User login
Lupin recalls irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide/irbesartan tablets
Lupin Pharmaceuticals is recalling all batches of irbesartan tablets USP 75 mg, 150 mg, and 300 mg and irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) tablets USP 150 mg/12.5 mg and 300 mg/12.5 mg because of the potential presence of the N-nitrosoirbesartan impurity.
“As part of Lupin’s ongoing assessment, analysis revealed that certain tested active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) batches (but not finished product batches) were above the specification limit for the impurity, N-nitrosoirbesartan,” the company said in a news release posted on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s website. It notes that the impurity is a “probable human carcinogen.”
Lupin discontinued the marketing of irbesartan and irbesartan/HCTZ tablets on Jan. 7, 2021. It says it “has received no reports of illness that appear to relate to this issue” and is issuing the recall out of “an abundance of caution.”
The company, however, goes on to note that from Oct. 8, 2018 (the earliest date of shipment from the manufacturing site of any of the affected batches) to September 30 of this year, Lupin received four reports of illness from irbesartan and 0 reports from irbesartan/HCTZ.
Irbesartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker indicated for treatment of hypertension in patients with type 2 diabetes, elevated serum creatinine, and proteinuria.
Irbesartan/HCTZ tablets include irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide, a thiazide diuretic, indicated for hypertension in patients not adequately controlled with monotherapy or as an initial therapy in patients likely to need multiple drugs to achieve blood pressure goals.
Lupin is notifying wholesalers, distributors, and retail outlets to immediately discontinue sales of the affected product lots and return them to the company. Specific lot numbers can be found here.
The company is advising patients to continue taking their medication and to contact their pharmacist, physician, or health care professional for advice regarding an alternative treatment.
Patients and physicians are also advised to report any adverse events or side effects related to the affected products to MedWatch, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Lupin Pharmaceuticals is recalling all batches of irbesartan tablets USP 75 mg, 150 mg, and 300 mg and irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) tablets USP 150 mg/12.5 mg and 300 mg/12.5 mg because of the potential presence of the N-nitrosoirbesartan impurity.
“As part of Lupin’s ongoing assessment, analysis revealed that certain tested active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) batches (but not finished product batches) were above the specification limit for the impurity, N-nitrosoirbesartan,” the company said in a news release posted on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s website. It notes that the impurity is a “probable human carcinogen.”
Lupin discontinued the marketing of irbesartan and irbesartan/HCTZ tablets on Jan. 7, 2021. It says it “has received no reports of illness that appear to relate to this issue” and is issuing the recall out of “an abundance of caution.”
The company, however, goes on to note that from Oct. 8, 2018 (the earliest date of shipment from the manufacturing site of any of the affected batches) to September 30 of this year, Lupin received four reports of illness from irbesartan and 0 reports from irbesartan/HCTZ.
Irbesartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker indicated for treatment of hypertension in patients with type 2 diabetes, elevated serum creatinine, and proteinuria.
Irbesartan/HCTZ tablets include irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide, a thiazide diuretic, indicated for hypertension in patients not adequately controlled with monotherapy or as an initial therapy in patients likely to need multiple drugs to achieve blood pressure goals.
Lupin is notifying wholesalers, distributors, and retail outlets to immediately discontinue sales of the affected product lots and return them to the company. Specific lot numbers can be found here.
The company is advising patients to continue taking their medication and to contact their pharmacist, physician, or health care professional for advice regarding an alternative treatment.
Patients and physicians are also advised to report any adverse events or side effects related to the affected products to MedWatch, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Lupin Pharmaceuticals is recalling all batches of irbesartan tablets USP 75 mg, 150 mg, and 300 mg and irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) tablets USP 150 mg/12.5 mg and 300 mg/12.5 mg because of the potential presence of the N-nitrosoirbesartan impurity.
“As part of Lupin’s ongoing assessment, analysis revealed that certain tested active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) batches (but not finished product batches) were above the specification limit for the impurity, N-nitrosoirbesartan,” the company said in a news release posted on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s website. It notes that the impurity is a “probable human carcinogen.”
Lupin discontinued the marketing of irbesartan and irbesartan/HCTZ tablets on Jan. 7, 2021. It says it “has received no reports of illness that appear to relate to this issue” and is issuing the recall out of “an abundance of caution.”
The company, however, goes on to note that from Oct. 8, 2018 (the earliest date of shipment from the manufacturing site of any of the affected batches) to September 30 of this year, Lupin received four reports of illness from irbesartan and 0 reports from irbesartan/HCTZ.
Irbesartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker indicated for treatment of hypertension in patients with type 2 diabetes, elevated serum creatinine, and proteinuria.
Irbesartan/HCTZ tablets include irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide, a thiazide diuretic, indicated for hypertension in patients not adequately controlled with monotherapy or as an initial therapy in patients likely to need multiple drugs to achieve blood pressure goals.
Lupin is notifying wholesalers, distributors, and retail outlets to immediately discontinue sales of the affected product lots and return them to the company. Specific lot numbers can be found here.
The company is advising patients to continue taking their medication and to contact their pharmacist, physician, or health care professional for advice regarding an alternative treatment.
Patients and physicians are also advised to report any adverse events or side effects related to the affected products to MedWatch, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA panel backs second dose for Johnson & Johnson vaccine recipients
It was the second vote in as many days to back a change to a COVID vaccine timeline.
In its vote, the committee said that boosters could be offered to people as young as age 18. However, it is not clear that everyone who got a Johnson & Johnson vaccine needs to get a second dose. The same panel voted Oct. 14 to recommend booster shots for the Moderna vaccine, but for a narrower group of people.
It will be up to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel to make more specific recommendations for who might need another shot. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet next Oct. 21 to discuss issues related to COVID-19 vaccines.
Studies of the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in the real world show that its protection — while good — has not been as strong as that of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, which are given as part of a two-dose series.
In the end, the members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they felt that the company hadn’t made a case for calling their second shot a booster, but had shown enough data to suggest that everyone over the age of 18 should consider getting two shots of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as a matter of course.
This is an especially important issue for adults over the age of 50. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that older adults who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine were less protected against infection and hospitalization than those who got mRNA vaccines.
Limited data
The company presented data from six studies to the FDA panel in support of a second dose that were limited. The only study looking at second doses after 6 months included just 17 people.
These studies did show that a second dose substantially increased levels of neutralizing antibodies, which are the body’s first line of protection against COVID-19 infection.
But the company turned this data over to the FDA so recently that agency scientists repeatedly stressed during the meeting that they did not have ample time to follow their normal process of independently verifying the data and following up with their own analysis of the study results.
Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said it would have taken months to complete that rigorous level of review.
Instead, in the interest of urgency, the FDA said it had tried to bring some clarity to the tangle of study results presented that included three dosing schedules and different measures of effectiveness.
“Here’s how this strikes me,” said committee member Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I think this vaccine was always a two-dose vaccine. I think it’s better as a two-dose vaccine. I think it would be hard to recommend this as a single-dose vaccine at this point.”
“As far as I’m concerned, it was always going to be necessary for J&J recipients to get a second shot,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.
Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, said she had changed her vote during the course of the meeting.
She said that, based on the very limited safety and effectiveness data presented to the committee, she was prepared to vote against the idea of offering second doses of Johnson & Johnson shots.
But after considering the 15 million people who have been vaccinated with a single dose and studies that have suggested that close to 5 million older adults may still be at risk for hospitalization because they’ve just had one shot, “This is still a public health imperative,” she said.
“I’m in agreement with most of my colleagues that this second dose, booster, whatever you want to call it, is necessary in these individuals to boost up their immunity back into the 90-plus percentile range,” Dr. Chatterjee said.
Who needs a second dose?
On Oct. 14, the committee heard an update on data from Israel, which saw a wave of severe breakthrough infections during the Delta wave.
COVID-19 cases are falling rapidly there after the country widely deployed booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine.
The FDA’s Dr. Marks said Oct. 15 that the agency was leaning toward creating greater flexibility in the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines so that boosters could be more widely deployed in the United States too.
The FDA panel on Oct. 14 voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose of Moderna’s vaccine — half the dose used in the primary series of shots — to boost immunity at least 6 months after the second dose.
Those who might need a Moderna booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses, including people over 65, adults at higher risk for severe COVID-19, and those who are at higher risk because of where they live or work.
The FDA asked the committee on Oct. 15 to discuss whether boosters should be offered to younger adults, even those without underlying health conditions.
“We’re concerned that what was seen in Israel could be seen here,” Dr. Marks said. “We don’t want to have a wave of severe COVID-19 before we deploy boosters.”
Trying to avoid confusion
Some members of the committee cautioned Dr. Marks to be careful when expanding the EUAs, because it could confuse people.
“When we say immunity is waning, what are the implications of that?” said Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health.
Overall, data show that all the vaccines currently being used in the United States — including Johnson & Johnson — remain highly effective for preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, like hospitalization and death.
Booster doses could prevent more people from even getting mild or moderate symptoms from “breakthrough” COVID-19 cases, which began to rise during the recent Delta surge. The additional doses are also expected to prevent severe outcomes like hospitalization in older adults and those with underlying health conditions.
“I think we need to be clear when we say waning immunity and we need to do something about that, I think we need to be clear what we’re really targeting [with boosters] in terms of clinical impact we expect to have,” Dr. Kurilla said.
Others pointed out that preventing even mild-to-moderate infections was a worthy goal, especially considering the implications of long-haul COVID-19.
“COVID does have tremendous downstream effects, even in those who are not hospitalized. Whenever we can prevent significant morbidity in a population, there are advantages to that,” said Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, medical director of infection prevention at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.
“I’d really be in the camp that would be moving towards a younger age range for allowing boosters,” he said.
This article was updated on 10/18/21. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It was the second vote in as many days to back a change to a COVID vaccine timeline.
In its vote, the committee said that boosters could be offered to people as young as age 18. However, it is not clear that everyone who got a Johnson & Johnson vaccine needs to get a second dose. The same panel voted Oct. 14 to recommend booster shots for the Moderna vaccine, but for a narrower group of people.
It will be up to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel to make more specific recommendations for who might need another shot. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet next Oct. 21 to discuss issues related to COVID-19 vaccines.
Studies of the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in the real world show that its protection — while good — has not been as strong as that of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, which are given as part of a two-dose series.
In the end, the members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they felt that the company hadn’t made a case for calling their second shot a booster, but had shown enough data to suggest that everyone over the age of 18 should consider getting two shots of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as a matter of course.
This is an especially important issue for adults over the age of 50. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that older adults who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine were less protected against infection and hospitalization than those who got mRNA vaccines.
Limited data
The company presented data from six studies to the FDA panel in support of a second dose that were limited. The only study looking at second doses after 6 months included just 17 people.
These studies did show that a second dose substantially increased levels of neutralizing antibodies, which are the body’s first line of protection against COVID-19 infection.
But the company turned this data over to the FDA so recently that agency scientists repeatedly stressed during the meeting that they did not have ample time to follow their normal process of independently verifying the data and following up with their own analysis of the study results.
Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said it would have taken months to complete that rigorous level of review.
Instead, in the interest of urgency, the FDA said it had tried to bring some clarity to the tangle of study results presented that included three dosing schedules and different measures of effectiveness.
“Here’s how this strikes me,” said committee member Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I think this vaccine was always a two-dose vaccine. I think it’s better as a two-dose vaccine. I think it would be hard to recommend this as a single-dose vaccine at this point.”
“As far as I’m concerned, it was always going to be necessary for J&J recipients to get a second shot,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.
Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, said she had changed her vote during the course of the meeting.
She said that, based on the very limited safety and effectiveness data presented to the committee, she was prepared to vote against the idea of offering second doses of Johnson & Johnson shots.
But after considering the 15 million people who have been vaccinated with a single dose and studies that have suggested that close to 5 million older adults may still be at risk for hospitalization because they’ve just had one shot, “This is still a public health imperative,” she said.
“I’m in agreement with most of my colleagues that this second dose, booster, whatever you want to call it, is necessary in these individuals to boost up their immunity back into the 90-plus percentile range,” Dr. Chatterjee said.
Who needs a second dose?
On Oct. 14, the committee heard an update on data from Israel, which saw a wave of severe breakthrough infections during the Delta wave.
COVID-19 cases are falling rapidly there after the country widely deployed booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine.
The FDA’s Dr. Marks said Oct. 15 that the agency was leaning toward creating greater flexibility in the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines so that boosters could be more widely deployed in the United States too.
The FDA panel on Oct. 14 voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose of Moderna’s vaccine — half the dose used in the primary series of shots — to boost immunity at least 6 months after the second dose.
Those who might need a Moderna booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses, including people over 65, adults at higher risk for severe COVID-19, and those who are at higher risk because of where they live or work.
The FDA asked the committee on Oct. 15 to discuss whether boosters should be offered to younger adults, even those without underlying health conditions.
“We’re concerned that what was seen in Israel could be seen here,” Dr. Marks said. “We don’t want to have a wave of severe COVID-19 before we deploy boosters.”
Trying to avoid confusion
Some members of the committee cautioned Dr. Marks to be careful when expanding the EUAs, because it could confuse people.
“When we say immunity is waning, what are the implications of that?” said Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health.
Overall, data show that all the vaccines currently being used in the United States — including Johnson & Johnson — remain highly effective for preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, like hospitalization and death.
Booster doses could prevent more people from even getting mild or moderate symptoms from “breakthrough” COVID-19 cases, which began to rise during the recent Delta surge. The additional doses are also expected to prevent severe outcomes like hospitalization in older adults and those with underlying health conditions.
“I think we need to be clear when we say waning immunity and we need to do something about that, I think we need to be clear what we’re really targeting [with boosters] in terms of clinical impact we expect to have,” Dr. Kurilla said.
Others pointed out that preventing even mild-to-moderate infections was a worthy goal, especially considering the implications of long-haul COVID-19.
“COVID does have tremendous downstream effects, even in those who are not hospitalized. Whenever we can prevent significant morbidity in a population, there are advantages to that,” said Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, medical director of infection prevention at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.
“I’d really be in the camp that would be moving towards a younger age range for allowing boosters,” he said.
This article was updated on 10/18/21. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It was the second vote in as many days to back a change to a COVID vaccine timeline.
In its vote, the committee said that boosters could be offered to people as young as age 18. However, it is not clear that everyone who got a Johnson & Johnson vaccine needs to get a second dose. The same panel voted Oct. 14 to recommend booster shots for the Moderna vaccine, but for a narrower group of people.
It will be up to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel to make more specific recommendations for who might need another shot. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet next Oct. 21 to discuss issues related to COVID-19 vaccines.
Studies of the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in the real world show that its protection — while good — has not been as strong as that of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, which are given as part of a two-dose series.
In the end, the members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they felt that the company hadn’t made a case for calling their second shot a booster, but had shown enough data to suggest that everyone over the age of 18 should consider getting two shots of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as a matter of course.
This is an especially important issue for adults over the age of 50. A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that older adults who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine were less protected against infection and hospitalization than those who got mRNA vaccines.
Limited data
The company presented data from six studies to the FDA panel in support of a second dose that were limited. The only study looking at second doses after 6 months included just 17 people.
These studies did show that a second dose substantially increased levels of neutralizing antibodies, which are the body’s first line of protection against COVID-19 infection.
But the company turned this data over to the FDA so recently that agency scientists repeatedly stressed during the meeting that they did not have ample time to follow their normal process of independently verifying the data and following up with their own analysis of the study results.
Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said it would have taken months to complete that rigorous level of review.
Instead, in the interest of urgency, the FDA said it had tried to bring some clarity to the tangle of study results presented that included three dosing schedules and different measures of effectiveness.
“Here’s how this strikes me,” said committee member Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I think this vaccine was always a two-dose vaccine. I think it’s better as a two-dose vaccine. I think it would be hard to recommend this as a single-dose vaccine at this point.”
“As far as I’m concerned, it was always going to be necessary for J&J recipients to get a second shot,” said James Hildreth, MD, PhD, president and CEO of Meharry Medical College in Nashville.
Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, dean of the Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, said she had changed her vote during the course of the meeting.
She said that, based on the very limited safety and effectiveness data presented to the committee, she was prepared to vote against the idea of offering second doses of Johnson & Johnson shots.
But after considering the 15 million people who have been vaccinated with a single dose and studies that have suggested that close to 5 million older adults may still be at risk for hospitalization because they’ve just had one shot, “This is still a public health imperative,” she said.
“I’m in agreement with most of my colleagues that this second dose, booster, whatever you want to call it, is necessary in these individuals to boost up their immunity back into the 90-plus percentile range,” Dr. Chatterjee said.
Who needs a second dose?
On Oct. 14, the committee heard an update on data from Israel, which saw a wave of severe breakthrough infections during the Delta wave.
COVID-19 cases are falling rapidly there after the country widely deployed booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine.
The FDA’s Dr. Marks said Oct. 15 that the agency was leaning toward creating greater flexibility in the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for the Johnson & Johnson and Moderna vaccines so that boosters could be more widely deployed in the United States too.
The FDA panel on Oct. 14 voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose of Moderna’s vaccine — half the dose used in the primary series of shots — to boost immunity at least 6 months after the second dose.
Those who might need a Moderna booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses, including people over 65, adults at higher risk for severe COVID-19, and those who are at higher risk because of where they live or work.
The FDA asked the committee on Oct. 15 to discuss whether boosters should be offered to younger adults, even those without underlying health conditions.
“We’re concerned that what was seen in Israel could be seen here,” Dr. Marks said. “We don’t want to have a wave of severe COVID-19 before we deploy boosters.”
Trying to avoid confusion
Some members of the committee cautioned Dr. Marks to be careful when expanding the EUAs, because it could confuse people.
“When we say immunity is waning, what are the implications of that?” said Michael Kurilla, MD, PhD, director of the division of clinical innovation at the National Institutes of Health.
Overall, data show that all the vaccines currently being used in the United States — including Johnson & Johnson — remain highly effective for preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19, like hospitalization and death.
Booster doses could prevent more people from even getting mild or moderate symptoms from “breakthrough” COVID-19 cases, which began to rise during the recent Delta surge. The additional doses are also expected to prevent severe outcomes like hospitalization in older adults and those with underlying health conditions.
“I think we need to be clear when we say waning immunity and we need to do something about that, I think we need to be clear what we’re really targeting [with boosters] in terms of clinical impact we expect to have,” Dr. Kurilla said.
Others pointed out that preventing even mild-to-moderate infections was a worthy goal, especially considering the implications of long-haul COVID-19.
“COVID does have tremendous downstream effects, even in those who are not hospitalized. Whenever we can prevent significant morbidity in a population, there are advantages to that,” said Steven Pergam, MD, MPH, medical director of infection prevention at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.
“I’d really be in the camp that would be moving towards a younger age range for allowing boosters,” he said.
This article was updated on 10/18/21. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA advisors vote to recommend Moderna boosters
A panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration on vaccine decisions voted unanimously Oct. 14 to approve booster doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.
The 19 members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose -- half the dose used in the primary series of shots -- to boost immunity against COVID-19 at least 6 months after the second dose. Those who might need a booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses. They include people:
- Over age 65
- Ages 18 to 64 who are at higher risk for severe COVID
- Who are at higher risk of catching COVID because they live in group settings like nursing homes or prisons, or because they are frequently exposed at work, as health care workers are
The agency is not bound by the committee’s vote but usually follows its recommendations.
Some members of the committee said they weren’t satisfied with the data Moderna submitted to support its application but, for practical reasons, said it wouldn’t be fair to take booster doses off the table for Moderna recipients when Pfizer’s boosters were already available.
“The data are not perfect, but these are extraordinary times and we have to work with data that are not perfect,” said Eric Rubin, MD, editor-in-chief of TheNew England Journal of Medicine and a temporary voting member on the committee.
Patrick Moore, MD, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute who is also a temporary voting member, said he voted to approve the Moderna boosters based “more on a gut feeling than on truly serious data.”
“I’ve got some real issues with this vote,” he said.
“We need to see good solid data, and it needs to be explained well,” Dr. Moore said, challenging companies making future applications to do better.
Next, the FDA will have to formally sign off on the emergency use authorization, which it is expected to do. Then, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet to make formal recommendations on use of the Moderna boosters. That group is scheduled to meet Oct. 21 to take up questions of exactly how these boosters should be used.
Peter Marks, MD, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, cautioned that the CDC is more constrained in making recommendations under an emergency use authorization than it would be if the boosters had gotten full approval. So it will likely align its vote with the conditions of the emergency use authorization from the FDA.
After the advisory committee votes, the director of the CDC has to approve its recommendation.
Overall, data show that two doses of the Moderna vaccine remains highly effective at preventing hospitalization and death. But over time, levels of the body’s first line of defense against a virus -- its neutralizing antibodies -- fall somewhat. This drop seems to correspond with an increased risk for breakthrough cases of COVID-19.
Data presented by Moderna Oct. 14 showed the risk of breakthrough infections increased by 36% in study participants who received the vaccine in their clinical trials, compared to people in the same study who received a placebo first, and got the vaccine later, when the trial was unblended. Their protection was more recent, and they had fewer breakthrough infections.
In considering booster doses, the FDA has asked drugmakers to do studies that look at the immune responses of small groups of study participants and compare them to the immune responses seen in study participants after their first two vaccine doses.
To be considered effective, boosters have to clear two bars. The first looks at the concentration of antibodies generated in the blood of boosted study volunteers. The second looks at how many boosted study participants saw a four-fold increase in their blood antibody levels a month after the booster minus the number of people who saw the same increase after their original two doses.
Moderna presented data that its boosters met the first criteria, but failed to meet the second, perhaps because so many people in the study had good responses after their first two doses of the vaccines.
The FDA’s advisory committee will reconvene Oct. 15 to hear evidence supporting the emergency use authorization of a booster dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
This article was updated Oct. 15 and first appeared on WebMD.com.
A panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration on vaccine decisions voted unanimously Oct. 14 to approve booster doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.
The 19 members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose -- half the dose used in the primary series of shots -- to boost immunity against COVID-19 at least 6 months after the second dose. Those who might need a booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses. They include people:
- Over age 65
- Ages 18 to 64 who are at higher risk for severe COVID
- Who are at higher risk of catching COVID because they live in group settings like nursing homes or prisons, or because they are frequently exposed at work, as health care workers are
The agency is not bound by the committee’s vote but usually follows its recommendations.
Some members of the committee said they weren’t satisfied with the data Moderna submitted to support its application but, for practical reasons, said it wouldn’t be fair to take booster doses off the table for Moderna recipients when Pfizer’s boosters were already available.
“The data are not perfect, but these are extraordinary times and we have to work with data that are not perfect,” said Eric Rubin, MD, editor-in-chief of TheNew England Journal of Medicine and a temporary voting member on the committee.
Patrick Moore, MD, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute who is also a temporary voting member, said he voted to approve the Moderna boosters based “more on a gut feeling than on truly serious data.”
“I’ve got some real issues with this vote,” he said.
“We need to see good solid data, and it needs to be explained well,” Dr. Moore said, challenging companies making future applications to do better.
Next, the FDA will have to formally sign off on the emergency use authorization, which it is expected to do. Then, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet to make formal recommendations on use of the Moderna boosters. That group is scheduled to meet Oct. 21 to take up questions of exactly how these boosters should be used.
Peter Marks, MD, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, cautioned that the CDC is more constrained in making recommendations under an emergency use authorization than it would be if the boosters had gotten full approval. So it will likely align its vote with the conditions of the emergency use authorization from the FDA.
After the advisory committee votes, the director of the CDC has to approve its recommendation.
Overall, data show that two doses of the Moderna vaccine remains highly effective at preventing hospitalization and death. But over time, levels of the body’s first line of defense against a virus -- its neutralizing antibodies -- fall somewhat. This drop seems to correspond with an increased risk for breakthrough cases of COVID-19.
Data presented by Moderna Oct. 14 showed the risk of breakthrough infections increased by 36% in study participants who received the vaccine in their clinical trials, compared to people in the same study who received a placebo first, and got the vaccine later, when the trial was unblended. Their protection was more recent, and they had fewer breakthrough infections.
In considering booster doses, the FDA has asked drugmakers to do studies that look at the immune responses of small groups of study participants and compare them to the immune responses seen in study participants after their first two vaccine doses.
To be considered effective, boosters have to clear two bars. The first looks at the concentration of antibodies generated in the blood of boosted study volunteers. The second looks at how many boosted study participants saw a four-fold increase in their blood antibody levels a month after the booster minus the number of people who saw the same increase after their original two doses.
Moderna presented data that its boosters met the first criteria, but failed to meet the second, perhaps because so many people in the study had good responses after their first two doses of the vaccines.
The FDA’s advisory committee will reconvene Oct. 15 to hear evidence supporting the emergency use authorization of a booster dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
This article was updated Oct. 15 and first appeared on WebMD.com.
A panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration on vaccine decisions voted unanimously Oct. 14 to approve booster doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.
The 19 members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose -- half the dose used in the primary series of shots -- to boost immunity against COVID-19 at least 6 months after the second dose. Those who might need a booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses. They include people:
- Over age 65
- Ages 18 to 64 who are at higher risk for severe COVID
- Who are at higher risk of catching COVID because they live in group settings like nursing homes or prisons, or because they are frequently exposed at work, as health care workers are
The agency is not bound by the committee’s vote but usually follows its recommendations.
Some members of the committee said they weren’t satisfied with the data Moderna submitted to support its application but, for practical reasons, said it wouldn’t be fair to take booster doses off the table for Moderna recipients when Pfizer’s boosters were already available.
“The data are not perfect, but these are extraordinary times and we have to work with data that are not perfect,” said Eric Rubin, MD, editor-in-chief of TheNew England Journal of Medicine and a temporary voting member on the committee.
Patrick Moore, MD, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute who is also a temporary voting member, said he voted to approve the Moderna boosters based “more on a gut feeling than on truly serious data.”
“I’ve got some real issues with this vote,” he said.
“We need to see good solid data, and it needs to be explained well,” Dr. Moore said, challenging companies making future applications to do better.
Next, the FDA will have to formally sign off on the emergency use authorization, which it is expected to do. Then, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet to make formal recommendations on use of the Moderna boosters. That group is scheduled to meet Oct. 21 to take up questions of exactly how these boosters should be used.
Peter Marks, MD, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, cautioned that the CDC is more constrained in making recommendations under an emergency use authorization than it would be if the boosters had gotten full approval. So it will likely align its vote with the conditions of the emergency use authorization from the FDA.
After the advisory committee votes, the director of the CDC has to approve its recommendation.
Overall, data show that two doses of the Moderna vaccine remains highly effective at preventing hospitalization and death. But over time, levels of the body’s first line of defense against a virus -- its neutralizing antibodies -- fall somewhat. This drop seems to correspond with an increased risk for breakthrough cases of COVID-19.
Data presented by Moderna Oct. 14 showed the risk of breakthrough infections increased by 36% in study participants who received the vaccine in their clinical trials, compared to people in the same study who received a placebo first, and got the vaccine later, when the trial was unblended. Their protection was more recent, and they had fewer breakthrough infections.
In considering booster doses, the FDA has asked drugmakers to do studies that look at the immune responses of small groups of study participants and compare them to the immune responses seen in study participants after their first two vaccine doses.
To be considered effective, boosters have to clear two bars. The first looks at the concentration of antibodies generated in the blood of boosted study volunteers. The second looks at how many boosted study participants saw a four-fold increase in their blood antibody levels a month after the booster minus the number of people who saw the same increase after their original two doses.
Moderna presented data that its boosters met the first criteria, but failed to meet the second, perhaps because so many people in the study had good responses after their first two doses of the vaccines.
The FDA’s advisory committee will reconvene Oct. 15 to hear evidence supporting the emergency use authorization of a booster dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
This article was updated Oct. 15 and first appeared on WebMD.com.
‘Impressive’ results for novel antidepressant, so why the FDA delay?
A novel antidepressant (AXS-05, Axsome Therapeutics) appears to have a rapid and durable effect in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), results of an open label, phase 3 trial, show. Yet, its new drug application (NDA) remains in limbo with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for reasons that are unclear.
In the study, which included 876 patients with MDD, results showed the drug, a combination of dextromethorphan and bupropion, had a clinical response rate of 80% and a remission rate of almost 70%. In addition, functional improvements were “substantial” and AXS-05 was determined to be “generally safe and well-tolerated.”
The findings were presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
The study
The COMET trial was a phase 3, multicenter, U.S. trial, in which patients with MDD were treated with AXS-05 twice daily for up to 12 months. Patients had to have a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of at least 25. They could have completed a prior AXS-05 study or be newly enrolled.
Of 876 patients included in the study, 611 were newly enrolled. The mean age was 42.4 years, and 62.4% were women. Just over half (58.1%) were White, with 35.6% Black, and 2.0% Asian. The mean body mass index was 31.4 kg/m2.
The mean MADRS total score at baseline was 32.7 and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) score was 20.0.
Presenting efficacy data in 609 newly enrolled patients, the team showed that MADRS total scores fell sharply on starting AXS-05, by 9.1 points at week 1, 14.0 points at week 2, and 21.2 points at week 6.
By 6 months, the reduction over baseline was 23.9 points, which was maintained out to 12 months, at a mean reduction of 23.0 points.
The proportion of patients achieving a clinical response, defined as a greater than or equal to 50% improvement in MADRS scores, was 18.8% at week 1, 39.7% at week 2, and 73.2% at week 6. There was a clinical response in 84.6% of patients at 6 months and in 82.8% at 12 months.
Clinical remission, defined as a MADRS score less than or equal to 10, was achieved in 8.3% of patients at week 1, rising to 21.5% at week 2, and 52.5% at week 6. At 6 months, 68.7% of patients were in clinical remission, reaching 69.0% at 12 months.
These benefits were accompanied by substantial improvements in depressive symptoms on the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale, with a marked or moderate improvement seen in 86.7% of patients at 6 months and 93.1% at 12 months.
Moreover, a clinical response in functioning on the SDS was achieved by 80.6% of patients at 6 months and 75.9% at 12 months.
The safety analysis of AXS-05 in the entire cohort suggested it was well-tolerated, with dizziness seen in 12.7% of patients, along with nausea in 11.9%, headache in 8.8%, dry mouth in 7.1%, and decreased appetite in 6.1%.
The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was 8.4%, and there were no signs of psychotomimetic effects, cognitive impairment, weight gain, or increased sexual dysfunction.
and increased rates of suicidal ideation resolution, and was also effective for treatment-resistant depression.
Results from an analysis of the ASCEND phase 2 and GEMINI phase 3 trials also suggested that AXS-05 was superior to both bupropion and placebo in achieving rapid and sustained improvements in depression symptoms.
FDA delay
Yet despite these seemingly positive findings, the FDA appears to have issues with the agent’s new drug application.
As reported in August, the agency reviewed the NDA for AXS-05 for the treatment of MDD, but at that time the drug’s manufacturer revealed that the agency had identified “deficiencies that preclude labeling discussions at this time.”
With the latest results presented at ECNP 2021, this news organization asked Axsome about the status of the NDA and whether there had been any further discussions and/or movement with the FDA.
Instead of a direct reply from the drug company, this news organization was directed to a statement released by Axsome in August announcing that the FDA had informed the company that its NDA review “would not be completed by the Prescription Drug User Fee Act target action date of August 22, 2021.”
“The FDA did not request additional information from the company, and the review of the application is ongoing,” the statement said. Axsome did not respond to further questions.
‘Impressive’ remission rate
Commenting on the research, Marin Jukic, PhD, department of physiology and pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, who was not involved in the research, said AXS-05 “looks promising in relation to the efficacy and tolerability results” with a remission rate that is “truly impressive.”
However, Dr. Jukic cautioned that it was an open-label trial and therefore had no placebo or active comparator arms.
He noted that it would be “interesting to compare the efficacy with placebo and escitalopram, for example, to evaluate the potential for the benefits and efficacy better.”
The research was funded by Axsome Therapeutics, and, except for one, the researchers for the four studies are employees of Axsome Therapeutics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A novel antidepressant (AXS-05, Axsome Therapeutics) appears to have a rapid and durable effect in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), results of an open label, phase 3 trial, show. Yet, its new drug application (NDA) remains in limbo with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for reasons that are unclear.
In the study, which included 876 patients with MDD, results showed the drug, a combination of dextromethorphan and bupropion, had a clinical response rate of 80% and a remission rate of almost 70%. In addition, functional improvements were “substantial” and AXS-05 was determined to be “generally safe and well-tolerated.”
The findings were presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
The study
The COMET trial was a phase 3, multicenter, U.S. trial, in which patients with MDD were treated with AXS-05 twice daily for up to 12 months. Patients had to have a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of at least 25. They could have completed a prior AXS-05 study or be newly enrolled.
Of 876 patients included in the study, 611 were newly enrolled. The mean age was 42.4 years, and 62.4% were women. Just over half (58.1%) were White, with 35.6% Black, and 2.0% Asian. The mean body mass index was 31.4 kg/m2.
The mean MADRS total score at baseline was 32.7 and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) score was 20.0.
Presenting efficacy data in 609 newly enrolled patients, the team showed that MADRS total scores fell sharply on starting AXS-05, by 9.1 points at week 1, 14.0 points at week 2, and 21.2 points at week 6.
By 6 months, the reduction over baseline was 23.9 points, which was maintained out to 12 months, at a mean reduction of 23.0 points.
The proportion of patients achieving a clinical response, defined as a greater than or equal to 50% improvement in MADRS scores, was 18.8% at week 1, 39.7% at week 2, and 73.2% at week 6. There was a clinical response in 84.6% of patients at 6 months and in 82.8% at 12 months.
Clinical remission, defined as a MADRS score less than or equal to 10, was achieved in 8.3% of patients at week 1, rising to 21.5% at week 2, and 52.5% at week 6. At 6 months, 68.7% of patients were in clinical remission, reaching 69.0% at 12 months.
These benefits were accompanied by substantial improvements in depressive symptoms on the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale, with a marked or moderate improvement seen in 86.7% of patients at 6 months and 93.1% at 12 months.
Moreover, a clinical response in functioning on the SDS was achieved by 80.6% of patients at 6 months and 75.9% at 12 months.
The safety analysis of AXS-05 in the entire cohort suggested it was well-tolerated, with dizziness seen in 12.7% of patients, along with nausea in 11.9%, headache in 8.8%, dry mouth in 7.1%, and decreased appetite in 6.1%.
The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was 8.4%, and there were no signs of psychotomimetic effects, cognitive impairment, weight gain, or increased sexual dysfunction.
and increased rates of suicidal ideation resolution, and was also effective for treatment-resistant depression.
Results from an analysis of the ASCEND phase 2 and GEMINI phase 3 trials also suggested that AXS-05 was superior to both bupropion and placebo in achieving rapid and sustained improvements in depression symptoms.
FDA delay
Yet despite these seemingly positive findings, the FDA appears to have issues with the agent’s new drug application.
As reported in August, the agency reviewed the NDA for AXS-05 for the treatment of MDD, but at that time the drug’s manufacturer revealed that the agency had identified “deficiencies that preclude labeling discussions at this time.”
With the latest results presented at ECNP 2021, this news organization asked Axsome about the status of the NDA and whether there had been any further discussions and/or movement with the FDA.
Instead of a direct reply from the drug company, this news organization was directed to a statement released by Axsome in August announcing that the FDA had informed the company that its NDA review “would not be completed by the Prescription Drug User Fee Act target action date of August 22, 2021.”
“The FDA did not request additional information from the company, and the review of the application is ongoing,” the statement said. Axsome did not respond to further questions.
‘Impressive’ remission rate
Commenting on the research, Marin Jukic, PhD, department of physiology and pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, who was not involved in the research, said AXS-05 “looks promising in relation to the efficacy and tolerability results” with a remission rate that is “truly impressive.”
However, Dr. Jukic cautioned that it was an open-label trial and therefore had no placebo or active comparator arms.
He noted that it would be “interesting to compare the efficacy with placebo and escitalopram, for example, to evaluate the potential for the benefits and efficacy better.”
The research was funded by Axsome Therapeutics, and, except for one, the researchers for the four studies are employees of Axsome Therapeutics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A novel antidepressant (AXS-05, Axsome Therapeutics) appears to have a rapid and durable effect in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), results of an open label, phase 3 trial, show. Yet, its new drug application (NDA) remains in limbo with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for reasons that are unclear.
In the study, which included 876 patients with MDD, results showed the drug, a combination of dextromethorphan and bupropion, had a clinical response rate of 80% and a remission rate of almost 70%. In addition, functional improvements were “substantial” and AXS-05 was determined to be “generally safe and well-tolerated.”
The findings were presented at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
The study
The COMET trial was a phase 3, multicenter, U.S. trial, in which patients with MDD were treated with AXS-05 twice daily for up to 12 months. Patients had to have a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of at least 25. They could have completed a prior AXS-05 study or be newly enrolled.
Of 876 patients included in the study, 611 were newly enrolled. The mean age was 42.4 years, and 62.4% were women. Just over half (58.1%) were White, with 35.6% Black, and 2.0% Asian. The mean body mass index was 31.4 kg/m2.
The mean MADRS total score at baseline was 32.7 and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) score was 20.0.
Presenting efficacy data in 609 newly enrolled patients, the team showed that MADRS total scores fell sharply on starting AXS-05, by 9.1 points at week 1, 14.0 points at week 2, and 21.2 points at week 6.
By 6 months, the reduction over baseline was 23.9 points, which was maintained out to 12 months, at a mean reduction of 23.0 points.
The proportion of patients achieving a clinical response, defined as a greater than or equal to 50% improvement in MADRS scores, was 18.8% at week 1, 39.7% at week 2, and 73.2% at week 6. There was a clinical response in 84.6% of patients at 6 months and in 82.8% at 12 months.
Clinical remission, defined as a MADRS score less than or equal to 10, was achieved in 8.3% of patients at week 1, rising to 21.5% at week 2, and 52.5% at week 6. At 6 months, 68.7% of patients were in clinical remission, reaching 69.0% at 12 months.
These benefits were accompanied by substantial improvements in depressive symptoms on the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale, with a marked or moderate improvement seen in 86.7% of patients at 6 months and 93.1% at 12 months.
Moreover, a clinical response in functioning on the SDS was achieved by 80.6% of patients at 6 months and 75.9% at 12 months.
The safety analysis of AXS-05 in the entire cohort suggested it was well-tolerated, with dizziness seen in 12.7% of patients, along with nausea in 11.9%, headache in 8.8%, dry mouth in 7.1%, and decreased appetite in 6.1%.
The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events was 8.4%, and there were no signs of psychotomimetic effects, cognitive impairment, weight gain, or increased sexual dysfunction.
and increased rates of suicidal ideation resolution, and was also effective for treatment-resistant depression.
Results from an analysis of the ASCEND phase 2 and GEMINI phase 3 trials also suggested that AXS-05 was superior to both bupropion and placebo in achieving rapid and sustained improvements in depression symptoms.
FDA delay
Yet despite these seemingly positive findings, the FDA appears to have issues with the agent’s new drug application.
As reported in August, the agency reviewed the NDA for AXS-05 for the treatment of MDD, but at that time the drug’s manufacturer revealed that the agency had identified “deficiencies that preclude labeling discussions at this time.”
With the latest results presented at ECNP 2021, this news organization asked Axsome about the status of the NDA and whether there had been any further discussions and/or movement with the FDA.
Instead of a direct reply from the drug company, this news organization was directed to a statement released by Axsome in August announcing that the FDA had informed the company that its NDA review “would not be completed by the Prescription Drug User Fee Act target action date of August 22, 2021.”
“The FDA did not request additional information from the company, and the review of the application is ongoing,” the statement said. Axsome did not respond to further questions.
‘Impressive’ remission rate
Commenting on the research, Marin Jukic, PhD, department of physiology and pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, who was not involved in the research, said AXS-05 “looks promising in relation to the efficacy and tolerability results” with a remission rate that is “truly impressive.”
However, Dr. Jukic cautioned that it was an open-label trial and therefore had no placebo or active comparator arms.
He noted that it would be “interesting to compare the efficacy with placebo and escitalopram, for example, to evaluate the potential for the benefits and efficacy better.”
The research was funded by Axsome Therapeutics, and, except for one, the researchers for the four studies are employees of Axsome Therapeutics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ECNP 2021
CDC: Children just as vulnerable to COVID as adults
The study, which focused on 1,000 schools in Arizona’s Maricopa and Pima counties, found that there were 113 COVID-19 outbreaks in schools without mask requirements in the first month of in-person learning. There were 16 outbreaks in schools with mask requirements.
“Masks in schools work to protect our children, to keep them and their school communities safe, and to keep them in school for in-person learning,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said at an Oct. 13 White House briefing.
But, she said, more than 95% of schools across the country had remained open through the end of September, despite 1,800 school closures affecting nearly 1 million students.
Protection for children in school is just one piece of the puzzle, Dr. Walensky said – there must also be COVID-safe practices at home to limit transmission. A CDC study published in October found that children had similar infection rates, compared with adults, confirming there is risk to people of all ages.
“For those children not yet eligible for vaccination, the best protection we can provide them is to make sure everyone around them in the household is vaccinated and to make sure they’re wearing a mask in school and during indoor extracurricular activities,” Dr. Walensky said.
Meanwhile, Pfizer’s vaccine for children ages 5-11 may be approved by early November. The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet Oct. 26 to discuss available data, and the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet Nov. 2. A decision is expected soon after.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The study, which focused on 1,000 schools in Arizona’s Maricopa and Pima counties, found that there were 113 COVID-19 outbreaks in schools without mask requirements in the first month of in-person learning. There were 16 outbreaks in schools with mask requirements.
“Masks in schools work to protect our children, to keep them and their school communities safe, and to keep them in school for in-person learning,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said at an Oct. 13 White House briefing.
But, she said, more than 95% of schools across the country had remained open through the end of September, despite 1,800 school closures affecting nearly 1 million students.
Protection for children in school is just one piece of the puzzle, Dr. Walensky said – there must also be COVID-safe practices at home to limit transmission. A CDC study published in October found that children had similar infection rates, compared with adults, confirming there is risk to people of all ages.
“For those children not yet eligible for vaccination, the best protection we can provide them is to make sure everyone around them in the household is vaccinated and to make sure they’re wearing a mask in school and during indoor extracurricular activities,” Dr. Walensky said.
Meanwhile, Pfizer’s vaccine for children ages 5-11 may be approved by early November. The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet Oct. 26 to discuss available data, and the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet Nov. 2. A decision is expected soon after.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The study, which focused on 1,000 schools in Arizona’s Maricopa and Pima counties, found that there were 113 COVID-19 outbreaks in schools without mask requirements in the first month of in-person learning. There were 16 outbreaks in schools with mask requirements.
“Masks in schools work to protect our children, to keep them and their school communities safe, and to keep them in school for in-person learning,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said at an Oct. 13 White House briefing.
But, she said, more than 95% of schools across the country had remained open through the end of September, despite 1,800 school closures affecting nearly 1 million students.
Protection for children in school is just one piece of the puzzle, Dr. Walensky said – there must also be COVID-safe practices at home to limit transmission. A CDC study published in October found that children had similar infection rates, compared with adults, confirming there is risk to people of all ages.
“For those children not yet eligible for vaccination, the best protection we can provide them is to make sure everyone around them in the household is vaccinated and to make sure they’re wearing a mask in school and during indoor extracurricular activities,” Dr. Walensky said.
Meanwhile, Pfizer’s vaccine for children ages 5-11 may be approved by early November. The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet Oct. 26 to discuss available data, and the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet Nov. 2. A decision is expected soon after.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
New FDA guidance aims to cut sodium in processed foods
The Food and Drug Administration has issued voluntary, short-term sodium reduction targets for food manufacturers, chain restaurants, and food service operators for processed, packaged, and prepared foods, with an eye toward reducing diet-related conditions such as heart disease and obesity.
The new targets seek to decrease average sodium intake from approximately 3,400 mg/day to 3,000 mg/day, about a 12% reduction, over the next 2.5 years, acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, and Susan Mayne, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said in joint statement.
Although this reduction keeps the average intake above the recommended limit of 2,300 mg/day for individuals 14 years and older as per the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, “we know that even these modest reductions made slowly over the next few years will substantially decrease diet-related diseases,” they added.
The FDA first proposed recommendations for reducing sodium content in draft guidance released in 2016.
Since, then a number of companies in the food industry have already made changes to sodium content in their products, “which is encouraging, but additional support across all types of foods to help consumers meet recommended sodium limits is needed,” Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Mayne said.
They emphasized that the new guidance represents short-term goals that the food industry should work to meet as soon as possible to help optimize public health.
“We will continue our discussions with the food industry as we monitor the sodium content of the food supply to evaluate progress. In the future, we plan to issue revised, subsequent targets to further lower the sodium content incrementally and continue to help reduce sodium intake,” Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Mayne said.
AHA: A good first step that does not go far enough
In a statement, the American Heart Association said the new targets will play “a critical role in helping people across the country achieve healthier levels of sodium and improved well-being overall. These targets will be an important driver to reduce sodium consumption, which can have significant health benefits and lead to lower medical costs.”
“Lowering sodium levels in the food supply would reduce risk of hypertension, heart disease, stroke, heart attack, and death in addition to saving billions of dollars in health care costs over the next decade,” the AHA said.
But the AHA also said lowering sodium intake to 3,000 mg/day is not enough.
“Lowering sodium further to 2,300 mg could prevent an estimated 450,000 cases of cardiovascular disease, gain 2 million quality-adjusted life-years, and save approximately $40 billion in health care costs over a 20-year period,” the AHA said.
The AHA is urging the FDA to “follow [this] action with additional targets to further lower the amount of sodium in the food supply and help people in America attain an appropriate sodium intake.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has issued voluntary, short-term sodium reduction targets for food manufacturers, chain restaurants, and food service operators for processed, packaged, and prepared foods, with an eye toward reducing diet-related conditions such as heart disease and obesity.
The new targets seek to decrease average sodium intake from approximately 3,400 mg/day to 3,000 mg/day, about a 12% reduction, over the next 2.5 years, acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, and Susan Mayne, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said in joint statement.
Although this reduction keeps the average intake above the recommended limit of 2,300 mg/day for individuals 14 years and older as per the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, “we know that even these modest reductions made slowly over the next few years will substantially decrease diet-related diseases,” they added.
The FDA first proposed recommendations for reducing sodium content in draft guidance released in 2016.
Since, then a number of companies in the food industry have already made changes to sodium content in their products, “which is encouraging, but additional support across all types of foods to help consumers meet recommended sodium limits is needed,” Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Mayne said.
They emphasized that the new guidance represents short-term goals that the food industry should work to meet as soon as possible to help optimize public health.
“We will continue our discussions with the food industry as we monitor the sodium content of the food supply to evaluate progress. In the future, we plan to issue revised, subsequent targets to further lower the sodium content incrementally and continue to help reduce sodium intake,” Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Mayne said.
AHA: A good first step that does not go far enough
In a statement, the American Heart Association said the new targets will play “a critical role in helping people across the country achieve healthier levels of sodium and improved well-being overall. These targets will be an important driver to reduce sodium consumption, which can have significant health benefits and lead to lower medical costs.”
“Lowering sodium levels in the food supply would reduce risk of hypertension, heart disease, stroke, heart attack, and death in addition to saving billions of dollars in health care costs over the next decade,” the AHA said.
But the AHA also said lowering sodium intake to 3,000 mg/day is not enough.
“Lowering sodium further to 2,300 mg could prevent an estimated 450,000 cases of cardiovascular disease, gain 2 million quality-adjusted life-years, and save approximately $40 billion in health care costs over a 20-year period,” the AHA said.
The AHA is urging the FDA to “follow [this] action with additional targets to further lower the amount of sodium in the food supply and help people in America attain an appropriate sodium intake.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has issued voluntary, short-term sodium reduction targets for food manufacturers, chain restaurants, and food service operators for processed, packaged, and prepared foods, with an eye toward reducing diet-related conditions such as heart disease and obesity.
The new targets seek to decrease average sodium intake from approximately 3,400 mg/day to 3,000 mg/day, about a 12% reduction, over the next 2.5 years, acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, and Susan Mayne, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said in joint statement.
Although this reduction keeps the average intake above the recommended limit of 2,300 mg/day for individuals 14 years and older as per the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, “we know that even these modest reductions made slowly over the next few years will substantially decrease diet-related diseases,” they added.
The FDA first proposed recommendations for reducing sodium content in draft guidance released in 2016.
Since, then a number of companies in the food industry have already made changes to sodium content in their products, “which is encouraging, but additional support across all types of foods to help consumers meet recommended sodium limits is needed,” Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Mayne said.
They emphasized that the new guidance represents short-term goals that the food industry should work to meet as soon as possible to help optimize public health.
“We will continue our discussions with the food industry as we monitor the sodium content of the food supply to evaluate progress. In the future, we plan to issue revised, subsequent targets to further lower the sodium content incrementally and continue to help reduce sodium intake,” Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Mayne said.
AHA: A good first step that does not go far enough
In a statement, the American Heart Association said the new targets will play “a critical role in helping people across the country achieve healthier levels of sodium and improved well-being overall. These targets will be an important driver to reduce sodium consumption, which can have significant health benefits and lead to lower medical costs.”
“Lowering sodium levels in the food supply would reduce risk of hypertension, heart disease, stroke, heart attack, and death in addition to saving billions of dollars in health care costs over the next decade,” the AHA said.
But the AHA also said lowering sodium intake to 3,000 mg/day is not enough.
“Lowering sodium further to 2,300 mg could prevent an estimated 450,000 cases of cardiovascular disease, gain 2 million quality-adjusted life-years, and save approximately $40 billion in health care costs over a 20-year period,” the AHA said.
The AHA is urging the FDA to “follow [this] action with additional targets to further lower the amount of sodium in the food supply and help people in America attain an appropriate sodium intake.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New approval in early breast cancer: First advance in 20 years
Abemaciclib had already been approved for use in the treatment of HR+, HER2– advanced or metastatic breast cancer.
Now it is also approved for use in HR+, HER2– early breast cancer for patients who have high-risk, node-positive disease and whose tumors have a Ki-67 score of 20% or higher, as determined by a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved test.
The FDA also approved the Ki-67 IHC MIB-1 pharmDx (Dako Omnis) assay for use as a companion diagnostic test.
This is the first CDK4/6 inhibitor to be approved for use in this patient population.
Approximately 70% of all breast cancers are of the HR+, HER2– subtype.
The approval is based on some of the results from the monarchE study, which was presented last year at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology and was simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The results showed that the addition of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors) significantly improved invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), which was defined on the basis of the length of time before breast cancer comes back, any new cancer develops, or death.
The 2-year IDFS rates were 92.2% with the combination vs. 88.7% for endocrine therapy alone for the overall patient population.
“This is the first time in more than 20 years that we have seen an advance in the adjuvant treatment of this form of breast cancer,” lead investigator Stephen Johnston, MD, PhD, from the Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, said at the meeting, as reported at the time by this news organization.
Reacting to the findings, Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, head of the division of early drug development at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, said, “This is a very important trial and the findings will change practice.”
He predicted that once the drug is approved for use in high-risk HR+, HER2– early breast cancer, “the new standard of care for these patients will be to add 2 years of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy.”
In a press release about the new approval from the manufacturer (Lilly), another investigator on the monarchE study, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, agreed that the results are practice changing. She said that the combination of abemaciclib and endocrine therapy is a potential new standard of care for this patient population. “We are encouraged by the marked reduction in the risk of recurrence even beyond the 2-year treatment period in these patients, and I’m grateful to be able to offer this as a treatment option to my patients,” she said.
On Twitter, she commented that restricting the indication to patients who show Ki67 ≥20% is “interesting,” inasmuch as benefits were seen in patients with both low and high Ki67.
Hal Burstein, MD, from Dana-Farber, also found this detail “interesting, as Ki67 testing remains a very controversial topic and difficult to standardize.”
Replying, Pedro Exman, MD, from the Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, in São Paulo, said: “Does it make sense to approve only in a subset of patients based in a positive subgroup analysis of a positive ITT study that was not even described in the JCO publication?”
Other experts said they were eagerly awaiting further results, particularly on overall survival, from the monarchE trial. New data are due to be presented on Oct. 14 at an ESMO virtual plenary session.
Commenting late last year about these results, George W. Sledge Jr, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif., said that the median follow-up time “is still quite short for a study of ER+ adjuvant therapy, where the majority of recurrences and deaths occur after 5 years in many studies.”
Consequently, “we still have a long way to go to understand the ultimate effects of CDK4/6 inhibition on early-stage ER+ breast cancer, particularly on late recurrences,” he told this news organization at the time.
Agreed, said C. Kent Osborne, MD, codirector of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium and founding director of the Duncan Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tex. The results are “very encouraging, especially in the subgroup of tumors with high proliferation” (identified by the K1-67 score).
However, Dr. Osborne also urged caution in the interpretation of the results, “given the still rather short follow-up, given that that ER+ disease is known for its persistent recurrence rate, even past 10 years.”
He also noted that “this class of inhibitors is likely cytostatic, rather than cytocidal, meaning that it blocks cell proliferation rather than killing the cells.” Questions therefore remain over whether the survival curves for combination therapy will come together with those for endocrine therapy alone once patients stop taking the drug.
Study details
The monarchE trial involved patients with HR+, HER2–, high-risk early breast cancer who had undergone surgery and, as indicated, radiotherapy and/or adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with four or more positive nodes or one to three nodes and either tumors of size ≥5 cm, histologic grade 3, or central Ki-67 ≥20% were eligible; 5,637 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard-of-care adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) with or without abemaciclib (150 mg twice daily for 2 years).
A preplanned interim analysis was carried out after 323 IDFS events were observed in the intent-to-treat population. The results, as published last year in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, show that abemaciclib plus ET yielded superior IDFS in comparison with ET alone (P = .01; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.93), with 2-year IDFS rates of 92.2% vs. 88.7%.
In the press release announcing the approval of the new indication, the manufacturer notes that the approval was based on the results from a subgroup of 2,003 patients whose tumors had a Ki-67 score of ≥20% and who were also at high risk for recurrence (≥four positive axillary lymph nodes [ALN], or one-three positive ALN with grade 3 disease and/or tumor size ≥5 cm).
There was a statistically significant improvement in IDFS for this prespecified subgroup of patients (HR, 0.643; 95% CI, 0.475-0.872; P = .0042).
With additional follow-up, conducted post hoc, the results showed a 37% decrease in the risk for breast cancer recurrence or death, compared with ET alone (HR, 0.626; 95% CI, 0.49-0.80) and an absolute benefit in IDFS event rate of 7.1% at 3 years. IDFS was 86.1% for abemaciclib plus ET vs. 79.0% for ET alone.
Adverse reactions from monarchE were consistent with the known safety profile for abemaciclib, the company noted. Safety and tolerability were evaluated in 5,591 patients. The most common adverse reactions reported (≥10%) with abemaciclib plus ET vs. ET alone were diarrhea (84% vs. 9%), infections (51% vs. 39%), neutropenia (46% vs. 6%), fatigue (41% vs. 18%), leukopenia (38% vs. 7%), nausea (30% vs. 9%), anemia (24% vs. 4%), headache (20% vs. 15%), vomiting (18% vs. 4.6%), stomatitis (14% vs. 5%), lymphopenia (14% vs. 3%), thrombocytopenia (13% vs. 2%), decreased appetite (12% vs. 2.4%), increased ALT (12% vs. 6%), increased AST (12% vs. 5%), dizziness (11% vs. 7%), rash (11% vs. 4.5%), and alopecia (11% vs. 2.7 %).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Abemaciclib had already been approved for use in the treatment of HR+, HER2– advanced or metastatic breast cancer.
Now it is also approved for use in HR+, HER2– early breast cancer for patients who have high-risk, node-positive disease and whose tumors have a Ki-67 score of 20% or higher, as determined by a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved test.
The FDA also approved the Ki-67 IHC MIB-1 pharmDx (Dako Omnis) assay for use as a companion diagnostic test.
This is the first CDK4/6 inhibitor to be approved for use in this patient population.
Approximately 70% of all breast cancers are of the HR+, HER2– subtype.
The approval is based on some of the results from the monarchE study, which was presented last year at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology and was simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The results showed that the addition of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors) significantly improved invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), which was defined on the basis of the length of time before breast cancer comes back, any new cancer develops, or death.
The 2-year IDFS rates were 92.2% with the combination vs. 88.7% for endocrine therapy alone for the overall patient population.
“This is the first time in more than 20 years that we have seen an advance in the adjuvant treatment of this form of breast cancer,” lead investigator Stephen Johnston, MD, PhD, from the Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, said at the meeting, as reported at the time by this news organization.
Reacting to the findings, Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, head of the division of early drug development at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, said, “This is a very important trial and the findings will change practice.”
He predicted that once the drug is approved for use in high-risk HR+, HER2– early breast cancer, “the new standard of care for these patients will be to add 2 years of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy.”
In a press release about the new approval from the manufacturer (Lilly), another investigator on the monarchE study, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, agreed that the results are practice changing. She said that the combination of abemaciclib and endocrine therapy is a potential new standard of care for this patient population. “We are encouraged by the marked reduction in the risk of recurrence even beyond the 2-year treatment period in these patients, and I’m grateful to be able to offer this as a treatment option to my patients,” she said.
On Twitter, she commented that restricting the indication to patients who show Ki67 ≥20% is “interesting,” inasmuch as benefits were seen in patients with both low and high Ki67.
Hal Burstein, MD, from Dana-Farber, also found this detail “interesting, as Ki67 testing remains a very controversial topic and difficult to standardize.”
Replying, Pedro Exman, MD, from the Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, in São Paulo, said: “Does it make sense to approve only in a subset of patients based in a positive subgroup analysis of a positive ITT study that was not even described in the JCO publication?”
Other experts said they were eagerly awaiting further results, particularly on overall survival, from the monarchE trial. New data are due to be presented on Oct. 14 at an ESMO virtual plenary session.
Commenting late last year about these results, George W. Sledge Jr, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif., said that the median follow-up time “is still quite short for a study of ER+ adjuvant therapy, where the majority of recurrences and deaths occur after 5 years in many studies.”
Consequently, “we still have a long way to go to understand the ultimate effects of CDK4/6 inhibition on early-stage ER+ breast cancer, particularly on late recurrences,” he told this news organization at the time.
Agreed, said C. Kent Osborne, MD, codirector of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium and founding director of the Duncan Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tex. The results are “very encouraging, especially in the subgroup of tumors with high proliferation” (identified by the K1-67 score).
However, Dr. Osborne also urged caution in the interpretation of the results, “given the still rather short follow-up, given that that ER+ disease is known for its persistent recurrence rate, even past 10 years.”
He also noted that “this class of inhibitors is likely cytostatic, rather than cytocidal, meaning that it blocks cell proliferation rather than killing the cells.” Questions therefore remain over whether the survival curves for combination therapy will come together with those for endocrine therapy alone once patients stop taking the drug.
Study details
The monarchE trial involved patients with HR+, HER2–, high-risk early breast cancer who had undergone surgery and, as indicated, radiotherapy and/or adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with four or more positive nodes or one to three nodes and either tumors of size ≥5 cm, histologic grade 3, or central Ki-67 ≥20% were eligible; 5,637 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard-of-care adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) with or without abemaciclib (150 mg twice daily for 2 years).
A preplanned interim analysis was carried out after 323 IDFS events were observed in the intent-to-treat population. The results, as published last year in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, show that abemaciclib plus ET yielded superior IDFS in comparison with ET alone (P = .01; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.93), with 2-year IDFS rates of 92.2% vs. 88.7%.
In the press release announcing the approval of the new indication, the manufacturer notes that the approval was based on the results from a subgroup of 2,003 patients whose tumors had a Ki-67 score of ≥20% and who were also at high risk for recurrence (≥four positive axillary lymph nodes [ALN], or one-three positive ALN with grade 3 disease and/or tumor size ≥5 cm).
There was a statistically significant improvement in IDFS for this prespecified subgroup of patients (HR, 0.643; 95% CI, 0.475-0.872; P = .0042).
With additional follow-up, conducted post hoc, the results showed a 37% decrease in the risk for breast cancer recurrence or death, compared with ET alone (HR, 0.626; 95% CI, 0.49-0.80) and an absolute benefit in IDFS event rate of 7.1% at 3 years. IDFS was 86.1% for abemaciclib plus ET vs. 79.0% for ET alone.
Adverse reactions from monarchE were consistent with the known safety profile for abemaciclib, the company noted. Safety and tolerability were evaluated in 5,591 patients. The most common adverse reactions reported (≥10%) with abemaciclib plus ET vs. ET alone were diarrhea (84% vs. 9%), infections (51% vs. 39%), neutropenia (46% vs. 6%), fatigue (41% vs. 18%), leukopenia (38% vs. 7%), nausea (30% vs. 9%), anemia (24% vs. 4%), headache (20% vs. 15%), vomiting (18% vs. 4.6%), stomatitis (14% vs. 5%), lymphopenia (14% vs. 3%), thrombocytopenia (13% vs. 2%), decreased appetite (12% vs. 2.4%), increased ALT (12% vs. 6%), increased AST (12% vs. 5%), dizziness (11% vs. 7%), rash (11% vs. 4.5%), and alopecia (11% vs. 2.7 %).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Abemaciclib had already been approved for use in the treatment of HR+, HER2– advanced or metastatic breast cancer.
Now it is also approved for use in HR+, HER2– early breast cancer for patients who have high-risk, node-positive disease and whose tumors have a Ki-67 score of 20% or higher, as determined by a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved test.
The FDA also approved the Ki-67 IHC MIB-1 pharmDx (Dako Omnis) assay for use as a companion diagnostic test.
This is the first CDK4/6 inhibitor to be approved for use in this patient population.
Approximately 70% of all breast cancers are of the HR+, HER2– subtype.
The approval is based on some of the results from the monarchE study, which was presented last year at the annual meeting of the European Society of Medical Oncology and was simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The results showed that the addition of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors) significantly improved invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), which was defined on the basis of the length of time before breast cancer comes back, any new cancer develops, or death.
The 2-year IDFS rates were 92.2% with the combination vs. 88.7% for endocrine therapy alone for the overall patient population.
“This is the first time in more than 20 years that we have seen an advance in the adjuvant treatment of this form of breast cancer,” lead investigator Stephen Johnston, MD, PhD, from the Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, said at the meeting, as reported at the time by this news organization.
Reacting to the findings, Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, head of the division of early drug development at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, said, “This is a very important trial and the findings will change practice.”
He predicted that once the drug is approved for use in high-risk HR+, HER2– early breast cancer, “the new standard of care for these patients will be to add 2 years of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy.”
In a press release about the new approval from the manufacturer (Lilly), another investigator on the monarchE study, Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, agreed that the results are practice changing. She said that the combination of abemaciclib and endocrine therapy is a potential new standard of care for this patient population. “We are encouraged by the marked reduction in the risk of recurrence even beyond the 2-year treatment period in these patients, and I’m grateful to be able to offer this as a treatment option to my patients,” she said.
On Twitter, she commented that restricting the indication to patients who show Ki67 ≥20% is “interesting,” inasmuch as benefits were seen in patients with both low and high Ki67.
Hal Burstein, MD, from Dana-Farber, also found this detail “interesting, as Ki67 testing remains a very controversial topic and difficult to standardize.”
Replying, Pedro Exman, MD, from the Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, in São Paulo, said: “Does it make sense to approve only in a subset of patients based in a positive subgroup analysis of a positive ITT study that was not even described in the JCO publication?”
Other experts said they were eagerly awaiting further results, particularly on overall survival, from the monarchE trial. New data are due to be presented on Oct. 14 at an ESMO virtual plenary session.
Commenting late last year about these results, George W. Sledge Jr, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif., said that the median follow-up time “is still quite short for a study of ER+ adjuvant therapy, where the majority of recurrences and deaths occur after 5 years in many studies.”
Consequently, “we still have a long way to go to understand the ultimate effects of CDK4/6 inhibition on early-stage ER+ breast cancer, particularly on late recurrences,” he told this news organization at the time.
Agreed, said C. Kent Osborne, MD, codirector of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium and founding director of the Duncan Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tex. The results are “very encouraging, especially in the subgroup of tumors with high proliferation” (identified by the K1-67 score).
However, Dr. Osborne also urged caution in the interpretation of the results, “given the still rather short follow-up, given that that ER+ disease is known for its persistent recurrence rate, even past 10 years.”
He also noted that “this class of inhibitors is likely cytostatic, rather than cytocidal, meaning that it blocks cell proliferation rather than killing the cells.” Questions therefore remain over whether the survival curves for combination therapy will come together with those for endocrine therapy alone once patients stop taking the drug.
Study details
The monarchE trial involved patients with HR+, HER2–, high-risk early breast cancer who had undergone surgery and, as indicated, radiotherapy and/or adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with four or more positive nodes or one to three nodes and either tumors of size ≥5 cm, histologic grade 3, or central Ki-67 ≥20% were eligible; 5,637 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard-of-care adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) with or without abemaciclib (150 mg twice daily for 2 years).
A preplanned interim analysis was carried out after 323 IDFS events were observed in the intent-to-treat population. The results, as published last year in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, show that abemaciclib plus ET yielded superior IDFS in comparison with ET alone (P = .01; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.93), with 2-year IDFS rates of 92.2% vs. 88.7%.
In the press release announcing the approval of the new indication, the manufacturer notes that the approval was based on the results from a subgroup of 2,003 patients whose tumors had a Ki-67 score of ≥20% and who were also at high risk for recurrence (≥four positive axillary lymph nodes [ALN], or one-three positive ALN with grade 3 disease and/or tumor size ≥5 cm).
There was a statistically significant improvement in IDFS for this prespecified subgroup of patients (HR, 0.643; 95% CI, 0.475-0.872; P = .0042).
With additional follow-up, conducted post hoc, the results showed a 37% decrease in the risk for breast cancer recurrence or death, compared with ET alone (HR, 0.626; 95% CI, 0.49-0.80) and an absolute benefit in IDFS event rate of 7.1% at 3 years. IDFS was 86.1% for abemaciclib plus ET vs. 79.0% for ET alone.
Adverse reactions from monarchE were consistent with the known safety profile for abemaciclib, the company noted. Safety and tolerability were evaluated in 5,591 patients. The most common adverse reactions reported (≥10%) with abemaciclib plus ET vs. ET alone were diarrhea (84% vs. 9%), infections (51% vs. 39%), neutropenia (46% vs. 6%), fatigue (41% vs. 18%), leukopenia (38% vs. 7%), nausea (30% vs. 9%), anemia (24% vs. 4%), headache (20% vs. 15%), vomiting (18% vs. 4.6%), stomatitis (14% vs. 5%), lymphopenia (14% vs. 3%), thrombocytopenia (13% vs. 2%), decreased appetite (12% vs. 2.4%), increased ALT (12% vs. 6%), increased AST (12% vs. 5%), dizziness (11% vs. 7%), rash (11% vs. 4.5%), and alopecia (11% vs. 2.7 %).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA OKs iPLEDGE change for gender-neutral language
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a modification to the isotretinoin risk-mitigation program to make it more inclusive for transgender patients.
Beginning on Dec. 13, 2021, Previously, there were three risk categories: females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males.
In recent years, dermatologists and others have advocated for the change, hoping to make the process more inclusive and less intrusive for their transgender patients.
Isotretinoin (Accutane, Absorica, Amnesteem, Claravis, others) has a high risk of severe birth defects, and has been linked with other health issues, making it crucial for those with the ability to become pregnant to take contraceptive precautions while on the medication. Under the iPLEDGE program, physicians, patients, and pharmacies prescribing, using, or dispensing the drug must all be registered, with requirements that include the use of two forms of an effective contraceptive and regular pregnancy testing for patients who can become pregnant.
The FDA had given notification in June 2018 that the REMS modification and labeling change would be required, replacing the gender-specific language with gender-neutral language, according to an FDA spokesperson. The change was based on feedback that the gender-specific language can be a barrier to access for some patients. The FDA approved the modification on Oct. 8.
Expert reactions
“This is an exciting and welcome change from the FDA on iPLEDGE that many dermatologists, myself included, have advocated for quite a few years,” Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, assistant professor of dermatology at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.
In a report on the dermatologic care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Yeung and his colleagues noted that more than 10 million lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people live in the United States and that improving their health is a public health priority.
“For cisgender patients, nothing has changed – patients will continue to receive appropriate educational material related to isotretinoin based on their pregnancy potential,” Dr. Yeung said. “For transgender and gender diverse patients, this is a huge step forward.”
Under the previous system, doctors were asked to register patients using gender binary categories, “which were confusing when they did not reflect reality” for these patients, Dr. Yeung said. The new system, Dr. Yeung added, “will make my job easier. I no longer have to struggle between respecting the patient’s gender identity and providing medically necessary care for patients with severe acne.”
“The new terminology is not just respectful, it also is simpler and makes more sense,” agreed Joshua D. Safer, MD, executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery at Mount Sinai Health System and professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “As it stood, a transgender man with his uterus and ovaries in place might be missed in the pregnancy surveillance system because he could simply be labeled a man and not followed further. At the same time, both transgender women and cisgender women who were at no risk of pregnancy could be subject to more medical scrutiny that might have been consider intrusive.”
The change “validates the important point that pregnancy potential is not exclusively defined by sociocultural constructs of gender and allow dermatologists to focus purely on what matters when prescribing isotretinoin – whether an individual is able to become pregnant or not, regardless of their gender identity,” Klint Peebles, MD, a dermatologist at Kaiser Permanente in Washington, D.C., and suburban Maryland, who has also advocated for the change, said in an interview.
FDA elaborates
The modification includes important changes for doctors, pharmacists, and patients alike, according to the FDA.
Health care providers must assign and confirm their currently enrolled patient’s risk category when they first log in to the IPLEDGE REMS website on or after Dec. 13, the effective date. They should be sure any patient whose prescription RMA (iPLEDGE authorization) expires on Dec. 11-12 is told to obtain their prescription before midnight, Eastern time, Dec. 10.
Pharmacists will be affected, too, since the iPLEDGE REMS changed to a new platform vendor and the current “switch” pharmacy management system will be removed as a method to verify authorization to dispense isotretinoin. With these changes, as of Dec. 13, pharmacists can’t use the switch system to obtain a predispense authorization, or RMA (risk management authorization). They will need to obtain an RMA online by accessing the iPLEDGE REMS website or via telephone to the PLEDGE REMS center, 866-495-0654, before dispensing the prescription.
Patients, beginning Dec. 13, will have the option of presenting a unique QR code at the pharmacy on their smartphone rather than providing the iPLEDGE identification number. The code can be accessed by logging into their account on the iPLEDGE REMS website.
Patients with an isotretinoin prescription RMA that expires Dec. 11-12, must obtain the prescription before 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on Dec. 10. If the RMA expires before the prescription is picked up, the patient must begin the authorization process all over again.
Dr. Safer, Dr. Yeung, and Dr. Peebles have no relevant disclosures.
More information on the update and the isotretinoin REMS program is available on the FDA website.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a modification to the isotretinoin risk-mitigation program to make it more inclusive for transgender patients.
Beginning on Dec. 13, 2021, Previously, there were three risk categories: females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males.
In recent years, dermatologists and others have advocated for the change, hoping to make the process more inclusive and less intrusive for their transgender patients.
Isotretinoin (Accutane, Absorica, Amnesteem, Claravis, others) has a high risk of severe birth defects, and has been linked with other health issues, making it crucial for those with the ability to become pregnant to take contraceptive precautions while on the medication. Under the iPLEDGE program, physicians, patients, and pharmacies prescribing, using, or dispensing the drug must all be registered, with requirements that include the use of two forms of an effective contraceptive and regular pregnancy testing for patients who can become pregnant.
The FDA had given notification in June 2018 that the REMS modification and labeling change would be required, replacing the gender-specific language with gender-neutral language, according to an FDA spokesperson. The change was based on feedback that the gender-specific language can be a barrier to access for some patients. The FDA approved the modification on Oct. 8.
Expert reactions
“This is an exciting and welcome change from the FDA on iPLEDGE that many dermatologists, myself included, have advocated for quite a few years,” Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, assistant professor of dermatology at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.
In a report on the dermatologic care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Yeung and his colleagues noted that more than 10 million lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people live in the United States and that improving their health is a public health priority.
“For cisgender patients, nothing has changed – patients will continue to receive appropriate educational material related to isotretinoin based on their pregnancy potential,” Dr. Yeung said. “For transgender and gender diverse patients, this is a huge step forward.”
Under the previous system, doctors were asked to register patients using gender binary categories, “which were confusing when they did not reflect reality” for these patients, Dr. Yeung said. The new system, Dr. Yeung added, “will make my job easier. I no longer have to struggle between respecting the patient’s gender identity and providing medically necessary care for patients with severe acne.”
“The new terminology is not just respectful, it also is simpler and makes more sense,” agreed Joshua D. Safer, MD, executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery at Mount Sinai Health System and professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “As it stood, a transgender man with his uterus and ovaries in place might be missed in the pregnancy surveillance system because he could simply be labeled a man and not followed further. At the same time, both transgender women and cisgender women who were at no risk of pregnancy could be subject to more medical scrutiny that might have been consider intrusive.”
The change “validates the important point that pregnancy potential is not exclusively defined by sociocultural constructs of gender and allow dermatologists to focus purely on what matters when prescribing isotretinoin – whether an individual is able to become pregnant or not, regardless of their gender identity,” Klint Peebles, MD, a dermatologist at Kaiser Permanente in Washington, D.C., and suburban Maryland, who has also advocated for the change, said in an interview.
FDA elaborates
The modification includes important changes for doctors, pharmacists, and patients alike, according to the FDA.
Health care providers must assign and confirm their currently enrolled patient’s risk category when they first log in to the IPLEDGE REMS website on or after Dec. 13, the effective date. They should be sure any patient whose prescription RMA (iPLEDGE authorization) expires on Dec. 11-12 is told to obtain their prescription before midnight, Eastern time, Dec. 10.
Pharmacists will be affected, too, since the iPLEDGE REMS changed to a new platform vendor and the current “switch” pharmacy management system will be removed as a method to verify authorization to dispense isotretinoin. With these changes, as of Dec. 13, pharmacists can’t use the switch system to obtain a predispense authorization, or RMA (risk management authorization). They will need to obtain an RMA online by accessing the iPLEDGE REMS website or via telephone to the PLEDGE REMS center, 866-495-0654, before dispensing the prescription.
Patients, beginning Dec. 13, will have the option of presenting a unique QR code at the pharmacy on their smartphone rather than providing the iPLEDGE identification number. The code can be accessed by logging into their account on the iPLEDGE REMS website.
Patients with an isotretinoin prescription RMA that expires Dec. 11-12, must obtain the prescription before 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on Dec. 10. If the RMA expires before the prescription is picked up, the patient must begin the authorization process all over again.
Dr. Safer, Dr. Yeung, and Dr. Peebles have no relevant disclosures.
More information on the update and the isotretinoin REMS program is available on the FDA website.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a modification to the isotretinoin risk-mitigation program to make it more inclusive for transgender patients.
Beginning on Dec. 13, 2021, Previously, there were three risk categories: females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males.
In recent years, dermatologists and others have advocated for the change, hoping to make the process more inclusive and less intrusive for their transgender patients.
Isotretinoin (Accutane, Absorica, Amnesteem, Claravis, others) has a high risk of severe birth defects, and has been linked with other health issues, making it crucial for those with the ability to become pregnant to take contraceptive precautions while on the medication. Under the iPLEDGE program, physicians, patients, and pharmacies prescribing, using, or dispensing the drug must all be registered, with requirements that include the use of two forms of an effective contraceptive and regular pregnancy testing for patients who can become pregnant.
The FDA had given notification in June 2018 that the REMS modification and labeling change would be required, replacing the gender-specific language with gender-neutral language, according to an FDA spokesperson. The change was based on feedback that the gender-specific language can be a barrier to access for some patients. The FDA approved the modification on Oct. 8.
Expert reactions
“This is an exciting and welcome change from the FDA on iPLEDGE that many dermatologists, myself included, have advocated for quite a few years,” Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, assistant professor of dermatology at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.
In a report on the dermatologic care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Yeung and his colleagues noted that more than 10 million lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people live in the United States and that improving their health is a public health priority.
“For cisgender patients, nothing has changed – patients will continue to receive appropriate educational material related to isotretinoin based on their pregnancy potential,” Dr. Yeung said. “For transgender and gender diverse patients, this is a huge step forward.”
Under the previous system, doctors were asked to register patients using gender binary categories, “which were confusing when they did not reflect reality” for these patients, Dr. Yeung said. The new system, Dr. Yeung added, “will make my job easier. I no longer have to struggle between respecting the patient’s gender identity and providing medically necessary care for patients with severe acne.”
“The new terminology is not just respectful, it also is simpler and makes more sense,” agreed Joshua D. Safer, MD, executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery at Mount Sinai Health System and professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “As it stood, a transgender man with his uterus and ovaries in place might be missed in the pregnancy surveillance system because he could simply be labeled a man and not followed further. At the same time, both transgender women and cisgender women who were at no risk of pregnancy could be subject to more medical scrutiny that might have been consider intrusive.”
The change “validates the important point that pregnancy potential is not exclusively defined by sociocultural constructs of gender and allow dermatologists to focus purely on what matters when prescribing isotretinoin – whether an individual is able to become pregnant or not, regardless of their gender identity,” Klint Peebles, MD, a dermatologist at Kaiser Permanente in Washington, D.C., and suburban Maryland, who has also advocated for the change, said in an interview.
FDA elaborates
The modification includes important changes for doctors, pharmacists, and patients alike, according to the FDA.
Health care providers must assign and confirm their currently enrolled patient’s risk category when they first log in to the IPLEDGE REMS website on or after Dec. 13, the effective date. They should be sure any patient whose prescription RMA (iPLEDGE authorization) expires on Dec. 11-12 is told to obtain their prescription before midnight, Eastern time, Dec. 10.
Pharmacists will be affected, too, since the iPLEDGE REMS changed to a new platform vendor and the current “switch” pharmacy management system will be removed as a method to verify authorization to dispense isotretinoin. With these changes, as of Dec. 13, pharmacists can’t use the switch system to obtain a predispense authorization, or RMA (risk management authorization). They will need to obtain an RMA online by accessing the iPLEDGE REMS website or via telephone to the PLEDGE REMS center, 866-495-0654, before dispensing the prescription.
Patients, beginning Dec. 13, will have the option of presenting a unique QR code at the pharmacy on their smartphone rather than providing the iPLEDGE identification number. The code can be accessed by logging into their account on the iPLEDGE REMS website.
Patients with an isotretinoin prescription RMA that expires Dec. 11-12, must obtain the prescription before 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on Dec. 10. If the RMA expires before the prescription is picked up, the patient must begin the authorization process all over again.
Dr. Safer, Dr. Yeung, and Dr. Peebles have no relevant disclosures.
More information on the update and the isotretinoin REMS program is available on the FDA website.
FDA approves avacopan for rare ANCA autoimmune disease
U.S. regulators approved avacopan (Tavneos) for a rare immune disorder after receiving additional information to address concerns raised about the drug that were previously discussed at a public meeting in May.
ChemoCentryx, the drug’s manufacturer, today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the drug as an adjunctive treatment for severe active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody–associated vasculitis (also known as ANCA-associated vasculitis or ANCA vasculitis).
This systemic disease results from overactivation of the complement system, leading to inflammation and eventual destruction of small blood vessels. This can lead to organ damage and failure, with the kidney as the major target, said the company in a statement.
The avacopan approval was based in large part on the results of the ADVOCATE trial, which were highlighted in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine , titled “Avacopan – Time to replace glucocorticoids?” But the FDA-approved indication for avacopan is as an adjunctive treatment of adult patients with severe active ANCA-associated vasculitis (granulomatosis with polyangiitis [GPA] and microscopic polyangiitis [MPA]) in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids. “Tavneos does not eliminate glucocorticoid use,” the label states.
The ADVOCATE trial was a global, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy phase 3 trial of 330 patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis conducted in 20 countries, ChemoCentryx said. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either rituximab or cyclophosphamide (followed by azathioprine/mycophenolate) and either avacopan or study-supplied oral prednisone.
Subjects in both treatment groups could also receive nonprotocol glucocorticoids as needed. The study met its primary endpoints of disease remission at 26 weeks and sustained remission at 52 weeks, as assessed by the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS), ChemoCentryx said. Common adverse reactions among study participants included nausea, headache, hypertension, diarrhea, vomiting, rash, fatigue, upper abdominal pain, dizziness, blood creatinine increase, and paresthesia.
In the ChemoCentryx statement, Peter A. Merkel, MD, MPH, a consultant to the company and the chief of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the avacopan clearance a “first-in-a-decade approval of a medicine for ANCA-associated vasculitis.”
“Patients will now have access to a new class of medication that provides beneficial effects for the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis,” Dr. Merkel said.
In reviewing the avacopan application, the FDA noted that the medicine is intended to treat “a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality.”
“It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies,” the FDA staff said in a review of the ChemoCentryx application for approval of avacopan, which was posted online ahead of a meeting this past May.
Previous FDA concerns
In that review, FDA staff made public various concerns about the evidence used in seeking approval of the medicine. The FDA staff said there were “substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.”
Members of the FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Committee voted 10-8 on May 6 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval. The panel also voted 9-9 on whether the efficacy data support approval of avacopan, and 10-8 that the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.
ChemoCentryx in July said it filed an amendment to its new drug application (NDA) for avacopan. This appears to have answered regulators’ questions about the drug.
On a call with analysts Friday, ChemoCentryx officials outlined a marketing strategy for avacopan, with efforts focused on reaching influential rheumatologists and nephrologists. The company will set a U.S. wholesale acquisition cost for the drug of about $150,000-$200,000 a patient, in keeping with the range of prices often seen for orphan drugs. ChemoCentryx said it intends to offer financial support programs for the medicine.
ChemoCentryx said avacopan is also approved for the treatment of microscopic polyangiitis and granulomatosis with polyangiitis (the two main forms of ANCA-associated vasculitis) in Japan. The regulatory decision in Europe is expected by the end of this year.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
U.S. regulators approved avacopan (Tavneos) for a rare immune disorder after receiving additional information to address concerns raised about the drug that were previously discussed at a public meeting in May.
ChemoCentryx, the drug’s manufacturer, today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the drug as an adjunctive treatment for severe active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody–associated vasculitis (also known as ANCA-associated vasculitis or ANCA vasculitis).
This systemic disease results from overactivation of the complement system, leading to inflammation and eventual destruction of small blood vessels. This can lead to organ damage and failure, with the kidney as the major target, said the company in a statement.
The avacopan approval was based in large part on the results of the ADVOCATE trial, which were highlighted in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine , titled “Avacopan – Time to replace glucocorticoids?” But the FDA-approved indication for avacopan is as an adjunctive treatment of adult patients with severe active ANCA-associated vasculitis (granulomatosis with polyangiitis [GPA] and microscopic polyangiitis [MPA]) in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids. “Tavneos does not eliminate glucocorticoid use,” the label states.
The ADVOCATE trial was a global, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy phase 3 trial of 330 patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis conducted in 20 countries, ChemoCentryx said. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either rituximab or cyclophosphamide (followed by azathioprine/mycophenolate) and either avacopan or study-supplied oral prednisone.
Subjects in both treatment groups could also receive nonprotocol glucocorticoids as needed. The study met its primary endpoints of disease remission at 26 weeks and sustained remission at 52 weeks, as assessed by the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS), ChemoCentryx said. Common adverse reactions among study participants included nausea, headache, hypertension, diarrhea, vomiting, rash, fatigue, upper abdominal pain, dizziness, blood creatinine increase, and paresthesia.
In the ChemoCentryx statement, Peter A. Merkel, MD, MPH, a consultant to the company and the chief of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the avacopan clearance a “first-in-a-decade approval of a medicine for ANCA-associated vasculitis.”
“Patients will now have access to a new class of medication that provides beneficial effects for the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis,” Dr. Merkel said.
In reviewing the avacopan application, the FDA noted that the medicine is intended to treat “a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality.”
“It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies,” the FDA staff said in a review of the ChemoCentryx application for approval of avacopan, which was posted online ahead of a meeting this past May.
Previous FDA concerns
In that review, FDA staff made public various concerns about the evidence used in seeking approval of the medicine. The FDA staff said there were “substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.”
Members of the FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Committee voted 10-8 on May 6 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval. The panel also voted 9-9 on whether the efficacy data support approval of avacopan, and 10-8 that the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.
ChemoCentryx in July said it filed an amendment to its new drug application (NDA) for avacopan. This appears to have answered regulators’ questions about the drug.
On a call with analysts Friday, ChemoCentryx officials outlined a marketing strategy for avacopan, with efforts focused on reaching influential rheumatologists and nephrologists. The company will set a U.S. wholesale acquisition cost for the drug of about $150,000-$200,000 a patient, in keeping with the range of prices often seen for orphan drugs. ChemoCentryx said it intends to offer financial support programs for the medicine.
ChemoCentryx said avacopan is also approved for the treatment of microscopic polyangiitis and granulomatosis with polyangiitis (the two main forms of ANCA-associated vasculitis) in Japan. The regulatory decision in Europe is expected by the end of this year.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
U.S. regulators approved avacopan (Tavneos) for a rare immune disorder after receiving additional information to address concerns raised about the drug that were previously discussed at a public meeting in May.
ChemoCentryx, the drug’s manufacturer, today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the drug as an adjunctive treatment for severe active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody–associated vasculitis (also known as ANCA-associated vasculitis or ANCA vasculitis).
This systemic disease results from overactivation of the complement system, leading to inflammation and eventual destruction of small blood vessels. This can lead to organ damage and failure, with the kidney as the major target, said the company in a statement.
The avacopan approval was based in large part on the results of the ADVOCATE trial, which were highlighted in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine , titled “Avacopan – Time to replace glucocorticoids?” But the FDA-approved indication for avacopan is as an adjunctive treatment of adult patients with severe active ANCA-associated vasculitis (granulomatosis with polyangiitis [GPA] and microscopic polyangiitis [MPA]) in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids. “Tavneos does not eliminate glucocorticoid use,” the label states.
The ADVOCATE trial was a global, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy phase 3 trial of 330 patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis conducted in 20 countries, ChemoCentryx said. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either rituximab or cyclophosphamide (followed by azathioprine/mycophenolate) and either avacopan or study-supplied oral prednisone.
Subjects in both treatment groups could also receive nonprotocol glucocorticoids as needed. The study met its primary endpoints of disease remission at 26 weeks and sustained remission at 52 weeks, as assessed by the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS), ChemoCentryx said. Common adverse reactions among study participants included nausea, headache, hypertension, diarrhea, vomiting, rash, fatigue, upper abdominal pain, dizziness, blood creatinine increase, and paresthesia.
In the ChemoCentryx statement, Peter A. Merkel, MD, MPH, a consultant to the company and the chief of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the avacopan clearance a “first-in-a-decade approval of a medicine for ANCA-associated vasculitis.”
“Patients will now have access to a new class of medication that provides beneficial effects for the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis,” Dr. Merkel said.
In reviewing the avacopan application, the FDA noted that the medicine is intended to treat “a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality.”
“It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies,” the FDA staff said in a review of the ChemoCentryx application for approval of avacopan, which was posted online ahead of a meeting this past May.
Previous FDA concerns
In that review, FDA staff made public various concerns about the evidence used in seeking approval of the medicine. The FDA staff said there were “substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.”
Members of the FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Committee voted 10-8 on May 6 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval. The panel also voted 9-9 on whether the efficacy data support approval of avacopan, and 10-8 that the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.
ChemoCentryx in July said it filed an amendment to its new drug application (NDA) for avacopan. This appears to have answered regulators’ questions about the drug.
On a call with analysts Friday, ChemoCentryx officials outlined a marketing strategy for avacopan, with efforts focused on reaching influential rheumatologists and nephrologists. The company will set a U.S. wholesale acquisition cost for the drug of about $150,000-$200,000 a patient, in keeping with the range of prices often seen for orphan drugs. ChemoCentryx said it intends to offer financial support programs for the medicine.
ChemoCentryx said avacopan is also approved for the treatment of microscopic polyangiitis and granulomatosis with polyangiitis (the two main forms of ANCA-associated vasculitis) in Japan. The regulatory decision in Europe is expected by the end of this year.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA issues warning about use of dermal fillers with needle-free devices
.
Specifically, the warning advises consumers and health care professionals “not to use needle-free devices such as hyaluron pens for injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) or other lip and facial fillers, collectively and commonly referred to as dermal fillers or fillers.”
According to the statement, the agency “is aware of serious injuries and in some cases, permanent harm to the skin, lips, or eyes with the use of needle-free devices for injection of fillers.”
Needle-free devices and lip and facial fillers for use with these devices are being sold directly to consumers online, and are promoted on social media “to increase lip volume, improve the appearance of wrinkles, change the shape of the nose, and other similar procedures,” according to the FDA warning.
The FDA points out that FDA-approved dermal fillers are for prescription use only, and should be administered only by licensed health care professionals using a syringe with a needle or cannula, and advises consumers not to buy or use lip or facial fillers sold directly to the public.
These products may be contaminated with infectious agents or chemicals. Moreover, “needle-free injection devices for aesthetic purposes do not provide enough control over where the injected product is placed,” the statement adds. In addition to infections, other risks include bleeding and bruising, formation of lumps, allergic reactions, blockage of a blood vessel (which can result in necrosis, blindness, or stroke), and transmission of diseases from sharing devices.
The FDA’s recommendations for health care providers include not using any aesthetic fillers with a needle-free device, and not using approved dermal fillers in such devices.
The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) commended the FDA on the safety communication in a statement issued on October 11. In February, the ASDSA issued an alert about children using hyaluron pens to self-inject hyaluronic filler into the epidermal and upper dermal skin layers.
“I am pleased that the FDA has taken notice of this disturbing new trend, especially that of children using these devices on social media,” ASDSA president Mathew Avram, MD, JD, director of the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in the statement. “The complexity of facial anatomy requires in-depth knowledge and expertise, and patients should always have medical procedures done by a physician who also has knowledge of adverse events,” he added, urging consumers to see a board-certified dermatologist before undergoing any cosmetic procedure.
In response to a query, an FDA spokesperson did not have an estimate of the number of reports of these adverse events.
People who have problems or are concerned about having had a filler injected with a needle-free device should contact a licensed health care provider. Consumers and health care professionals should report adverse events related to injection of fillers with a needle-free device to the FDA’s MedWatch program. In addition to MedWatch, adverse events can also be reported to the Cutaneous Procedures Adverse Events Reporting (CAPER) Registry, established earlier this year by the ASDSA with the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.
*This story was updated on October 12.
.
Specifically, the warning advises consumers and health care professionals “not to use needle-free devices such as hyaluron pens for injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) or other lip and facial fillers, collectively and commonly referred to as dermal fillers or fillers.”
According to the statement, the agency “is aware of serious injuries and in some cases, permanent harm to the skin, lips, or eyes with the use of needle-free devices for injection of fillers.”
Needle-free devices and lip and facial fillers for use with these devices are being sold directly to consumers online, and are promoted on social media “to increase lip volume, improve the appearance of wrinkles, change the shape of the nose, and other similar procedures,” according to the FDA warning.
The FDA points out that FDA-approved dermal fillers are for prescription use only, and should be administered only by licensed health care professionals using a syringe with a needle or cannula, and advises consumers not to buy or use lip or facial fillers sold directly to the public.
These products may be contaminated with infectious agents or chemicals. Moreover, “needle-free injection devices for aesthetic purposes do not provide enough control over where the injected product is placed,” the statement adds. In addition to infections, other risks include bleeding and bruising, formation of lumps, allergic reactions, blockage of a blood vessel (which can result in necrosis, blindness, or stroke), and transmission of diseases from sharing devices.
The FDA’s recommendations for health care providers include not using any aesthetic fillers with a needle-free device, and not using approved dermal fillers in such devices.
The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) commended the FDA on the safety communication in a statement issued on October 11. In February, the ASDSA issued an alert about children using hyaluron pens to self-inject hyaluronic filler into the epidermal and upper dermal skin layers.
“I am pleased that the FDA has taken notice of this disturbing new trend, especially that of children using these devices on social media,” ASDSA president Mathew Avram, MD, JD, director of the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in the statement. “The complexity of facial anatomy requires in-depth knowledge and expertise, and patients should always have medical procedures done by a physician who also has knowledge of adverse events,” he added, urging consumers to see a board-certified dermatologist before undergoing any cosmetic procedure.
In response to a query, an FDA spokesperson did not have an estimate of the number of reports of these adverse events.
People who have problems or are concerned about having had a filler injected with a needle-free device should contact a licensed health care provider. Consumers and health care professionals should report adverse events related to injection of fillers with a needle-free device to the FDA’s MedWatch program. In addition to MedWatch, adverse events can also be reported to the Cutaneous Procedures Adverse Events Reporting (CAPER) Registry, established earlier this year by the ASDSA with the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.
*This story was updated on October 12.
.
Specifically, the warning advises consumers and health care professionals “not to use needle-free devices such as hyaluron pens for injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) or other lip and facial fillers, collectively and commonly referred to as dermal fillers or fillers.”
According to the statement, the agency “is aware of serious injuries and in some cases, permanent harm to the skin, lips, or eyes with the use of needle-free devices for injection of fillers.”
Needle-free devices and lip and facial fillers for use with these devices are being sold directly to consumers online, and are promoted on social media “to increase lip volume, improve the appearance of wrinkles, change the shape of the nose, and other similar procedures,” according to the FDA warning.
The FDA points out that FDA-approved dermal fillers are for prescription use only, and should be administered only by licensed health care professionals using a syringe with a needle or cannula, and advises consumers not to buy or use lip or facial fillers sold directly to the public.
These products may be contaminated with infectious agents or chemicals. Moreover, “needle-free injection devices for aesthetic purposes do not provide enough control over where the injected product is placed,” the statement adds. In addition to infections, other risks include bleeding and bruising, formation of lumps, allergic reactions, blockage of a blood vessel (which can result in necrosis, blindness, or stroke), and transmission of diseases from sharing devices.
The FDA’s recommendations for health care providers include not using any aesthetic fillers with a needle-free device, and not using approved dermal fillers in such devices.
The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) commended the FDA on the safety communication in a statement issued on October 11. In February, the ASDSA issued an alert about children using hyaluron pens to self-inject hyaluronic filler into the epidermal and upper dermal skin layers.
“I am pleased that the FDA has taken notice of this disturbing new trend, especially that of children using these devices on social media,” ASDSA president Mathew Avram, MD, JD, director of the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in the statement. “The complexity of facial anatomy requires in-depth knowledge and expertise, and patients should always have medical procedures done by a physician who also has knowledge of adverse events,” he added, urging consumers to see a board-certified dermatologist before undergoing any cosmetic procedure.
In response to a query, an FDA spokesperson did not have an estimate of the number of reports of these adverse events.
People who have problems or are concerned about having had a filler injected with a needle-free device should contact a licensed health care provider. Consumers and health care professionals should report adverse events related to injection of fillers with a needle-free device to the FDA’s MedWatch program. In addition to MedWatch, adverse events can also be reported to the Cutaneous Procedures Adverse Events Reporting (CAPER) Registry, established earlier this year by the ASDSA with the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.
*This story was updated on October 12.