User login
Biden’s FDA chief nominee narrowly wins Senate confirmation
On Feb. 15, Robert Califf, MD, narrowly won Senate confirmation to once again serve as the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, overcoming protest votes from lawmakers about abortion and opioid issues.
The Senate voted 50-46 in favor of Dr. Califf’s nomination. A cardiologist long affiliated with Duke University and a noted expert on clinical trials, Dr. Califf also led the FDA from February 2016 through January 2017.
In 2016, the Senate confirmed him as FDA chief in an 89-4 vote. At that time, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, and a few other senators said they were concerned that Dr. Califf’s links to the drug industry would hamper his ability to regulate drugmakers, particularly in terms of rules on prescription painkillers.
Sen. Manchin also objected to Dr. Califf’s second nomination as FDA commissioner, as did several fellow Democrats, including Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts. In a statement issued after the Feb. 15 vote, Sen. Markey said he has “consistently raised concerns about the FDA’s egregious mishandling of opioid approvals and its role in enabling the current opioid epidemic.”
“To date, the FDA still has not implemented many of the reforms necessary to ensure that it is fulfilling its role as our nation’s top pharmaceutical cop on the beat,” Sen. Markey said. “I have not received any real commitment from Dr. Califf to truly reform the FDA or to learn from the failures that fueled this public health crisis.”
This time, Dr. Califf lost support among Republican senators due to objections raised by groups seeking to end women’s access to abortion. Susan B. Anthony List and National Right to Life asked senators in a January letter to oppose Dr. Califf’s nomination, citing their objections to how the FDA handled reporting of adverse events from abortions by medication during Dr. Califf’s Tenure.
But some Republicans supported Califf in the Tuesday vote. Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted in his favor.
On Feb. 14, Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA, chairwoman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, urged her colleagues to vote for Dr. Califf to give the FDA strong leadership to tackle urgent health needs such as the opioid crisis, youth tobacco use, antimicrobial resistance, and inequities in health care.
“At this critical moment, we need a trusted hand to lead the FDA,” she said in a floor speech. Dr. Califf’s previous service at the FDA and his years spent as a research scientist “give him the experience to take on this challenge.”
Separately, three former FDA commissioners on Feb. 15 published an opinion article that appeared in The Hill. Republican presidents nominated two of these former FDA chiefs: Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Mark McClellan, MD. The third, Margaret Hamburg, MD, was nominated by President Barack Obama, as was Dr. Califf for his first time as FDA chief.
There’s an urgent need for a confirmed leader at the FDA as the United States seeks to move beyond the pandemic, the former FDA chiefs wrote. The work ahead includes continued efforts with vaccines as well as efforts to bolster medical supply chains, they said.
Dr. Califf “knows how to advance the safe development and use of medical products and to bring a sound, science-based foundation to the FDA’s regulatory actions. Because of this, he has earned the confidence of FDA’s professional career staff, as well as a broad base of patient groups, academic experts, medical professionals, and public health organizations,” Dr. Gottlieb, Dr. Hamburg, and Dr. McClellan wrote.
The article also was signed by former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Andy Slavitt, who served in the Obama administration.
Support of medical community
The American Heart Association issued a statement on Feb.15, congratulating Dr. Califf on his second confirmation after the Senate vote.
“With a distinguished career in public service and a long-time volunteer leader at the American Heart Association, Dr. Califf has honed his ability to communicate and build trust with diverse constituencies,” CEO Nancy Brown said in the statement. “He will use his experience as a cardiologist to safeguard the health and well-being of people throughout the country, and his background in research to prioritize science and evidence-based policymaking.”
Dr. Califf was also backed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians when he was nominated for the role last year by President Joe Biden.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On Feb. 15, Robert Califf, MD, narrowly won Senate confirmation to once again serve as the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, overcoming protest votes from lawmakers about abortion and opioid issues.
The Senate voted 50-46 in favor of Dr. Califf’s nomination. A cardiologist long affiliated with Duke University and a noted expert on clinical trials, Dr. Califf also led the FDA from February 2016 through January 2017.
In 2016, the Senate confirmed him as FDA chief in an 89-4 vote. At that time, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, and a few other senators said they were concerned that Dr. Califf’s links to the drug industry would hamper his ability to regulate drugmakers, particularly in terms of rules on prescription painkillers.
Sen. Manchin also objected to Dr. Califf’s second nomination as FDA commissioner, as did several fellow Democrats, including Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts. In a statement issued after the Feb. 15 vote, Sen. Markey said he has “consistently raised concerns about the FDA’s egregious mishandling of opioid approvals and its role in enabling the current opioid epidemic.”
“To date, the FDA still has not implemented many of the reforms necessary to ensure that it is fulfilling its role as our nation’s top pharmaceutical cop on the beat,” Sen. Markey said. “I have not received any real commitment from Dr. Califf to truly reform the FDA or to learn from the failures that fueled this public health crisis.”
This time, Dr. Califf lost support among Republican senators due to objections raised by groups seeking to end women’s access to abortion. Susan B. Anthony List and National Right to Life asked senators in a January letter to oppose Dr. Califf’s nomination, citing their objections to how the FDA handled reporting of adverse events from abortions by medication during Dr. Califf’s Tenure.
But some Republicans supported Califf in the Tuesday vote. Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted in his favor.
On Feb. 14, Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA, chairwoman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, urged her colleagues to vote for Dr. Califf to give the FDA strong leadership to tackle urgent health needs such as the opioid crisis, youth tobacco use, antimicrobial resistance, and inequities in health care.
“At this critical moment, we need a trusted hand to lead the FDA,” she said in a floor speech. Dr. Califf’s previous service at the FDA and his years spent as a research scientist “give him the experience to take on this challenge.”
Separately, three former FDA commissioners on Feb. 15 published an opinion article that appeared in The Hill. Republican presidents nominated two of these former FDA chiefs: Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Mark McClellan, MD. The third, Margaret Hamburg, MD, was nominated by President Barack Obama, as was Dr. Califf for his first time as FDA chief.
There’s an urgent need for a confirmed leader at the FDA as the United States seeks to move beyond the pandemic, the former FDA chiefs wrote. The work ahead includes continued efforts with vaccines as well as efforts to bolster medical supply chains, they said.
Dr. Califf “knows how to advance the safe development and use of medical products and to bring a sound, science-based foundation to the FDA’s regulatory actions. Because of this, he has earned the confidence of FDA’s professional career staff, as well as a broad base of patient groups, academic experts, medical professionals, and public health organizations,” Dr. Gottlieb, Dr. Hamburg, and Dr. McClellan wrote.
The article also was signed by former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Andy Slavitt, who served in the Obama administration.
Support of medical community
The American Heart Association issued a statement on Feb.15, congratulating Dr. Califf on his second confirmation after the Senate vote.
“With a distinguished career in public service and a long-time volunteer leader at the American Heart Association, Dr. Califf has honed his ability to communicate and build trust with diverse constituencies,” CEO Nancy Brown said in the statement. “He will use his experience as a cardiologist to safeguard the health and well-being of people throughout the country, and his background in research to prioritize science and evidence-based policymaking.”
Dr. Califf was also backed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians when he was nominated for the role last year by President Joe Biden.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On Feb. 15, Robert Califf, MD, narrowly won Senate confirmation to once again serve as the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, overcoming protest votes from lawmakers about abortion and opioid issues.
The Senate voted 50-46 in favor of Dr. Califf’s nomination. A cardiologist long affiliated with Duke University and a noted expert on clinical trials, Dr. Califf also led the FDA from February 2016 through January 2017.
In 2016, the Senate confirmed him as FDA chief in an 89-4 vote. At that time, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, and a few other senators said they were concerned that Dr. Califf’s links to the drug industry would hamper his ability to regulate drugmakers, particularly in terms of rules on prescription painkillers.
Sen. Manchin also objected to Dr. Califf’s second nomination as FDA commissioner, as did several fellow Democrats, including Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts. In a statement issued after the Feb. 15 vote, Sen. Markey said he has “consistently raised concerns about the FDA’s egregious mishandling of opioid approvals and its role in enabling the current opioid epidemic.”
“To date, the FDA still has not implemented many of the reforms necessary to ensure that it is fulfilling its role as our nation’s top pharmaceutical cop on the beat,” Sen. Markey said. “I have not received any real commitment from Dr. Califf to truly reform the FDA or to learn from the failures that fueled this public health crisis.”
This time, Dr. Califf lost support among Republican senators due to objections raised by groups seeking to end women’s access to abortion. Susan B. Anthony List and National Right to Life asked senators in a January letter to oppose Dr. Califf’s nomination, citing their objections to how the FDA handled reporting of adverse events from abortions by medication during Dr. Califf’s Tenure.
But some Republicans supported Califf in the Tuesday vote. Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted in his favor.
On Feb. 14, Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA, chairwoman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, urged her colleagues to vote for Dr. Califf to give the FDA strong leadership to tackle urgent health needs such as the opioid crisis, youth tobacco use, antimicrobial resistance, and inequities in health care.
“At this critical moment, we need a trusted hand to lead the FDA,” she said in a floor speech. Dr. Califf’s previous service at the FDA and his years spent as a research scientist “give him the experience to take on this challenge.”
Separately, three former FDA commissioners on Feb. 15 published an opinion article that appeared in The Hill. Republican presidents nominated two of these former FDA chiefs: Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Mark McClellan, MD. The third, Margaret Hamburg, MD, was nominated by President Barack Obama, as was Dr. Califf for his first time as FDA chief.
There’s an urgent need for a confirmed leader at the FDA as the United States seeks to move beyond the pandemic, the former FDA chiefs wrote. The work ahead includes continued efforts with vaccines as well as efforts to bolster medical supply chains, they said.
Dr. Califf “knows how to advance the safe development and use of medical products and to bring a sound, science-based foundation to the FDA’s regulatory actions. Because of this, he has earned the confidence of FDA’s professional career staff, as well as a broad base of patient groups, academic experts, medical professionals, and public health organizations,” Dr. Gottlieb, Dr. Hamburg, and Dr. McClellan wrote.
The article also was signed by former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Andy Slavitt, who served in the Obama administration.
Support of medical community
The American Heart Association issued a statement on Feb.15, congratulating Dr. Califf on his second confirmation after the Senate vote.
“With a distinguished career in public service and a long-time volunteer leader at the American Heart Association, Dr. Califf has honed his ability to communicate and build trust with diverse constituencies,” CEO Nancy Brown said in the statement. “He will use his experience as a cardiologist to safeguard the health and well-being of people throughout the country, and his background in research to prioritize science and evidence-based policymaking.”
Dr. Califf was also backed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians when he was nominated for the role last year by President Joe Biden.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CDC preparing to update mask guidance
, CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, said on Feb. 16.
“As we consider future metrics, which will be updated soon, we recognize the importance of not just cases … but critically, medically severe disease that leads to hospitalizations,” Dr. Walensky said at a White House news briefing. “We must consider hospital capacity as an additional important barometer.”
She later added, “We are looking at an overview of much of our guidance, and masking in all settings will be a part of that.”
Coronavirus cases continue to drop nationwide. This week’s 7-day daily average of cases is 147,000, a decrease of 40%. Hospitalizations have dropped 28% to 9,500, and daily deaths are 2,200, a decrease of 9%.
“Omicron cases are declining, and we are all cautiously optimistic about the trajectory we’re on,” Dr. Walensky said. “Things are moving in the right direction, but we want to remain vigilant to do all we can so this trajectory continues.”
Dr. Walensky said public masking remains especially important if someone is symptomatic or not feeling well, or if there has been a COVID-19 exposure. Those who are within 10 days of being diagnosed with the virus should also remain masked in public.
“We all share the same goal: to get to a point where COVID-19 is no longer disrupting our daily lives. A time when it won’t be a constant crisis,” Dr. Walensky said. “Moving from this pandemic will be a process led by science and epidemiological trends, and one that relies on the powerful tools we already have.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, said on Feb. 16.
“As we consider future metrics, which will be updated soon, we recognize the importance of not just cases … but critically, medically severe disease that leads to hospitalizations,” Dr. Walensky said at a White House news briefing. “We must consider hospital capacity as an additional important barometer.”
She later added, “We are looking at an overview of much of our guidance, and masking in all settings will be a part of that.”
Coronavirus cases continue to drop nationwide. This week’s 7-day daily average of cases is 147,000, a decrease of 40%. Hospitalizations have dropped 28% to 9,500, and daily deaths are 2,200, a decrease of 9%.
“Omicron cases are declining, and we are all cautiously optimistic about the trajectory we’re on,” Dr. Walensky said. “Things are moving in the right direction, but we want to remain vigilant to do all we can so this trajectory continues.”
Dr. Walensky said public masking remains especially important if someone is symptomatic or not feeling well, or if there has been a COVID-19 exposure. Those who are within 10 days of being diagnosed with the virus should also remain masked in public.
“We all share the same goal: to get to a point where COVID-19 is no longer disrupting our daily lives. A time when it won’t be a constant crisis,” Dr. Walensky said. “Moving from this pandemic will be a process led by science and epidemiological trends, and one that relies on the powerful tools we already have.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, said on Feb. 16.
“As we consider future metrics, which will be updated soon, we recognize the importance of not just cases … but critically, medically severe disease that leads to hospitalizations,” Dr. Walensky said at a White House news briefing. “We must consider hospital capacity as an additional important barometer.”
She later added, “We are looking at an overview of much of our guidance, and masking in all settings will be a part of that.”
Coronavirus cases continue to drop nationwide. This week’s 7-day daily average of cases is 147,000, a decrease of 40%. Hospitalizations have dropped 28% to 9,500, and daily deaths are 2,200, a decrease of 9%.
“Omicron cases are declining, and we are all cautiously optimistic about the trajectory we’re on,” Dr. Walensky said. “Things are moving in the right direction, but we want to remain vigilant to do all we can so this trajectory continues.”
Dr. Walensky said public masking remains especially important if someone is symptomatic or not feeling well, or if there has been a COVID-19 exposure. Those who are within 10 days of being diagnosed with the virus should also remain masked in public.
“We all share the same goal: to get to a point where COVID-19 is no longer disrupting our daily lives. A time when it won’t be a constant crisis,” Dr. Walensky said. “Moving from this pandemic will be a process led by science and epidemiological trends, and one that relies on the powerful tools we already have.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FDA okays 6-month implanted Eversense CGM for diabetes
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a new second-generation version of the implanted continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system Eversense (Senseonics) that lasts for 6 months.
The Eversense E3 CGM system doubles the wear time from 3 months with the previous Eversense device approved in the United States in 2018. As before, the new system is approved for adults with diabetes aged 18 years and older.
This means that it will be the longest lasting CGM system available in the United States, with essentially two sensor insertion and removal procedures per year, the company said.
Data from the pivotal PROMISE trial of the 6-month version were presented at the American Diabetes Association Scientific Sessions in 2021, as reported by this news organization.
An older 6-month wear time version (Eversense XL) has been available in Europe since 2017. The new second-generation 6-month system is currently under regulatory review there.
The PROMISE trial included 181 participants with diabetes, about two-thirds with type 1 and one-third with type 2 diabetes, at eight clinical research sites.
“We repeatedly hear from our patients with diabetes that what they desire is a long-lasting sensor that is also highly accurate ... The next generation Eversense E3 System delivers on both,” said PROMISE study principal investigator Satish Garg, MD, professor of medicine and director of the adult diabetes program at the Barbara Davis Center, University of Colorado, Aurora, in a company press release.
The Eversense E3 consists of a fluorescence-based sensor, a transmitter, and a smartphone app that displays glucose values, trends, and alerts. The sensor is inserted subcutaneously into the upper arm by a certified health care professional in a brief office procedure. The transmitter is placed on the skin on top of the sensor. Glucose data are sent to the app automatically every 5 minutes.
The system includes an on-body vibratory alert as well as alerts on the app for high and low blood glucose values. Eversense readings may be used for treatment decisions, but users still must perform fingerstick glucose checks for calibration.
The regulatory review for the Eversense E3 was delayed for a year due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It will be distributed in the United States through a partnership with Ascensia Diabetes Care beginning in the second quarter of 2022, according to a Senseonics statement.
In addition, “the company expects the majority of its expenses for 2022 to be for research and development for ongoing feasibility and pivotal clinical trials for additional products in its product pipeline, including the start of its 365-day pivotal trial.”
Health care providers who want to offer the Eversense CGM System to their patients can sign up here or call 844-SENSE4U (844-736-7348).
Patients interested in getting started on Eversense can sign up here and will be among the first to know when Eversense E3 is commercially available.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a new second-generation version of the implanted continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system Eversense (Senseonics) that lasts for 6 months.
The Eversense E3 CGM system doubles the wear time from 3 months with the previous Eversense device approved in the United States in 2018. As before, the new system is approved for adults with diabetes aged 18 years and older.
This means that it will be the longest lasting CGM system available in the United States, with essentially two sensor insertion and removal procedures per year, the company said.
Data from the pivotal PROMISE trial of the 6-month version were presented at the American Diabetes Association Scientific Sessions in 2021, as reported by this news organization.
An older 6-month wear time version (Eversense XL) has been available in Europe since 2017. The new second-generation 6-month system is currently under regulatory review there.
The PROMISE trial included 181 participants with diabetes, about two-thirds with type 1 and one-third with type 2 diabetes, at eight clinical research sites.
“We repeatedly hear from our patients with diabetes that what they desire is a long-lasting sensor that is also highly accurate ... The next generation Eversense E3 System delivers on both,” said PROMISE study principal investigator Satish Garg, MD, professor of medicine and director of the adult diabetes program at the Barbara Davis Center, University of Colorado, Aurora, in a company press release.
The Eversense E3 consists of a fluorescence-based sensor, a transmitter, and a smartphone app that displays glucose values, trends, and alerts. The sensor is inserted subcutaneously into the upper arm by a certified health care professional in a brief office procedure. The transmitter is placed on the skin on top of the sensor. Glucose data are sent to the app automatically every 5 minutes.
The system includes an on-body vibratory alert as well as alerts on the app for high and low blood glucose values. Eversense readings may be used for treatment decisions, but users still must perform fingerstick glucose checks for calibration.
The regulatory review for the Eversense E3 was delayed for a year due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It will be distributed in the United States through a partnership with Ascensia Diabetes Care beginning in the second quarter of 2022, according to a Senseonics statement.
In addition, “the company expects the majority of its expenses for 2022 to be for research and development for ongoing feasibility and pivotal clinical trials for additional products in its product pipeline, including the start of its 365-day pivotal trial.”
Health care providers who want to offer the Eversense CGM System to their patients can sign up here or call 844-SENSE4U (844-736-7348).
Patients interested in getting started on Eversense can sign up here and will be among the first to know when Eversense E3 is commercially available.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a new second-generation version of the implanted continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system Eversense (Senseonics) that lasts for 6 months.
The Eversense E3 CGM system doubles the wear time from 3 months with the previous Eversense device approved in the United States in 2018. As before, the new system is approved for adults with diabetes aged 18 years and older.
This means that it will be the longest lasting CGM system available in the United States, with essentially two sensor insertion and removal procedures per year, the company said.
Data from the pivotal PROMISE trial of the 6-month version were presented at the American Diabetes Association Scientific Sessions in 2021, as reported by this news organization.
An older 6-month wear time version (Eversense XL) has been available in Europe since 2017. The new second-generation 6-month system is currently under regulatory review there.
The PROMISE trial included 181 participants with diabetes, about two-thirds with type 1 and one-third with type 2 diabetes, at eight clinical research sites.
“We repeatedly hear from our patients with diabetes that what they desire is a long-lasting sensor that is also highly accurate ... The next generation Eversense E3 System delivers on both,” said PROMISE study principal investigator Satish Garg, MD, professor of medicine and director of the adult diabetes program at the Barbara Davis Center, University of Colorado, Aurora, in a company press release.
The Eversense E3 consists of a fluorescence-based sensor, a transmitter, and a smartphone app that displays glucose values, trends, and alerts. The sensor is inserted subcutaneously into the upper arm by a certified health care professional in a brief office procedure. The transmitter is placed on the skin on top of the sensor. Glucose data are sent to the app automatically every 5 minutes.
The system includes an on-body vibratory alert as well as alerts on the app for high and low blood glucose values. Eversense readings may be used for treatment decisions, but users still must perform fingerstick glucose checks for calibration.
The regulatory review for the Eversense E3 was delayed for a year due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It will be distributed in the United States through a partnership with Ascensia Diabetes Care beginning in the second quarter of 2022, according to a Senseonics statement.
In addition, “the company expects the majority of its expenses for 2022 to be for research and development for ongoing feasibility and pivotal clinical trials for additional products in its product pipeline, including the start of its 365-day pivotal trial.”
Health care providers who want to offer the Eversense CGM System to their patients can sign up here or call 844-SENSE4U (844-736-7348).
Patients interested in getting started on Eversense can sign up here and will be among the first to know when Eversense E3 is commercially available.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA delays action on Pfizer vaccine for kids under 5
for younger children until data on the effects of three doses is available.
Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the plan for a meeting the week of Feb. 14 of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was to “understand if two doses would provide sufficient protection to move forward.”
Pfizer has asked the FDA to authorize the use of its mRNA vaccine for children under the age of 5. But, Dr. Marks said, “in looking through the data we realized now … that at this time it makes sense for us to wait until we have the data of the evaluation of a third dose before taking action.”
“If we feel something doesn’t meet (our) standard, we can’t go forward,” he said. “Rather than an issue of having anyone question the process, I hope this reassures people that the process has a standard.”
Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, predicted in January that the Pfizer vaccine for younger kids could be available this month. But, he also predicted three doses would be required.
Pfizer announced in mid-December that it planned to submit data to the FDA during the first half of 2022 if the three-dose study was successful. At that time, Pfizer said it didn’t identify any safety concerns with the 3-microgram dose for children ages 6 months to 4 years, which is much lower than the 30-microgram dose given to adults.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
for younger children until data on the effects of three doses is available.
Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the plan for a meeting the week of Feb. 14 of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was to “understand if two doses would provide sufficient protection to move forward.”
Pfizer has asked the FDA to authorize the use of its mRNA vaccine for children under the age of 5. But, Dr. Marks said, “in looking through the data we realized now … that at this time it makes sense for us to wait until we have the data of the evaluation of a third dose before taking action.”
“If we feel something doesn’t meet (our) standard, we can’t go forward,” he said. “Rather than an issue of having anyone question the process, I hope this reassures people that the process has a standard.”
Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, predicted in January that the Pfizer vaccine for younger kids could be available this month. But, he also predicted three doses would be required.
Pfizer announced in mid-December that it planned to submit data to the FDA during the first half of 2022 if the three-dose study was successful. At that time, Pfizer said it didn’t identify any safety concerns with the 3-microgram dose for children ages 6 months to 4 years, which is much lower than the 30-microgram dose given to adults.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
for younger children until data on the effects of three doses is available.
Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the plan for a meeting the week of Feb. 14 of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was to “understand if two doses would provide sufficient protection to move forward.”
Pfizer has asked the FDA to authorize the use of its mRNA vaccine for children under the age of 5. But, Dr. Marks said, “in looking through the data we realized now … that at this time it makes sense for us to wait until we have the data of the evaluation of a third dose before taking action.”
“If we feel something doesn’t meet (our) standard, we can’t go forward,” he said. “Rather than an issue of having anyone question the process, I hope this reassures people that the process has a standard.”
Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, predicted in January that the Pfizer vaccine for younger kids could be available this month. But, he also predicted three doses would be required.
Pfizer announced in mid-December that it planned to submit data to the FDA during the first half of 2022 if the three-dose study was successful. At that time, Pfizer said it didn’t identify any safety concerns with the 3-microgram dose for children ages 6 months to 4 years, which is much lower than the 30-microgram dose given to adults.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
President Biden’s ‘Cancer Moonshot’ to be relaunched
The “Cancer Moonshot” is about to be relaunched.
In a White House briefing, President Joe Biden announced that he is “reigniting” the initiative he spearheaded when he was vice president during the Obama administration.
During the livestreamed event, the president discussed his plans to bring a “fierce sense of urgency” to the fight against cancer and better support patients with cancer and their families.
He emphasized that cancer is one of the truly bipartisan issues. There is strong support from both “sides of the aisle,” he said, and he sees it as an issue that can bring the country together.
“We can do this. I promise you, we can do this. For all those we lost, for all those we miss. We can end cancer as we know it,” he said. “This is a presidential White House priority.”
The aim is to reduce the death rate from cancer by at least 50% over the next 25 years.
There is also a proposal to create the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which would focus on driving cutting-edge innovation in health research.
Part of the plan is to assemble a “cancer cabinet” that includes 18 federal departments, agencies, and offices, including leaders from the departments of Health & Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, and Agriculture.
At present, there are few details about the new program or how it will be funded.
Presumably more will be revealed at the Cancer Moonshot Summit being planned, as well as on a planned new website where people can track its progress.
President priority
Cancer Moonshot began back in 2016, when during his last State of the Union Address, former President Barack Obama announced the ambitious initiative. A few days later, Obama asked Congress for $1 billion to send cancer to the moon, and he put Biden, then vice president, in charge of “mission control” in the remaining months of the administration.
The new initiative will be headed by Danielle Carnival, PhD, who serves in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and has been appointed as White House Cancer Moonshot coordinator.
At the briefing, Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris spoke about losing family members to cancer. The president spoke about his eldest son, Beau, who died from brain cancer when he was 46 years old, while Ms. Harris spoke about her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a breast cancer researcher who died of colon cancer in 2009.
Accolades but a bit of caution
The president’s speech was applauded by many cancer groups, both professional organizations and patient advocacy groups.
Karen E. Knudsen, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, commended Mr. Biden for reigniting Cancer Moonshot.
“In 2022 alone, there will be an estimated 1.9 million people diagnosed with cancer and more than 600,000 people in the U.S. will die. Marshaling the resources of the federal government will be critical in our ability to reduce death and suffering from this disease,” she said.
The American Society for Radiation Oncology issued a press release, saying: “On behalf of radiation oncologists who treat people with cancer every day, we support the Biden-Harris administration’s move to drastically reduce the number of cancer deaths in the United States and improve the lives of people diagnosed with this disease.
“We believe the administration’s commitment to expand cancer prevention efforts and to increase equitable access to screenings and treatments will help mitigate some of the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the society added.
At the American Association for Cancer Research, Chief Executive Officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said she was thrilled to hear the announcement after the devastating interruptions in cancer research and patient care over the past 2 years.
“The reignited Cancer Moonshot will provide an important framework to help improve cancer prevention strategies, increase cancer screenings and early detection, reduce cancer disparities, and propel new lifesaving cures for patients with cancer,” she said.
However, increased funding from Congress will be needed for these goals to be achieved, she emphasized.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The “Cancer Moonshot” is about to be relaunched.
In a White House briefing, President Joe Biden announced that he is “reigniting” the initiative he spearheaded when he was vice president during the Obama administration.
During the livestreamed event, the president discussed his plans to bring a “fierce sense of urgency” to the fight against cancer and better support patients with cancer and their families.
He emphasized that cancer is one of the truly bipartisan issues. There is strong support from both “sides of the aisle,” he said, and he sees it as an issue that can bring the country together.
“We can do this. I promise you, we can do this. For all those we lost, for all those we miss. We can end cancer as we know it,” he said. “This is a presidential White House priority.”
The aim is to reduce the death rate from cancer by at least 50% over the next 25 years.
There is also a proposal to create the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which would focus on driving cutting-edge innovation in health research.
Part of the plan is to assemble a “cancer cabinet” that includes 18 federal departments, agencies, and offices, including leaders from the departments of Health & Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, and Agriculture.
At present, there are few details about the new program or how it will be funded.
Presumably more will be revealed at the Cancer Moonshot Summit being planned, as well as on a planned new website where people can track its progress.
President priority
Cancer Moonshot began back in 2016, when during his last State of the Union Address, former President Barack Obama announced the ambitious initiative. A few days later, Obama asked Congress for $1 billion to send cancer to the moon, and he put Biden, then vice president, in charge of “mission control” in the remaining months of the administration.
The new initiative will be headed by Danielle Carnival, PhD, who serves in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and has been appointed as White House Cancer Moonshot coordinator.
At the briefing, Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris spoke about losing family members to cancer. The president spoke about his eldest son, Beau, who died from brain cancer when he was 46 years old, while Ms. Harris spoke about her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a breast cancer researcher who died of colon cancer in 2009.
Accolades but a bit of caution
The president’s speech was applauded by many cancer groups, both professional organizations and patient advocacy groups.
Karen E. Knudsen, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, commended Mr. Biden for reigniting Cancer Moonshot.
“In 2022 alone, there will be an estimated 1.9 million people diagnosed with cancer and more than 600,000 people in the U.S. will die. Marshaling the resources of the federal government will be critical in our ability to reduce death and suffering from this disease,” she said.
The American Society for Radiation Oncology issued a press release, saying: “On behalf of radiation oncologists who treat people with cancer every day, we support the Biden-Harris administration’s move to drastically reduce the number of cancer deaths in the United States and improve the lives of people diagnosed with this disease.
“We believe the administration’s commitment to expand cancer prevention efforts and to increase equitable access to screenings and treatments will help mitigate some of the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the society added.
At the American Association for Cancer Research, Chief Executive Officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said she was thrilled to hear the announcement after the devastating interruptions in cancer research and patient care over the past 2 years.
“The reignited Cancer Moonshot will provide an important framework to help improve cancer prevention strategies, increase cancer screenings and early detection, reduce cancer disparities, and propel new lifesaving cures for patients with cancer,” she said.
However, increased funding from Congress will be needed for these goals to be achieved, she emphasized.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The “Cancer Moonshot” is about to be relaunched.
In a White House briefing, President Joe Biden announced that he is “reigniting” the initiative he spearheaded when he was vice president during the Obama administration.
During the livestreamed event, the president discussed his plans to bring a “fierce sense of urgency” to the fight against cancer and better support patients with cancer and their families.
He emphasized that cancer is one of the truly bipartisan issues. There is strong support from both “sides of the aisle,” he said, and he sees it as an issue that can bring the country together.
“We can do this. I promise you, we can do this. For all those we lost, for all those we miss. We can end cancer as we know it,” he said. “This is a presidential White House priority.”
The aim is to reduce the death rate from cancer by at least 50% over the next 25 years.
There is also a proposal to create the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which would focus on driving cutting-edge innovation in health research.
Part of the plan is to assemble a “cancer cabinet” that includes 18 federal departments, agencies, and offices, including leaders from the departments of Health & Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, and Agriculture.
At present, there are few details about the new program or how it will be funded.
Presumably more will be revealed at the Cancer Moonshot Summit being planned, as well as on a planned new website where people can track its progress.
President priority
Cancer Moonshot began back in 2016, when during his last State of the Union Address, former President Barack Obama announced the ambitious initiative. A few days later, Obama asked Congress for $1 billion to send cancer to the moon, and he put Biden, then vice president, in charge of “mission control” in the remaining months of the administration.
The new initiative will be headed by Danielle Carnival, PhD, who serves in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and has been appointed as White House Cancer Moonshot coordinator.
At the briefing, Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris spoke about losing family members to cancer. The president spoke about his eldest son, Beau, who died from brain cancer when he was 46 years old, while Ms. Harris spoke about her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a breast cancer researcher who died of colon cancer in 2009.
Accolades but a bit of caution
The president’s speech was applauded by many cancer groups, both professional organizations and patient advocacy groups.
Karen E. Knudsen, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, commended Mr. Biden for reigniting Cancer Moonshot.
“In 2022 alone, there will be an estimated 1.9 million people diagnosed with cancer and more than 600,000 people in the U.S. will die. Marshaling the resources of the federal government will be critical in our ability to reduce death and suffering from this disease,” she said.
The American Society for Radiation Oncology issued a press release, saying: “On behalf of radiation oncologists who treat people with cancer every day, we support the Biden-Harris administration’s move to drastically reduce the number of cancer deaths in the United States and improve the lives of people diagnosed with this disease.
“We believe the administration’s commitment to expand cancer prevention efforts and to increase equitable access to screenings and treatments will help mitigate some of the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the society added.
At the American Association for Cancer Research, Chief Executive Officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said she was thrilled to hear the announcement after the devastating interruptions in cancer research and patient care over the past 2 years.
“The reignited Cancer Moonshot will provide an important framework to help improve cancer prevention strategies, increase cancer screenings and early detection, reduce cancer disparities, and propel new lifesaving cures for patients with cancer,” she said.
However, increased funding from Congress will be needed for these goals to be achieved, she emphasized.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Strangulation deaths spur FDA alert on pediatric enteral feeding kits
Enteral feeding kits pose a risk for strangulation in children, according to a safety alert from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The safety alert was prompted by two deaths linked to the medical devices.
The alert cites the deaths in 2021 of two toddlers who were strangled by tubes in the feeding sets that had become wrapped around their necks.
Clinicians should discuss the risk of strangulation with colleagues and caregivers and encourage them to take steps to keep tubing away from children as much as possible, the agency advised in a Feb. 8, 2022, safety communication.
“When caring for pediatric patients who receive enteral feeding and as part of an individual risk assessment, be aware of the risk of strangulation from the feeding set tubing and follow protocols to monitor medical line safety,” the FDA warned.
Parents should be aware of the risk and avoid leaving tubing where infants or children can become entangled, to the extent that is possible. They also should tell their child’s health care provider if their child has ever been tangled in the tubing and discuss precautions to ensure that tubing does not get wrapped around the neck, as well as any related concerns.
Enteral feeding sets provide nutrition to people who are unable meet their nutritional needs by eating or swallowing. Tubing delivers nutrition formulas, using gravity or a pump, directly to the stomach or small intestine through the nose, mouth, or an opening in the abdomen.
The two reported deaths involved children under the age of 2 years who were found with tubing wrapped around their necks after brief periods when their caregivers were not directly monitoring them. One report described the unsupervised period as about 10 minutes.
“While the FDA believes that death or serious injury from strangulation with enteral feeding set tubing in children is rare, health care providers and caregivers should be aware that these events can and do occur,” according to the alert. “It is also possible that some cases have not been reported to the FDA.”
Parents and health care providers can report injuries caused by these devices to the FDA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Enteral feeding kits pose a risk for strangulation in children, according to a safety alert from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The safety alert was prompted by two deaths linked to the medical devices.
The alert cites the deaths in 2021 of two toddlers who were strangled by tubes in the feeding sets that had become wrapped around their necks.
Clinicians should discuss the risk of strangulation with colleagues and caregivers and encourage them to take steps to keep tubing away from children as much as possible, the agency advised in a Feb. 8, 2022, safety communication.
“When caring for pediatric patients who receive enteral feeding and as part of an individual risk assessment, be aware of the risk of strangulation from the feeding set tubing and follow protocols to monitor medical line safety,” the FDA warned.
Parents should be aware of the risk and avoid leaving tubing where infants or children can become entangled, to the extent that is possible. They also should tell their child’s health care provider if their child has ever been tangled in the tubing and discuss precautions to ensure that tubing does not get wrapped around the neck, as well as any related concerns.
Enteral feeding sets provide nutrition to people who are unable meet their nutritional needs by eating or swallowing. Tubing delivers nutrition formulas, using gravity or a pump, directly to the stomach or small intestine through the nose, mouth, or an opening in the abdomen.
The two reported deaths involved children under the age of 2 years who were found with tubing wrapped around their necks after brief periods when their caregivers were not directly monitoring them. One report described the unsupervised period as about 10 minutes.
“While the FDA believes that death or serious injury from strangulation with enteral feeding set tubing in children is rare, health care providers and caregivers should be aware that these events can and do occur,” according to the alert. “It is also possible that some cases have not been reported to the FDA.”
Parents and health care providers can report injuries caused by these devices to the FDA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Enteral feeding kits pose a risk for strangulation in children, according to a safety alert from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The safety alert was prompted by two deaths linked to the medical devices.
The alert cites the deaths in 2021 of two toddlers who were strangled by tubes in the feeding sets that had become wrapped around their necks.
Clinicians should discuss the risk of strangulation with colleagues and caregivers and encourage them to take steps to keep tubing away from children as much as possible, the agency advised in a Feb. 8, 2022, safety communication.
“When caring for pediatric patients who receive enteral feeding and as part of an individual risk assessment, be aware of the risk of strangulation from the feeding set tubing and follow protocols to monitor medical line safety,” the FDA warned.
Parents should be aware of the risk and avoid leaving tubing where infants or children can become entangled, to the extent that is possible. They also should tell their child’s health care provider if their child has ever been tangled in the tubing and discuss precautions to ensure that tubing does not get wrapped around the neck, as well as any related concerns.
Enteral feeding sets provide nutrition to people who are unable meet their nutritional needs by eating or swallowing. Tubing delivers nutrition formulas, using gravity or a pump, directly to the stomach or small intestine through the nose, mouth, or an opening in the abdomen.
The two reported deaths involved children under the age of 2 years who were found with tubing wrapped around their necks after brief periods when their caregivers were not directly monitoring them. One report described the unsupervised period as about 10 minutes.
“While the FDA believes that death or serious injury from strangulation with enteral feeding set tubing in children is rare, health care providers and caregivers should be aware that these events can and do occur,” according to the alert. “It is also possible that some cases have not been reported to the FDA.”
Parents and health care providers can report injuries caused by these devices to the FDA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dupilumab under FDA review for atopic dermatitis in children aged 6 months to 5 years
The and Sanofi.
If approved, dupilumab would be the first biologic approved for children in this age group in the United States, according to the statement. The proposed indication is as add-on therapy for children with moderate to severe AD not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or for whom topical therapies are not advised. The FDA granted breakthrough therapy designation for dupilumab for the treatment of severe AD in children aged 6 months to 11 years in 2016.
Approximately 85%-95% of atopic dermatitis patients develop symptoms before 5 years of age, and these symptoms often continue into adulthood, with an increased risk of skin infections and a significant impact on quality of life, according to the statement.
The sBLA is based on data from a phase 3 pivotal study of 162 children aged 6 months to 5 years in which dupilumab was added to standard-of-care topical corticosteroids, presented in December 2021. In the study, dupilumab plus standard of care significantly improved skin clearance and reduced overall disease severity and itch at 16 weeks compared with standard of care alone. Overall, 28% of the children randomized to dupilumab achieved the primary endpoint of clear or almost-clear skin, compared with 4% with those on standard of care alone (P < .0001), according to the manufacturers. Patients in the dupilumab group received either 200 mg (for children weighing ≥ 5 to < 15 kg) or 300 mg (for children weighing ≥ 15 to < 30 kg) every 4 weeks. Safety results were similar to those seen with dupilumab for children aged 6 years and older.
Conjunctivitis and herpes infections were among the most common adverse events associated with dupilumab in the study, according to the statement.
The target action date for the FDA decision on this application is June 9, 2022.
The and Sanofi.
If approved, dupilumab would be the first biologic approved for children in this age group in the United States, according to the statement. The proposed indication is as add-on therapy for children with moderate to severe AD not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or for whom topical therapies are not advised. The FDA granted breakthrough therapy designation for dupilumab for the treatment of severe AD in children aged 6 months to 11 years in 2016.
Approximately 85%-95% of atopic dermatitis patients develop symptoms before 5 years of age, and these symptoms often continue into adulthood, with an increased risk of skin infections and a significant impact on quality of life, according to the statement.
The sBLA is based on data from a phase 3 pivotal study of 162 children aged 6 months to 5 years in which dupilumab was added to standard-of-care topical corticosteroids, presented in December 2021. In the study, dupilumab plus standard of care significantly improved skin clearance and reduced overall disease severity and itch at 16 weeks compared with standard of care alone. Overall, 28% of the children randomized to dupilumab achieved the primary endpoint of clear or almost-clear skin, compared with 4% with those on standard of care alone (P < .0001), according to the manufacturers. Patients in the dupilumab group received either 200 mg (for children weighing ≥ 5 to < 15 kg) or 300 mg (for children weighing ≥ 15 to < 30 kg) every 4 weeks. Safety results were similar to those seen with dupilumab for children aged 6 years and older.
Conjunctivitis and herpes infections were among the most common adverse events associated with dupilumab in the study, according to the statement.
The target action date for the FDA decision on this application is June 9, 2022.
The and Sanofi.
If approved, dupilumab would be the first biologic approved for children in this age group in the United States, according to the statement. The proposed indication is as add-on therapy for children with moderate to severe AD not adequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or for whom topical therapies are not advised. The FDA granted breakthrough therapy designation for dupilumab for the treatment of severe AD in children aged 6 months to 11 years in 2016.
Approximately 85%-95% of atopic dermatitis patients develop symptoms before 5 years of age, and these symptoms often continue into adulthood, with an increased risk of skin infections and a significant impact on quality of life, according to the statement.
The sBLA is based on data from a phase 3 pivotal study of 162 children aged 6 months to 5 years in which dupilumab was added to standard-of-care topical corticosteroids, presented in December 2021. In the study, dupilumab plus standard of care significantly improved skin clearance and reduced overall disease severity and itch at 16 weeks compared with standard of care alone. Overall, 28% of the children randomized to dupilumab achieved the primary endpoint of clear or almost-clear skin, compared with 4% with those on standard of care alone (P < .0001), according to the manufacturers. Patients in the dupilumab group received either 200 mg (for children weighing ≥ 5 to < 15 kg) or 300 mg (for children weighing ≥ 15 to < 30 kg) every 4 weeks. Safety results were similar to those seen with dupilumab for children aged 6 years and older.
Conjunctivitis and herpes infections were among the most common adverse events associated with dupilumab in the study, according to the statement.
The target action date for the FDA decision on this application is June 9, 2022.
FROM THE FDA
Endocrine Society and others to FDA: Restrict BPA
The chemical is used to make plastics in items such as food containers, pitchers, and inner linings of metal products. Small amounts of BPA can leak into food and beverages.
The petition points to a December 2021 report by the European Food Safety Authority titled: “Re-evaluation of the risks to public health related to the presence of bisphenol A (BPA) in foodstuffs,” which summarizes evidence gathered since 2013.
It concludes that “there is a health concern from BPA exposure for all age groups.” Specific concerns include harm to the immune system and male and female reproductive systems.
Average American exposed to 5,000 times the safe level of BPA
The EFSA established a new “tolerable daily intake” of BPA of 0.04 ng/kg of body weight per day. By contrast, in 2014 the FDA estimated that the mean BPA intake for the U.S. population older than 2 years was 200 ng/kg bw/day and that the 90th percentile for BPA intake was 500 ng/kg of body weight per day.
“Using FDA’s own exposure estimates, the average American is exposed to more than 5000 times the safe level of 0.04 ng BPA/kg [body weight per day] set by the EFSA expert panel. Without a doubt, these values constitute a high health risk and support the conclusion that uses of BPA are not safe ... Given the magnitude of the overexposure, we request an expedited review by FDA,” the petition reads.
In addition to the Endocrine Society, which has long warned about the dangers of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, other signatories to the petition include the Environmental Defense Fund, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund, Consumer Reports, Environmental Working Group, Healthy Babies Bright Futures, and the former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program.
In a statement, Endocrine Society BPA expert Heather Patisaul, PhD, of North Carolina University, Raleigh, said the report’s findings “are extremely concerning and prove the point that even very low levels of BPA exposure can be harmful and lead to issues with reproductive health, breast cancer risk, behavior, and metabolism.”
“The FDA needs to acknowledge the science behind endocrine-disrupting chemicals and act accordingly to protect public health,” she urged.
The FDA is expected to decide within the next few days whether to open a docket to accept comments.
A final decision could take 6 months or longer, an Endocrine Society spokesperson told this news organization.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The chemical is used to make plastics in items such as food containers, pitchers, and inner linings of metal products. Small amounts of BPA can leak into food and beverages.
The petition points to a December 2021 report by the European Food Safety Authority titled: “Re-evaluation of the risks to public health related to the presence of bisphenol A (BPA) in foodstuffs,” which summarizes evidence gathered since 2013.
It concludes that “there is a health concern from BPA exposure for all age groups.” Specific concerns include harm to the immune system and male and female reproductive systems.
Average American exposed to 5,000 times the safe level of BPA
The EFSA established a new “tolerable daily intake” of BPA of 0.04 ng/kg of body weight per day. By contrast, in 2014 the FDA estimated that the mean BPA intake for the U.S. population older than 2 years was 200 ng/kg bw/day and that the 90th percentile for BPA intake was 500 ng/kg of body weight per day.
“Using FDA’s own exposure estimates, the average American is exposed to more than 5000 times the safe level of 0.04 ng BPA/kg [body weight per day] set by the EFSA expert panel. Without a doubt, these values constitute a high health risk and support the conclusion that uses of BPA are not safe ... Given the magnitude of the overexposure, we request an expedited review by FDA,” the petition reads.
In addition to the Endocrine Society, which has long warned about the dangers of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, other signatories to the petition include the Environmental Defense Fund, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund, Consumer Reports, Environmental Working Group, Healthy Babies Bright Futures, and the former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program.
In a statement, Endocrine Society BPA expert Heather Patisaul, PhD, of North Carolina University, Raleigh, said the report’s findings “are extremely concerning and prove the point that even very low levels of BPA exposure can be harmful and lead to issues with reproductive health, breast cancer risk, behavior, and metabolism.”
“The FDA needs to acknowledge the science behind endocrine-disrupting chemicals and act accordingly to protect public health,” she urged.
The FDA is expected to decide within the next few days whether to open a docket to accept comments.
A final decision could take 6 months or longer, an Endocrine Society spokesperson told this news organization.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The chemical is used to make plastics in items such as food containers, pitchers, and inner linings of metal products. Small amounts of BPA can leak into food and beverages.
The petition points to a December 2021 report by the European Food Safety Authority titled: “Re-evaluation of the risks to public health related to the presence of bisphenol A (BPA) in foodstuffs,” which summarizes evidence gathered since 2013.
It concludes that “there is a health concern from BPA exposure for all age groups.” Specific concerns include harm to the immune system and male and female reproductive systems.
Average American exposed to 5,000 times the safe level of BPA
The EFSA established a new “tolerable daily intake” of BPA of 0.04 ng/kg of body weight per day. By contrast, in 2014 the FDA estimated that the mean BPA intake for the U.S. population older than 2 years was 200 ng/kg bw/day and that the 90th percentile for BPA intake was 500 ng/kg of body weight per day.
“Using FDA’s own exposure estimates, the average American is exposed to more than 5000 times the safe level of 0.04 ng BPA/kg [body weight per day] set by the EFSA expert panel. Without a doubt, these values constitute a high health risk and support the conclusion that uses of BPA are not safe ... Given the magnitude of the overexposure, we request an expedited review by FDA,” the petition reads.
In addition to the Endocrine Society, which has long warned about the dangers of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, other signatories to the petition include the Environmental Defense Fund, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund, Consumer Reports, Environmental Working Group, Healthy Babies Bright Futures, and the former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program.
In a statement, Endocrine Society BPA expert Heather Patisaul, PhD, of North Carolina University, Raleigh, said the report’s findings “are extremely concerning and prove the point that even very low levels of BPA exposure can be harmful and lead to issues with reproductive health, breast cancer risk, behavior, and metabolism.”
“The FDA needs to acknowledge the science behind endocrine-disrupting chemicals and act accordingly to protect public health,” she urged.
The FDA is expected to decide within the next few days whether to open a docket to accept comments.
A final decision could take 6 months or longer, an Endocrine Society spokesperson told this news organization.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Two emerging drugs exacerbating opioid crisis
Two illicit drugs are contributing to a sharp rise in fentanyl-related deaths, a new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows.
Para-fluorofentanyl, a schedule I substance often found in heroin packets and counterfeit pills, is making a comeback on the illicit drug market, Jordan Trecki, PhD, and associates reported in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (2022 Jan 28;71[4]:153-5). U.S. medical examiner reports and national law enforcement seizure data point to a rise in encounters of this drug along with metonitazene, a benzimidazole-opioid, in combination with fentanyl.
On their own, para-fluorofentanyl and metonitazene can kill the user through respiratory depression. Combinations of these substances and other opioids, including fentanyl-related compounds or adulterants, “pose an even greater potential harm to the patient than previously observed,” reported Dr. Trecki, a pharmacologist affiliated with the Drug Enforcement Administration, and colleagues.
Opioids contribute to about 75% of all U.S. drug overdose deaths, which rose by 28.5% during 2020-2021, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. And fentanyl is replacing heroin as the primary drug of use, said addiction specialist Brian Fuehrlein, MD, PhD, in an interview.
“For patients with stimulant use disorder and even cannabis use disorder, fentanyl is becoming more and more common as an adulterant in those substances, often resulting in inadvertent use. Hence, fentanyl and fentanyl-like drugs and fentanyl analogues are becoming increasingly common and important,” said Dr. Fuehrlein, director of the psychiatric emergency room at the VA Connecticut Healthcare System. He was not involved with the MMWR study.
Tennessee data reflect national problem
Recent data from a medical examiner in Knoxville, Tenn., illustrate what might be happening nationwide with those two emerging substances.
Over the last 2 years, the Knox County Regional Forensic Center has identified para-fluorofentanyl in the toxicology results of drug overdose victims, and metonitazene – either on its own or in combination with fentanyl and para-fluorofentanyl. Fentanyl appeared in 562 or 73% of 770 unintentional drug overdose deaths from November 2020 to August 2021. Forty-eight of these cases involved para-fluorofentanyl, and 26 involved metonitazene.
“Although the percentage of law enforcement encounters with these substances in Tennessee decreased relative to the national total percentage within this time frame, the increase in encounters both within Tennessee and nationally reflect an increased distribution of para-fluorofentanyl and metonitazene throughout the United States,” the authors reported.
How to identify substances, manage overdoses
The authors encouraged physicians, labs, and medical examiners to be on the lookout for these two substances either in the emergency department or when identifying the cause of drug overdose deaths.
They also advised that stronger opioids, such as fentanyl, para-fluorofentanyl, metonitazene, or other benzimidazoles may warrant additional doses of the opioid-reversal drug naloxone.
While he hasn’t personally seen any of these drugs in his practice, “I would assume that these are on the rise due to inexpensive cost to manufacture and potency of effect,” said Dr. Fuehrlein, also an associate professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
The need for additional naloxone to manage acute overdoses is a key takeaway of the MMWR paper, he added. Clinicians should also educate patients about harm reduction strategies to avoid overdose death when using potentially powerful and unknown drugs. “Things like start low and go slow, buy from the same supplier, do not use opioids with alcohol or benzos, have Narcan available, do not use alone, etc.”
Dr. Fuehrlein had no disclosures.
Two illicit drugs are contributing to a sharp rise in fentanyl-related deaths, a new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows.
Para-fluorofentanyl, a schedule I substance often found in heroin packets and counterfeit pills, is making a comeback on the illicit drug market, Jordan Trecki, PhD, and associates reported in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (2022 Jan 28;71[4]:153-5). U.S. medical examiner reports and national law enforcement seizure data point to a rise in encounters of this drug along with metonitazene, a benzimidazole-opioid, in combination with fentanyl.
On their own, para-fluorofentanyl and metonitazene can kill the user through respiratory depression. Combinations of these substances and other opioids, including fentanyl-related compounds or adulterants, “pose an even greater potential harm to the patient than previously observed,” reported Dr. Trecki, a pharmacologist affiliated with the Drug Enforcement Administration, and colleagues.
Opioids contribute to about 75% of all U.S. drug overdose deaths, which rose by 28.5% during 2020-2021, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. And fentanyl is replacing heroin as the primary drug of use, said addiction specialist Brian Fuehrlein, MD, PhD, in an interview.
“For patients with stimulant use disorder and even cannabis use disorder, fentanyl is becoming more and more common as an adulterant in those substances, often resulting in inadvertent use. Hence, fentanyl and fentanyl-like drugs and fentanyl analogues are becoming increasingly common and important,” said Dr. Fuehrlein, director of the psychiatric emergency room at the VA Connecticut Healthcare System. He was not involved with the MMWR study.
Tennessee data reflect national problem
Recent data from a medical examiner in Knoxville, Tenn., illustrate what might be happening nationwide with those two emerging substances.
Over the last 2 years, the Knox County Regional Forensic Center has identified para-fluorofentanyl in the toxicology results of drug overdose victims, and metonitazene – either on its own or in combination with fentanyl and para-fluorofentanyl. Fentanyl appeared in 562 or 73% of 770 unintentional drug overdose deaths from November 2020 to August 2021. Forty-eight of these cases involved para-fluorofentanyl, and 26 involved metonitazene.
“Although the percentage of law enforcement encounters with these substances in Tennessee decreased relative to the national total percentage within this time frame, the increase in encounters both within Tennessee and nationally reflect an increased distribution of para-fluorofentanyl and metonitazene throughout the United States,” the authors reported.
How to identify substances, manage overdoses
The authors encouraged physicians, labs, and medical examiners to be on the lookout for these two substances either in the emergency department or when identifying the cause of drug overdose deaths.
They also advised that stronger opioids, such as fentanyl, para-fluorofentanyl, metonitazene, or other benzimidazoles may warrant additional doses of the opioid-reversal drug naloxone.
While he hasn’t personally seen any of these drugs in his practice, “I would assume that these are on the rise due to inexpensive cost to manufacture and potency of effect,” said Dr. Fuehrlein, also an associate professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
The need for additional naloxone to manage acute overdoses is a key takeaway of the MMWR paper, he added. Clinicians should also educate patients about harm reduction strategies to avoid overdose death when using potentially powerful and unknown drugs. “Things like start low and go slow, buy from the same supplier, do not use opioids with alcohol or benzos, have Narcan available, do not use alone, etc.”
Dr. Fuehrlein had no disclosures.
Two illicit drugs are contributing to a sharp rise in fentanyl-related deaths, a new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows.
Para-fluorofentanyl, a schedule I substance often found in heroin packets and counterfeit pills, is making a comeback on the illicit drug market, Jordan Trecki, PhD, and associates reported in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (2022 Jan 28;71[4]:153-5). U.S. medical examiner reports and national law enforcement seizure data point to a rise in encounters of this drug along with metonitazene, a benzimidazole-opioid, in combination with fentanyl.
On their own, para-fluorofentanyl and metonitazene can kill the user through respiratory depression. Combinations of these substances and other opioids, including fentanyl-related compounds or adulterants, “pose an even greater potential harm to the patient than previously observed,” reported Dr. Trecki, a pharmacologist affiliated with the Drug Enforcement Administration, and colleagues.
Opioids contribute to about 75% of all U.S. drug overdose deaths, which rose by 28.5% during 2020-2021, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. And fentanyl is replacing heroin as the primary drug of use, said addiction specialist Brian Fuehrlein, MD, PhD, in an interview.
“For patients with stimulant use disorder and even cannabis use disorder, fentanyl is becoming more and more common as an adulterant in those substances, often resulting in inadvertent use. Hence, fentanyl and fentanyl-like drugs and fentanyl analogues are becoming increasingly common and important,” said Dr. Fuehrlein, director of the psychiatric emergency room at the VA Connecticut Healthcare System. He was not involved with the MMWR study.
Tennessee data reflect national problem
Recent data from a medical examiner in Knoxville, Tenn., illustrate what might be happening nationwide with those two emerging substances.
Over the last 2 years, the Knox County Regional Forensic Center has identified para-fluorofentanyl in the toxicology results of drug overdose victims, and metonitazene – either on its own or in combination with fentanyl and para-fluorofentanyl. Fentanyl appeared in 562 or 73% of 770 unintentional drug overdose deaths from November 2020 to August 2021. Forty-eight of these cases involved para-fluorofentanyl, and 26 involved metonitazene.
“Although the percentage of law enforcement encounters with these substances in Tennessee decreased relative to the national total percentage within this time frame, the increase in encounters both within Tennessee and nationally reflect an increased distribution of para-fluorofentanyl and metonitazene throughout the United States,” the authors reported.
How to identify substances, manage overdoses
The authors encouraged physicians, labs, and medical examiners to be on the lookout for these two substances either in the emergency department or when identifying the cause of drug overdose deaths.
They also advised that stronger opioids, such as fentanyl, para-fluorofentanyl, metonitazene, or other benzimidazoles may warrant additional doses of the opioid-reversal drug naloxone.
While he hasn’t personally seen any of these drugs in his practice, “I would assume that these are on the rise due to inexpensive cost to manufacture and potency of effect,” said Dr. Fuehrlein, also an associate professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
The need for additional naloxone to manage acute overdoses is a key takeaway of the MMWR paper, he added. Clinicians should also educate patients about harm reduction strategies to avoid overdose death when using potentially powerful and unknown drugs. “Things like start low and go slow, buy from the same supplier, do not use opioids with alcohol or benzos, have Narcan available, do not use alone, etc.”
Dr. Fuehrlein had no disclosures.
FDA approves first-ever drug for cold agglutinin disease
A new drug has become the first and only treatment for people with cold agglutinin disease (CAD) that is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
CAD is a rare autoimmune hemolytic anemia, affecting about 5,000 people in the United States. It is caused by antibodies binding to the surface of red blood cells, which starts a process that causes the body’s immune system to mistakenly attack healthy red blood cells and cause their rupture (hemolysis). This can lead to severe anemia, which is often treated by blood transfusions.
“For people living with cold agglutinin disease, it is as if their body’s immune system is waging a war on itself. The relentless destruction of healthy red blood cells is a daily, silent reality for people with CAD. For the first time, we have a treatment that targets complement-mediated hemolysis, which is the underlying cause of the red blood cell destruction in many CAD patients,” commented Catherine Broome, MD, associate professor of medicine at Georgetown University Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, in a company press release.
Dr. Broome was the principal investigator in the CARDINAL study, which was the basis for the new approval. In this pivotal study, patients treated with sutimlimab had an improvement in anemia as measured by hemoglobin (Hgb) and bilirubin levels, she commented in the company statement.
The CARDINAL study was a 26-week open-label, single-arm phase 3 study conducted in 24 patients with CAD who had recent history of blood transfusion.
The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite defined as the proportion of patients who achieved normalization of Hgb level greater than or equal to 12 g/dL or demonstrated an increase from baseline in Hgb level greater than or equal to 2 g/dL at the treatment assessment time point (mean value from weeks 23, 25, and 26) and no blood transfusion from weeks 5 through 26.
More than half of the patients (13 of 24, 54%) met the composite primary endpoint criteria, with 17 of 24 (71%) patients remaining transfusion-free after week 5. Most patients (22 of 24, 92%) did not use other CAD-related treatments.
For the secondary measures on disease process, patients enrolled in the trial experienced a mean increase in Hgb level of 2.29 g/dL at week 3 and 3.18 g/dL at the 26-week treatment assessment time points (increasing from the mean baseline level of 8.6 g/dL). In addition, there was a mean reduction in bilirubin levels (n = 14) of -2.23 mg/dL from a mean baseline level of 3.23 mg/dL.
The most common adverse reactions occurring in 10% or more of patients were respiratory tract infection, viral infection, diarrhea, dyspepsia, cough, arthralgia, arthritis, and peripheral edema. Serious adverse reactions were reported in 3 of 24 (13%) patients, and these included streptococcal sepsis and staphylococcal wound infection (n = 1), arthralgia (n = 1), and respiratory tract infection (n = 1).
None of the adverse reactions led to discontinuation of the drug, the company noted. Dosage interruptions due to an adverse reaction occurred in 4 of 24 (17%) patients who received the drug.
The recommended dose is based on body weight (6,500 mg for people 39-75 kg and 7,500 mg for people greater than 75 kg). The drug is administered intravenously weekly for the first 2 weeks with administration every 2 weeks thereafter.
Full prescribing information is available here.
The product is a humanized monoclonal antibody that is designed to selectively target and inhibit C1s in the classical complement pathway, which is part of the innate immune system. By blocking C1s, Enjaymo inhibits the activation of the complement cascade in the immune system and inhibits C1-activated hemolysis in CAD to prevent the abnormal destruction of healthy red blood cells. Enjaymo does not inhibit the lectin and alternative pathways, the company noted.
In the U.S., Enjaymo received FDA breakthrough therapy and orphan drug designation, as well as priority review. The product is awaiting approval in Europe and Japan.
Sanofi says the product is expected to be available in the United States in the coming weeks, with a list price, or wholesale acquisition cost, of $1,800 per vial. Actual costs to patients are generally anticipated to be lower, as the list price does not reflect insurance coverage, copay support, or financial assistance from patient support programs. The company offers support for eligible patients on 1-833-223-2428.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new drug has become the first and only treatment for people with cold agglutinin disease (CAD) that is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
CAD is a rare autoimmune hemolytic anemia, affecting about 5,000 people in the United States. It is caused by antibodies binding to the surface of red blood cells, which starts a process that causes the body’s immune system to mistakenly attack healthy red blood cells and cause their rupture (hemolysis). This can lead to severe anemia, which is often treated by blood transfusions.
“For people living with cold agglutinin disease, it is as if their body’s immune system is waging a war on itself. The relentless destruction of healthy red blood cells is a daily, silent reality for people with CAD. For the first time, we have a treatment that targets complement-mediated hemolysis, which is the underlying cause of the red blood cell destruction in many CAD patients,” commented Catherine Broome, MD, associate professor of medicine at Georgetown University Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, in a company press release.
Dr. Broome was the principal investigator in the CARDINAL study, which was the basis for the new approval. In this pivotal study, patients treated with sutimlimab had an improvement in anemia as measured by hemoglobin (Hgb) and bilirubin levels, she commented in the company statement.
The CARDINAL study was a 26-week open-label, single-arm phase 3 study conducted in 24 patients with CAD who had recent history of blood transfusion.
The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite defined as the proportion of patients who achieved normalization of Hgb level greater than or equal to 12 g/dL or demonstrated an increase from baseline in Hgb level greater than or equal to 2 g/dL at the treatment assessment time point (mean value from weeks 23, 25, and 26) and no blood transfusion from weeks 5 through 26.
More than half of the patients (13 of 24, 54%) met the composite primary endpoint criteria, with 17 of 24 (71%) patients remaining transfusion-free after week 5. Most patients (22 of 24, 92%) did not use other CAD-related treatments.
For the secondary measures on disease process, patients enrolled in the trial experienced a mean increase in Hgb level of 2.29 g/dL at week 3 and 3.18 g/dL at the 26-week treatment assessment time points (increasing from the mean baseline level of 8.6 g/dL). In addition, there was a mean reduction in bilirubin levels (n = 14) of -2.23 mg/dL from a mean baseline level of 3.23 mg/dL.
The most common adverse reactions occurring in 10% or more of patients were respiratory tract infection, viral infection, diarrhea, dyspepsia, cough, arthralgia, arthritis, and peripheral edema. Serious adverse reactions were reported in 3 of 24 (13%) patients, and these included streptococcal sepsis and staphylococcal wound infection (n = 1), arthralgia (n = 1), and respiratory tract infection (n = 1).
None of the adverse reactions led to discontinuation of the drug, the company noted. Dosage interruptions due to an adverse reaction occurred in 4 of 24 (17%) patients who received the drug.
The recommended dose is based on body weight (6,500 mg for people 39-75 kg and 7,500 mg for people greater than 75 kg). The drug is administered intravenously weekly for the first 2 weeks with administration every 2 weeks thereafter.
Full prescribing information is available here.
The product is a humanized monoclonal antibody that is designed to selectively target and inhibit C1s in the classical complement pathway, which is part of the innate immune system. By blocking C1s, Enjaymo inhibits the activation of the complement cascade in the immune system and inhibits C1-activated hemolysis in CAD to prevent the abnormal destruction of healthy red blood cells. Enjaymo does not inhibit the lectin and alternative pathways, the company noted.
In the U.S., Enjaymo received FDA breakthrough therapy and orphan drug designation, as well as priority review. The product is awaiting approval in Europe and Japan.
Sanofi says the product is expected to be available in the United States in the coming weeks, with a list price, or wholesale acquisition cost, of $1,800 per vial. Actual costs to patients are generally anticipated to be lower, as the list price does not reflect insurance coverage, copay support, or financial assistance from patient support programs. The company offers support for eligible patients on 1-833-223-2428.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new drug has become the first and only treatment for people with cold agglutinin disease (CAD) that is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
CAD is a rare autoimmune hemolytic anemia, affecting about 5,000 people in the United States. It is caused by antibodies binding to the surface of red blood cells, which starts a process that causes the body’s immune system to mistakenly attack healthy red blood cells and cause their rupture (hemolysis). This can lead to severe anemia, which is often treated by blood transfusions.
“For people living with cold agglutinin disease, it is as if their body’s immune system is waging a war on itself. The relentless destruction of healthy red blood cells is a daily, silent reality for people with CAD. For the first time, we have a treatment that targets complement-mediated hemolysis, which is the underlying cause of the red blood cell destruction in many CAD patients,” commented Catherine Broome, MD, associate professor of medicine at Georgetown University Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, in a company press release.
Dr. Broome was the principal investigator in the CARDINAL study, which was the basis for the new approval. In this pivotal study, patients treated with sutimlimab had an improvement in anemia as measured by hemoglobin (Hgb) and bilirubin levels, she commented in the company statement.
The CARDINAL study was a 26-week open-label, single-arm phase 3 study conducted in 24 patients with CAD who had recent history of blood transfusion.
The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite defined as the proportion of patients who achieved normalization of Hgb level greater than or equal to 12 g/dL or demonstrated an increase from baseline in Hgb level greater than or equal to 2 g/dL at the treatment assessment time point (mean value from weeks 23, 25, and 26) and no blood transfusion from weeks 5 through 26.
More than half of the patients (13 of 24, 54%) met the composite primary endpoint criteria, with 17 of 24 (71%) patients remaining transfusion-free after week 5. Most patients (22 of 24, 92%) did not use other CAD-related treatments.
For the secondary measures on disease process, patients enrolled in the trial experienced a mean increase in Hgb level of 2.29 g/dL at week 3 and 3.18 g/dL at the 26-week treatment assessment time points (increasing from the mean baseline level of 8.6 g/dL). In addition, there was a mean reduction in bilirubin levels (n = 14) of -2.23 mg/dL from a mean baseline level of 3.23 mg/dL.
The most common adverse reactions occurring in 10% or more of patients were respiratory tract infection, viral infection, diarrhea, dyspepsia, cough, arthralgia, arthritis, and peripheral edema. Serious adverse reactions were reported in 3 of 24 (13%) patients, and these included streptococcal sepsis and staphylococcal wound infection (n = 1), arthralgia (n = 1), and respiratory tract infection (n = 1).
None of the adverse reactions led to discontinuation of the drug, the company noted. Dosage interruptions due to an adverse reaction occurred in 4 of 24 (17%) patients who received the drug.
The recommended dose is based on body weight (6,500 mg for people 39-75 kg and 7,500 mg for people greater than 75 kg). The drug is administered intravenously weekly for the first 2 weeks with administration every 2 weeks thereafter.
Full prescribing information is available here.
The product is a humanized monoclonal antibody that is designed to selectively target and inhibit C1s in the classical complement pathway, which is part of the innate immune system. By blocking C1s, Enjaymo inhibits the activation of the complement cascade in the immune system and inhibits C1-activated hemolysis in CAD to prevent the abnormal destruction of healthy red blood cells. Enjaymo does not inhibit the lectin and alternative pathways, the company noted.
In the U.S., Enjaymo received FDA breakthrough therapy and orphan drug designation, as well as priority review. The product is awaiting approval in Europe and Japan.
Sanofi says the product is expected to be available in the United States in the coming weeks, with a list price, or wholesale acquisition cost, of $1,800 per vial. Actual costs to patients are generally anticipated to be lower, as the list price does not reflect insurance coverage, copay support, or financial assistance from patient support programs. The company offers support for eligible patients on 1-833-223-2428.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.