User login
FDA supports robotic device as hysterectomy helper
Surgeons have a new tool for use in benign hysterectomies with the Food & Drug Administration’s authorization for marketing of the Hominis Surgical System, a robotic-assisted surgical device. The marketing authorization was granted to Memic Innovative Surgery.
The FDA reviewed the device through the De Novo classification review process, a regulatory pathway for low- to moderate-risk devices of a new type.
The robotically assisted surgical device (RASD) is designed to facilitate transvaginal hysterectomy procedures and salpingo-oophorectomy procedures in patients without cancer.
RASDs are not robots and require human control, but they allow a surgeon to use computer technology to control and move surgical instruments inserted through incisions or orifices. “RASD technology facilitates performing minimally invasive surgery and complex tasks in confined areas inside the body,” according to an FDA press release announcing the authorization.
“The FDA continues to support advancements in safe and effective medical devices that can improve patient experiences when undergoing surgical procedures,” Binita Ashar, MD, of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the press release. The device represents another minimally invasive option for noncancerous conditions requiring gynecologic surgery.
The FDA also is establishing controls to ensure safety and effectiveness for RASDs, including labeling and performance testing requirements. “When met, the special controls, along with general controls, provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for devices of this type,” according to the press release.
The Hominis Surgical System involves the use of minimally invasive surgical instruments inserted through the vagina. A video camera is inserted laparoscopically through an abdominal incision; the camera allows the surgeon to visualize the instruments inside the patient.
“The FDA will require the manufacturer to develop and provide a comprehensive training program for surgeons and operating room staff to complete before operation of the device,” according to the press release.
The FDA reviewed data from a clinical study of 30 patients aged 37-79 years who underwent transvaginal total hysterectomy with salpingo-oophorectomy or salpingectomy for benign conditions.
Observed adverse events included minor blood loss, urinary tract infection and delayed healing of the closure made at the top of the vagina (vaginal cuff) that is done as part of a hysterectomy, according to the FDA. However, all 30 procedures were completed with no need for conversion to an open or other procedure.
Surgeons have a new tool for use in benign hysterectomies with the Food & Drug Administration’s authorization for marketing of the Hominis Surgical System, a robotic-assisted surgical device. The marketing authorization was granted to Memic Innovative Surgery.
The FDA reviewed the device through the De Novo classification review process, a regulatory pathway for low- to moderate-risk devices of a new type.
The robotically assisted surgical device (RASD) is designed to facilitate transvaginal hysterectomy procedures and salpingo-oophorectomy procedures in patients without cancer.
RASDs are not robots and require human control, but they allow a surgeon to use computer technology to control and move surgical instruments inserted through incisions or orifices. “RASD technology facilitates performing minimally invasive surgery and complex tasks in confined areas inside the body,” according to an FDA press release announcing the authorization.
“The FDA continues to support advancements in safe and effective medical devices that can improve patient experiences when undergoing surgical procedures,” Binita Ashar, MD, of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the press release. The device represents another minimally invasive option for noncancerous conditions requiring gynecologic surgery.
The FDA also is establishing controls to ensure safety and effectiveness for RASDs, including labeling and performance testing requirements. “When met, the special controls, along with general controls, provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for devices of this type,” according to the press release.
The Hominis Surgical System involves the use of minimally invasive surgical instruments inserted through the vagina. A video camera is inserted laparoscopically through an abdominal incision; the camera allows the surgeon to visualize the instruments inside the patient.
“The FDA will require the manufacturer to develop and provide a comprehensive training program for surgeons and operating room staff to complete before operation of the device,” according to the press release.
The FDA reviewed data from a clinical study of 30 patients aged 37-79 years who underwent transvaginal total hysterectomy with salpingo-oophorectomy or salpingectomy for benign conditions.
Observed adverse events included minor blood loss, urinary tract infection and delayed healing of the closure made at the top of the vagina (vaginal cuff) that is done as part of a hysterectomy, according to the FDA. However, all 30 procedures were completed with no need for conversion to an open or other procedure.
Surgeons have a new tool for use in benign hysterectomies with the Food & Drug Administration’s authorization for marketing of the Hominis Surgical System, a robotic-assisted surgical device. The marketing authorization was granted to Memic Innovative Surgery.
The FDA reviewed the device through the De Novo classification review process, a regulatory pathway for low- to moderate-risk devices of a new type.
The robotically assisted surgical device (RASD) is designed to facilitate transvaginal hysterectomy procedures and salpingo-oophorectomy procedures in patients without cancer.
RASDs are not robots and require human control, but they allow a surgeon to use computer technology to control and move surgical instruments inserted through incisions or orifices. “RASD technology facilitates performing minimally invasive surgery and complex tasks in confined areas inside the body,” according to an FDA press release announcing the authorization.
“The FDA continues to support advancements in safe and effective medical devices that can improve patient experiences when undergoing surgical procedures,” Binita Ashar, MD, of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the press release. The device represents another minimally invasive option for noncancerous conditions requiring gynecologic surgery.
The FDA also is establishing controls to ensure safety and effectiveness for RASDs, including labeling and performance testing requirements. “When met, the special controls, along with general controls, provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for devices of this type,” according to the press release.
The Hominis Surgical System involves the use of minimally invasive surgical instruments inserted through the vagina. A video camera is inserted laparoscopically through an abdominal incision; the camera allows the surgeon to visualize the instruments inside the patient.
“The FDA will require the manufacturer to develop and provide a comprehensive training program for surgeons and operating room staff to complete before operation of the device,” according to the press release.
The FDA reviewed data from a clinical study of 30 patients aged 37-79 years who underwent transvaginal total hysterectomy with salpingo-oophorectomy or salpingectomy for benign conditions.
Observed adverse events included minor blood loss, urinary tract infection and delayed healing of the closure made at the top of the vagina (vaginal cuff) that is done as part of a hysterectomy, according to the FDA. However, all 30 procedures were completed with no need for conversion to an open or other procedure.
Pembrolizumab SCLC indication withdrawn in U.S.
The move does not affect any of the drug’s other indications. The immunotherapy is used in the treatment of many different types of cancer.
The SCLC indication had been granted an accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 based on tumor response rate and durability of response data from patient cohorts in two trials. However, the anti-PD-1 therapy failed to demonstrate statistically significant improved overall survival in a confirmatory trial, which is mandated after an accelerated approval.
The FDA is conducting “an industry-wide evaluation of indications based on accelerated approvals that have not yet met their postmarketing requirements,” said Merck.
In February of 2021, an indication for durvalumab (Imfinzi) was withdrawn by AstraZeneca in concert with the FDA after the drug failed to improve overall survival in unresectable metastatic bladder cancer in a confirmatory trial, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
“We will continue to rigorously evaluate the benefits of [pembrolizumab] in small cell lung cancer and other types of cancer, in pursuit of Merck’s mission to save and improve lives,” Roy Baynes, MD, chief medical officer, Merck Research Laboratories, said in the company statement
Dr. Baynes also championed the value of accelerated approvals.
“The accelerated pathways created by the FDA have been integral to the remarkable progress in oncology care over the past 5 years and have helped many cancer patients with advanced disease, including small cell lung cancer, access new treatments,” he said.
However, in the past, the FDA has been criticized for approving new cancer drugs based on surrogate markers such as response rates because, in many cases, subsequent studies often show that the drug fails to improve overall survival.
For example, a 2015 study found that 36 (67%) of 54 cancer drug approvals from 2008 to 2012 were made on the basis of surrogate markers – either tumor response rate or progression-free survival. Over a median follow-up period of 4.4 years, only 5 of those 36 drugs were shown in randomized studies to improve overall survival, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
The FDA says that it instituted the accelerated approval program to “allow for earlier approval of drugs that treat serious conditions, and that fill an unmet medical need based on a surrogate endpoint.” The program was started in 1992, in the midst of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
In 2020, the nonprofit Friends of Cancer Research issued a white paper calling for reform in the accelerated approval process, which included a proposal to add risk assessment to surrogate endpoints that would factor in variables such as toxicity.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The move does not affect any of the drug’s other indications. The immunotherapy is used in the treatment of many different types of cancer.
The SCLC indication had been granted an accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 based on tumor response rate and durability of response data from patient cohorts in two trials. However, the anti-PD-1 therapy failed to demonstrate statistically significant improved overall survival in a confirmatory trial, which is mandated after an accelerated approval.
The FDA is conducting “an industry-wide evaluation of indications based on accelerated approvals that have not yet met their postmarketing requirements,” said Merck.
In February of 2021, an indication for durvalumab (Imfinzi) was withdrawn by AstraZeneca in concert with the FDA after the drug failed to improve overall survival in unresectable metastatic bladder cancer in a confirmatory trial, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
“We will continue to rigorously evaluate the benefits of [pembrolizumab] in small cell lung cancer and other types of cancer, in pursuit of Merck’s mission to save and improve lives,” Roy Baynes, MD, chief medical officer, Merck Research Laboratories, said in the company statement
Dr. Baynes also championed the value of accelerated approvals.
“The accelerated pathways created by the FDA have been integral to the remarkable progress in oncology care over the past 5 years and have helped many cancer patients with advanced disease, including small cell lung cancer, access new treatments,” he said.
However, in the past, the FDA has been criticized for approving new cancer drugs based on surrogate markers such as response rates because, in many cases, subsequent studies often show that the drug fails to improve overall survival.
For example, a 2015 study found that 36 (67%) of 54 cancer drug approvals from 2008 to 2012 were made on the basis of surrogate markers – either tumor response rate or progression-free survival. Over a median follow-up period of 4.4 years, only 5 of those 36 drugs were shown in randomized studies to improve overall survival, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
The FDA says that it instituted the accelerated approval program to “allow for earlier approval of drugs that treat serious conditions, and that fill an unmet medical need based on a surrogate endpoint.” The program was started in 1992, in the midst of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
In 2020, the nonprofit Friends of Cancer Research issued a white paper calling for reform in the accelerated approval process, which included a proposal to add risk assessment to surrogate endpoints that would factor in variables such as toxicity.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The move does not affect any of the drug’s other indications. The immunotherapy is used in the treatment of many different types of cancer.
The SCLC indication had been granted an accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 based on tumor response rate and durability of response data from patient cohorts in two trials. However, the anti-PD-1 therapy failed to demonstrate statistically significant improved overall survival in a confirmatory trial, which is mandated after an accelerated approval.
The FDA is conducting “an industry-wide evaluation of indications based on accelerated approvals that have not yet met their postmarketing requirements,” said Merck.
In February of 2021, an indication for durvalumab (Imfinzi) was withdrawn by AstraZeneca in concert with the FDA after the drug failed to improve overall survival in unresectable metastatic bladder cancer in a confirmatory trial, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
“We will continue to rigorously evaluate the benefits of [pembrolizumab] in small cell lung cancer and other types of cancer, in pursuit of Merck’s mission to save and improve lives,” Roy Baynes, MD, chief medical officer, Merck Research Laboratories, said in the company statement
Dr. Baynes also championed the value of accelerated approvals.
“The accelerated pathways created by the FDA have been integral to the remarkable progress in oncology care over the past 5 years and have helped many cancer patients with advanced disease, including small cell lung cancer, access new treatments,” he said.
However, in the past, the FDA has been criticized for approving new cancer drugs based on surrogate markers such as response rates because, in many cases, subsequent studies often show that the drug fails to improve overall survival.
For example, a 2015 study found that 36 (67%) of 54 cancer drug approvals from 2008 to 2012 were made on the basis of surrogate markers – either tumor response rate or progression-free survival. Over a median follow-up period of 4.4 years, only 5 of those 36 drugs were shown in randomized studies to improve overall survival, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
The FDA says that it instituted the accelerated approval program to “allow for earlier approval of drugs that treat serious conditions, and that fill an unmet medical need based on a surrogate endpoint.” The program was started in 1992, in the midst of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
In 2020, the nonprofit Friends of Cancer Research issued a white paper calling for reform in the accelerated approval process, which included a proposal to add risk assessment to surrogate endpoints that would factor in variables such as toxicity.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adalimumab earns FDA approval for ulcerative colitis in children
Adalimumab has received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for use in pediatric patients aged 5 years and older with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC), according to a press release from manufacturer AbbVie.
Approval was based on data from the phase 3 ENVISION 1 randomized, double-blind study (NCT02065557) in which 60% of patients receiving the higher induction dose showed clinical remission according to Partial May Score (PMS) at 8 weeks, 45% of whom were in remission according to Full Mayo Score (FMS) at 1 year. The approval means that children with UC and their families have the option of a subcutaneous biologic that can be administered at home.
In the ENVISION 1 study, clinical remission was defined as a PMS (based on stool frequency, rectal bleeding, and physician’s global assessment) ranging from 0 to 3 at the end of the 8-week induction period or FMS (which adds endoscopy) at the end of 52 weeks as less than or equal to 2 points total, with no individual subscore greater than 1. The study included children aged 4-17 years with active UC who were randomized to a low-dose or high-dose group.
“Through week 8, patients in both dosage groups received 2.4 mg/kg (maximum of 160 mg) at week 0, 1.2 mg/kg (maximum of 80 mg) at week 2, and 0.6 mg/kg (maximum of 40 mg) at weeks 4 and 6. The higher-dosage group also received an additional dosage of 2.4 mg/kg (maximum of 160 mg) at week 1,” according to the company press release. Between weeks 8 and 52, patients received double-blind placebo or 0.6 mg/kg adalimumab (maximum of 40 mg) every other week (maintenance standard dose) or every week (maintenance high dose).
No new adalimumab safety signals were noted in the study; headache and worsening UC were the most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events, and 22.6% of patients experienced a serious adverse event. “No deaths, malignancies, active tuberculosis or demyelinating disease were observed in this study,” according to the company. Full prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.
Approval expands options
“The number of FDA-approved biologics to treat pediatric UC has been limited,” said Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, PhD, an inflammatory bowel disease specialist at the University of Chicago, in an interview. “Infliximab is approved for pediatric UC and CD [Crohn’s disease], but adalimumab was only approved for CD in pediatric patients, and vedolizumab and ustekinumab are approved for neither UC nor CD in pediatric patients,” he said. “Thus, the addition of adalimumab as a treatment option for pediatric UC is of great benefit for pediatricians and patients.”
The approval will impact clinical practice in several ways, Dr. Sakuraba said. “Adalimumab may be used for those who lose response to infliximab, but may also be used as a first-line biologic because it is self-injectable,” he emphasized. Given that adalimumab is already in use for pediatric patients with Crohn’s disease, Dr. Sakuraba said he does not see any barriers to implementation of its use for children with UC. In addition, “the potential for better disease control, reduction of disease-related complications, and improved quality of life outweighs the risk of adverse reactions,” Dr. Sakuraba said. “The news of no new safety concern in the 52-week study period further supports the safety of biologic treatment in pediatric patients,” he added.
As for additional research: “It remains to be determined whether combination therapy with an immunomodulator would be more effective than monotherapy, and also whether there are any additional risks of adverse events with the addition of immunomodulators such as long-term risk of malignancy, especially lymphoproliferative disorders,” Dr. Sakuraba noted. “Therapeutic options for pediatric [inflammatory bowel disease] are limited and lagging, compared to adult patients, so studies of non-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] biologics such vedolizumab and ustekinumab are also awaited,” he said.
Dr. Sakuraba had no financial conflicts to disclose.
This article was updated March 3, 2021.
Adalimumab has received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for use in pediatric patients aged 5 years and older with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC), according to a press release from manufacturer AbbVie.
Approval was based on data from the phase 3 ENVISION 1 randomized, double-blind study (NCT02065557) in which 60% of patients receiving the higher induction dose showed clinical remission according to Partial May Score (PMS) at 8 weeks, 45% of whom were in remission according to Full Mayo Score (FMS) at 1 year. The approval means that children with UC and their families have the option of a subcutaneous biologic that can be administered at home.
In the ENVISION 1 study, clinical remission was defined as a PMS (based on stool frequency, rectal bleeding, and physician’s global assessment) ranging from 0 to 3 at the end of the 8-week induction period or FMS (which adds endoscopy) at the end of 52 weeks as less than or equal to 2 points total, with no individual subscore greater than 1. The study included children aged 4-17 years with active UC who were randomized to a low-dose or high-dose group.
“Through week 8, patients in both dosage groups received 2.4 mg/kg (maximum of 160 mg) at week 0, 1.2 mg/kg (maximum of 80 mg) at week 2, and 0.6 mg/kg (maximum of 40 mg) at weeks 4 and 6. The higher-dosage group also received an additional dosage of 2.4 mg/kg (maximum of 160 mg) at week 1,” according to the company press release. Between weeks 8 and 52, patients received double-blind placebo or 0.6 mg/kg adalimumab (maximum of 40 mg) every other week (maintenance standard dose) or every week (maintenance high dose).
No new adalimumab safety signals were noted in the study; headache and worsening UC were the most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events, and 22.6% of patients experienced a serious adverse event. “No deaths, malignancies, active tuberculosis or demyelinating disease were observed in this study,” according to the company. Full prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.
Approval expands options
“The number of FDA-approved biologics to treat pediatric UC has been limited,” said Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, PhD, an inflammatory bowel disease specialist at the University of Chicago, in an interview. “Infliximab is approved for pediatric UC and CD [Crohn’s disease], but adalimumab was only approved for CD in pediatric patients, and vedolizumab and ustekinumab are approved for neither UC nor CD in pediatric patients,” he said. “Thus, the addition of adalimumab as a treatment option for pediatric UC is of great benefit for pediatricians and patients.”
The approval will impact clinical practice in several ways, Dr. Sakuraba said. “Adalimumab may be used for those who lose response to infliximab, but may also be used as a first-line biologic because it is self-injectable,” he emphasized. Given that adalimumab is already in use for pediatric patients with Crohn’s disease, Dr. Sakuraba said he does not see any barriers to implementation of its use for children with UC. In addition, “the potential for better disease control, reduction of disease-related complications, and improved quality of life outweighs the risk of adverse reactions,” Dr. Sakuraba said. “The news of no new safety concern in the 52-week study period further supports the safety of biologic treatment in pediatric patients,” he added.
As for additional research: “It remains to be determined whether combination therapy with an immunomodulator would be more effective than monotherapy, and also whether there are any additional risks of adverse events with the addition of immunomodulators such as long-term risk of malignancy, especially lymphoproliferative disorders,” Dr. Sakuraba noted. “Therapeutic options for pediatric [inflammatory bowel disease] are limited and lagging, compared to adult patients, so studies of non-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] biologics such vedolizumab and ustekinumab are also awaited,” he said.
Dr. Sakuraba had no financial conflicts to disclose.
This article was updated March 3, 2021.
Adalimumab has received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for use in pediatric patients aged 5 years and older with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC), according to a press release from manufacturer AbbVie.
Approval was based on data from the phase 3 ENVISION 1 randomized, double-blind study (NCT02065557) in which 60% of patients receiving the higher induction dose showed clinical remission according to Partial May Score (PMS) at 8 weeks, 45% of whom were in remission according to Full Mayo Score (FMS) at 1 year. The approval means that children with UC and their families have the option of a subcutaneous biologic that can be administered at home.
In the ENVISION 1 study, clinical remission was defined as a PMS (based on stool frequency, rectal bleeding, and physician’s global assessment) ranging from 0 to 3 at the end of the 8-week induction period or FMS (which adds endoscopy) at the end of 52 weeks as less than or equal to 2 points total, with no individual subscore greater than 1. The study included children aged 4-17 years with active UC who were randomized to a low-dose or high-dose group.
“Through week 8, patients in both dosage groups received 2.4 mg/kg (maximum of 160 mg) at week 0, 1.2 mg/kg (maximum of 80 mg) at week 2, and 0.6 mg/kg (maximum of 40 mg) at weeks 4 and 6. The higher-dosage group also received an additional dosage of 2.4 mg/kg (maximum of 160 mg) at week 1,” according to the company press release. Between weeks 8 and 52, patients received double-blind placebo or 0.6 mg/kg adalimumab (maximum of 40 mg) every other week (maintenance standard dose) or every week (maintenance high dose).
No new adalimumab safety signals were noted in the study; headache and worsening UC were the most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events, and 22.6% of patients experienced a serious adverse event. “No deaths, malignancies, active tuberculosis or demyelinating disease were observed in this study,” according to the company. Full prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.
Approval expands options
“The number of FDA-approved biologics to treat pediatric UC has been limited,” said Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, PhD, an inflammatory bowel disease specialist at the University of Chicago, in an interview. “Infliximab is approved for pediatric UC and CD [Crohn’s disease], but adalimumab was only approved for CD in pediatric patients, and vedolizumab and ustekinumab are approved for neither UC nor CD in pediatric patients,” he said. “Thus, the addition of adalimumab as a treatment option for pediatric UC is of great benefit for pediatricians and patients.”
The approval will impact clinical practice in several ways, Dr. Sakuraba said. “Adalimumab may be used for those who lose response to infliximab, but may also be used as a first-line biologic because it is self-injectable,” he emphasized. Given that adalimumab is already in use for pediatric patients with Crohn’s disease, Dr. Sakuraba said he does not see any barriers to implementation of its use for children with UC. In addition, “the potential for better disease control, reduction of disease-related complications, and improved quality of life outweighs the risk of adverse reactions,” Dr. Sakuraba said. “The news of no new safety concern in the 52-week study period further supports the safety of biologic treatment in pediatric patients,” he added.
As for additional research: “It remains to be determined whether combination therapy with an immunomodulator would be more effective than monotherapy, and also whether there are any additional risks of adverse events with the addition of immunomodulators such as long-term risk of malignancy, especially lymphoproliferative disorders,” Dr. Sakuraba noted. “Therapeutic options for pediatric [inflammatory bowel disease] are limited and lagging, compared to adult patients, so studies of non-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] biologics such vedolizumab and ustekinumab are also awaited,” he said.
Dr. Sakuraba had no financial conflicts to disclose.
This article was updated March 3, 2021.
FDA places clinical hold on sickle cell gene therapy
The Food and Drug Administration placed a clinical hold yesterday on two gene therapy trials for sickle cell disease (SCD) after two recent complications: one participant developed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and another developed myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). The sponsoring company, bluebird bio, suspended the trials last week upon learning of the cases.
The company has also put the brakes on a treatment for beta thalassemia already approved in the European Union and the United Kingdom, betibeglogene autotemcel (Zynteglo). The treatment hasn’t been associated with problems but uses the same gene delivery vector, a lentivirus, as that used in the SCD trials.
Overall, the company has enrolled 47 SCD patients and 63 with beta thalassemia in trials.
The gene therapy “space” is one with spectacular successes – for a form of retinal blindness and spinal muscular atrophy – rising against a backdrop of recent setbacks and failures – for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, lipoprotein lipase deficiency, and myotubular myopathy.
A lentiviral vector
The retooled lentivirus used in the SCD trials, LentiGlobin, delivers a beta-globin gene with one amino acid replacement to hematopoietic stem cells outside the patient’s body. The modified cells are then infused back into the patient. The gene therapy reshapes red blood cells, enabling them to circulate through narrow blood vessels without sickling and adhering into painful logjams.
What is worrisome is that in the patient who developed AML, and who received the gene therapy more than 5 years ago, the cancer cells contained the vector. Those test results aren’t yet available for the participant who has MDS.
The finding raises suspicion that the gene therapy had a role in the cancer, but is only correlative.
Lentiviral vectors have a good track record, but the two cases evoke memories of 2 decades ago. In 2001, five children being treated for an inherited immunodeficiency (SCID-X1) with a gamma retroviral vector developed leukemia and one died. Those viruses inserted into an oncogene. Happening 2 years after the death of 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger in another gene therapy trial, the SCID trial had a chilling effect on the field.
Since then, lentiviral vectors have been reinvented to be “self-inactivating,” minimizing the risk for inserting willy-nilly into a genome. “Lentiviral vectors have been expressly designed to avoid insertional oncogenesis, based on prior experience with the gamma retroviruses. We don’t have evidence that the vector is causative, but our studies will shed some light on whether that’s true in these cases,” said bluebird bio chief scientific officer Philip Gregory, DPhil, on a conference call Feb. 16.
Lentiviral vectors have been successful as the backbone of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, which directs modified T cells to certain blood cancers. “Among the hundreds to thousands of patients treated with CAR-T cell therapy, lentivirus vector hasn’t been associated with any malignancies,” said bluebird’s chief medical officer, Dave Davidson, MD.
Jeanne Loring, PhD, director of the Center for Regenerative Medicine at Scripps Research, agreed. “Gene therapy is having some extreme highs and lows these days. Most studies use [adeno-associated viral] vectors, which don’t integrate into the genome. But some people have antibodies to AAV vectors, and AAV is diluted out when cells divide. That’s why lentivirus, which integrates into the genome, is used for blood stem cells and T cells in CAR-T therapy.”
Pinpointing causality
At bluebird bio, investigation into the possible “genetic gymnastics” of the lentivirus vector is focusing on where it integrates into the genome – whether it harpoons an oncogene like the gamma retroviral vectors, or affects genome stability, Dr. Gregory explained. To be causative, the affected gene must be a “driver” of the cancer, and not just a “passenger.”
Another suspect is busulfan, a drug used to “condition” the recipient’s bone marrow, making room for modified stem cells. “It’s possible that busulfan is the main problem, as it is a carcinogen unto itself,” said Paul Knoepfler, PhD, a stem cell researcher at the University of California, Davis.
In addition to the two more recent reports of complications, a third trial participant, who had participated in a phase 1/2 trial, developed MDS in 2018 and died of AML in July 2020. The cancer cells from that patient did not contain viral vectors and the MDS was attributed to busulfan conditioning.
Nick Leschly, chief of bluebird, pointed out the importance of clinical context in implicating the vector. Because SCD itself stresses the bone marrow, patients already face an increased risk of developing blood cancer, he said. “Now layer on other risks of the gene therapy. It’s challenging because we’re dealing with patients who have life expectancy in the mid 40s.” Previous treatments, such the antisickling drug hydroxyurea, may also contribute to patient vulnerability.
A patient’s view
SCD affects more than 100,000 people in the United States, and about 20 million globally. Charles Hough is one of them. He can attest to the severity of the disease as well as the promise of gene therapy
Mr. Hough was diagnosed at age 2, and endured the profound fatigue, pain crises, and even coma characteristic of severe cases. He cited his “rebirth” as Sept. 25, 2018, when he received his first modified stem cells at the National Institutes of Health. Mr. Hough told his story a year ago in a webinar for the National Organization for Rare Disorders. This news organization caught up with him in light of the clinical trial hold.
Although the preparative regimens for the gene therapy were tough, his sickle cell symptoms vanished after gene therapy. Even hearing about the current hold on the clinical trial, Mr. Hough doesn’t regret his participation.
“I had a lot of friends who passed because of the complications from sickle cell. I was always worried that I wouldn’t live to see the next day. Now I don’t have that stress hanging over my head and I feel like I can live a normal life. Becoming sickle cell free was my dream.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration placed a clinical hold yesterday on two gene therapy trials for sickle cell disease (SCD) after two recent complications: one participant developed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and another developed myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). The sponsoring company, bluebird bio, suspended the trials last week upon learning of the cases.
The company has also put the brakes on a treatment for beta thalassemia already approved in the European Union and the United Kingdom, betibeglogene autotemcel (Zynteglo). The treatment hasn’t been associated with problems but uses the same gene delivery vector, a lentivirus, as that used in the SCD trials.
Overall, the company has enrolled 47 SCD patients and 63 with beta thalassemia in trials.
The gene therapy “space” is one with spectacular successes – for a form of retinal blindness and spinal muscular atrophy – rising against a backdrop of recent setbacks and failures – for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, lipoprotein lipase deficiency, and myotubular myopathy.
A lentiviral vector
The retooled lentivirus used in the SCD trials, LentiGlobin, delivers a beta-globin gene with one amino acid replacement to hematopoietic stem cells outside the patient’s body. The modified cells are then infused back into the patient. The gene therapy reshapes red blood cells, enabling them to circulate through narrow blood vessels without sickling and adhering into painful logjams.
What is worrisome is that in the patient who developed AML, and who received the gene therapy more than 5 years ago, the cancer cells contained the vector. Those test results aren’t yet available for the participant who has MDS.
The finding raises suspicion that the gene therapy had a role in the cancer, but is only correlative.
Lentiviral vectors have a good track record, but the two cases evoke memories of 2 decades ago. In 2001, five children being treated for an inherited immunodeficiency (SCID-X1) with a gamma retroviral vector developed leukemia and one died. Those viruses inserted into an oncogene. Happening 2 years after the death of 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger in another gene therapy trial, the SCID trial had a chilling effect on the field.
Since then, lentiviral vectors have been reinvented to be “self-inactivating,” minimizing the risk for inserting willy-nilly into a genome. “Lentiviral vectors have been expressly designed to avoid insertional oncogenesis, based on prior experience with the gamma retroviruses. We don’t have evidence that the vector is causative, but our studies will shed some light on whether that’s true in these cases,” said bluebird bio chief scientific officer Philip Gregory, DPhil, on a conference call Feb. 16.
Lentiviral vectors have been successful as the backbone of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, which directs modified T cells to certain blood cancers. “Among the hundreds to thousands of patients treated with CAR-T cell therapy, lentivirus vector hasn’t been associated with any malignancies,” said bluebird’s chief medical officer, Dave Davidson, MD.
Jeanne Loring, PhD, director of the Center for Regenerative Medicine at Scripps Research, agreed. “Gene therapy is having some extreme highs and lows these days. Most studies use [adeno-associated viral] vectors, which don’t integrate into the genome. But some people have antibodies to AAV vectors, and AAV is diluted out when cells divide. That’s why lentivirus, which integrates into the genome, is used for blood stem cells and T cells in CAR-T therapy.”
Pinpointing causality
At bluebird bio, investigation into the possible “genetic gymnastics” of the lentivirus vector is focusing on where it integrates into the genome – whether it harpoons an oncogene like the gamma retroviral vectors, or affects genome stability, Dr. Gregory explained. To be causative, the affected gene must be a “driver” of the cancer, and not just a “passenger.”
Another suspect is busulfan, a drug used to “condition” the recipient’s bone marrow, making room for modified stem cells. “It’s possible that busulfan is the main problem, as it is a carcinogen unto itself,” said Paul Knoepfler, PhD, a stem cell researcher at the University of California, Davis.
In addition to the two more recent reports of complications, a third trial participant, who had participated in a phase 1/2 trial, developed MDS in 2018 and died of AML in July 2020. The cancer cells from that patient did not contain viral vectors and the MDS was attributed to busulfan conditioning.
Nick Leschly, chief of bluebird, pointed out the importance of clinical context in implicating the vector. Because SCD itself stresses the bone marrow, patients already face an increased risk of developing blood cancer, he said. “Now layer on other risks of the gene therapy. It’s challenging because we’re dealing with patients who have life expectancy in the mid 40s.” Previous treatments, such the antisickling drug hydroxyurea, may also contribute to patient vulnerability.
A patient’s view
SCD affects more than 100,000 people in the United States, and about 20 million globally. Charles Hough is one of them. He can attest to the severity of the disease as well as the promise of gene therapy
Mr. Hough was diagnosed at age 2, and endured the profound fatigue, pain crises, and even coma characteristic of severe cases. He cited his “rebirth” as Sept. 25, 2018, when he received his first modified stem cells at the National Institutes of Health. Mr. Hough told his story a year ago in a webinar for the National Organization for Rare Disorders. This news organization caught up with him in light of the clinical trial hold.
Although the preparative regimens for the gene therapy were tough, his sickle cell symptoms vanished after gene therapy. Even hearing about the current hold on the clinical trial, Mr. Hough doesn’t regret his participation.
“I had a lot of friends who passed because of the complications from sickle cell. I was always worried that I wouldn’t live to see the next day. Now I don’t have that stress hanging over my head and I feel like I can live a normal life. Becoming sickle cell free was my dream.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration placed a clinical hold yesterday on two gene therapy trials for sickle cell disease (SCD) after two recent complications: one participant developed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and another developed myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). The sponsoring company, bluebird bio, suspended the trials last week upon learning of the cases.
The company has also put the brakes on a treatment for beta thalassemia already approved in the European Union and the United Kingdom, betibeglogene autotemcel (Zynteglo). The treatment hasn’t been associated with problems but uses the same gene delivery vector, a lentivirus, as that used in the SCD trials.
Overall, the company has enrolled 47 SCD patients and 63 with beta thalassemia in trials.
The gene therapy “space” is one with spectacular successes – for a form of retinal blindness and spinal muscular atrophy – rising against a backdrop of recent setbacks and failures – for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, lipoprotein lipase deficiency, and myotubular myopathy.
A lentiviral vector
The retooled lentivirus used in the SCD trials, LentiGlobin, delivers a beta-globin gene with one amino acid replacement to hematopoietic stem cells outside the patient’s body. The modified cells are then infused back into the patient. The gene therapy reshapes red blood cells, enabling them to circulate through narrow blood vessels without sickling and adhering into painful logjams.
What is worrisome is that in the patient who developed AML, and who received the gene therapy more than 5 years ago, the cancer cells contained the vector. Those test results aren’t yet available for the participant who has MDS.
The finding raises suspicion that the gene therapy had a role in the cancer, but is only correlative.
Lentiviral vectors have a good track record, but the two cases evoke memories of 2 decades ago. In 2001, five children being treated for an inherited immunodeficiency (SCID-X1) with a gamma retroviral vector developed leukemia and one died. Those viruses inserted into an oncogene. Happening 2 years after the death of 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger in another gene therapy trial, the SCID trial had a chilling effect on the field.
Since then, lentiviral vectors have been reinvented to be “self-inactivating,” minimizing the risk for inserting willy-nilly into a genome. “Lentiviral vectors have been expressly designed to avoid insertional oncogenesis, based on prior experience with the gamma retroviruses. We don’t have evidence that the vector is causative, but our studies will shed some light on whether that’s true in these cases,” said bluebird bio chief scientific officer Philip Gregory, DPhil, on a conference call Feb. 16.
Lentiviral vectors have been successful as the backbone of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, which directs modified T cells to certain blood cancers. “Among the hundreds to thousands of patients treated with CAR-T cell therapy, lentivirus vector hasn’t been associated with any malignancies,” said bluebird’s chief medical officer, Dave Davidson, MD.
Jeanne Loring, PhD, director of the Center for Regenerative Medicine at Scripps Research, agreed. “Gene therapy is having some extreme highs and lows these days. Most studies use [adeno-associated viral] vectors, which don’t integrate into the genome. But some people have antibodies to AAV vectors, and AAV is diluted out when cells divide. That’s why lentivirus, which integrates into the genome, is used for blood stem cells and T cells in CAR-T therapy.”
Pinpointing causality
At bluebird bio, investigation into the possible “genetic gymnastics” of the lentivirus vector is focusing on where it integrates into the genome – whether it harpoons an oncogene like the gamma retroviral vectors, or affects genome stability, Dr. Gregory explained. To be causative, the affected gene must be a “driver” of the cancer, and not just a “passenger.”
Another suspect is busulfan, a drug used to “condition” the recipient’s bone marrow, making room for modified stem cells. “It’s possible that busulfan is the main problem, as it is a carcinogen unto itself,” said Paul Knoepfler, PhD, a stem cell researcher at the University of California, Davis.
In addition to the two more recent reports of complications, a third trial participant, who had participated in a phase 1/2 trial, developed MDS in 2018 and died of AML in July 2020. The cancer cells from that patient did not contain viral vectors and the MDS was attributed to busulfan conditioning.
Nick Leschly, chief of bluebird, pointed out the importance of clinical context in implicating the vector. Because SCD itself stresses the bone marrow, patients already face an increased risk of developing blood cancer, he said. “Now layer on other risks of the gene therapy. It’s challenging because we’re dealing with patients who have life expectancy in the mid 40s.” Previous treatments, such the antisickling drug hydroxyurea, may also contribute to patient vulnerability.
A patient’s view
SCD affects more than 100,000 people in the United States, and about 20 million globally. Charles Hough is one of them. He can attest to the severity of the disease as well as the promise of gene therapy
Mr. Hough was diagnosed at age 2, and endured the profound fatigue, pain crises, and even coma characteristic of severe cases. He cited his “rebirth” as Sept. 25, 2018, when he received his first modified stem cells at the National Institutes of Health. Mr. Hough told his story a year ago in a webinar for the National Organization for Rare Disorders. This news organization caught up with him in light of the clinical trial hold.
Although the preparative regimens for the gene therapy were tough, his sickle cell symptoms vanished after gene therapy. Even hearing about the current hold on the clinical trial, Mr. Hough doesn’t regret his participation.
“I had a lot of friends who passed because of the complications from sickle cell. I was always worried that I wouldn’t live to see the next day. Now I don’t have that stress hanging over my head and I feel like I can live a normal life. Becoming sickle cell free was my dream.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Bladder cancer indication withdrawn for durvalumab
The change does not affect this indication outside the United States, nor does it affect other approved durvalumab indications within the United States.
For example, durvalumab remains approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the curative-intent setting of unresectable, stage III non–small cell lung cancer after chemoradiotherapy and for the treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.
AstraZeneca is continuing with clinical trials of durvalumab in various combinations for the treatment of bladder cancer.
Granted accelerated approval
Durvalumab was granted accelerated approval in May 2017 by the FDA specifically for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or who experience disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with that chemotherapy.
That accelerated approval was based on the surrogate markers of tumor response rate and duration of response from Study 1108, a phase 1/2 trial. In this trial, the overall response rate was 17.8% in a cohort of 191 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer that had progressed during or after a platinum-based regimen.
However, in the confirmatory phase 3 DANUBE trial in patients with unresectable metastatic bladder cancer, neither durvalumab nor durvalumab plus tremelimumab met the primary endpoint of improving overall survival in comparison with standard-of-care chemotherapy.
“While the withdrawal in previously treated metastatic bladder cancer is disappointing, we respect the principles FDA set out when the accelerated approval pathway was founded,” Dave Fredrickson, executive vice president, Oncology Business Unit, AstraZeneca, said in a company press statement.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The change does not affect this indication outside the United States, nor does it affect other approved durvalumab indications within the United States.
For example, durvalumab remains approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the curative-intent setting of unresectable, stage III non–small cell lung cancer after chemoradiotherapy and for the treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.
AstraZeneca is continuing with clinical trials of durvalumab in various combinations for the treatment of bladder cancer.
Granted accelerated approval
Durvalumab was granted accelerated approval in May 2017 by the FDA specifically for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or who experience disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with that chemotherapy.
That accelerated approval was based on the surrogate markers of tumor response rate and duration of response from Study 1108, a phase 1/2 trial. In this trial, the overall response rate was 17.8% in a cohort of 191 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer that had progressed during or after a platinum-based regimen.
However, in the confirmatory phase 3 DANUBE trial in patients with unresectable metastatic bladder cancer, neither durvalumab nor durvalumab plus tremelimumab met the primary endpoint of improving overall survival in comparison with standard-of-care chemotherapy.
“While the withdrawal in previously treated metastatic bladder cancer is disappointing, we respect the principles FDA set out when the accelerated approval pathway was founded,” Dave Fredrickson, executive vice president, Oncology Business Unit, AstraZeneca, said in a company press statement.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The change does not affect this indication outside the United States, nor does it affect other approved durvalumab indications within the United States.
For example, durvalumab remains approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the curative-intent setting of unresectable, stage III non–small cell lung cancer after chemoradiotherapy and for the treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.
AstraZeneca is continuing with clinical trials of durvalumab in various combinations for the treatment of bladder cancer.
Granted accelerated approval
Durvalumab was granted accelerated approval in May 2017 by the FDA specifically for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who experience disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy or who experience disease progression within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with that chemotherapy.
That accelerated approval was based on the surrogate markers of tumor response rate and duration of response from Study 1108, a phase 1/2 trial. In this trial, the overall response rate was 17.8% in a cohort of 191 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer that had progressed during or after a platinum-based regimen.
However, in the confirmatory phase 3 DANUBE trial in patients with unresectable metastatic bladder cancer, neither durvalumab nor durvalumab plus tremelimumab met the primary endpoint of improving overall survival in comparison with standard-of-care chemotherapy.
“While the withdrawal in previously treated metastatic bladder cancer is disappointing, we respect the principles FDA set out when the accelerated approval pathway was founded,” Dave Fredrickson, executive vice president, Oncology Business Unit, AstraZeneca, said in a company press statement.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA grants emergency use authorization to Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine
And then there were three.
More vaccine availability at a time of high demand and limited supply could help officials vaccinate more Americans, more quickly. In addition, the J&J vaccine offers one-dose convenience and storage at conventional refrigeration temperatures.
Initial reactions to the EUA for the J&J vaccine have been positive.
“The advantages of having a third vaccine, especially one that is a single shot and can be stored without special refrigeration requirements, will be a major contribution in getting the general public vaccinated sooner, both in the U.S. and around the world,” Phyllis Tien, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, told Medscape Medical News.
“It’s great news. We have yet a third vaccine that is highly effective at preventing COVID, and even more effective at preventing severe COVID,” said Paul Goepfert, MD. It’s a “tremendous boon for our country and other countries as well.”
“This vaccine has also been shown to be effective against the B.1.351 strain that was first described in South Africa,” added Dr. Goepfert, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
The EUA “is indeed exciting news,” Colleen Kraft, MD, associate chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital and associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said during a February 25 media briefing.
One recent concern centers on people aged 60 years and older. Documents the FDA released earlier this week suggest a lower efficacy, 42%, for the J&J immunization among people in this age group with certain relevant comorbidities. In contrast, without underlying conditions like heart disease or diabetes, efficacy in this cohort was 72%.
The more the merrier
The scope and urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates as many protective measures as possible, said Raj Shah, MD, geriatrician, and associate professor of family medicine and codirector of the Center for Community Health Equity at Rush University in Chicago.
“Trying to vaccinate as many individuals living in the United States to prevent the spread of COVID is such a big project that no one company or one vaccine was going to be able to ramp up fast enough on its own,” Dr. Shah told Medscape Medical News.“This has been the hope for us,” he added, “to get to multiple vaccines with slightly different properties that will provide more options.”
Experience with the J&J vaccine so far suggests reactions are less severe. “The nice thing about the Johnson and Johnson [vaccine] is that it definitely has less side effects,” Dr. Kraft said.
On the other hand, low-grade fever, chills, or fatigue after vaccination can be considered a positive because they can reflect how well the immune system is responding, she added.
One and done?
Single-dose administration could be more than a convenience — it could also help clinicians vaccinate members of underserved communities and rural locations, where returning for a second dose could be more difficult for some people.
“In a controlled setting, in a clinical trial, we do a lot to make sure people get all the treatment they need,” Dr. Shah said. “We’re not seeing it right now, but we’re always worried when we have more than one dose that has to be administered, that some people will drop off and not come back for the second vaccine.”
This group could include the needle-phobic, he added. “For them, having it done once alleviates a lot of the anxiety.”
Looking beyond the numbers
The phase 3 ENSEMBLE study of the J&J vaccine revealed a 72% efficacy for preventing moderate-to-severe COVID-19 among U.S. participants. In contrast, researchers reported 94% to 95% efficacy for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.
However, experts agreed that focusing solely on these numbers can miss more important points. For example, no participants who received the J&J vaccine in the phase 3 trial died from COVID-19-related illness. There were five such deaths in the placebo cohort.
“One of the things that these vaccines do very well is they minimize severe disease,” Dr. Kraft said. “As somebody that has spent an inordinate time in the hospital taking care of patients with severe disease from COVID, this is very much a welcome addition to our armamentarium to fight this virus.”
“If you can give something that prevents people from dying, that is a true path to normalcy,” Dr. Goepfert added.
More work to do
“The demand is strong from all groups right now. We just have to work on getting more vaccines out there,” Dr. Shah said.
“We are at a point in this country where we are getting better with the distribution of the vaccine,” he added, “but we are nowhere close to achieving that distribution of vaccines to get to everybody.”
Dr. Goepfert, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Kraft disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the San Francisco VA Health Care System.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
And then there were three.
More vaccine availability at a time of high demand and limited supply could help officials vaccinate more Americans, more quickly. In addition, the J&J vaccine offers one-dose convenience and storage at conventional refrigeration temperatures.
Initial reactions to the EUA for the J&J vaccine have been positive.
“The advantages of having a third vaccine, especially one that is a single shot and can be stored without special refrigeration requirements, will be a major contribution in getting the general public vaccinated sooner, both in the U.S. and around the world,” Phyllis Tien, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, told Medscape Medical News.
“It’s great news. We have yet a third vaccine that is highly effective at preventing COVID, and even more effective at preventing severe COVID,” said Paul Goepfert, MD. It’s a “tremendous boon for our country and other countries as well.”
“This vaccine has also been shown to be effective against the B.1.351 strain that was first described in South Africa,” added Dr. Goepfert, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
The EUA “is indeed exciting news,” Colleen Kraft, MD, associate chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital and associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said during a February 25 media briefing.
One recent concern centers on people aged 60 years and older. Documents the FDA released earlier this week suggest a lower efficacy, 42%, for the J&J immunization among people in this age group with certain relevant comorbidities. In contrast, without underlying conditions like heart disease or diabetes, efficacy in this cohort was 72%.
The more the merrier
The scope and urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates as many protective measures as possible, said Raj Shah, MD, geriatrician, and associate professor of family medicine and codirector of the Center for Community Health Equity at Rush University in Chicago.
“Trying to vaccinate as many individuals living in the United States to prevent the spread of COVID is such a big project that no one company or one vaccine was going to be able to ramp up fast enough on its own,” Dr. Shah told Medscape Medical News.“This has been the hope for us,” he added, “to get to multiple vaccines with slightly different properties that will provide more options.”
Experience with the J&J vaccine so far suggests reactions are less severe. “The nice thing about the Johnson and Johnson [vaccine] is that it definitely has less side effects,” Dr. Kraft said.
On the other hand, low-grade fever, chills, or fatigue after vaccination can be considered a positive because they can reflect how well the immune system is responding, she added.
One and done?
Single-dose administration could be more than a convenience — it could also help clinicians vaccinate members of underserved communities and rural locations, where returning for a second dose could be more difficult for some people.
“In a controlled setting, in a clinical trial, we do a lot to make sure people get all the treatment they need,” Dr. Shah said. “We’re not seeing it right now, but we’re always worried when we have more than one dose that has to be administered, that some people will drop off and not come back for the second vaccine.”
This group could include the needle-phobic, he added. “For them, having it done once alleviates a lot of the anxiety.”
Looking beyond the numbers
The phase 3 ENSEMBLE study of the J&J vaccine revealed a 72% efficacy for preventing moderate-to-severe COVID-19 among U.S. participants. In contrast, researchers reported 94% to 95% efficacy for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.
However, experts agreed that focusing solely on these numbers can miss more important points. For example, no participants who received the J&J vaccine in the phase 3 trial died from COVID-19-related illness. There were five such deaths in the placebo cohort.
“One of the things that these vaccines do very well is they minimize severe disease,” Dr. Kraft said. “As somebody that has spent an inordinate time in the hospital taking care of patients with severe disease from COVID, this is very much a welcome addition to our armamentarium to fight this virus.”
“If you can give something that prevents people from dying, that is a true path to normalcy,” Dr. Goepfert added.
More work to do
“The demand is strong from all groups right now. We just have to work on getting more vaccines out there,” Dr. Shah said.
“We are at a point in this country where we are getting better with the distribution of the vaccine,” he added, “but we are nowhere close to achieving that distribution of vaccines to get to everybody.”
Dr. Goepfert, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Kraft disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the San Francisco VA Health Care System.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
And then there were three.
More vaccine availability at a time of high demand and limited supply could help officials vaccinate more Americans, more quickly. In addition, the J&J vaccine offers one-dose convenience and storage at conventional refrigeration temperatures.
Initial reactions to the EUA for the J&J vaccine have been positive.
“The advantages of having a third vaccine, especially one that is a single shot and can be stored without special refrigeration requirements, will be a major contribution in getting the general public vaccinated sooner, both in the U.S. and around the world,” Phyllis Tien, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, told Medscape Medical News.
“It’s great news. We have yet a third vaccine that is highly effective at preventing COVID, and even more effective at preventing severe COVID,” said Paul Goepfert, MD. It’s a “tremendous boon for our country and other countries as well.”
“This vaccine has also been shown to be effective against the B.1.351 strain that was first described in South Africa,” added Dr. Goepfert, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
The EUA “is indeed exciting news,” Colleen Kraft, MD, associate chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital and associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said during a February 25 media briefing.
One recent concern centers on people aged 60 years and older. Documents the FDA released earlier this week suggest a lower efficacy, 42%, for the J&J immunization among people in this age group with certain relevant comorbidities. In contrast, without underlying conditions like heart disease or diabetes, efficacy in this cohort was 72%.
The more the merrier
The scope and urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates as many protective measures as possible, said Raj Shah, MD, geriatrician, and associate professor of family medicine and codirector of the Center for Community Health Equity at Rush University in Chicago.
“Trying to vaccinate as many individuals living in the United States to prevent the spread of COVID is such a big project that no one company or one vaccine was going to be able to ramp up fast enough on its own,” Dr. Shah told Medscape Medical News.“This has been the hope for us,” he added, “to get to multiple vaccines with slightly different properties that will provide more options.”
Experience with the J&J vaccine so far suggests reactions are less severe. “The nice thing about the Johnson and Johnson [vaccine] is that it definitely has less side effects,” Dr. Kraft said.
On the other hand, low-grade fever, chills, or fatigue after vaccination can be considered a positive because they can reflect how well the immune system is responding, she added.
One and done?
Single-dose administration could be more than a convenience — it could also help clinicians vaccinate members of underserved communities and rural locations, where returning for a second dose could be more difficult for some people.
“In a controlled setting, in a clinical trial, we do a lot to make sure people get all the treatment they need,” Dr. Shah said. “We’re not seeing it right now, but we’re always worried when we have more than one dose that has to be administered, that some people will drop off and not come back for the second vaccine.”
This group could include the needle-phobic, he added. “For them, having it done once alleviates a lot of the anxiety.”
Looking beyond the numbers
The phase 3 ENSEMBLE study of the J&J vaccine revealed a 72% efficacy for preventing moderate-to-severe COVID-19 among U.S. participants. In contrast, researchers reported 94% to 95% efficacy for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.
However, experts agreed that focusing solely on these numbers can miss more important points. For example, no participants who received the J&J vaccine in the phase 3 trial died from COVID-19-related illness. There were five such deaths in the placebo cohort.
“One of the things that these vaccines do very well is they minimize severe disease,” Dr. Kraft said. “As somebody that has spent an inordinate time in the hospital taking care of patients with severe disease from COVID, this is very much a welcome addition to our armamentarium to fight this virus.”
“If you can give something that prevents people from dying, that is a true path to normalcy,” Dr. Goepfert added.
More work to do
“The demand is strong from all groups right now. We just have to work on getting more vaccines out there,” Dr. Shah said.
“We are at a point in this country where we are getting better with the distribution of the vaccine,” he added, “but we are nowhere close to achieving that distribution of vaccines to get to everybody.”
Dr. Goepfert, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Kraft disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the San Francisco VA Health Care System.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves cemiplimab-rwlc for NSCLC with PD-L1 expression
Specifically, the indication is for first-line treatment as monotherapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease who are not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy and whose tumors have a high expression of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) (Tumor Proportion Score >50%), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with no EGFR, ALK, or ROS1 aberrations.
This is the third indication for cemiplimab-rlwc, a monoclonal antibody and PD-1 inhibitor.
In February, it was approved as the first immunotherapy to treat patients with locally advanced or metastatic basal cell carcinoma that was previously treated with a hedgehog pathway inhibitor or for whom a hedgehog inhibitor is inappropriate.
Cemiplimab-rlwc previously received FDA approval in 2018 for locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma for patients who were not eligible for curative surgery or radiotherapy. At the time, Karl Lewis, MD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a trial investigator, predicted that the drug “will change the treatment paradigm for patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma.”
Outperforms chemotherapy
The approval for use in NSCLC is based on results from the phase 3, open-label EMPOWER-Lung 1 trial, which randomly assigned 710 patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive either cemiplimab-rwlc or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Patients had either locally advanced NSCLC and were not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy, or they had metastatic NSCLC.
Patients in the experimental arm received cemiplimab-rwlc 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome measures were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), determined on the basis of blinded independent central review.
Results showed statistically significant improvements in both outcomes. Median OS was 22.1 months with cemiplimab-rwlc versus 14.3 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .0022). Median PFS was 6.2 months versus 5.6 months (HR, 0.59; P < .0001).
The confirmed overall response rate was 37% for the cemiplimab arm versus 21% for the chemotherapy arm.
The most common adverse reactions (>10%) with cemiplimab-rlwc were musculoskeletal pain, rash, anemia, fatigue, decreased appetite, pneumonia, and cough.
This approval “means physicians and patients have a potent new treatment option against this deadly disease,” said Naiyer Rizvi, MD, Price Family Professor of Medicine, director of thoracic oncology, and codirector of cancer immunotherapy at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, in a statement. He was a steering committee member on the EMPOWER-Lung-1 Trial.
“Notably, Libtayo was approved based on a pivotal trial where most chemotherapy patients crossed over to Libtayo following disease progression, and that allowed for frequently underrepresented patients who had pretreated and clinically stable brain metastases or who had locally advanced disease and were not candidates for definitive chemoradiation,” said Dr. Rizvi. “This gives doctors important new data when considering Libtayo for the varied patients and situations they treat in daily clinical practice.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Specifically, the indication is for first-line treatment as monotherapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease who are not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy and whose tumors have a high expression of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) (Tumor Proportion Score >50%), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with no EGFR, ALK, or ROS1 aberrations.
This is the third indication for cemiplimab-rlwc, a monoclonal antibody and PD-1 inhibitor.
In February, it was approved as the first immunotherapy to treat patients with locally advanced or metastatic basal cell carcinoma that was previously treated with a hedgehog pathway inhibitor or for whom a hedgehog inhibitor is inappropriate.
Cemiplimab-rlwc previously received FDA approval in 2018 for locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma for patients who were not eligible for curative surgery or radiotherapy. At the time, Karl Lewis, MD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a trial investigator, predicted that the drug “will change the treatment paradigm for patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma.”
Outperforms chemotherapy
The approval for use in NSCLC is based on results from the phase 3, open-label EMPOWER-Lung 1 trial, which randomly assigned 710 patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive either cemiplimab-rwlc or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Patients had either locally advanced NSCLC and were not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy, or they had metastatic NSCLC.
Patients in the experimental arm received cemiplimab-rwlc 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome measures were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), determined on the basis of blinded independent central review.
Results showed statistically significant improvements in both outcomes. Median OS was 22.1 months with cemiplimab-rwlc versus 14.3 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .0022). Median PFS was 6.2 months versus 5.6 months (HR, 0.59; P < .0001).
The confirmed overall response rate was 37% for the cemiplimab arm versus 21% for the chemotherapy arm.
The most common adverse reactions (>10%) with cemiplimab-rlwc were musculoskeletal pain, rash, anemia, fatigue, decreased appetite, pneumonia, and cough.
This approval “means physicians and patients have a potent new treatment option against this deadly disease,” said Naiyer Rizvi, MD, Price Family Professor of Medicine, director of thoracic oncology, and codirector of cancer immunotherapy at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, in a statement. He was a steering committee member on the EMPOWER-Lung-1 Trial.
“Notably, Libtayo was approved based on a pivotal trial where most chemotherapy patients crossed over to Libtayo following disease progression, and that allowed for frequently underrepresented patients who had pretreated and clinically stable brain metastases or who had locally advanced disease and were not candidates for definitive chemoradiation,” said Dr. Rizvi. “This gives doctors important new data when considering Libtayo for the varied patients and situations they treat in daily clinical practice.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Specifically, the indication is for first-line treatment as monotherapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease who are not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy and whose tumors have a high expression of programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) (Tumor Proportion Score >50%), as determined by an FDA-approved test, with no EGFR, ALK, or ROS1 aberrations.
This is the third indication for cemiplimab-rlwc, a monoclonal antibody and PD-1 inhibitor.
In February, it was approved as the first immunotherapy to treat patients with locally advanced or metastatic basal cell carcinoma that was previously treated with a hedgehog pathway inhibitor or for whom a hedgehog inhibitor is inappropriate.
Cemiplimab-rlwc previously received FDA approval in 2018 for locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma for patients who were not eligible for curative surgery or radiotherapy. At the time, Karl Lewis, MD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a trial investigator, predicted that the drug “will change the treatment paradigm for patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma.”
Outperforms chemotherapy
The approval for use in NSCLC is based on results from the phase 3, open-label EMPOWER-Lung 1 trial, which randomly assigned 710 patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive either cemiplimab-rwlc or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Patients had either locally advanced NSCLC and were not candidates for surgical resection or definitive chemoradiotherapy, or they had metastatic NSCLC.
Patients in the experimental arm received cemiplimab-rwlc 350 mg intravenously every 3 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome measures were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), determined on the basis of blinded independent central review.
Results showed statistically significant improvements in both outcomes. Median OS was 22.1 months with cemiplimab-rwlc versus 14.3 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.68; P = .0022). Median PFS was 6.2 months versus 5.6 months (HR, 0.59; P < .0001).
The confirmed overall response rate was 37% for the cemiplimab arm versus 21% for the chemotherapy arm.
The most common adverse reactions (>10%) with cemiplimab-rlwc were musculoskeletal pain, rash, anemia, fatigue, decreased appetite, pneumonia, and cough.
This approval “means physicians and patients have a potent new treatment option against this deadly disease,” said Naiyer Rizvi, MD, Price Family Professor of Medicine, director of thoracic oncology, and codirector of cancer immunotherapy at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, in a statement. He was a steering committee member on the EMPOWER-Lung-1 Trial.
“Notably, Libtayo was approved based on a pivotal trial where most chemotherapy patients crossed over to Libtayo following disease progression, and that allowed for frequently underrepresented patients who had pretreated and clinically stable brain metastases or who had locally advanced disease and were not candidates for definitive chemoradiation,” said Dr. Rizvi. “This gives doctors important new data when considering Libtayo for the varied patients and situations they treat in daily clinical practice.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
7 key changes: The 2021 child and adolescent immunization schedules
Each February, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along with multiple professional organizations, releases an updated Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule.
Recent years have seen fewer changes in the vaccine schedule, mostly with adjustments based on products coming on or off the market, and sometimes with slight changes in recommendations. This year is no different, with mostly minor changes in store. As most practitioners know, having quick access to the tables that accompany the recommendations is always handy. Table 1 contains the typical, recommended immunization schedule. Table 2 contains the catch-up provisions, and Table 3 provides guidance on vaccines for special circumstances and for children with specific medical conditions.
2021 childhood and adolescent immunization schedule
One update is a recommendation that patients with egg allergies who had symptoms more extensive than hives should receive the influenza vaccine in a medical setting where severe allergic reactions or anaphylaxis can be recognized and treated, with the exclusion of two specific preparations, Flublok and Flucelvax.
In regard to the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), there are several points of reinforcement. First, the nomenclature has generally been changed to “LAIV4” throughout the document because only quadrivalent preparations are available. There are specific recommendations that patients should not receive LAIV4 if they recently took antiviral medication for influenza, with “lockout” periods lasting from 2 days to 17 days, depending on the antiviral preparation used. In addition, there is an emphasis on not using LAIV4 for children younger than 2 years.
Two updates to the meningococcal group B vaccine are worth reviewing. The first is that children aged 10 years or older with complement deficiency, complement inhibitor use, or asplenia should receive a meningitis B booster dose beginning 1 year after completion of the primary series, with boosters thereafter every 2 or 3 years as long as that patient remains at greater risk. Another recommendation for patients 10 years or older is that, even if they have received a primary series of meningitis B vaccines, they should receive a booster dose in the setting of an outbreak if it has been 1 year or more since completion of their primary series.
Recommendations have generally been relaxed for tetanus prophylaxis in older children, indicating that individuals requiring tetanus prophylaxis or their 10-year tetanus booster after receipt of at least one Tdap vaccine can receive either tetanus-diphtheria toxoid or Tdap.
COVID-19 vaccines
Although childhood vaccination against COVID-19 is still currently limited to adolescents involved in clinical trials, pediatricians surely are getting peppered with questions from parents about whether they should be vaccinated and what to make of the recent reports about allergic reactions. Fortunately, there are several resources for pediatricians. First, two reports point out that true anaphylactic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines appear quite rare. The reported data on Pfizer-developed mRNA vaccine demonstrated an anaphylaxis rate of approximately 2 cases per 1 million doses administered. Among the 21 recipients who experienced anaphylaxis (out of over 11 million total doses administered), fully one third had a history of anaphylaxis episodes. The report also reviews vaccine reactions that were reported but were not classified as anaphylaxis, pointing out that when reporting vaccine reactions, we should be very careful in the nomenclature we use.
Reporting on the Moderna mRNA vaccine showed anaphylaxis rates of about 2.5 per 1 million doses, with 50% of the recipients who experienced true anaphylaxis having a history of anaphylaxis. Most of those who experienced anaphylaxis (90% in the Moderna group and 86% in the Pfizer group) exhibited symptoms of anaphylaxis within 30 minutes of receiving the vaccine. The take-home point, and the current CDC recommendation, is that many individuals, even those with a history of anaphylaxis, can still receive COVID-19 vaccines. The rates of observed anaphylaxis after COVID vaccination are far below population rates of a history of allergy or severe allergic reactions. When coupled with an estimated mortality rate of 0.5%-1% for SARS-CoV-2 disease, that CDC recommends that we encourage people, even those with severe allergies, to get vaccinated.
One clear caveat is that individuals with a history of severe anaphylaxis, and even those concerned about allergies, should be observed for a longer period after vaccination (at least 30 minutes) than the 15 minutes recommended for the general population. In addition, individuals with a specific anaphylactic reaction or severe allergic reaction to any injectable vaccine should confer with an immunologist before considering vaccination.
Another useful resource is a column published by the American Medical Association that walks through some talking points for providers when discussing whether a patient should receive COVID-19 vaccination. Advice is offered on answering patient questions about which preparation to get, what side effects to watch for, and how to report an adverse reaction. Providers are reminded to urge patients to complete whichever series they begin (get that second dose!), and that they currently should not have to pay for a vaccine. FAQ resource pages are available for patients and health care providers.
More vaccine news: HPV and influenza
Meanwhile, published vaccine reports provide evidence from the field to demonstrate the benefits of vaccination. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported on the effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in a Swedish cohort. The report evaluated females aged between 10 and 30 years beginning in 2006 and followed them through 2017, comparing rates of invasive cervical cancer among the group who received one or more HPV vaccine doses with the group who receive none. Even without adjustment, the raw rate of invasive cervical cancer in the vaccinated group was half of that in the unvaccinated group. After full adjustment, some populations experienced incident rate ratios that were greater than 80% reduced. The largest reduction, and therefore the biggest benefit, was among those who received the HPV vaccine before age 17.
A report from the United States looking at the 2018-2019 influenza season demonstrated a vaccine effectiveness rate against hospitalization of 41% and 51% against any ED visit related to influenza. The authors note that there was considerable drift in the influenza A type that appeared late in the influenza season, reducing the overall effectiveness, but that the vaccine was still largely effective.
William T. Basco Jr, MD, MS, is a professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics. He is an active health services researcher and has published more than 60 manuscripts in the peer-reviewed literature.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Each February, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along with multiple professional organizations, releases an updated Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule.
Recent years have seen fewer changes in the vaccine schedule, mostly with adjustments based on products coming on or off the market, and sometimes with slight changes in recommendations. This year is no different, with mostly minor changes in store. As most practitioners know, having quick access to the tables that accompany the recommendations is always handy. Table 1 contains the typical, recommended immunization schedule. Table 2 contains the catch-up provisions, and Table 3 provides guidance on vaccines for special circumstances and for children with specific medical conditions.
2021 childhood and adolescent immunization schedule
One update is a recommendation that patients with egg allergies who had symptoms more extensive than hives should receive the influenza vaccine in a medical setting where severe allergic reactions or anaphylaxis can be recognized and treated, with the exclusion of two specific preparations, Flublok and Flucelvax.
In regard to the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), there are several points of reinforcement. First, the nomenclature has generally been changed to “LAIV4” throughout the document because only quadrivalent preparations are available. There are specific recommendations that patients should not receive LAIV4 if they recently took antiviral medication for influenza, with “lockout” periods lasting from 2 days to 17 days, depending on the antiviral preparation used. In addition, there is an emphasis on not using LAIV4 for children younger than 2 years.
Two updates to the meningococcal group B vaccine are worth reviewing. The first is that children aged 10 years or older with complement deficiency, complement inhibitor use, or asplenia should receive a meningitis B booster dose beginning 1 year after completion of the primary series, with boosters thereafter every 2 or 3 years as long as that patient remains at greater risk. Another recommendation for patients 10 years or older is that, even if they have received a primary series of meningitis B vaccines, they should receive a booster dose in the setting of an outbreak if it has been 1 year or more since completion of their primary series.
Recommendations have generally been relaxed for tetanus prophylaxis in older children, indicating that individuals requiring tetanus prophylaxis or their 10-year tetanus booster after receipt of at least one Tdap vaccine can receive either tetanus-diphtheria toxoid or Tdap.
COVID-19 vaccines
Although childhood vaccination against COVID-19 is still currently limited to adolescents involved in clinical trials, pediatricians surely are getting peppered with questions from parents about whether they should be vaccinated and what to make of the recent reports about allergic reactions. Fortunately, there are several resources for pediatricians. First, two reports point out that true anaphylactic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines appear quite rare. The reported data on Pfizer-developed mRNA vaccine demonstrated an anaphylaxis rate of approximately 2 cases per 1 million doses administered. Among the 21 recipients who experienced anaphylaxis (out of over 11 million total doses administered), fully one third had a history of anaphylaxis episodes. The report also reviews vaccine reactions that were reported but were not classified as anaphylaxis, pointing out that when reporting vaccine reactions, we should be very careful in the nomenclature we use.
Reporting on the Moderna mRNA vaccine showed anaphylaxis rates of about 2.5 per 1 million doses, with 50% of the recipients who experienced true anaphylaxis having a history of anaphylaxis. Most of those who experienced anaphylaxis (90% in the Moderna group and 86% in the Pfizer group) exhibited symptoms of anaphylaxis within 30 minutes of receiving the vaccine. The take-home point, and the current CDC recommendation, is that many individuals, even those with a history of anaphylaxis, can still receive COVID-19 vaccines. The rates of observed anaphylaxis after COVID vaccination are far below population rates of a history of allergy or severe allergic reactions. When coupled with an estimated mortality rate of 0.5%-1% for SARS-CoV-2 disease, that CDC recommends that we encourage people, even those with severe allergies, to get vaccinated.
One clear caveat is that individuals with a history of severe anaphylaxis, and even those concerned about allergies, should be observed for a longer period after vaccination (at least 30 minutes) than the 15 minutes recommended for the general population. In addition, individuals with a specific anaphylactic reaction or severe allergic reaction to any injectable vaccine should confer with an immunologist before considering vaccination.
Another useful resource is a column published by the American Medical Association that walks through some talking points for providers when discussing whether a patient should receive COVID-19 vaccination. Advice is offered on answering patient questions about which preparation to get, what side effects to watch for, and how to report an adverse reaction. Providers are reminded to urge patients to complete whichever series they begin (get that second dose!), and that they currently should not have to pay for a vaccine. FAQ resource pages are available for patients and health care providers.
More vaccine news: HPV and influenza
Meanwhile, published vaccine reports provide evidence from the field to demonstrate the benefits of vaccination. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported on the effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in a Swedish cohort. The report evaluated females aged between 10 and 30 years beginning in 2006 and followed them through 2017, comparing rates of invasive cervical cancer among the group who received one or more HPV vaccine doses with the group who receive none. Even without adjustment, the raw rate of invasive cervical cancer in the vaccinated group was half of that in the unvaccinated group. After full adjustment, some populations experienced incident rate ratios that were greater than 80% reduced. The largest reduction, and therefore the biggest benefit, was among those who received the HPV vaccine before age 17.
A report from the United States looking at the 2018-2019 influenza season demonstrated a vaccine effectiveness rate against hospitalization of 41% and 51% against any ED visit related to influenza. The authors note that there was considerable drift in the influenza A type that appeared late in the influenza season, reducing the overall effectiveness, but that the vaccine was still largely effective.
William T. Basco Jr, MD, MS, is a professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics. He is an active health services researcher and has published more than 60 manuscripts in the peer-reviewed literature.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Each February, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along with multiple professional organizations, releases an updated Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule.
Recent years have seen fewer changes in the vaccine schedule, mostly with adjustments based on products coming on or off the market, and sometimes with slight changes in recommendations. This year is no different, with mostly minor changes in store. As most practitioners know, having quick access to the tables that accompany the recommendations is always handy. Table 1 contains the typical, recommended immunization schedule. Table 2 contains the catch-up provisions, and Table 3 provides guidance on vaccines for special circumstances and for children with specific medical conditions.
2021 childhood and adolescent immunization schedule
One update is a recommendation that patients with egg allergies who had symptoms more extensive than hives should receive the influenza vaccine in a medical setting where severe allergic reactions or anaphylaxis can be recognized and treated, with the exclusion of two specific preparations, Flublok and Flucelvax.
In regard to the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), there are several points of reinforcement. First, the nomenclature has generally been changed to “LAIV4” throughout the document because only quadrivalent preparations are available. There are specific recommendations that patients should not receive LAIV4 if they recently took antiviral medication for influenza, with “lockout” periods lasting from 2 days to 17 days, depending on the antiviral preparation used. In addition, there is an emphasis on not using LAIV4 for children younger than 2 years.
Two updates to the meningococcal group B vaccine are worth reviewing. The first is that children aged 10 years or older with complement deficiency, complement inhibitor use, or asplenia should receive a meningitis B booster dose beginning 1 year after completion of the primary series, with boosters thereafter every 2 or 3 years as long as that patient remains at greater risk. Another recommendation for patients 10 years or older is that, even if they have received a primary series of meningitis B vaccines, they should receive a booster dose in the setting of an outbreak if it has been 1 year or more since completion of their primary series.
Recommendations have generally been relaxed for tetanus prophylaxis in older children, indicating that individuals requiring tetanus prophylaxis or their 10-year tetanus booster after receipt of at least one Tdap vaccine can receive either tetanus-diphtheria toxoid or Tdap.
COVID-19 vaccines
Although childhood vaccination against COVID-19 is still currently limited to adolescents involved in clinical trials, pediatricians surely are getting peppered with questions from parents about whether they should be vaccinated and what to make of the recent reports about allergic reactions. Fortunately, there are several resources for pediatricians. First, two reports point out that true anaphylactic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines appear quite rare. The reported data on Pfizer-developed mRNA vaccine demonstrated an anaphylaxis rate of approximately 2 cases per 1 million doses administered. Among the 21 recipients who experienced anaphylaxis (out of over 11 million total doses administered), fully one third had a history of anaphylaxis episodes. The report also reviews vaccine reactions that were reported but were not classified as anaphylaxis, pointing out that when reporting vaccine reactions, we should be very careful in the nomenclature we use.
Reporting on the Moderna mRNA vaccine showed anaphylaxis rates of about 2.5 per 1 million doses, with 50% of the recipients who experienced true anaphylaxis having a history of anaphylaxis. Most of those who experienced anaphylaxis (90% in the Moderna group and 86% in the Pfizer group) exhibited symptoms of anaphylaxis within 30 minutes of receiving the vaccine. The take-home point, and the current CDC recommendation, is that many individuals, even those with a history of anaphylaxis, can still receive COVID-19 vaccines. The rates of observed anaphylaxis after COVID vaccination are far below population rates of a history of allergy or severe allergic reactions. When coupled with an estimated mortality rate of 0.5%-1% for SARS-CoV-2 disease, that CDC recommends that we encourage people, even those with severe allergies, to get vaccinated.
One clear caveat is that individuals with a history of severe anaphylaxis, and even those concerned about allergies, should be observed for a longer period after vaccination (at least 30 minutes) than the 15 minutes recommended for the general population. In addition, individuals with a specific anaphylactic reaction or severe allergic reaction to any injectable vaccine should confer with an immunologist before considering vaccination.
Another useful resource is a column published by the American Medical Association that walks through some talking points for providers when discussing whether a patient should receive COVID-19 vaccination. Advice is offered on answering patient questions about which preparation to get, what side effects to watch for, and how to report an adverse reaction. Providers are reminded to urge patients to complete whichever series they begin (get that second dose!), and that they currently should not have to pay for a vaccine. FAQ resource pages are available for patients and health care providers.
More vaccine news: HPV and influenza
Meanwhile, published vaccine reports provide evidence from the field to demonstrate the benefits of vaccination. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported on the effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in a Swedish cohort. The report evaluated females aged between 10 and 30 years beginning in 2006 and followed them through 2017, comparing rates of invasive cervical cancer among the group who received one or more HPV vaccine doses with the group who receive none. Even without adjustment, the raw rate of invasive cervical cancer in the vaccinated group was half of that in the unvaccinated group. After full adjustment, some populations experienced incident rate ratios that were greater than 80% reduced. The largest reduction, and therefore the biggest benefit, was among those who received the HPV vaccine before age 17.
A report from the United States looking at the 2018-2019 influenza season demonstrated a vaccine effectiveness rate against hospitalization of 41% and 51% against any ED visit related to influenza. The authors note that there was considerable drift in the influenza A type that appeared late in the influenza season, reducing the overall effectiveness, but that the vaccine was still largely effective.
William T. Basco Jr, MD, MS, is a professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and director of the division of general pediatrics. He is an active health services researcher and has published more than 60 manuscripts in the peer-reviewed literature.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA clears novel daytime device for obstructive sleep apnea
eXciteOSA (Signifier Medical Technologies) is a prescription-only, neuromuscular stimulation device designed to improve tongue muscle function, which, over time, can help prevent the tongue from collapsing backwards and obstructing the airway during sleep, the FDA said.
The eXciteOSA mouthpiece has four electrodes that deliver a series of electrical pulses with rest periods in between. Two electrodes are located above the tongue and two are located below the tongue.
The patient uses the device for 20 minutes once a day while awake for 6 weeks, and once a week thereafter. It is indicated for adults aged 18 and older with snoring and mild OSA.
OSA is marked by the recurring collapse of the upper airways during sleep, intermittently reducing or completely blocking airflow. Common symptoms include snoring, restless sleep and daytime sleepiness. Untreated OSA can lead to serious complications such as cardiovascular disease and cognitive and behavioral disorders.
Continuous positive airway pressure therapy, administered through a face mask that is worn while asleep, is a first-line treatment for OSA.
The eXciteOSA device “offers a new option for the thousands of individuals who experience snoring or mild sleep apnea,” Malvina Eydelman, MD, director, FDA Office of Ophthalmic, Anesthesia, Respiratory, ENT, and Dental Devices, said in a news release.
The FDA reviewed data on the safety and effectiveness of the eXciteOSA device in 115 patients with snoring, including 48 patients with snoring and mild OSA. All patients used the device for 20 minutes once a day for 6 weeks, then stopped using it for 2 weeks before they were reassessed.
Overall, the percentage of time spent snoring at levels louder than 40 decibels was reduced by more than 20% in 87 out of the 115 patients.
In the subset of patients with snoring and mild OSA, the average apnea-hypopnea index score was reduced by 48%, from 10.21 to 5.27, in 41 of 48 patients. Mild OSA is defined as an AHI score greater than 5 but less than 15.
The most common adverse events were excessive salivation, tongue or tooth discomfort, tongue tingling, dental filling sensitivity, metallic taste, gagging, and tight jaw.
Before using the eXciteOSA device, patients should receive a comprehensive dental examination, the FDA said.
The device should not be used in patients with pacemakers or implanted pacing leads, or women who are pregnant. The device is also contraindicated in patients with temporary or permanent implants, dental braces, intraoral metal prosthesis/restorations, or ulcerations in or around the mouth.
The eXciteOSA device was approved under the de novo premarket review pathway for new low- to moderate-risk devices. More information on the device is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
eXciteOSA (Signifier Medical Technologies) is a prescription-only, neuromuscular stimulation device designed to improve tongue muscle function, which, over time, can help prevent the tongue from collapsing backwards and obstructing the airway during sleep, the FDA said.
The eXciteOSA mouthpiece has four electrodes that deliver a series of electrical pulses with rest periods in between. Two electrodes are located above the tongue and two are located below the tongue.
The patient uses the device for 20 minutes once a day while awake for 6 weeks, and once a week thereafter. It is indicated for adults aged 18 and older with snoring and mild OSA.
OSA is marked by the recurring collapse of the upper airways during sleep, intermittently reducing or completely blocking airflow. Common symptoms include snoring, restless sleep and daytime sleepiness. Untreated OSA can lead to serious complications such as cardiovascular disease and cognitive and behavioral disorders.
Continuous positive airway pressure therapy, administered through a face mask that is worn while asleep, is a first-line treatment for OSA.
The eXciteOSA device “offers a new option for the thousands of individuals who experience snoring or mild sleep apnea,” Malvina Eydelman, MD, director, FDA Office of Ophthalmic, Anesthesia, Respiratory, ENT, and Dental Devices, said in a news release.
The FDA reviewed data on the safety and effectiveness of the eXciteOSA device in 115 patients with snoring, including 48 patients with snoring and mild OSA. All patients used the device for 20 minutes once a day for 6 weeks, then stopped using it for 2 weeks before they were reassessed.
Overall, the percentage of time spent snoring at levels louder than 40 decibels was reduced by more than 20% in 87 out of the 115 patients.
In the subset of patients with snoring and mild OSA, the average apnea-hypopnea index score was reduced by 48%, from 10.21 to 5.27, in 41 of 48 patients. Mild OSA is defined as an AHI score greater than 5 but less than 15.
The most common adverse events were excessive salivation, tongue or tooth discomfort, tongue tingling, dental filling sensitivity, metallic taste, gagging, and tight jaw.
Before using the eXciteOSA device, patients should receive a comprehensive dental examination, the FDA said.
The device should not be used in patients with pacemakers or implanted pacing leads, or women who are pregnant. The device is also contraindicated in patients with temporary or permanent implants, dental braces, intraoral metal prosthesis/restorations, or ulcerations in or around the mouth.
The eXciteOSA device was approved under the de novo premarket review pathway for new low- to moderate-risk devices. More information on the device is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
eXciteOSA (Signifier Medical Technologies) is a prescription-only, neuromuscular stimulation device designed to improve tongue muscle function, which, over time, can help prevent the tongue from collapsing backwards and obstructing the airway during sleep, the FDA said.
The eXciteOSA mouthpiece has four electrodes that deliver a series of electrical pulses with rest periods in between. Two electrodes are located above the tongue and two are located below the tongue.
The patient uses the device for 20 minutes once a day while awake for 6 weeks, and once a week thereafter. It is indicated for adults aged 18 and older with snoring and mild OSA.
OSA is marked by the recurring collapse of the upper airways during sleep, intermittently reducing or completely blocking airflow. Common symptoms include snoring, restless sleep and daytime sleepiness. Untreated OSA can lead to serious complications such as cardiovascular disease and cognitive and behavioral disorders.
Continuous positive airway pressure therapy, administered through a face mask that is worn while asleep, is a first-line treatment for OSA.
The eXciteOSA device “offers a new option for the thousands of individuals who experience snoring or mild sleep apnea,” Malvina Eydelman, MD, director, FDA Office of Ophthalmic, Anesthesia, Respiratory, ENT, and Dental Devices, said in a news release.
The FDA reviewed data on the safety and effectiveness of the eXciteOSA device in 115 patients with snoring, including 48 patients with snoring and mild OSA. All patients used the device for 20 minutes once a day for 6 weeks, then stopped using it for 2 weeks before they were reassessed.
Overall, the percentage of time spent snoring at levels louder than 40 decibels was reduced by more than 20% in 87 out of the 115 patients.
In the subset of patients with snoring and mild OSA, the average apnea-hypopnea index score was reduced by 48%, from 10.21 to 5.27, in 41 of 48 patients. Mild OSA is defined as an AHI score greater than 5 but less than 15.
The most common adverse events were excessive salivation, tongue or tooth discomfort, tongue tingling, dental filling sensitivity, metallic taste, gagging, and tight jaw.
Before using the eXciteOSA device, patients should receive a comprehensive dental examination, the FDA said.
The device should not be used in patients with pacemakers or implanted pacing leads, or women who are pregnant. The device is also contraindicated in patients with temporary or permanent implants, dental braces, intraoral metal prosthesis/restorations, or ulcerations in or around the mouth.
The eXciteOSA device was approved under the de novo premarket review pathway for new low- to moderate-risk devices. More information on the device is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA expands sacubitril/valsartan indication to embrace some HFpEF
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a groundbreaking expanded indication for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), making it the first drug in the United States indicated for chronic heart failure not specifically characterized by ejection fraction.
The new labeling, as provided by Novartis, grants physicians a good deal of discretion in prescribing sacubitril/valsartan for patients with HF beyond those with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), for which the drug was approved in 2015 primarily on the basis of the PARADIGM-HF trial.
The indication now reads, “to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic heart failure. Benefits are most clearly evident in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below normal.”
Of note, the labeling cautions that “LVEF is a variable measure, so use clinical judgment in deciding whom to treat.”
The expanded indication essentially extends the sacubitril/valsartan option to many patients with HF and preserved LVEF (HFpEF), who in practice are most likely to have an LVEF in the range adjacent to “reduced,” long defined as “preserved” but lately categorized as “mid-range.”
But the FDA did not get so specific. In granting the expanded indication, which Novartis announced Feb. 16 in a press release, the agency accommodated the Dec. 15 majority recommendation of its Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee that the PARAGON-HF trial “provided sufficient evidence to support” an indication beyond HFrEF.
The nature of the PARAGON-HF trial, along with detailed discussion among committee members after their vote tally, made it clear that the 12-to-1 majority favored an indication that would include clinically appropriate patients with “below normal” LVEF.
PARAGON-HF had assigned more than 4,800 patients whose LVEF was 45% or higher and were in NYHA class 2-4 to receive sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan only. Those taking the combo drug showed a 13% drop in risk for HF hospitalization or cardiovascular deaths over an average of 3 years, which narrowly missed significance (P = .059).
But a subgroup analysis garnered attention for its hint of benefit for patients with “mid-range” LVEF, in this case, below the median of 57%. The finding was supported by a later PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF meta-analysis that pointed to a significant benefit for patients with HFpEF at its lowest LVEF levels, especially in women.
The expanded approval “is a significant advancement, providing a treatment to many patients who were not eligible for treatment before, because their ejection fraction was above the region we normally considered reduced,” Scott Solomon, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in the Novartis press release. “We can now offer a treatment to a wider range of patients who have an LVEF below normal,” added Dr. Solomon, PARAGON-HF executive committee cochair.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a groundbreaking expanded indication for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), making it the first drug in the United States indicated for chronic heart failure not specifically characterized by ejection fraction.
The new labeling, as provided by Novartis, grants physicians a good deal of discretion in prescribing sacubitril/valsartan for patients with HF beyond those with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), for which the drug was approved in 2015 primarily on the basis of the PARADIGM-HF trial.
The indication now reads, “to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic heart failure. Benefits are most clearly evident in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below normal.”
Of note, the labeling cautions that “LVEF is a variable measure, so use clinical judgment in deciding whom to treat.”
The expanded indication essentially extends the sacubitril/valsartan option to many patients with HF and preserved LVEF (HFpEF), who in practice are most likely to have an LVEF in the range adjacent to “reduced,” long defined as “preserved” but lately categorized as “mid-range.”
But the FDA did not get so specific. In granting the expanded indication, which Novartis announced Feb. 16 in a press release, the agency accommodated the Dec. 15 majority recommendation of its Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee that the PARAGON-HF trial “provided sufficient evidence to support” an indication beyond HFrEF.
The nature of the PARAGON-HF trial, along with detailed discussion among committee members after their vote tally, made it clear that the 12-to-1 majority favored an indication that would include clinically appropriate patients with “below normal” LVEF.
PARAGON-HF had assigned more than 4,800 patients whose LVEF was 45% or higher and were in NYHA class 2-4 to receive sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan only. Those taking the combo drug showed a 13% drop in risk for HF hospitalization or cardiovascular deaths over an average of 3 years, which narrowly missed significance (P = .059).
But a subgroup analysis garnered attention for its hint of benefit for patients with “mid-range” LVEF, in this case, below the median of 57%. The finding was supported by a later PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF meta-analysis that pointed to a significant benefit for patients with HFpEF at its lowest LVEF levels, especially in women.
The expanded approval “is a significant advancement, providing a treatment to many patients who were not eligible for treatment before, because their ejection fraction was above the region we normally considered reduced,” Scott Solomon, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in the Novartis press release. “We can now offer a treatment to a wider range of patients who have an LVEF below normal,” added Dr. Solomon, PARAGON-HF executive committee cochair.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a groundbreaking expanded indication for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), making it the first drug in the United States indicated for chronic heart failure not specifically characterized by ejection fraction.
The new labeling, as provided by Novartis, grants physicians a good deal of discretion in prescribing sacubitril/valsartan for patients with HF beyond those with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), for which the drug was approved in 2015 primarily on the basis of the PARADIGM-HF trial.
The indication now reads, “to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic heart failure. Benefits are most clearly evident in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below normal.”
Of note, the labeling cautions that “LVEF is a variable measure, so use clinical judgment in deciding whom to treat.”
The expanded indication essentially extends the sacubitril/valsartan option to many patients with HF and preserved LVEF (HFpEF), who in practice are most likely to have an LVEF in the range adjacent to “reduced,” long defined as “preserved” but lately categorized as “mid-range.”
But the FDA did not get so specific. In granting the expanded indication, which Novartis announced Feb. 16 in a press release, the agency accommodated the Dec. 15 majority recommendation of its Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee that the PARAGON-HF trial “provided sufficient evidence to support” an indication beyond HFrEF.
The nature of the PARAGON-HF trial, along with detailed discussion among committee members after their vote tally, made it clear that the 12-to-1 majority favored an indication that would include clinically appropriate patients with “below normal” LVEF.
PARAGON-HF had assigned more than 4,800 patients whose LVEF was 45% or higher and were in NYHA class 2-4 to receive sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan only. Those taking the combo drug showed a 13% drop in risk for HF hospitalization or cardiovascular deaths over an average of 3 years, which narrowly missed significance (P = .059).
But a subgroup analysis garnered attention for its hint of benefit for patients with “mid-range” LVEF, in this case, below the median of 57%. The finding was supported by a later PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF meta-analysis that pointed to a significant benefit for patients with HFpEF at its lowest LVEF levels, especially in women.
The expanded approval “is a significant advancement, providing a treatment to many patients who were not eligible for treatment before, because their ejection fraction was above the region we normally considered reduced,” Scott Solomon, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in the Novartis press release. “We can now offer a treatment to a wider range of patients who have an LVEF below normal,” added Dr. Solomon, PARAGON-HF executive committee cochair.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.