User login
FDA to review PDE4-inhibitor roflumilast for psoriasis
The , according to a statement from the manufacturer.
Roflumilast cream (also known as ARQ-151) is a small molecule inhibitor of PDE4, an enzyme that increases proinflammatory mediators and decreases anti-inflammatory mediators. PDE4 is an established treatment target in dermatology: The FDA approved PDE-4 inhibitor crisaborole (Eucrisa) as a topical treatment for mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in 2016, and an oral PDE-4 inhibitor, orismilast, is being studied for the treatment of plaque psoriasis.
Topical roflumilast, if approved, would be the first topical PDE4 inhibitor for psoriasis in particular, according to the Arcutis Biotherapeutics statement. The cream is designed for use on the entire body, including the face and sensitive intertriginous areas.
The NDA is based on data from a pair of phase 3 randomized, double-blind 8-week studies known as DERMIS 1 and DERMIS 2 (Trials of PDE4 Inhibition with Roflumilast for the Management of Plaque Psoriasis” One and Two) and a long-term phase 2b open-label study.
DERMIS 1 and DERMIS 2 were identical multinational, multicenter studies designed to assess the safety and efficacy of 0.3% roflumilast cream. In the studies, roflumilast met its primary endpoint and patients treated with it demonstrated an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) success rate of 42.4% compared with 6.1% for the vehicle control (P < .0001), and 37.5% compared with 6.9% for the vehicle control (P < .0001), in the DERMIS 1 and 2 trials, respectively, according to Arcutis.
In the phase 2b study, the treatment effect lasted for 52-64 weeks. Roflumilast was well tolerated across the three studies.
Overall, the most common adverse events reported in the studies were diarrhea (3%), headache (2%), insomnia (1%), nausea (1%), upper respiratory tract infections (1%), and urinary tract infections (1%).
Roflumilast also showed statistically significant improvement compared to a vehicle on secondary endpoints including Intertriginous IGA (I-IGA) Success, Psoriasis Area Severity Index-75 (PASI-75), reductions in itch as measured by the Worst Itch-Numerical Rating Scale (WI-NRS), and patient perceptions of symptoms based on the Psoriasis Symptoms Diary (PSD).
The FDA has set a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) target action date of July 29, 2022, according to the manufacturer’s statement. An oral formulation of roflumilast was approved by the FDA in 2011, for reducing the risk of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in patients with severe COPD.
The , according to a statement from the manufacturer.
Roflumilast cream (also known as ARQ-151) is a small molecule inhibitor of PDE4, an enzyme that increases proinflammatory mediators and decreases anti-inflammatory mediators. PDE4 is an established treatment target in dermatology: The FDA approved PDE-4 inhibitor crisaborole (Eucrisa) as a topical treatment for mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in 2016, and an oral PDE-4 inhibitor, orismilast, is being studied for the treatment of plaque psoriasis.
Topical roflumilast, if approved, would be the first topical PDE4 inhibitor for psoriasis in particular, according to the Arcutis Biotherapeutics statement. The cream is designed for use on the entire body, including the face and sensitive intertriginous areas.
The NDA is based on data from a pair of phase 3 randomized, double-blind 8-week studies known as DERMIS 1 and DERMIS 2 (Trials of PDE4 Inhibition with Roflumilast for the Management of Plaque Psoriasis” One and Two) and a long-term phase 2b open-label study.
DERMIS 1 and DERMIS 2 were identical multinational, multicenter studies designed to assess the safety and efficacy of 0.3% roflumilast cream. In the studies, roflumilast met its primary endpoint and patients treated with it demonstrated an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) success rate of 42.4% compared with 6.1% for the vehicle control (P < .0001), and 37.5% compared with 6.9% for the vehicle control (P < .0001), in the DERMIS 1 and 2 trials, respectively, according to Arcutis.
In the phase 2b study, the treatment effect lasted for 52-64 weeks. Roflumilast was well tolerated across the three studies.
Overall, the most common adverse events reported in the studies were diarrhea (3%), headache (2%), insomnia (1%), nausea (1%), upper respiratory tract infections (1%), and urinary tract infections (1%).
Roflumilast also showed statistically significant improvement compared to a vehicle on secondary endpoints including Intertriginous IGA (I-IGA) Success, Psoriasis Area Severity Index-75 (PASI-75), reductions in itch as measured by the Worst Itch-Numerical Rating Scale (WI-NRS), and patient perceptions of symptoms based on the Psoriasis Symptoms Diary (PSD).
The FDA has set a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) target action date of July 29, 2022, according to the manufacturer’s statement. An oral formulation of roflumilast was approved by the FDA in 2011, for reducing the risk of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in patients with severe COPD.
The , according to a statement from the manufacturer.
Roflumilast cream (also known as ARQ-151) is a small molecule inhibitor of PDE4, an enzyme that increases proinflammatory mediators and decreases anti-inflammatory mediators. PDE4 is an established treatment target in dermatology: The FDA approved PDE-4 inhibitor crisaborole (Eucrisa) as a topical treatment for mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in 2016, and an oral PDE-4 inhibitor, orismilast, is being studied for the treatment of plaque psoriasis.
Topical roflumilast, if approved, would be the first topical PDE4 inhibitor for psoriasis in particular, according to the Arcutis Biotherapeutics statement. The cream is designed for use on the entire body, including the face and sensitive intertriginous areas.
The NDA is based on data from a pair of phase 3 randomized, double-blind 8-week studies known as DERMIS 1 and DERMIS 2 (Trials of PDE4 Inhibition with Roflumilast for the Management of Plaque Psoriasis” One and Two) and a long-term phase 2b open-label study.
DERMIS 1 and DERMIS 2 were identical multinational, multicenter studies designed to assess the safety and efficacy of 0.3% roflumilast cream. In the studies, roflumilast met its primary endpoint and patients treated with it demonstrated an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) success rate of 42.4% compared with 6.1% for the vehicle control (P < .0001), and 37.5% compared with 6.9% for the vehicle control (P < .0001), in the DERMIS 1 and 2 trials, respectively, according to Arcutis.
In the phase 2b study, the treatment effect lasted for 52-64 weeks. Roflumilast was well tolerated across the three studies.
Overall, the most common adverse events reported in the studies were diarrhea (3%), headache (2%), insomnia (1%), nausea (1%), upper respiratory tract infections (1%), and urinary tract infections (1%).
Roflumilast also showed statistically significant improvement compared to a vehicle on secondary endpoints including Intertriginous IGA (I-IGA) Success, Psoriasis Area Severity Index-75 (PASI-75), reductions in itch as measured by the Worst Itch-Numerical Rating Scale (WI-NRS), and patient perceptions of symptoms based on the Psoriasis Symptoms Diary (PSD).
The FDA has set a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) target action date of July 29, 2022, according to the manufacturer’s statement. An oral formulation of roflumilast was approved by the FDA in 2011, for reducing the risk of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in patients with severe COPD.
FDA gives nod to tralokinumab for adults with moderate to severe AD
whose disease is not well controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable.
Administered subcutaneously, tralokinumab is a fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody that specifically binds to interleukin-13, a key driver of underlying inflammation in AD. The drug, which has been developed by LEO Pharma, comes as a single-dose (150 mg) prefilled syringe with needle guard.
In two pivotal phase 3 trials, ECZTRA 1 and ECZTRA 2, tralokinumab monotherapy was superior to placebo at week 16 for all primary and secondary endpoints. For example, at week 16, for the ECZTRA 1 and 2 monotherapy trials, respectively, 16% and 21% of patients treated with tralokinumab 300 mg every other week achieved clear or almost clear skin (IGA 0/1) versus 7% and 9% with placebo.
In addition, 25% and 33% of patients treated with tralokinumab 300 mg every other week achieved an improvement of 75% or more in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (EASI-75) versus 13% and 10% with placebo. At 52 weeks, 51% and 60% of patients who responded at week 16 maintained IGA 0/1 response with tralokinumab 300 mg every other week in ECZTRA 1 and 2, respectively.
Finally, 60% and 57% of patients who responded at week 16 maintained EASI-75 response with tralokinumab 300 mg every other week.
In the drug’s third pivotal trial, ECZTRA 3, researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of tralokinumab 300 mg in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS) as needed in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis who are candidates for systemic therapy. At week 16, 38% of patients treated with tralokinumab 300 mg every other week plus TCS achieved clear or almost clear skin (IGA 0/1) versus 27% with placebo plus TCS. In addition, 56% of patients treated with tralokinumab 300 mg every other week plus TCS achieved an improvement of 75% or more in the EASI-75 versus 37% with placebo plus TCS. At 32 weeks, 89% and 92% of patients who responded at week 16 maintained response (IGA 0/1 and EASI-75, respectively) with tralokinumab 300 mg every other week.
A link to prescribing information can be found here. Tralokinumab is expected to be available by February 2022.
whose disease is not well controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable.
Administered subcutaneously, tralokinumab is a fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody that specifically binds to interleukin-13, a key driver of underlying inflammation in AD. The drug, which has been developed by LEO Pharma, comes as a single-dose (150 mg) prefilled syringe with needle guard.
In two pivotal phase 3 trials, ECZTRA 1 and ECZTRA 2, tralokinumab monotherapy was superior to placebo at week 16 for all primary and secondary endpoints. For example, at week 16, for the ECZTRA 1 and 2 monotherapy trials, respectively, 16% and 21% of patients treated with tralokinumab 300 mg every other week achieved clear or almost clear skin (IGA 0/1) versus 7% and 9% with placebo.
In addition, 25% and 33% of patients treated with tralokinumab 300 mg every other week achieved an improvement of 75% or more in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (EASI-75) versus 13% and 10% with placebo. At 52 weeks, 51% and 60% of patients who responded at week 16 maintained IGA 0/1 response with tralokinumab 300 mg every other week in ECZTRA 1 and 2, respectively.
Finally, 60% and 57% of patients who responded at week 16 maintained EASI-75 response with tralokinumab 300 mg every other week.
In the drug’s third pivotal trial, ECZTRA 3, researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of tralokinumab 300 mg in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS) as needed in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis who are candidates for systemic therapy. At week 16, 38% of patients treated with tralokinumab 300 mg every other week plus TCS achieved clear or almost clear skin (IGA 0/1) versus 27% with placebo plus TCS. In addition, 56% of patients treated with tralokinumab 300 mg every other week plus TCS achieved an improvement of 75% or more in the EASI-75 versus 37% with placebo plus TCS. At 32 weeks, 89% and 92% of patients who responded at week 16 maintained response (IGA 0/1 and EASI-75, respectively) with tralokinumab 300 mg every other week.
A link to prescribing information can be found here. Tralokinumab is expected to be available by February 2022.
whose disease is not well controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable.
Administered subcutaneously, tralokinumab is a fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody that specifically binds to interleukin-13, a key driver of underlying inflammation in AD. The drug, which has been developed by LEO Pharma, comes as a single-dose (150 mg) prefilled syringe with needle guard.
In two pivotal phase 3 trials, ECZTRA 1 and ECZTRA 2, tralokinumab monotherapy was superior to placebo at week 16 for all primary and secondary endpoints. For example, at week 16, for the ECZTRA 1 and 2 monotherapy trials, respectively, 16% and 21% of patients treated with tralokinumab 300 mg every other week achieved clear or almost clear skin (IGA 0/1) versus 7% and 9% with placebo.
In addition, 25% and 33% of patients treated with tralokinumab 300 mg every other week achieved an improvement of 75% or more in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (EASI-75) versus 13% and 10% with placebo. At 52 weeks, 51% and 60% of patients who responded at week 16 maintained IGA 0/1 response with tralokinumab 300 mg every other week in ECZTRA 1 and 2, respectively.
Finally, 60% and 57% of patients who responded at week 16 maintained EASI-75 response with tralokinumab 300 mg every other week.
In the drug’s third pivotal trial, ECZTRA 3, researchers evaluated the efficacy and safety of tralokinumab 300 mg in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS) as needed in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis who are candidates for systemic therapy. At week 16, 38% of patients treated with tralokinumab 300 mg every other week plus TCS achieved clear or almost clear skin (IGA 0/1) versus 27% with placebo plus TCS. In addition, 56% of patients treated with tralokinumab 300 mg every other week plus TCS achieved an improvement of 75% or more in the EASI-75 versus 37% with placebo plus TCS. At 32 weeks, 89% and 92% of patients who responded at week 16 maintained response (IGA 0/1 and EASI-75, respectively) with tralokinumab 300 mg every other week.
A link to prescribing information can be found here. Tralokinumab is expected to be available by February 2022.
FDA OKs emergency use of Merck pill for COVID-19
Similar to FDA authorization of another antiviral pill regimen – ritonavir plus nirmatrelvir, or Paxlovid – granted to Pfizer on Wednesday, molnupiravir (brand name Lagevrio) should be taken early in the course of COVID-19 illness.
Pfizer’s drug is authorized for anyone aged 12 and up. But Merck’s is only for adults aged 18 and older.
Merck filed an application for emergency use authorization with the FDA in October. The company included results of its phase 3 study showing the treatment could lead to a 50% reduction in COVID-19 hospitalizations. Data later showed this efficacy at closer to a 30% reduction. In November, an FDA advisory panel narrowly recommended the agency grant authorization by a 13-10 vote.
Animal studies found the drug may harm a fetus, so it is not recommended for pregnant people, the FDA says. It may be prescribed to a pregnant person only after their doctor determines the benefits outweigh the risks and the patient is told of those risks.
Women who may get pregnant should use a reliable method of birth control if being treated with molnupiravir and for 4 days after the final dose.
Two weapons against COVID
Two antiviral pills could be better than one, at least in terms of making more COVID-19 treatments available in early 2022. It is yet to be seen if the drugmakers will be able to keep up with demand, which could substantially increase with an expected surge in Omicron variant cases.
Ritonavir and molnupiravir join remdesivir (brand name Veklury) as available antivirals to treat COVID-19. Remdesivir is fully approved by the FDA but is given only through an IV to people in the hospital.
Officials point out that COVID-19 treatments in tablet form are more convenient for patients in the United States and across the globe, particularly where IV infusion services may be limited.
In March 2021, experts accurately predicted that the molnupiravir pill would be available by year’s end.
Interestingly, in September, Merck announced the findings of laboratory studies suggesting that molnupiravir would work against variants of SARS-CoV-2 because the agent does not target the virus’s spike protein.
Perhaps in part because of early promising results, the U.S. government announced in November intentions to purchase $1 billion worth of molnupiravir. That new order came on top of $1.2 billion worth of the pills the U.S. ordered in June.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Similar to FDA authorization of another antiviral pill regimen – ritonavir plus nirmatrelvir, or Paxlovid – granted to Pfizer on Wednesday, molnupiravir (brand name Lagevrio) should be taken early in the course of COVID-19 illness.
Pfizer’s drug is authorized for anyone aged 12 and up. But Merck’s is only for adults aged 18 and older.
Merck filed an application for emergency use authorization with the FDA in October. The company included results of its phase 3 study showing the treatment could lead to a 50% reduction in COVID-19 hospitalizations. Data later showed this efficacy at closer to a 30% reduction. In November, an FDA advisory panel narrowly recommended the agency grant authorization by a 13-10 vote.
Animal studies found the drug may harm a fetus, so it is not recommended for pregnant people, the FDA says. It may be prescribed to a pregnant person only after their doctor determines the benefits outweigh the risks and the patient is told of those risks.
Women who may get pregnant should use a reliable method of birth control if being treated with molnupiravir and for 4 days after the final dose.
Two weapons against COVID
Two antiviral pills could be better than one, at least in terms of making more COVID-19 treatments available in early 2022. It is yet to be seen if the drugmakers will be able to keep up with demand, which could substantially increase with an expected surge in Omicron variant cases.
Ritonavir and molnupiravir join remdesivir (brand name Veklury) as available antivirals to treat COVID-19. Remdesivir is fully approved by the FDA but is given only through an IV to people in the hospital.
Officials point out that COVID-19 treatments in tablet form are more convenient for patients in the United States and across the globe, particularly where IV infusion services may be limited.
In March 2021, experts accurately predicted that the molnupiravir pill would be available by year’s end.
Interestingly, in September, Merck announced the findings of laboratory studies suggesting that molnupiravir would work against variants of SARS-CoV-2 because the agent does not target the virus’s spike protein.
Perhaps in part because of early promising results, the U.S. government announced in November intentions to purchase $1 billion worth of molnupiravir. That new order came on top of $1.2 billion worth of the pills the U.S. ordered in June.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Similar to FDA authorization of another antiviral pill regimen – ritonavir plus nirmatrelvir, or Paxlovid – granted to Pfizer on Wednesday, molnupiravir (brand name Lagevrio) should be taken early in the course of COVID-19 illness.
Pfizer’s drug is authorized for anyone aged 12 and up. But Merck’s is only for adults aged 18 and older.
Merck filed an application for emergency use authorization with the FDA in October. The company included results of its phase 3 study showing the treatment could lead to a 50% reduction in COVID-19 hospitalizations. Data later showed this efficacy at closer to a 30% reduction. In November, an FDA advisory panel narrowly recommended the agency grant authorization by a 13-10 vote.
Animal studies found the drug may harm a fetus, so it is not recommended for pregnant people, the FDA says. It may be prescribed to a pregnant person only after their doctor determines the benefits outweigh the risks and the patient is told of those risks.
Women who may get pregnant should use a reliable method of birth control if being treated with molnupiravir and for 4 days after the final dose.
Two weapons against COVID
Two antiviral pills could be better than one, at least in terms of making more COVID-19 treatments available in early 2022. It is yet to be seen if the drugmakers will be able to keep up with demand, which could substantially increase with an expected surge in Omicron variant cases.
Ritonavir and molnupiravir join remdesivir (brand name Veklury) as available antivirals to treat COVID-19. Remdesivir is fully approved by the FDA but is given only through an IV to people in the hospital.
Officials point out that COVID-19 treatments in tablet form are more convenient for patients in the United States and across the globe, particularly where IV infusion services may be limited.
In March 2021, experts accurately predicted that the molnupiravir pill would be available by year’s end.
Interestingly, in September, Merck announced the findings of laboratory studies suggesting that molnupiravir would work against variants of SARS-CoV-2 because the agent does not target the virus’s spike protein.
Perhaps in part because of early promising results, the U.S. government announced in November intentions to purchase $1 billion worth of molnupiravir. That new order came on top of $1.2 billion worth of the pills the U.S. ordered in June.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
iPLEDGE rollout: As frustration mounts, FDA agrees to help solve issues
, according to dermatologists, pharmacists, and patients.
When the new website and call center launched Dec. 13, hours-long hold times and repeated crashing of the website were reported as the norm, not the exception, triggering the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) to request – and get – an emergency meeting on Dec. 16 with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which mandates the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) for isotretinoin due to the teratogenicity of the acne medication.
At that meeting, ‘’the FDA and HHS [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] acknowledged the concerns of dermatologists and the need for stakeholders to work collaboratively to find a solution,” Ilona Frieden, MD, chair of the AADA’s iPLEDGE workgroup and professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an email interview. At the meeting, the AADA representatives described the severe impact on patient access to treatment that is resulting from the issues. The AADA also ‘’reiterated our call for a temporary pause to the program while stakeholders work to resolve the urgent issues with the platform,” she said.
The new approach, which is intended to make the experience more inclusive for transgender patients, reduces the previous three risk categories (females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males) to just two (those capable of getting pregnant and those not capable). The program requires physicians, patients, and pharmacists who prescribe, use, or dispense the drug to be registered, with requirements that include the use of two forms of an effective contraceptive and regular pregnancy tests by patients capable of becoming pregnant.
With reduced or no access during the technology glitches, access to the medicine was delayed for some patients. And dermatologists, pharmacists, and their staffs reported grueling hold times trying to reach the call center when the website had issues.
While the FDA agreed to help find a solution, it noted that the solution ‘’was to be found with dermatologists and pharmacists who are on the ground living the program every day,” Dr. Frieden said. No timeline for solving the issues was provided, so on Dec. 21, the AADA asked the FDA for a constructive dialogue among stakeholders within the next 24 hours, Dr. Frieden told this news organization.
While Dr. Frieden sees progress, ‘’we are disappointed that this situation continues to drag on for more than a week later, with more patients losing access to their needed medication each day.” While some prescribers have been able to log onto the portal and enter the information required, confirming some patients, large gaps remain, she said. Patients and pharmacists still report difficulties logging on. When that happens and they try to reach the call center, there are often hours-long hold times, dropped calls, or a message saying to call back.
The iPLEDGE administrator is Syneos Health, but a spokesperson for Syneos, Gary Gatyas, said the company does not maintain the system or the contact center.
So who does manage the call center and website? “The AADA has asked stakeholders, including Syneos Health, for clarification on who manages the call center and website but has not received a response,” Dr. Frieden said. “In the meeting [Dec. 16], representatives from the FDA made clear that the iPLEDGE sponsors are ultimately responsible for this REMS program,” Dr. Frieden said.
According to the FDA, isotretinoin manufacturers are part of the iPLEDGE program. On the iPLEDGE website, 12 isotretinoin products are listed, made by eight different companies.
One dermatologist maneuvering the new website who registered successfully as a provider told this news organization that he received a follow-up survey from United BioSource about the new website. This news organization contacted that company to confirm it runs the website but has not yet received a response.
Meanwhile, dermatologists continue to help frustrated patients cope with the new website and registration details. Neil S. Goldberg, MD, a dermatologist in Westchester County, New York, heard from two mothers who helped their teen daughters complete the forms by attesting they would use abstinence as contraception but then couldn’t figure out how to answer another question. As a result, their answers were interpreted as the patients saying they were using abstinence but didn’t commit to not having sexual contact with a partner capable of impregnating them. So Dr. Goldberg got an automated message back from the iPLEDGE program that the answers were a mismatch.
And in the comments section following a previous story on the problematic rollout, one reader offered a suggestion for reducing hold times to the call center: choose the Spanish option.
Dr. Frieden and Dr. Goldberg have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to dermatologists, pharmacists, and patients.
When the new website and call center launched Dec. 13, hours-long hold times and repeated crashing of the website were reported as the norm, not the exception, triggering the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) to request – and get – an emergency meeting on Dec. 16 with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which mandates the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) for isotretinoin due to the teratogenicity of the acne medication.
At that meeting, ‘’the FDA and HHS [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] acknowledged the concerns of dermatologists and the need for stakeholders to work collaboratively to find a solution,” Ilona Frieden, MD, chair of the AADA’s iPLEDGE workgroup and professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an email interview. At the meeting, the AADA representatives described the severe impact on patient access to treatment that is resulting from the issues. The AADA also ‘’reiterated our call for a temporary pause to the program while stakeholders work to resolve the urgent issues with the platform,” she said.
The new approach, which is intended to make the experience more inclusive for transgender patients, reduces the previous three risk categories (females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males) to just two (those capable of getting pregnant and those not capable). The program requires physicians, patients, and pharmacists who prescribe, use, or dispense the drug to be registered, with requirements that include the use of two forms of an effective contraceptive and regular pregnancy tests by patients capable of becoming pregnant.
With reduced or no access during the technology glitches, access to the medicine was delayed for some patients. And dermatologists, pharmacists, and their staffs reported grueling hold times trying to reach the call center when the website had issues.
While the FDA agreed to help find a solution, it noted that the solution ‘’was to be found with dermatologists and pharmacists who are on the ground living the program every day,” Dr. Frieden said. No timeline for solving the issues was provided, so on Dec. 21, the AADA asked the FDA for a constructive dialogue among stakeholders within the next 24 hours, Dr. Frieden told this news organization.
While Dr. Frieden sees progress, ‘’we are disappointed that this situation continues to drag on for more than a week later, with more patients losing access to their needed medication each day.” While some prescribers have been able to log onto the portal and enter the information required, confirming some patients, large gaps remain, she said. Patients and pharmacists still report difficulties logging on. When that happens and they try to reach the call center, there are often hours-long hold times, dropped calls, or a message saying to call back.
The iPLEDGE administrator is Syneos Health, but a spokesperson for Syneos, Gary Gatyas, said the company does not maintain the system or the contact center.
So who does manage the call center and website? “The AADA has asked stakeholders, including Syneos Health, for clarification on who manages the call center and website but has not received a response,” Dr. Frieden said. “In the meeting [Dec. 16], representatives from the FDA made clear that the iPLEDGE sponsors are ultimately responsible for this REMS program,” Dr. Frieden said.
According to the FDA, isotretinoin manufacturers are part of the iPLEDGE program. On the iPLEDGE website, 12 isotretinoin products are listed, made by eight different companies.
One dermatologist maneuvering the new website who registered successfully as a provider told this news organization that he received a follow-up survey from United BioSource about the new website. This news organization contacted that company to confirm it runs the website but has not yet received a response.
Meanwhile, dermatologists continue to help frustrated patients cope with the new website and registration details. Neil S. Goldberg, MD, a dermatologist in Westchester County, New York, heard from two mothers who helped their teen daughters complete the forms by attesting they would use abstinence as contraception but then couldn’t figure out how to answer another question. As a result, their answers were interpreted as the patients saying they were using abstinence but didn’t commit to not having sexual contact with a partner capable of impregnating them. So Dr. Goldberg got an automated message back from the iPLEDGE program that the answers were a mismatch.
And in the comments section following a previous story on the problematic rollout, one reader offered a suggestion for reducing hold times to the call center: choose the Spanish option.
Dr. Frieden and Dr. Goldberg have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to dermatologists, pharmacists, and patients.
When the new website and call center launched Dec. 13, hours-long hold times and repeated crashing of the website were reported as the norm, not the exception, triggering the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) to request – and get – an emergency meeting on Dec. 16 with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which mandates the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) for isotretinoin due to the teratogenicity of the acne medication.
At that meeting, ‘’the FDA and HHS [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] acknowledged the concerns of dermatologists and the need for stakeholders to work collaboratively to find a solution,” Ilona Frieden, MD, chair of the AADA’s iPLEDGE workgroup and professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an email interview. At the meeting, the AADA representatives described the severe impact on patient access to treatment that is resulting from the issues. The AADA also ‘’reiterated our call for a temporary pause to the program while stakeholders work to resolve the urgent issues with the platform,” she said.
The new approach, which is intended to make the experience more inclusive for transgender patients, reduces the previous three risk categories (females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males) to just two (those capable of getting pregnant and those not capable). The program requires physicians, patients, and pharmacists who prescribe, use, or dispense the drug to be registered, with requirements that include the use of two forms of an effective contraceptive and regular pregnancy tests by patients capable of becoming pregnant.
With reduced or no access during the technology glitches, access to the medicine was delayed for some patients. And dermatologists, pharmacists, and their staffs reported grueling hold times trying to reach the call center when the website had issues.
While the FDA agreed to help find a solution, it noted that the solution ‘’was to be found with dermatologists and pharmacists who are on the ground living the program every day,” Dr. Frieden said. No timeline for solving the issues was provided, so on Dec. 21, the AADA asked the FDA for a constructive dialogue among stakeholders within the next 24 hours, Dr. Frieden told this news organization.
While Dr. Frieden sees progress, ‘’we are disappointed that this situation continues to drag on for more than a week later, with more patients losing access to their needed medication each day.” While some prescribers have been able to log onto the portal and enter the information required, confirming some patients, large gaps remain, she said. Patients and pharmacists still report difficulties logging on. When that happens and they try to reach the call center, there are often hours-long hold times, dropped calls, or a message saying to call back.
The iPLEDGE administrator is Syneos Health, but a spokesperson for Syneos, Gary Gatyas, said the company does not maintain the system or the contact center.
So who does manage the call center and website? “The AADA has asked stakeholders, including Syneos Health, for clarification on who manages the call center and website but has not received a response,” Dr. Frieden said. “In the meeting [Dec. 16], representatives from the FDA made clear that the iPLEDGE sponsors are ultimately responsible for this REMS program,” Dr. Frieden said.
According to the FDA, isotretinoin manufacturers are part of the iPLEDGE program. On the iPLEDGE website, 12 isotretinoin products are listed, made by eight different companies.
One dermatologist maneuvering the new website who registered successfully as a provider told this news organization that he received a follow-up survey from United BioSource about the new website. This news organization contacted that company to confirm it runs the website but has not yet received a response.
Meanwhile, dermatologists continue to help frustrated patients cope with the new website and registration details. Neil S. Goldberg, MD, a dermatologist in Westchester County, New York, heard from two mothers who helped their teen daughters complete the forms by attesting they would use abstinence as contraception but then couldn’t figure out how to answer another question. As a result, their answers were interpreted as the patients saying they were using abstinence but didn’t commit to not having sexual contact with a partner capable of impregnating them. So Dr. Goldberg got an automated message back from the iPLEDGE program that the answers were a mismatch.
And in the comments section following a previous story on the problematic rollout, one reader offered a suggestion for reducing hold times to the call center: choose the Spanish option.
Dr. Frieden and Dr. Goldberg have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves cabotegravir LA; New HIV PrEP option fills an important gap
SILVER SPRING, MD – .
The priority review approval was based on phase 2b-3 clinical trial data submitted to the agency this past August, after the study was stopped early due to encouraging efficacy results of the first pre-planned interim end-point analysis.
“Although TDF-FTC PrEP could be almost astoundingly effective in preventing HIV acquisition across populations and risk exposures, the adherence to the daily protocols was really challenging and difficult to attain initially and to maintain for some of our most vulnerable populations,” Raphael Landovitz, MD, MDC, lead study investigator and co-director of The Center for HIV Identification, Prevention, and Treatment Services at UCLA, Los Angeles, told this news organization.
Dr. Landovitz noted that population level benefits observed with PrEP were limited to people who were highly engaged in health care and well resourced, but the same benefits were not observed in the most vulnerable, highest-risk populations.
“The idea was, is there anything that we can do to improve ... choices for different options, some of which – like long-acting agents – would remove the obligation to adhere to daily prescribing or a post-coital and be more discreet,” he said.
Data demonstrated superiority versus TDF-FTC
Details of the prospective, phase 2b-3 randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial among 4,566 cisgender MSM (men who have sex with men) and transgender women highlighted the superiority of CAB 600 mg intramuscularly versus placebo or active TDF-FTC (300 mg/200 mg), with CAB-LA reducing HIV infection risk by 66%. These results were published August 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine and previously reported by this news organization.
Investigators identified HIV infections in 57 participants (including 52 who acquired HIV infections after enrollment). The hazard ratio for incident HIV infection versus TDG-FTC was 0.34, P < .001. Notably, effects were consistent across prespecified subgroups and populations.
Additionally, integrase strand-transfer inhibitor (INSTI) resistance mutations were detected in 1 of 4 of baseline HIV infection cases among CAB participants, while 2 of 39 incident infections in TDF-FTC participants occurred despite drug concentrations indicating good PrEP adherence.
Adverse events, breakthrough infections, and other important considerations
Because the trial was halted early, long-term safety data were lacking, thereby prompting investigators to launch an ongoing, open-label extension. In the initial trial, injection site reactions were reported in 81.4% (1,724) of CAB participants, most beginning a median of 1 day (IQR 0-2 days) post-injection, mild to moderate in severity (60.8% pain, 23.7% tenderness), and lasting a median of 3 days (IQR 2-6 days). In comparison, injection site reactions were reported in 31.3% of TDF-FTC participants (who, incidentally, received at least one placebo injection).
Severe adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were similar between CAB and TDF-FTC groups, They consisted mostly of an increase in creatine kinase level (14.2% with CAB vs. 13.5% with TDF-FTC) and a decrease in creatinine clearance (7.0% with CAB vs. 8.3% with TDF-FTC).
Although weight gain was higher among CAB participants (1.23 kg/year vs. 0.37 kg/year, TDF-FTC participants), most of the differences were observed during the first 40 weeks and were driven by weight loss in the TDF-FDC group. Weight changes were similar (~1 kg/year) thereafter.
Importantly, study participants assigned CAB underwent an oral-tablet, 5-week lead-in phase, which might have contributed to eventual treatment failure.
In a companion piece published Nov. 1 in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, investigators noted that adherence to the oral lead-in was poor in roughly one-third of participants with incident, breakthrough infections. They wrote that the barriers to adherence with daily oral PrEP regimens coupled with the favorable CAB-LA safety profile suggested that “the oral phase before CAB-LA initiation might not be necessary or desirable.”
The question remains as to whether or not strategies entailing viral load or other RNA screening tests at follow-up clinic visits might be warranted.
“It’s one of the biggest sort of ‘what’s next’ questions that’s come out of this study,” Dr. Landovitz said. “We’re now testing the strategy of using viral load or RNA screening at every visit to see if, in fact, we can catch these breakthrough infections earlier and potentially avoid resistance,” he added.
Until more data are available, Dr. Landovitz said that “the guidance for the clinician would be that until you have resistance testing back on someone who breaks through cabotegravir PrEP to use a protease inhibitor-based treatment regimen, at least initially.”
Institutional changes to ensure delivery of injections, tracking, and follow-up to ensure optimal use of long-acting PrEP agents are likely to challenge already overburdened health care systems and may require additional strategies for implementation (for example, pharmacy or at-home administration). Despite these factors, CAB-LA approval is welcome news to clinicians and patients alike.
“We’re constantly searching for new drugs to expand our repertoire of what we can provide patients,” Lina Rosengren-Hovee, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine and infectious disease specialist at UNC Health, Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview. Dr. Rosengren-Hovee was not involved in the study.
“For folks under 30, the sexual and gender minority, Black, and Latino, they are the ones with the highest need for PrEP, that are in a position that places them at higher risk for HIV. Being able to offer an injectable option is ... a game changer,” she said.
Dr. Rosengren-Hovee reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landovitz has consulting relationships with Gilead, Janssen, Roche, and Cepheus.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SILVER SPRING, MD – .
The priority review approval was based on phase 2b-3 clinical trial data submitted to the agency this past August, after the study was stopped early due to encouraging efficacy results of the first pre-planned interim end-point analysis.
“Although TDF-FTC PrEP could be almost astoundingly effective in preventing HIV acquisition across populations and risk exposures, the adherence to the daily protocols was really challenging and difficult to attain initially and to maintain for some of our most vulnerable populations,” Raphael Landovitz, MD, MDC, lead study investigator and co-director of The Center for HIV Identification, Prevention, and Treatment Services at UCLA, Los Angeles, told this news organization.
Dr. Landovitz noted that population level benefits observed with PrEP were limited to people who were highly engaged in health care and well resourced, but the same benefits were not observed in the most vulnerable, highest-risk populations.
“The idea was, is there anything that we can do to improve ... choices for different options, some of which – like long-acting agents – would remove the obligation to adhere to daily prescribing or a post-coital and be more discreet,” he said.
Data demonstrated superiority versus TDF-FTC
Details of the prospective, phase 2b-3 randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial among 4,566 cisgender MSM (men who have sex with men) and transgender women highlighted the superiority of CAB 600 mg intramuscularly versus placebo or active TDF-FTC (300 mg/200 mg), with CAB-LA reducing HIV infection risk by 66%. These results were published August 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine and previously reported by this news organization.
Investigators identified HIV infections in 57 participants (including 52 who acquired HIV infections after enrollment). The hazard ratio for incident HIV infection versus TDG-FTC was 0.34, P < .001. Notably, effects were consistent across prespecified subgroups and populations.
Additionally, integrase strand-transfer inhibitor (INSTI) resistance mutations were detected in 1 of 4 of baseline HIV infection cases among CAB participants, while 2 of 39 incident infections in TDF-FTC participants occurred despite drug concentrations indicating good PrEP adherence.
Adverse events, breakthrough infections, and other important considerations
Because the trial was halted early, long-term safety data were lacking, thereby prompting investigators to launch an ongoing, open-label extension. In the initial trial, injection site reactions were reported in 81.4% (1,724) of CAB participants, most beginning a median of 1 day (IQR 0-2 days) post-injection, mild to moderate in severity (60.8% pain, 23.7% tenderness), and lasting a median of 3 days (IQR 2-6 days). In comparison, injection site reactions were reported in 31.3% of TDF-FTC participants (who, incidentally, received at least one placebo injection).
Severe adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were similar between CAB and TDF-FTC groups, They consisted mostly of an increase in creatine kinase level (14.2% with CAB vs. 13.5% with TDF-FTC) and a decrease in creatinine clearance (7.0% with CAB vs. 8.3% with TDF-FTC).
Although weight gain was higher among CAB participants (1.23 kg/year vs. 0.37 kg/year, TDF-FTC participants), most of the differences were observed during the first 40 weeks and were driven by weight loss in the TDF-FDC group. Weight changes were similar (~1 kg/year) thereafter.
Importantly, study participants assigned CAB underwent an oral-tablet, 5-week lead-in phase, which might have contributed to eventual treatment failure.
In a companion piece published Nov. 1 in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, investigators noted that adherence to the oral lead-in was poor in roughly one-third of participants with incident, breakthrough infections. They wrote that the barriers to adherence with daily oral PrEP regimens coupled with the favorable CAB-LA safety profile suggested that “the oral phase before CAB-LA initiation might not be necessary or desirable.”
The question remains as to whether or not strategies entailing viral load or other RNA screening tests at follow-up clinic visits might be warranted.
“It’s one of the biggest sort of ‘what’s next’ questions that’s come out of this study,” Dr. Landovitz said. “We’re now testing the strategy of using viral load or RNA screening at every visit to see if, in fact, we can catch these breakthrough infections earlier and potentially avoid resistance,” he added.
Until more data are available, Dr. Landovitz said that “the guidance for the clinician would be that until you have resistance testing back on someone who breaks through cabotegravir PrEP to use a protease inhibitor-based treatment regimen, at least initially.”
Institutional changes to ensure delivery of injections, tracking, and follow-up to ensure optimal use of long-acting PrEP agents are likely to challenge already overburdened health care systems and may require additional strategies for implementation (for example, pharmacy or at-home administration). Despite these factors, CAB-LA approval is welcome news to clinicians and patients alike.
“We’re constantly searching for new drugs to expand our repertoire of what we can provide patients,” Lina Rosengren-Hovee, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine and infectious disease specialist at UNC Health, Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview. Dr. Rosengren-Hovee was not involved in the study.
“For folks under 30, the sexual and gender minority, Black, and Latino, they are the ones with the highest need for PrEP, that are in a position that places them at higher risk for HIV. Being able to offer an injectable option is ... a game changer,” she said.
Dr. Rosengren-Hovee reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landovitz has consulting relationships with Gilead, Janssen, Roche, and Cepheus.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SILVER SPRING, MD – .
The priority review approval was based on phase 2b-3 clinical trial data submitted to the agency this past August, after the study was stopped early due to encouraging efficacy results of the first pre-planned interim end-point analysis.
“Although TDF-FTC PrEP could be almost astoundingly effective in preventing HIV acquisition across populations and risk exposures, the adherence to the daily protocols was really challenging and difficult to attain initially and to maintain for some of our most vulnerable populations,” Raphael Landovitz, MD, MDC, lead study investigator and co-director of The Center for HIV Identification, Prevention, and Treatment Services at UCLA, Los Angeles, told this news organization.
Dr. Landovitz noted that population level benefits observed with PrEP were limited to people who were highly engaged in health care and well resourced, but the same benefits were not observed in the most vulnerable, highest-risk populations.
“The idea was, is there anything that we can do to improve ... choices for different options, some of which – like long-acting agents – would remove the obligation to adhere to daily prescribing or a post-coital and be more discreet,” he said.
Data demonstrated superiority versus TDF-FTC
Details of the prospective, phase 2b-3 randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial among 4,566 cisgender MSM (men who have sex with men) and transgender women highlighted the superiority of CAB 600 mg intramuscularly versus placebo or active TDF-FTC (300 mg/200 mg), with CAB-LA reducing HIV infection risk by 66%. These results were published August 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine and previously reported by this news organization.
Investigators identified HIV infections in 57 participants (including 52 who acquired HIV infections after enrollment). The hazard ratio for incident HIV infection versus TDG-FTC was 0.34, P < .001. Notably, effects were consistent across prespecified subgroups and populations.
Additionally, integrase strand-transfer inhibitor (INSTI) resistance mutations were detected in 1 of 4 of baseline HIV infection cases among CAB participants, while 2 of 39 incident infections in TDF-FTC participants occurred despite drug concentrations indicating good PrEP adherence.
Adverse events, breakthrough infections, and other important considerations
Because the trial was halted early, long-term safety data were lacking, thereby prompting investigators to launch an ongoing, open-label extension. In the initial trial, injection site reactions were reported in 81.4% (1,724) of CAB participants, most beginning a median of 1 day (IQR 0-2 days) post-injection, mild to moderate in severity (60.8% pain, 23.7% tenderness), and lasting a median of 3 days (IQR 2-6 days). In comparison, injection site reactions were reported in 31.3% of TDF-FTC participants (who, incidentally, received at least one placebo injection).
Severe adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were similar between CAB and TDF-FTC groups, They consisted mostly of an increase in creatine kinase level (14.2% with CAB vs. 13.5% with TDF-FTC) and a decrease in creatinine clearance (7.0% with CAB vs. 8.3% with TDF-FTC).
Although weight gain was higher among CAB participants (1.23 kg/year vs. 0.37 kg/year, TDF-FTC participants), most of the differences were observed during the first 40 weeks and were driven by weight loss in the TDF-FDC group. Weight changes were similar (~1 kg/year) thereafter.
Importantly, study participants assigned CAB underwent an oral-tablet, 5-week lead-in phase, which might have contributed to eventual treatment failure.
In a companion piece published Nov. 1 in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, investigators noted that adherence to the oral lead-in was poor in roughly one-third of participants with incident, breakthrough infections. They wrote that the barriers to adherence with daily oral PrEP regimens coupled with the favorable CAB-LA safety profile suggested that “the oral phase before CAB-LA initiation might not be necessary or desirable.”
The question remains as to whether or not strategies entailing viral load or other RNA screening tests at follow-up clinic visits might be warranted.
“It’s one of the biggest sort of ‘what’s next’ questions that’s come out of this study,” Dr. Landovitz said. “We’re now testing the strategy of using viral load or RNA screening at every visit to see if, in fact, we can catch these breakthrough infections earlier and potentially avoid resistance,” he added.
Until more data are available, Dr. Landovitz said that “the guidance for the clinician would be that until you have resistance testing back on someone who breaks through cabotegravir PrEP to use a protease inhibitor-based treatment regimen, at least initially.”
Institutional changes to ensure delivery of injections, tracking, and follow-up to ensure optimal use of long-acting PrEP agents are likely to challenge already overburdened health care systems and may require additional strategies for implementation (for example, pharmacy or at-home administration). Despite these factors, CAB-LA approval is welcome news to clinicians and patients alike.
“We’re constantly searching for new drugs to expand our repertoire of what we can provide patients,” Lina Rosengren-Hovee, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine and infectious disease specialist at UNC Health, Chapel Hill, N.C., said in an interview. Dr. Rosengren-Hovee was not involved in the study.
“For folks under 30, the sexual and gender minority, Black, and Latino, they are the ones with the highest need for PrEP, that are in a position that places them at higher risk for HIV. Being able to offer an injectable option is ... a game changer,” she said.
Dr. Rosengren-Hovee reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landovitz has consulting relationships with Gilead, Janssen, Roche, and Cepheus.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CDC supports ‘test-to-stay’ for COVID- exposed students
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has announced that in the following days.
The new guidance, known as the “test-to-stay” protocol, would reduce the number of children who are expected to stay home as a close contact to someone who tested positive for the virus.
“Test-to-stay is an encouraging public health practice to keep our children in schools,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, said during a White House press briefing.
When a COVID-19 case is identified in a school, the test-to-stay strategy allows schools to implement regular testing rather than quarantine close contacts. If the contacts don’t experience symptoms and test negative at least twice in a seven-day period, they can continue in-person learning. If they test positive, then they are required to isolate.
In recent months, the CDC has collaborated with several school districts across the United States to evaluate test-to-stay programs. On Dec. 17, the CDC published two studies in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that demonstrated the effectiveness of these programs in limiting the spread of the virus while also keeping students in class.
“CDC is updating our materials to help schools and parents know how to best implement this promising and now-proven practice, along with our multi-layer prevention strategies that will help keep our children in the classroom safely,” Dr. Walensky said. “These studies demonstrated that test-to-stay works to keep unvaccinated children in school safely.”
In one study, researchers analyzed data for public schools in Los Angeles County between Aug. 16 and Oct. 31, where 432 schools implemented test-to-stay and 1,635 did not.
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health found that COVID-19 cases did not increase among the schools that used the protocol, as compared with schools that didn’t.
Before test-to-stay was implemented, the average daily number of cases was 10 cases per 100,000 students in districts that later adopted the protocol and 20 cases per 100,000 students in districts that didn’t. After the program was implemented, average daily case rates declined in all school districts but remained lower in test-to-stay districts, with 6 cases per 100,000 students as compared with 11 cases per 100,000 students in districts that didn’t do the protocol.
In addition, schools that didn’t use the test-to-stay program “lost substantial in-person school days,” researchers wrote. At the same time, implementing the program “requires resources that might be currently unavailable for some schools,” they added, noting that “a higher percentage of disadvantaged schools” didn’t do the protocol.
The program requires personnel who can track which students need to be tested, their results and when they can come off the list of close contacts, officials told CNN. This can be a challenge for overstretched school nursing staff.
In another study published last week, researchers analyzed data between Aug. 9 and Oct. 29 for 90 schools across 31 districts in Lake County, Ill., that implemented test-to-stay programs. During that time, the schools reported 258 COVID-19 cases and 1,664 close contacts.
The Lake County Health Department examined the number of close contacts that later tested positive and whether the virus further spread from the close contacts to other people. They found that 16 of the close contacts tested positive and that these were all students. No one appeared to transmit the virus to others at school, but nine cases were identified among household contacts.
Overall, study authors wrote, the test-to-stay protocol preserved in-person learning days for students. In addition, regular testing, masking, and physical distancing led to lower virus transmission in school.
“The test-to-stay-programs are really good at balancing the costs and benefits,” Zoe McLaren, a health policy expert at the University of Maryland at Baltimore, told The New York Times.
“What the test-to-stay program does is help us keep COVID cases down, while also trying to make sure we keep kids in school as much as possible, which I think is really important,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has announced that in the following days.
The new guidance, known as the “test-to-stay” protocol, would reduce the number of children who are expected to stay home as a close contact to someone who tested positive for the virus.
“Test-to-stay is an encouraging public health practice to keep our children in schools,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, said during a White House press briefing.
When a COVID-19 case is identified in a school, the test-to-stay strategy allows schools to implement regular testing rather than quarantine close contacts. If the contacts don’t experience symptoms and test negative at least twice in a seven-day period, they can continue in-person learning. If they test positive, then they are required to isolate.
In recent months, the CDC has collaborated with several school districts across the United States to evaluate test-to-stay programs. On Dec. 17, the CDC published two studies in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that demonstrated the effectiveness of these programs in limiting the spread of the virus while also keeping students in class.
“CDC is updating our materials to help schools and parents know how to best implement this promising and now-proven practice, along with our multi-layer prevention strategies that will help keep our children in the classroom safely,” Dr. Walensky said. “These studies demonstrated that test-to-stay works to keep unvaccinated children in school safely.”
In one study, researchers analyzed data for public schools in Los Angeles County between Aug. 16 and Oct. 31, where 432 schools implemented test-to-stay and 1,635 did not.
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health found that COVID-19 cases did not increase among the schools that used the protocol, as compared with schools that didn’t.
Before test-to-stay was implemented, the average daily number of cases was 10 cases per 100,000 students in districts that later adopted the protocol and 20 cases per 100,000 students in districts that didn’t. After the program was implemented, average daily case rates declined in all school districts but remained lower in test-to-stay districts, with 6 cases per 100,000 students as compared with 11 cases per 100,000 students in districts that didn’t do the protocol.
In addition, schools that didn’t use the test-to-stay program “lost substantial in-person school days,” researchers wrote. At the same time, implementing the program “requires resources that might be currently unavailable for some schools,” they added, noting that “a higher percentage of disadvantaged schools” didn’t do the protocol.
The program requires personnel who can track which students need to be tested, their results and when they can come off the list of close contacts, officials told CNN. This can be a challenge for overstretched school nursing staff.
In another study published last week, researchers analyzed data between Aug. 9 and Oct. 29 for 90 schools across 31 districts in Lake County, Ill., that implemented test-to-stay programs. During that time, the schools reported 258 COVID-19 cases and 1,664 close contacts.
The Lake County Health Department examined the number of close contacts that later tested positive and whether the virus further spread from the close contacts to other people. They found that 16 of the close contacts tested positive and that these were all students. No one appeared to transmit the virus to others at school, but nine cases were identified among household contacts.
Overall, study authors wrote, the test-to-stay protocol preserved in-person learning days for students. In addition, regular testing, masking, and physical distancing led to lower virus transmission in school.
“The test-to-stay-programs are really good at balancing the costs and benefits,” Zoe McLaren, a health policy expert at the University of Maryland at Baltimore, told The New York Times.
“What the test-to-stay program does is help us keep COVID cases down, while also trying to make sure we keep kids in school as much as possible, which I think is really important,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has announced that in the following days.
The new guidance, known as the “test-to-stay” protocol, would reduce the number of children who are expected to stay home as a close contact to someone who tested positive for the virus.
“Test-to-stay is an encouraging public health practice to keep our children in schools,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, said during a White House press briefing.
When a COVID-19 case is identified in a school, the test-to-stay strategy allows schools to implement regular testing rather than quarantine close contacts. If the contacts don’t experience symptoms and test negative at least twice in a seven-day period, they can continue in-person learning. If they test positive, then they are required to isolate.
In recent months, the CDC has collaborated with several school districts across the United States to evaluate test-to-stay programs. On Dec. 17, the CDC published two studies in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that demonstrated the effectiveness of these programs in limiting the spread of the virus while also keeping students in class.
“CDC is updating our materials to help schools and parents know how to best implement this promising and now-proven practice, along with our multi-layer prevention strategies that will help keep our children in the classroom safely,” Dr. Walensky said. “These studies demonstrated that test-to-stay works to keep unvaccinated children in school safely.”
In one study, researchers analyzed data for public schools in Los Angeles County between Aug. 16 and Oct. 31, where 432 schools implemented test-to-stay and 1,635 did not.
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health found that COVID-19 cases did not increase among the schools that used the protocol, as compared with schools that didn’t.
Before test-to-stay was implemented, the average daily number of cases was 10 cases per 100,000 students in districts that later adopted the protocol and 20 cases per 100,000 students in districts that didn’t. After the program was implemented, average daily case rates declined in all school districts but remained lower in test-to-stay districts, with 6 cases per 100,000 students as compared with 11 cases per 100,000 students in districts that didn’t do the protocol.
In addition, schools that didn’t use the test-to-stay program “lost substantial in-person school days,” researchers wrote. At the same time, implementing the program “requires resources that might be currently unavailable for some schools,” they added, noting that “a higher percentage of disadvantaged schools” didn’t do the protocol.
The program requires personnel who can track which students need to be tested, their results and when they can come off the list of close contacts, officials told CNN. This can be a challenge for overstretched school nursing staff.
In another study published last week, researchers analyzed data between Aug. 9 and Oct. 29 for 90 schools across 31 districts in Lake County, Ill., that implemented test-to-stay programs. During that time, the schools reported 258 COVID-19 cases and 1,664 close contacts.
The Lake County Health Department examined the number of close contacts that later tested positive and whether the virus further spread from the close contacts to other people. They found that 16 of the close contacts tested positive and that these were all students. No one appeared to transmit the virus to others at school, but nine cases were identified among household contacts.
Overall, study authors wrote, the test-to-stay protocol preserved in-person learning days for students. In addition, regular testing, masking, and physical distancing led to lower virus transmission in school.
“The test-to-stay-programs are really good at balancing the costs and benefits,” Zoe McLaren, a health policy expert at the University of Maryland at Baltimore, told The New York Times.
“What the test-to-stay program does is help us keep COVID cases down, while also trying to make sure we keep kids in school as much as possible, which I think is really important,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FDA grants new indication to lumateperone (Caplyta) for bipolar depression
The Food and Drug Administration has expanded approval of lumateperone (Caplyta) to include treatment of adults with depressive episodes associated with bipolar I and II disorder, as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy with lithium or valproate.
This makes lumateperone the only FDA-approved drug for this indication.
“The efficacy, and favorable safety and tolerability profile, make Caplyta an important treatment option for the millions of patients living with bipolar I or II depression and represents a major development for these patients,” Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, said in a company news release.
Lumateperone was first approved by the FDA in 2019 for the treatment of adults with schizophrenia.
‘Positioned to launch immediately’
that showed treatment with lumateperone, alone or with lithium or valproate, significantly improved depressive symptoms for patients with major depressive episodes associated with bipolar I and bipolar II disorders.
In these studies, treatment with a 42-mg once-daily dose was associated with significantly greater improvement from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score versus placebo.
Lumateperone also showed a statistically significant improvement in the key secondary endpoint relating to clinical global impression of bipolar disorder.
Somnolence/sedation, dizziness, nausea, and dry mouth were the most commonly reported adverse events associated with the medication. Minimal changes were observed in weight and vital signs and in results of metabolic or endocrine assessments. Incidence of extrapyramidal symptom–related events was low and was similar to those with placebo.
Sharon Mates, PhD, chairman and CEO of Intra-Cellular Therapies, noted in the same press release that the company is “positioned to launch immediately and are excited to offer Caplyta to the millions of patients living with bipolar depression.”
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has expanded approval of lumateperone (Caplyta) to include treatment of adults with depressive episodes associated with bipolar I and II disorder, as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy with lithium or valproate.
This makes lumateperone the only FDA-approved drug for this indication.
“The efficacy, and favorable safety and tolerability profile, make Caplyta an important treatment option for the millions of patients living with bipolar I or II depression and represents a major development for these patients,” Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, said in a company news release.
Lumateperone was first approved by the FDA in 2019 for the treatment of adults with schizophrenia.
‘Positioned to launch immediately’
that showed treatment with lumateperone, alone or with lithium or valproate, significantly improved depressive symptoms for patients with major depressive episodes associated with bipolar I and bipolar II disorders.
In these studies, treatment with a 42-mg once-daily dose was associated with significantly greater improvement from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score versus placebo.
Lumateperone also showed a statistically significant improvement in the key secondary endpoint relating to clinical global impression of bipolar disorder.
Somnolence/sedation, dizziness, nausea, and dry mouth were the most commonly reported adverse events associated with the medication. Minimal changes were observed in weight and vital signs and in results of metabolic or endocrine assessments. Incidence of extrapyramidal symptom–related events was low and was similar to those with placebo.
Sharon Mates, PhD, chairman and CEO of Intra-Cellular Therapies, noted in the same press release that the company is “positioned to launch immediately and are excited to offer Caplyta to the millions of patients living with bipolar depression.”
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has expanded approval of lumateperone (Caplyta) to include treatment of adults with depressive episodes associated with bipolar I and II disorder, as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy with lithium or valproate.
This makes lumateperone the only FDA-approved drug for this indication.
“The efficacy, and favorable safety and tolerability profile, make Caplyta an important treatment option for the millions of patients living with bipolar I or II depression and represents a major development for these patients,” Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, said in a company news release.
Lumateperone was first approved by the FDA in 2019 for the treatment of adults with schizophrenia.
‘Positioned to launch immediately’
that showed treatment with lumateperone, alone or with lithium or valproate, significantly improved depressive symptoms for patients with major depressive episodes associated with bipolar I and bipolar II disorders.
In these studies, treatment with a 42-mg once-daily dose was associated with significantly greater improvement from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score versus placebo.
Lumateperone also showed a statistically significant improvement in the key secondary endpoint relating to clinical global impression of bipolar disorder.
Somnolence/sedation, dizziness, nausea, and dry mouth were the most commonly reported adverse events associated with the medication. Minimal changes were observed in weight and vital signs and in results of metabolic or endocrine assessments. Incidence of extrapyramidal symptom–related events was low and was similar to those with placebo.
Sharon Mates, PhD, chairman and CEO of Intra-Cellular Therapies, noted in the same press release that the company is “positioned to launch immediately and are excited to offer Caplyta to the millions of patients living with bipolar depression.”
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Class I recall of percutaneous thrombolytic device
Arrow International, a subsidiary of Teleflex, has recalled a total of 3,241 Arrow-Trerotola over-the-wire 7FR percutaneous thrombolytic device (PTD) kits because of the risk of the orange inner lumen of the catheter’s tip component separating from the basket.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a Class I recall, the most serious type, because of the potential for serious injury or death.
The recalled kits include a rotatable catheter with an outer sheath and an inner cable with a self-expanding basket. The Arrow-Trerotola PTD catheter is used with the Arrow rotator drive unit to remove clots in patients with arteriovenous fistulas and synthetic dialysis grafts.
“If the orange inner lumen separates from the basket, it may fracture and detach and block the blood vessel(s),” the FDA says in the recall notice posted on the FDA website.
“If the orange inner lumen detaches from the basket, health consequences depend upon where the fractured tip component embolizes. If the embolization is local to the treatment target site, retrieval may be attempted, requiring an additional intervention and consequent delay of therapy,” the agency notes.
“In some cases, the embolization could be central or possibly even to the heart or pulmonary arteries. This may lead to serious adverse events such as vessel damage, need for additional medical procedures, or possibly death,” the agency says.
To date, there have been seven complaints and no injuries or deaths reported for this device.
The recalled devices were distributed in the United States between Nov. 1, 2019, and July 31, 2021. Product codes and lot numbers pertaining to the devices are listed on the FDA website.
Teleflex has sent an urgent field safety notice to customers requesting that they check inventory for affected product and remove and quarantine all recalled product.
Customers are also asked to complete the enclosed acknowledgement form and fax it to 1-855-419-8507 (attention: customer service) or e-mail the form to [email protected].
Customers with recalled product service will be contacted by a company representative with instructions for returning any recalled products.
Customers who have questions about this recall should contact Teleflex customer service by phone at 1-866-396-2111, by fax at 1-855-419-8507, or by email at [email protected].
Health care providers can report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Arrow International, a subsidiary of Teleflex, has recalled a total of 3,241 Arrow-Trerotola over-the-wire 7FR percutaneous thrombolytic device (PTD) kits because of the risk of the orange inner lumen of the catheter’s tip component separating from the basket.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a Class I recall, the most serious type, because of the potential for serious injury or death.
The recalled kits include a rotatable catheter with an outer sheath and an inner cable with a self-expanding basket. The Arrow-Trerotola PTD catheter is used with the Arrow rotator drive unit to remove clots in patients with arteriovenous fistulas and synthetic dialysis grafts.
“If the orange inner lumen separates from the basket, it may fracture and detach and block the blood vessel(s),” the FDA says in the recall notice posted on the FDA website.
“If the orange inner lumen detaches from the basket, health consequences depend upon where the fractured tip component embolizes. If the embolization is local to the treatment target site, retrieval may be attempted, requiring an additional intervention and consequent delay of therapy,” the agency notes.
“In some cases, the embolization could be central or possibly even to the heart or pulmonary arteries. This may lead to serious adverse events such as vessel damage, need for additional medical procedures, or possibly death,” the agency says.
To date, there have been seven complaints and no injuries or deaths reported for this device.
The recalled devices were distributed in the United States between Nov. 1, 2019, and July 31, 2021. Product codes and lot numbers pertaining to the devices are listed on the FDA website.
Teleflex has sent an urgent field safety notice to customers requesting that they check inventory for affected product and remove and quarantine all recalled product.
Customers are also asked to complete the enclosed acknowledgement form and fax it to 1-855-419-8507 (attention: customer service) or e-mail the form to [email protected].
Customers with recalled product service will be contacted by a company representative with instructions for returning any recalled products.
Customers who have questions about this recall should contact Teleflex customer service by phone at 1-866-396-2111, by fax at 1-855-419-8507, or by email at [email protected].
Health care providers can report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Arrow International, a subsidiary of Teleflex, has recalled a total of 3,241 Arrow-Trerotola over-the-wire 7FR percutaneous thrombolytic device (PTD) kits because of the risk of the orange inner lumen of the catheter’s tip component separating from the basket.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a Class I recall, the most serious type, because of the potential for serious injury or death.
The recalled kits include a rotatable catheter with an outer sheath and an inner cable with a self-expanding basket. The Arrow-Trerotola PTD catheter is used with the Arrow rotator drive unit to remove clots in patients with arteriovenous fistulas and synthetic dialysis grafts.
“If the orange inner lumen separates from the basket, it may fracture and detach and block the blood vessel(s),” the FDA says in the recall notice posted on the FDA website.
“If the orange inner lumen detaches from the basket, health consequences depend upon where the fractured tip component embolizes. If the embolization is local to the treatment target site, retrieval may be attempted, requiring an additional intervention and consequent delay of therapy,” the agency notes.
“In some cases, the embolization could be central or possibly even to the heart or pulmonary arteries. This may lead to serious adverse events such as vessel damage, need for additional medical procedures, or possibly death,” the agency says.
To date, there have been seven complaints and no injuries or deaths reported for this device.
The recalled devices were distributed in the United States between Nov. 1, 2019, and July 31, 2021. Product codes and lot numbers pertaining to the devices are listed on the FDA website.
Teleflex has sent an urgent field safety notice to customers requesting that they check inventory for affected product and remove and quarantine all recalled product.
Customers are also asked to complete the enclosed acknowledgement form and fax it to 1-855-419-8507 (attention: customer service) or e-mail the form to [email protected].
Customers with recalled product service will be contacted by a company representative with instructions for returning any recalled products.
Customers who have questions about this recall should contact Teleflex customer service by phone at 1-866-396-2111, by fax at 1-855-419-8507, or by email at [email protected].
Health care providers can report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID cases spike as questions remain about Omicron’s threat
The best way to stay protected is by getting vaccinated and boosted, they said.
“For the unvaccinated, you’re looking at a winter of severe illness and death – for yourselves, families, and the hospitals who may soon overwhelm,” White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said at a news briefing Dec. 17. “We need the American people to do their part.”
The Omicron variant has been detected in at least 39 states and 75 countries, according to CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD.
The strain is more transmissible than the already highly infectious Delta variant, and although there was early evidence that it caused more mild disease, she said that is likely because many of those infected have been vaccinated and boosted.
“Although Delta continues to circulate widely in the United States, Omicron is increasing rapidly and we expect it to become the dominant strain in the United States, as it has in other countries, in the coming weeks,” Dr. Walensky said.
The United States is averaging close to 1,300 deaths from COVID-19 each day. New cases, deaths, and hospitalizations are higher now than in the previous winter – before vaccines were so widely available. The New York Times reported on Dec. 17 that new infections in Connecticut and Maine have grown 150% in the past 2 weeks, and Ohio and Indiana are seeing hospitalization rates nearing the worst of 2020-2021’s winter surge.
Dueling reports released recently gave cause for relief and concern about Omicron.
A study from South Africa released on Dec. 14 shows lower hospitalizations during the first 3 weeks of the Omicron wave than during earlier waves from other variants. That’s the good news.
The concerning news is out of the United Kingdom, where Imperial College London reported Dec. 17 that the risk of reinfection with COVID-19 from Omicron is more than 5 times as high and that cases of Omicron-based COVID-19 are doubling every 2 days.
What’s more, the study “finds no evidence of Omicron having lower severity than Delta, judged by either the proportion of people testing positive who report symptoms, or by the proportion of cases seeking hospital care after infection. However, hospitalization data remains very limited at this time,” the researchers said.
“We have no evidence that the virus itself is more mild,” Eric Topol, MD, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-in-chief of Medscape, told PBS NewsHour. “Until we have that, we have to assume that people who don’t have any protection are highly vulnerable to getting very ill.”
The White House COVID-19 team continues to urge parents and guardians to get their children vaccinated, especially in anticipation of a post-holiday spike. Dr. Walensky said the CDC’s vaccine advisory board met on Dec. 16 to continue the safety discussion about COVID-19 vaccinations in children.
So far, 20 million children under 17 and 5 million under 11 have received their shots.
“Looking specifically at vaccine safety data from over 50,000 children 5-11 years old, we found no evidence of serious safety concerns,” Dr. Walensky said.
Top infectious disease expert Anthony S. Fauci, MD, highlighted the importance of getting vaccinated and boosted to avoid serious disease from Delta and Omicron.
“We’re in a situation where we are now facing a very important Delta surge and we are looking over our shoulder at an oncoming Omicron surge,” he said. “The optimum protection is fully vaccinated plus a boost.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The best way to stay protected is by getting vaccinated and boosted, they said.
“For the unvaccinated, you’re looking at a winter of severe illness and death – for yourselves, families, and the hospitals who may soon overwhelm,” White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said at a news briefing Dec. 17. “We need the American people to do their part.”
The Omicron variant has been detected in at least 39 states and 75 countries, according to CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD.
The strain is more transmissible than the already highly infectious Delta variant, and although there was early evidence that it caused more mild disease, she said that is likely because many of those infected have been vaccinated and boosted.
“Although Delta continues to circulate widely in the United States, Omicron is increasing rapidly and we expect it to become the dominant strain in the United States, as it has in other countries, in the coming weeks,” Dr. Walensky said.
The United States is averaging close to 1,300 deaths from COVID-19 each day. New cases, deaths, and hospitalizations are higher now than in the previous winter – before vaccines were so widely available. The New York Times reported on Dec. 17 that new infections in Connecticut and Maine have grown 150% in the past 2 weeks, and Ohio and Indiana are seeing hospitalization rates nearing the worst of 2020-2021’s winter surge.
Dueling reports released recently gave cause for relief and concern about Omicron.
A study from South Africa released on Dec. 14 shows lower hospitalizations during the first 3 weeks of the Omicron wave than during earlier waves from other variants. That’s the good news.
The concerning news is out of the United Kingdom, where Imperial College London reported Dec. 17 that the risk of reinfection with COVID-19 from Omicron is more than 5 times as high and that cases of Omicron-based COVID-19 are doubling every 2 days.
What’s more, the study “finds no evidence of Omicron having lower severity than Delta, judged by either the proportion of people testing positive who report symptoms, or by the proportion of cases seeking hospital care after infection. However, hospitalization data remains very limited at this time,” the researchers said.
“We have no evidence that the virus itself is more mild,” Eric Topol, MD, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-in-chief of Medscape, told PBS NewsHour. “Until we have that, we have to assume that people who don’t have any protection are highly vulnerable to getting very ill.”
The White House COVID-19 team continues to urge parents and guardians to get their children vaccinated, especially in anticipation of a post-holiday spike. Dr. Walensky said the CDC’s vaccine advisory board met on Dec. 16 to continue the safety discussion about COVID-19 vaccinations in children.
So far, 20 million children under 17 and 5 million under 11 have received their shots.
“Looking specifically at vaccine safety data from over 50,000 children 5-11 years old, we found no evidence of serious safety concerns,” Dr. Walensky said.
Top infectious disease expert Anthony S. Fauci, MD, highlighted the importance of getting vaccinated and boosted to avoid serious disease from Delta and Omicron.
“We’re in a situation where we are now facing a very important Delta surge and we are looking over our shoulder at an oncoming Omicron surge,” he said. “The optimum protection is fully vaccinated plus a boost.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The best way to stay protected is by getting vaccinated and boosted, they said.
“For the unvaccinated, you’re looking at a winter of severe illness and death – for yourselves, families, and the hospitals who may soon overwhelm,” White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said at a news briefing Dec. 17. “We need the American people to do their part.”
The Omicron variant has been detected in at least 39 states and 75 countries, according to CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD.
The strain is more transmissible than the already highly infectious Delta variant, and although there was early evidence that it caused more mild disease, she said that is likely because many of those infected have been vaccinated and boosted.
“Although Delta continues to circulate widely in the United States, Omicron is increasing rapidly and we expect it to become the dominant strain in the United States, as it has in other countries, in the coming weeks,” Dr. Walensky said.
The United States is averaging close to 1,300 deaths from COVID-19 each day. New cases, deaths, and hospitalizations are higher now than in the previous winter – before vaccines were so widely available. The New York Times reported on Dec. 17 that new infections in Connecticut and Maine have grown 150% in the past 2 weeks, and Ohio and Indiana are seeing hospitalization rates nearing the worst of 2020-2021’s winter surge.
Dueling reports released recently gave cause for relief and concern about Omicron.
A study from South Africa released on Dec. 14 shows lower hospitalizations during the first 3 weeks of the Omicron wave than during earlier waves from other variants. That’s the good news.
The concerning news is out of the United Kingdom, where Imperial College London reported Dec. 17 that the risk of reinfection with COVID-19 from Omicron is more than 5 times as high and that cases of Omicron-based COVID-19 are doubling every 2 days.
What’s more, the study “finds no evidence of Omicron having lower severity than Delta, judged by either the proportion of people testing positive who report symptoms, or by the proportion of cases seeking hospital care after infection. However, hospitalization data remains very limited at this time,” the researchers said.
“We have no evidence that the virus itself is more mild,” Eric Topol, MD, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-in-chief of Medscape, told PBS NewsHour. “Until we have that, we have to assume that people who don’t have any protection are highly vulnerable to getting very ill.”
The White House COVID-19 team continues to urge parents and guardians to get their children vaccinated, especially in anticipation of a post-holiday spike. Dr. Walensky said the CDC’s vaccine advisory board met on Dec. 16 to continue the safety discussion about COVID-19 vaccinations in children.
So far, 20 million children under 17 and 5 million under 11 have received their shots.
“Looking specifically at vaccine safety data from over 50,000 children 5-11 years old, we found no evidence of serious safety concerns,” Dr. Walensky said.
Top infectious disease expert Anthony S. Fauci, MD, highlighted the importance of getting vaccinated and boosted to avoid serious disease from Delta and Omicron.
“We’re in a situation where we are now facing a very important Delta surge and we are looking over our shoulder at an oncoming Omicron surge,” he said. “The optimum protection is fully vaccinated plus a boost.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FDA approves new myasthenia gravis drug
“There are significant unmet medical needs for people living with myasthenia gravis, as with many other rare diseases,” Billy Dunn, MD, director, office of neuroscience, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release.
This approval represents “an important step in providing a novel therapy option for patients and underscores the agency’s commitment to help make new treatment options available for people living with rare diseases,” Dr. Dunn added.
Effective, well tolerated
The rare and chronic autoimmune neuromuscular disorder of gMG causes debilitating and potentially life-threatening muscle weakness and significantly impaired independence and quality of life. Most patients with gMG have IgG antibodies, which are most often directed against skeletal muscle nicotinic acetylcholine receptors.
Efgartigimod is an antibody fragment designed to reduce pathogenic IgG antibodies and block the IgG recycling process in patients with gMG.
The novel agent binds to the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), which is widely expressed throughout the body and plays a central role in rescuing IgG antibodies from degradation. Blocking FcRn reduces IgG antibody levels.
As previously reported, efgartigimod was effective and well tolerated in the phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled ADAPT trial, which enrolled 187 adults with gMG regardless of acetylcholine receptor antibody status. All had a Myasthenia Gravis–Activities of Daily Living score of at least 5 (>50% nonocular) on a background of a stable dose of at least one MG drug.
For 26 weeks, 84 patients were randomly assigned to receive efgartigimod 10 mg/kg and 83 to receive matching placebo. Both treatments were administered as four infusions per cycle at one infusion per week. The process was repeated as needed, depending on clinical response no sooner than 8 weeks after initiation of the previous cycle.
Treatment with efgartigimod reduced disease burden and improved strength and quality of life in patients with gMG across four MG-specific scales. In addition, these benefits were observed early and were reproducible and durable.
The results were published in Lancet Neurology.
‘Important new advance’
Efgartigimod is a “very rapidly acting drug relative to other treatments that may take 4, 6, sometimes 10 months before they start to work; and the side-effect profile is much like placebo,” said principal investigator James Howard Jr., MD, department of neurology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The FDA granted efgartigimod fast track and orphan drug designation.
“People living with gMG have been in need of new treatment options that are targeted to the underlying pathogenesis of the disease and supported by clinical data,” Dr. Howard said in a company news release issued upon approval.
This approval “represents an important new advance for gMG patients and families affected by this debilitating disease. This therapy has the potential to reduce the disease burden of gMG and transform the way we treat this disease,” Dr. Howard added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“There are significant unmet medical needs for people living with myasthenia gravis, as with many other rare diseases,” Billy Dunn, MD, director, office of neuroscience, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release.
This approval represents “an important step in providing a novel therapy option for patients and underscores the agency’s commitment to help make new treatment options available for people living with rare diseases,” Dr. Dunn added.
Effective, well tolerated
The rare and chronic autoimmune neuromuscular disorder of gMG causes debilitating and potentially life-threatening muscle weakness and significantly impaired independence and quality of life. Most patients with gMG have IgG antibodies, which are most often directed against skeletal muscle nicotinic acetylcholine receptors.
Efgartigimod is an antibody fragment designed to reduce pathogenic IgG antibodies and block the IgG recycling process in patients with gMG.
The novel agent binds to the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), which is widely expressed throughout the body and plays a central role in rescuing IgG antibodies from degradation. Blocking FcRn reduces IgG antibody levels.
As previously reported, efgartigimod was effective and well tolerated in the phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled ADAPT trial, which enrolled 187 adults with gMG regardless of acetylcholine receptor antibody status. All had a Myasthenia Gravis–Activities of Daily Living score of at least 5 (>50% nonocular) on a background of a stable dose of at least one MG drug.
For 26 weeks, 84 patients were randomly assigned to receive efgartigimod 10 mg/kg and 83 to receive matching placebo. Both treatments were administered as four infusions per cycle at one infusion per week. The process was repeated as needed, depending on clinical response no sooner than 8 weeks after initiation of the previous cycle.
Treatment with efgartigimod reduced disease burden and improved strength and quality of life in patients with gMG across four MG-specific scales. In addition, these benefits were observed early and were reproducible and durable.
The results were published in Lancet Neurology.
‘Important new advance’
Efgartigimod is a “very rapidly acting drug relative to other treatments that may take 4, 6, sometimes 10 months before they start to work; and the side-effect profile is much like placebo,” said principal investigator James Howard Jr., MD, department of neurology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The FDA granted efgartigimod fast track and orphan drug designation.
“People living with gMG have been in need of new treatment options that are targeted to the underlying pathogenesis of the disease and supported by clinical data,” Dr. Howard said in a company news release issued upon approval.
This approval “represents an important new advance for gMG patients and families affected by this debilitating disease. This therapy has the potential to reduce the disease burden of gMG and transform the way we treat this disease,” Dr. Howard added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“There are significant unmet medical needs for people living with myasthenia gravis, as with many other rare diseases,” Billy Dunn, MD, director, office of neuroscience, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release.
This approval represents “an important step in providing a novel therapy option for patients and underscores the agency’s commitment to help make new treatment options available for people living with rare diseases,” Dr. Dunn added.
Effective, well tolerated
The rare and chronic autoimmune neuromuscular disorder of gMG causes debilitating and potentially life-threatening muscle weakness and significantly impaired independence and quality of life. Most patients with gMG have IgG antibodies, which are most often directed against skeletal muscle nicotinic acetylcholine receptors.
Efgartigimod is an antibody fragment designed to reduce pathogenic IgG antibodies and block the IgG recycling process in patients with gMG.
The novel agent binds to the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), which is widely expressed throughout the body and plays a central role in rescuing IgG antibodies from degradation. Blocking FcRn reduces IgG antibody levels.
As previously reported, efgartigimod was effective and well tolerated in the phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled ADAPT trial, which enrolled 187 adults with gMG regardless of acetylcholine receptor antibody status. All had a Myasthenia Gravis–Activities of Daily Living score of at least 5 (>50% nonocular) on a background of a stable dose of at least one MG drug.
For 26 weeks, 84 patients were randomly assigned to receive efgartigimod 10 mg/kg and 83 to receive matching placebo. Both treatments were administered as four infusions per cycle at one infusion per week. The process was repeated as needed, depending on clinical response no sooner than 8 weeks after initiation of the previous cycle.
Treatment with efgartigimod reduced disease burden and improved strength and quality of life in patients with gMG across four MG-specific scales. In addition, these benefits were observed early and were reproducible and durable.
The results were published in Lancet Neurology.
‘Important new advance’
Efgartigimod is a “very rapidly acting drug relative to other treatments that may take 4, 6, sometimes 10 months before they start to work; and the side-effect profile is much like placebo,” said principal investigator James Howard Jr., MD, department of neurology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The FDA granted efgartigimod fast track and orphan drug designation.
“People living with gMG have been in need of new treatment options that are targeted to the underlying pathogenesis of the disease and supported by clinical data,” Dr. Howard said in a company news release issued upon approval.
This approval “represents an important new advance for gMG patients and families affected by this debilitating disease. This therapy has the potential to reduce the disease burden of gMG and transform the way we treat this disease,” Dr. Howard added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.