regulations,” he added. “The case for the FDA disqualifying the HCMC researchers is overwhelming. The FDA’s slap-on-the-wrist approach to such appalling regulatory and ethical violations risks emboldening other researchers to disregard the rights and welfare of human subjects.”
Carl Elliott, MD, PhD, a bioethicist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, agrees that the researcher from HCMC should be disqualified. “They didn’t just conduct risky, exploitative studies – they conducted them after the FDA had warned them not to proceed,” he said. “The message sent by this slap on the wrist is that investigators can do whatever they want to nonconsenting subjects, and the FDA will look the other way.”
Initial complaint
Public Citizen initially filed a complaint with the FDA in 2018, after learning that researchers affiliated with HCMC were conducting high-risk clinical trials involving ketamine to control agitation outside of the hospital setting. The complaint was cosigned by 64 doctors, bioethicists, and academic researchers and was also submitted to the Office for Human Research Protections.
The FDA typically allows investigational drugs to be used in emergency situation without obtaining informed consent if the therapies are known to carry a minimal risk. The IRB at HCMC had determined that this was the case with ketamine and approved the trials.
But according to Public Citizen’s complaint, prior research had suggested that ketamine could cause more complications and severe adverse events, compared with other sedatives.
The trials were conducted between 2014 and 2018, and in its letter, Public Citizen alleged that the investigators and the IRB had allowed these trials to proceed without obtaining informed consent from patients. The goal was to evaluate how well ketamine worked, compared with other drugs in calming agitated individuals: “The patients were given either ketamine or haloperidol for agitation by paramedics who responded to medical emergencies, and the goal was to see which drug worked faster,” said Dr. Carome. “Patients were only notified afterwards that they had received a sedative. Informed consent had been waived by IRB.”
In the first clinical trial conducted by HCMC, published in 2016, the researchers had hypothesized that 5 mg/kg of intramuscular ketamine would be superior to 10 mg of intramuscular haloperidol for severe prehospital agitation. Time to adequate sedation was the primary outcome measure. The study included 146 people; 64 received ketamine and 82 received haloperidol. They found that ketamine worked far more quickly than haloperidol (5 minutes vs. 17 minutes) but that the risk for complications was much higher. Complications occurred in 49% of patients receiving ketamine, compared with 5%.
“There was a 10-fold risk of adverse events,” said Dr. Carome. “And 39% of patients given ketamine had respiratory problems requiring intubation, compared to 4% who received haloperidol.”
A second study was launched in 2017, wherein ketamine was compared with midazolam in agitated patients. During the first 6-month period of the study, individuals would receive a ketamine-based protocol for prehospital agitation, and during the second 6 months, that would switch to midazolam. However, the study was halted in June 2018 after the local newspaper, the Star Tribune, reported that the city police had encouraged medical personnel to sedate agitated patients. This included individuals who had already been physically restrained.
The report stated that “in many cases, the individual being detained or arrested was not only handcuffed but strapped down on a stretcher in an ambulance before receiving ketamine,” and that it raised a “concerning question” over why these people were given the drug before they were transported to the hospital, “given the immediate effects on breathing and heart function that the drug induces.”
Along with halting the trial, HCMC asked for a review of cases involving its paramedics; an independent investigation led by former U.S. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates was initiated to assess whether the Minneapolis police had crossed a line and urged paramedics to use ketamine.
“The decision to use ketamine was based on the study’s timeline and not on clinical judgment,” said Dr. Carome.
The FDA acknowledged receipt of the complaint and inspected the IRB records and the clinical trial data. Preliminary reports received by Public Citizen confirmed their allegations. “There were not appropriate protections for vulnerable subjects,” he said. “In 2019, the FDA did further investigations, and those reports had similar findings.”
FDA letters
The FDA had sent warning letters to Dr. Cole and Dr. Klein, citing them for ignoring federal safety laws in experimental research on the public. In their investigations, the FDA cited “objectionable conditions” for the studies led by Dr. Cole and Dr. Klein, according to the letters. Both researchers seemingly ignored FDA regulations and used practices that subjected patients to “significantly increased risk,” and the hospital defended its research with “factually incorrect” statements.
In a letter to Dr. Cole, the FDA noted that he never filed INDs for the trials with the FDA, as required by law, and that he also failed to write appropriate protocols to ensure that children and pregnant women were not enrolled in the research. Individuals under the influence of intoxicants also were not excluded, though the use of ketamine is cautioned in this population.
“Administration of the investigational drugs to these subjects placed them at significantly increased risk of the adverse events associated with the investigational products and decreased the acceptability of those risks,” the FDA said in its letter. “Your failure to exclude, and the lack of any precautions for, subjects under the influence of various intoxicants significantly increased the risks and/or decreased the acceptability of the risks associated with the investigational drugs.”
However, Dr. Cole conducted both studies in the prehospital setting and failed to initiate any specific measures to protect study participants, according to the FDA.
Petition denied
Dr. Carome noted that the researchers had committed repetitive egregious regulatory violations over a 4-year period, which were documented by the FDA in their warning letters to Dr. Cole and Dr. Klein. “We felt that they were so egregious that we need to send a signal to the community that this sort of behavior will not be tolerated,” he said. “The FDA denied our petition, and we think that sends the wrong signal to the research community.”
In their response, the FDA noted that as with judicial enforcement, “the Agency makes decisions regarding whether to pursue administrative enforcement action, including disqualification proceedings, on a case-by-case basis, considering all relevant facts and circumstances.” They added that at this time, they would not be taking further action against Dr. Cole and Dr. Klein.
“However, we intend to continue to consider all the options available to the Agency as we determine whether to pursue additional compliance actions related to this matter,” the FDA concluded.
The FDA declined to comment further on their decision.
Dr. Cole also declined to comment, but Hennepin Healthcare told this news organization that the “decision by the FDA to deny the petition validates the changes we made to strengthen and improve the clinical research program across the institution since the closing of the studies in 2018. We look forward to continuing to work with the FDA to ensure full compliance with the standards in place to protect research subjects.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has declined to take further action against a group of investigators at Hennepin County Medical Center/Hennepin Healthcare (HCMC) who conducted controversial studies involving ketamine and other sedatives on agitated persons without their consent.
A citizen petition filed by Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, had asked the FDA to initiate clinical-investigator disqualification proceedings against Jon Cole, MD, and Lauren Klein, MD, along with other researchers who participated in the studies, for “repeatedly and deliberately initiating and conducting clinical investigations of investigational drug products” without having submitted or having in effect the investigational new drug applications (INDs) required by the FDA.
In certain situations, wherein the FDA alleges that a clinical investigator has violated applicable regulations, the agency may initiate clinical investigator disqualification proceedings. The names of the disqualified researchers are then added to a federal database.
The petition, which was filed in November 2021, also requested that the FDA initiate disqualification proceedings against the institutional review board (IRB) at HCMC for repeatedly failing to comply with federal regulations that adversely affected the rights and welfare of the individuals who were enrolled in the study without their consent.
Of note, Public Citizen stated that the FDA should have required the hospital to contact the more than 1,700 patients who “were unwittingly enrolled in unethical experiments” and inform them that their rights had been violated and their health potentially endangered by the research team.
Michael A. Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, told this news organization that it is uncommon for the FDA to disqualify researchers. “It should be more common than it is,” he said. “I think that FDA is just reluctant to take more action.”
The actions of the Hennepin investigators were “repetitive and appeared to be in deliberate violation of regulations,” he added. “The case for the FDA disqualifying the HCMC researchers is overwhelming. The FDA’s slap-on-the-wrist approach to such appalling regulatory and ethical violations risks emboldening other researchers to disregard the rights and welfare of human subjects.”
Carl Elliott, MD, PhD, a bioethicist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, agrees that the researcher from HCMC should be disqualified. “They didn’t just conduct risky, exploitative studies – they conducted them after the FDA had warned them not to proceed,” he said. “The message sent by this slap on the wrist is that investigators can do whatever they want to nonconsenting subjects, and the FDA will look the other way.”
Initial complaint
Public Citizen initially filed a complaint with the FDA in 2018, after learning that researchers affiliated with HCMC were conducting high-risk clinical trials involving ketamine to control agitation outside of the hospital setting. The complaint was cosigned by 64 doctors, bioethicists, and academic researchers and was also submitted to the Office for Human Research Protections.
The FDA typically allows investigational drugs to be used in emergency situation without obtaining informed consent if the therapies are known to carry a minimal risk. The IRB at HCMC had determined that this was the case with ketamine and approved the trials.
But according to Public Citizen’s complaint, prior research had suggested that ketamine could cause more complications and severe adverse events, compared with other sedatives.
The trials were conducted between 2014 and 2018, and in its letter, Public Citizen alleged that the investigators and the IRB had allowed these trials to proceed without obtaining informed consent from patients. The goal was to evaluate how well ketamine worked, compared with other drugs in calming agitated individuals: “The patients were given either ketamine or haloperidol for agitation by paramedics who responded to medical emergencies, and the goal was to see which drug worked faster,” said Dr. Carome. “Patients were only notified afterwards that they had received a sedative. Informed consent had been waived by IRB.”
In the first clinical trial conducted by HCMC, published in 2016, the researchers had hypothesized that 5 mg/kg of intramuscular ketamine would be superior to 10 mg of intramuscular haloperidol for severe prehospital agitation. Time to adequate sedation was the primary outcome measure. The study included 146 people; 64 received ketamine and 82 received haloperidol. They found that ketamine worked far more quickly than haloperidol (5 minutes vs. 17 minutes) but that the risk for complications was much higher. Complications occurred in 49% of patients receiving ketamine, compared with 5%.
“There was a 10-fold risk of adverse events,” said Dr. Carome. “And 39% of patients given ketamine had respiratory problems requiring intubation, compared to 4% who received haloperidol.”
A second study was launched in 2017, wherein ketamine was compared with midazolam in agitated patients. During the first 6-month period of the study, individuals would receive a ketamine-based protocol for prehospital agitation, and during the second 6 months, that would switch to midazolam. However, the study was halted in June 2018 after the local newspaper, the Star Tribune, reported that the city police had encouraged medical personnel to sedate agitated patients. This included individuals who had already been physically restrained.
The report stated that “in many cases, the individual being detained or arrested was not only handcuffed but strapped down on a stretcher in an ambulance before receiving ketamine,” and that it raised a “concerning question” over why these people were given the drug before they were transported to the hospital, “given the immediate effects on breathing and heart function that the drug induces.”
Along with halting the trial, HCMC asked for a review of cases involving its paramedics; an independent investigation led by former U.S. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates was initiated to assess whether the Minneapolis police had crossed a line and urged paramedics to use ketamine.
“The decision to use ketamine was based on the study’s timeline and not on clinical judgment,” said Dr. Carome.
The FDA acknowledged receipt of the complaint and inspected the IRB records and the clinical trial data. Preliminary reports received by Public Citizen confirmed their allegations. “There were not appropriate protections for vulnerable subjects,” he said. “In 2019, the FDA did further investigations, and those reports had similar findings.”
FDA letters
The FDA had sent warning letters to Dr. Cole and Dr. Klein, citing them for ignoring federal safety laws in experimental research on the public. In their investigations, the FDA cited “objectionable conditions” for the studies led by Dr. Cole and Dr. Klein, according to the letters. Both researchers seemingly ignored FDA regulations and used practices that subjected patients to “significantly increased risk,” and the hospital defended its research with “factually incorrect” statements.
In a letter to Dr. Cole, the FDA noted that he never filed INDs for the trials with the FDA, as required by law, and that he also failed to write appropriate protocols to ensure that children and pregnant women were not enrolled in the research. Individuals under the influence of intoxicants also were not excluded, though the use of ketamine is cautioned in this population.
“Administration of the investigational drugs to these subjects placed them at significantly increased risk of the adverse events associated with the investigational products and decreased the acceptability of those risks,” the FDA said in its letter. “Your failure to exclude, and the lack of any precautions for, subjects under the influence of various intoxicants significantly increased the risks and/or decreased the acceptability of the risks associated with the investigational drugs.”
However, Dr. Cole conducted both studies in the prehospital setting and failed to initiate any specific measures to protect study participants, according to the FDA.
Petition denied
Dr. Carome noted that the researchers had committed repetitive egregious regulatory violations over a 4-year period, which were documented by the FDA in their warning letters to Dr. Cole and Dr. Klein. “We felt that they were so egregious that we need to send a signal to the community that this sort of behavior will not be tolerated,” he said. “The FDA denied our petition, and we think that sends the wrong signal to the research community.”
In their response, the FDA noted that as with judicial enforcement, “the Agency makes decisions regarding whether to pursue administrative enforcement action, including disqualification proceedings, on a case-by-case basis, considering all relevant facts and circumstances.” They added that at this time, they would not be taking further action against Dr. Cole and Dr. Klein.
“However, we intend to continue to consider all the options available to the Agency as we determine whether to pursue additional compliance actions related to this matter,” the FDA concluded.
The FDA declined to comment further on their decision.
Dr. Cole also declined to comment, but Hennepin Healthcare told this news organization that the “decision by the FDA to deny the petition validates the changes we made to strengthen and improve the clinical research program across the institution since the closing of the studies in 2018. We look forward to continuing to work with the FDA to ensure full compliance with the standards in place to protect research subjects.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.